Electrification appears to be required for some good reasons.
The inability of Caltrain to run longer trains such as we see on the NEC has much to do with the need.
Short ( 6 car ) trains are the limit in the foreseeable future due to too many stations having grade crossings at both ends of the platforms.
Train density therefore needs closer spacing than can be done with diesels during rush hours.
In reference to above acceleration curves with EMUs will help train density and allows for another car instead of a locomotive.
Multi level EMUs will help somewhat. Car specifications have not been issued yet stating total EMU height but some products in Europe are some what taller than Superliners.
Longer commuter trains in Chicago suburbs block crossings, but only 2-3 minutes.
Electrification increases the capacity for passengers in rush hours and reduces total time of the run, endpoint to endpoint.
Environmental benefits are real, but not the primary reason. The other poster’s objections are not grounded empirically.
Not sure about double deck commuter trains in Europe as a whole; most in Germany seem similar in height to Bombardier Cal cars and are lok-hauled, not EMUs.
Why is that an issue? Many Metra stations have grade crossings that get occupied by stopped commuter trains. Sometimes when they use a center track (during track maintenance) they use the grade crossing as the platform and have to have the passengers all use one car for loading/unloading.
Guess you have not read the whole proposal. Caltrain is going to all high level platforms to speed loading and unloading. Many short platform stations are already high level. Another effort to speed trains. If you can tell us how to make a high level platform and grade crossing co-exist please tell Caltrain.
The East Bay lines were more like a heavy duty interurban (a fair amount of street running) than a main line currently used by CalTrain. The SP main line through Bezerkely (I’m a Cal grad) was separate from the East Bay electrified lines.
One other reason for not electrifying is that it would most likely have resulted in higher property taxes.
If gradecrossings continue, they will have to stay with the short polatform limitation of train lengths. but at least electric MUs will allow one passenger-carrying car to repalce the diesel locomotive.
That, at least, is not a true concern here. It doesn’t matter if the diesel ‘overhangs’ the high-level platform or blocks a crossing while the train is stopped - paying passengers won’t be getting on and off it, so there isn’t any concern if its doors are off the ground…
The bilevel cars are the key to enhanced operation without extended platforms … but how you build one of those as an MU car exclusively for high-platform use, under high-voltage catenary, with adequate California-level passenger space, ride comfort, and quick access all the way to seats at stops is an interesting design exercise, which perhaps shouldn’t have to be made.
On the other hand, optimizing low platforms for effectively-zero walkover height to the bottom, or even ‘possum-belly’ level of a good contemporary bilevel isn’t a particularly difficult exercise, even for California transit people…
The problem you pose has already been solved on the ex-IC Metra Electric and the South Shore for gallery cars, and European commuter equipment for lozenge-shaped end-vestibule cars.
What’s funny about all of this is that most of the plans also call for grade-crossing elimination along most of the route, which is technically feasible in most cities with few exceptions(Atherton and Menlo Park being two prime examples). Atherton already lost it’s stop because of whiners…the withholding of Federal Funds is just Denhams tactic of So-Cal vs Nor-Cal(besides the fact he’s anti-Rail). The money is already in the Federal budget for 2017, so why hold it up to see what Donald does with the 2018 budget?
What our low level advocates appear to forget is Caltrain’s need to reduce travel time between end points. The ability to reduce station dwell times is part of that need. That allows Caltrain to run an additional train during rush hours.
As well the use of Caltrain’s baby bullets that by pass short platform stations but make cross platform transfers between locals and bullets is a factor in reducing station dwell…
Caltrain is certainly planning to eliminate at least at some grade crossings at one end of stations and then those stations can get longer platforms if needed. Eventual length of platforms may be set by the under construction transbay terminal platform lengths. Any one know ?
I must retract part of my last post; even though electrification is barely cost justifiable given the modest frequency increase, it is necessary for CalTrain access to the new TTC.
The TTC website is very opaque with respect to facilities details. Most CalTrain platforms are 600 foot long and the TTC box looks like it could accomodate longer ones. The TTC will have six tracks with three (center?) platforms.
However, the problematic issue was glossed over in the EIR - ground side station access by rubber tire vehicles. Many CalTrain stations have very poor street access, so those large tech company shuttle buses (not to mention public transit) have limited options. Grade crossing elimination will be very difficult and expensive due to extremely high property values. Street closures will have little support and would make the old downtown areas even more gridlocked.
As for Congressman Denham’s involvement, he is a certifiable idiot fairly typical politician. Many of his constituents commute by ACE Rail to the South Bay.
That has already been addressed, at least in part, with very few exceptions intersections that are near grade crossings will be eliminated thereby allowing the construction of either overpasses or underpasses…besides Menlo Park, Atherton and perhaps a couple of others all of the preliminary design(at least sketchwork) for replacing the vast majority of at grade crossings as been done. The problem with property values is taken care of by the use of eminate domain(perfectly legal in this case so it would behove property owners to take what they could get, or they could get absolutely zero).
You know nothing about eminent domain. The taking agency must pay fair market value for the property. Its practical effect is to prevent one or more property owners from holding up a project, in terms of money and time both.
Delayed finding this but Caltrain has started stringing CAT,
Linden Avenue Grade Crossing
Starting August 24, Caltrain will begin installation of overhead wire along the corridor in South San Francisco as part of Caltrain Electrification. Vehicles may experience short delays at the Linden Avenue grade crossing during wire installation. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. For more information on Caltrain Electrification, please visit
Caltrain is ordereing additional cars and train sets. The order will allow for expansion of all trains to 7 cars and provide for 3 additional train sets. Caltrain expects a potential of 240,000 passengers per weekday. Several thoughts.
Can remember when SP was carrying 20 - 30 k ?
Max 7 car train present lengths possible due to non expandable platforms. Streets at both ends. Maybe Caltrain could make some stops where front or rear doors would not open ? Are cars designed to do that ?
Will this require additional electrical power capacity to be built ?