Comments on: BART to San Jose - is it really necessary…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:06:00 +0000

We should scrap BART and either get Caltrain or Ace to take its place. Union Pacific is in the process in abandoning its line to Milpitas in favor for the paralel SP line. Or what about reviving the SP’s old Dumbarton Cutoff. I think Bart is a waste of money and it would be money well spent to use exsiting rail infastructure. Besides BART is Old, ugly and always has delays in wet weather.

By: Marcel Marchon

Marcel Marchon — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:56:00 +0000

Well, I’m certainly no expert on these matters, but it seems to me that according to 49 CFR 211, the provisions of 49 CFR 229 can well be waived and at least in there, I can see no specific reason why the 92-day maintenance requirement could not be waived.

Also, EMUs are in service all over the country (see for example the New York metropolitan area, with LIRR and Metro North, etc.) and I guess that would not be the case if there were a real disadvantage in having EMUs vs. locomotive hauled passenger trains.

By: Peet

Peet — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:22:00 +0000

It is possible to get rid of the FRA crashworthiness requirement, if it is proven that no other equipment is running on the same track. This kind of waiver is used in the operation of the NJT River Line where during the day the Stadler GTWs are out and during the night the freight trains are ruling. The seperation as proposed by Margaret Okuzumi meight be not sufficent. The 92-day-maintenace is not at all waivable. The price for the ALP-46 is high if compared with European standard locomotives, but is mainly because of the small serie ALP-46 locomotives. There are only 29 ALP-46 compared with 500 BR145/185. The most expensive locomotives ever built are the two locomotive 2000 for KCRC Hong Kong. So also the price for EMUs will be quite high, if they have to be developped specially for the North American market.

By: Marcel Marchon

Marcel Marchon — Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:22:00 +0000

The new “Baby Bullet” trainsets actually consist of those mentioned Bombardier bilevel coaches and cab-cars. So all that needs to be done is get more of those and replace the locomotives… The ALP46 is an option there.

On the other hand, as this comment mentions, there are ways to get rid of certain FRA requirements (although I’m not sure if the 92-day maintenance cycle one would be a part of that). Other commenters point out that the ALP46 was almost twice as expensive as comparable European locomotives and therefore, a non-FRA compliant option might represent further cost savings.

By: Peet

Peet — Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:59:00 +0000

The calltrain electrification is a good idea, but the details have to be adjusted: in US it is cheaper to use locomotives with coaches than EMUs. There are too reasons for this:

First of all there is the 92-day-maintenance by law. This is applicable for all equipment with cab or driving equipment. This means the whole EMU or only the locomotive and the cab car of a push pull train.

Second the equipment for push pull trains is allready available:
The NJT ALP-46 is a modern electric locomotive with a body shell designed according to AAR crash standards. Trailer and pilot cars are available either as single deckers from Alstom or as doubel deckers from Bombardier.