Comment by inferiorhuman | Hacker News Reader

Comment by inferiorhuman | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

  It's not like they could then buy cheaper off-the-shelf trains, since
  the trains still have to be designed and built for the particular system
  in other ways, i.e. controls, propulsion, and custom interiors.

They could but they've doubled down on American exceptionalism (or NIH if you prefer). For instance, Muni's Siemens trains (and the Boeing/Vertols and PCCs before them) are far closer to a standard train than BART's stuff. The real advantage is in cheaper propulsion and maintenance kit. BART runs a non-standard voltage and had a ton of trouble sourcing thyristors for their old fleet. Track maintenance vehicles also need to be custom built.

  BART doesn't share tracks with any other system, so there's no reason to
  do it for compatiblity's sake either.

BART doesn't share tracks because they can't. As a result they run three separate fleets of wholly incompatible vehicles for no good reason. eBART is a standard gauge diesel multiple unit system – because even with BART's typically inflated ridership estimates they couldn't make the expensive mainline kit work. That would've been a perfect opportunity to start the excruciatingly slow process of converting the mainline to more current standards.

> BART doesn't share tracks because they can't

If Bart hadn't picked a goofy gauge, it would probably be using the Caltrain corridor by now.

BTW the Caltrain corridor is SP's corridor (Standard and Pacific was Leland Stanford's gold mine) which SP maintains to run the occasional freight train and also gets paid to run caltrain on it.

I haven't been following the whole electrification effort (except seeing it happen): will S&P still run diesel freight on those tracks?

UP absorbed SP in 1996: https://www.uprr.com/aboutup/history/decision.pdf

Here are some videos from when SP ran the “Peninsula Commute” <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula_Commute> service before the formation of Caltrain:

— Fairbanks-Morse Train Masters on the SP Peninsula Commute in 1972 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XElWHtywY6I

— SP Peninsula Commute (February 26, 1985) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqORVlDs4lQ

— 1970s Southern Pacific Commuter Parade https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_-BgistV-w

Before 1975 it ran to the old 3rd & Townsend depot instead of 4th & King like today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_and_Townsend_Depot

Yes they'll unfortunately continue to run freight trains on those tracks. Also the corridor down to Gilroy from Tamien won't be electrified.

What’s unfortunate about them running those freight trains? It’s a greener way to transport freight than a bunch of trucks.

(I used to live not far from a crossing in Palo Alto and they had to toot their horn as they went past at 2 am but I can hardly call it burdensome)

It would be nice if they had separate tracks.

Why? Though in the US I believe freight typically has RoW priority over passenger fleets, in practice on that route I've only seen (/heard) freight at night.

I have seen rail deliveries during the day in Redwood city to the port but I don't think that spur connects to that line...? It is shocking that the rail runs right down residential streets with NO separation to keep kids from being run over.

   I believe freight typically has RoW priority over passenger fleets

That's a big part of it.

The other part is that UP is making electrification difficult and more expensive. UP wants to run double stack cars but the overhead wire would eat into the vertical clearance. I believe there were issues raised with horizontal clearance too.

The SF bay area rail and transit system seems to be a good argument for an eventual unified transit authority that will combine BART, Caltrain, etc. – undoubtedly adopting the worst features of each system in the process.

You don’t need a unified authority to run integrated transit. Most German cities are covered by an association of various cities.

One major benefit vs a shared authority is if someone wants to pay less into it and someone else wants to pay more, it is hard to get the two sides to work well.

Unfortunately the Bay Area is far too provincial to create a coherent system out of the twenty-odd systems out here, each with their own fare structure.

It’s complicated and expensive. MTA in NYC created a big mess when it swept up private bus companies. I think they have 4-5 bargaining units for busses alone.

no fancy words needed -- when the switch to electronic common fare (Clipper) was initiated, agencies including BART dragged their feet. After a few months (quarters?) of this, a BART finance officer said bluntly on the record "the cash flow we control at BART is part of our planning and stability" and flatly refused to switch completely to Clipper.

That wouldn’t magically improve if they came under one corporate umbrella, though.

Look at New York MTA where the LIRR and Metro-North have had the same owner as the subway since 1968 and yet there is no combined way to pay or integrated fare.

That's what MUNI is. It started as hundreds of independent railways crisscrossing the city. They slowly unified them into the cacophony that is MUNI.

I say cacophony because there are bus', cable cars, vintage light rail, modern light rail, subway, tram, local neighborhood shuttles, and I'm sure I'm missing a few.

Well yeah, that's what a modern public transportation system looks like - I know that's unusual in the US, but if you look at other places, e.g. Europe, you will also have buses, trams/light rail (with tunnel segments and heritage services for tourists) and minibuses/neighborhood shuttles in most bigger cities. The only thing that sets SF apart is the cable cars - and having both a fully grade-separated metro (BART) and a light rail system with tunnel sections (Muni Metro) - usually in cities with a "full metro" the light rail is a tram without tunnel stations.

Or you end up with scenarios like Montreal’s, where the metro is fully enclosed with no opportunity for at-grade due to rubber wheels.

Montreal did it wrong so nobody should try again? I'm struggling to see what your point is. Montreal is in north America, not Europe, in case you're not aware.

I mean, Montréal also regularly sees temperatures around -30 C in the winter, so it's not completely ridiculous to suggest this decision may be informed by fundamentally different design constraints from, say, San Francisco or many European cities [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Metro#Station_design

…except there is now also a light rail, the REM, which goes above ground including in Winter

You can do covered at grade (e.g. Sofia Metro has a few km section like this - covered to protect against the cold weather in the winter, but at grade to save costs).

Bart picked India broad gauge. While it isn't common in the US, it is common in the world (mostly India as you can tell by the name) and so there are plenty of off the shelf train components available in the world market (though the US often has goofy Buy American rules that get in the way). Even at that the only difference is the axles which are easy for any manufacture to substitute on an otherwise off the shelf train.

Don't get me wrong, I think BART should have just gone with standard gauge. However the gauge isn't goofy and is not a source of big problems.

Can you elaborate on what you by them running three incompatible fleets?

I think they're referring to:

- The standard BART fleet

- eBART: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBART

- The Oakland Connector: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_Airport_Connector

All of which use completely different and mutually incompatible rolling stock.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com