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.
If there is a will - there is a way
No will - no way
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
MikeF90 ~snip~ 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. ~snip~
~snip~
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.
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).
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR 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.
Mac
Caltrain announces full funding.
http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/The_Following_Statement_is_attributed_to_Jim_Hartnett__General_Manager_and_CEO_of_Caltrain.html
Delayed finding this but Caltrain has started stringing CAT,
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.
1. Can remember when SP was carrying 20 - 30 k ?
2. 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 ?
3. Will this require additional electrical power capacity to be built ?
4. Is there enough parking available.?
5. Will BART siphon off some of this potential ?
http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/New_Funding_Allows_Caltrain_to_Purchase_Additional_Electric_Cars.html
The first Caltrain's electric body's have been here in Salt Lake City since September. The report that CalTrain is buying more cars is exciting (more chances for us railfans here to watch them coming in and out of the Utah plant then!)
Have come across Caltain minutes from June 2018 that they have purchased 2 Amtrak AEM-7ACs to begin testing the CAT before the EMUs are delivered. One AEM may be used for parts ?
More carbodies arriving in Salt Lake City today... things seem to be picking up pace here!
daveklepper Good points. But still, PRR never used M-1s in commuter service, the last steam in commuter service were K-4's on the NY&LB and G-5's (G-6's?) elsewere. Ditto, of course, LIRR, both types, but onloy a few K-4's. Similary, no Niagras on NYC commut\er trains, occasional Hudsons, yes. Never a Q O-4 on commuter trains, etc., Milwaukee, Northwestern. And the SF lines isn't any hillier.
Good points. But still, PRR never used M-1s in commuter service, the last steam in commuter service were K-4's on the NY&LB and G-5's (G-6's?) elsewere. Ditto, of course, LIRR, both types, but onloy a few K-4's. Similary, no Niagras on NYC commut\er trains, occasional Hudsons, yes. Never a Q O-4 on commuter trains, etc., Milwaukee, Northwestern. And the SF lines isn't any hillier.
Thx IGN
narig01Dave just outta curiosity do you know what steam the Central used north of the electrified territory in either the Hudson or Harlem lines?
From pictures I see on the Harlem Division, it was often Pacifics.
Definitely Pacifics, a few equipped with special generators to light and heat MUs hauled as trailers between Harmon and Peekskill. In latter years, after the first road diesels arrived, a few J1 Hudsons did show up on rush houe Poughkeepsie runs.
The Putnam was powered by 4-6-0s, both passenger and freight.
Was just in the SFO / Burlingame area this week and saw that they have installed towers, but no wire.
progress report from Caltrain/
http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_to_Hold_Public_Meeting_on_Electrification_in_Palo_Alto_6136.html
Was able to grab some quick photos this trip and channel my inner K.P.!!
Burlingame
San Bruno
Jan 6th 2022 construction update. Note some segments are almost ready for live wire tests. Wonder if the Amtrak electrics will be close behind on the activated segments?
Caltrain Electrification Update January 6, 2022
blue streak 1 Jan 6th 2022 construction update. Note some segments are almost ready for live wire tests. Wonder if the Amtrak electrics will be close behind on the activated segments? Caltrain Electrification Update January 6, 2022
He was referring to the two ex Amtrak AEM-7AC's that Caltrain bought to use as test units when commissioning segments of their electrification.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.