Caltrain Looking To EMUs

[sechs]

Caltrain wants to be the first American commuter rail service to introduce the kind of lightweight, electrically powered rail cars that are common throughout the world but not allowed under current U.S. regulation.

http://www.caltrain.com/pdf/Caltrain_Conne...Winter_2007.pdf

 

[Guest]

I assume this means they are also planning on electrifying part or all of the system?

I'm curious, what makes them different from what SEPTA, NJT or METRA uses? Just being more european in design? Made of lighter materials?

 

[sechs]

The plan is to go all electric.

In general, electric heavy rail systems in the United States use electric engines and standard cars. They propose to use what, by most standards, is a light rail vehicle.

 

[AlanB]

The plan is to go all electric.
In general, electric heavy rail systems in the United States use electric engines and standard cars. They propose to use what, by most standards, is a light rail vehicle.

I'm sorry to say that in general electric heavy rail systems in the US use EMU's, not electric engines and standard cars. Thinking quickly, I can think of only Amtrak, MARC, and New Jersey transit that use electric engines and standard cars. New Jersey Transit on the other hand still does use some EMU's, although they don't like to use them. But running down the list of commuter services that do use EMU's, you'll find Metro North which operates both third rail EMU's and catenary EMU's, the Long Island RR using third rail EMU's, SEPTA which uses catenary EMU's, and Chicago's METRA which also uses catenary EMU's.

Then add in the multitude of subways that use 3rd rail based heavy rail EMU's, including NY City, Boston, Philadelphia, DC, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco and you've got far more heavy EMU's running around this country than electric engines.

 

[Trogdor]

Don't forget South Shore Line. They also use EMUs.

 

[AlanB]

Don't forget South Shore Line. They also use EMUs.

I knew that I was missing at least one, if not two. Thanks, Robert!

 

[sechs]

New Jersey Transit on the other hand still does use some EMU's, although they don't like to use them. But running down the list of commuter services that do use EMU's, you'll find Metro North which operates both third rail EMU's and catenary EMU's, the Long Island RR using third rail EMU's, SEPTA which uses catenary EMU's, and Chicago's METRA which also uses catenary EMU's.
Then add in the multitude of subways that use 3rd rail based heavy rail EMU's, including NY City, Boston, Philadelphia, DC, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco and you've got far more heavy EMU's running around this country than electric engines.

It not clear to me that all of these systems are "heavy rail." And, while subways are inexplicably defined as "heavy rail," there's little, if anything, in common with other such systems. San Francisco's Metro system is definitively a "light rail" system with mixed traffic segments.

 

[George Harris]

What is being planned is to electrify the former SP line commuter service (Cal Train) from San Francisco to San Jose, and included in that, though not mentioned in the article, is to extend the downtown end of the line to a point that is more downtown. The article seems to be written by a PR type rather than a technical person. The New jersey trainst cars of course meet FRA crashworthiness requirements. This item sounds like it was ghost-writte by one of the European suppliers that wants to be able to deliver one of their "straight out of the box" designs to the US without having to comply with US requirements.

I hope that is a no-sale. It is not just crashworthiness. There are other areas where the US standards are different, and in my opinion better, than the European standards.

George

 

[Sam Damon]

IMO, the tone of the language ("Deutschlish"), suggests Siemens might be behind this move as they do have a plant in Sacremento, IIRC.

 

[AlanB]

New Jersey Transit on the other hand still does use some EMU's, although they don't like to use them. But running down the list of commuter services that do use EMU's, you'll find Metro North which operates both third rail EMU's and catenary EMU's, the Long Island RR using third rail EMU's, SEPTA which uses catenary EMU's, and Chicago's METRA which also uses catenary EMU's.

Then add in the multitude of subways that use 3rd rail based heavy rail EMU's, including NY City, Boston, Philadelphia, DC, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco and you've got far more heavy EMU's running around this country than electric engines.

It not clear to me that all of these systems are "heavy rail." And, while subways are inexplicably defined as "heavy rail," there's little, if anything, in common with other such systems.

From the American Public Transportation Association:

Heavy Rail is high-speed, passenger rail cars operating singly or in trains of two or more cars on fixed rails in separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded. Also known as "rapid rail," "subway," "elevated (railway)," or "metropolitan railway (metro)."

Their extensive list includes a few systems that I didn't think of, Baltimore, Cleveland, Atlanta, PATH, PATCO, and Miami, as well as many that I did mention.

However, even if we discount "subways" from the heavy rail definition, the fact still remains that there are more EMU's in service than electric powered engines hauling cars. The LIRR, which definately meets all of the qualifications of EMU including the ability to mix with freight on the same tracks, probably moves more people every day than Amtrak does using cars hauled by electric engines. And if they don't move more, then they come aweful close, since they put around 150,000 people every weekday into Penn and then take that 150,000 home. And that says nothing of those riding between other destinations that don't include Penn. Amtrak on the other hand puts something like 60,000 people into Penn, it's busiest station, each work day.

Throw in the South Shore Line, METRA's electric line, Metro North, SEPTA, as well as NJT's EMU's still in use and it is clear that there are still more passengers being hauled by EMU than by electric engines.

San Francisco's Metro system is definitively a "light rail" system with mixed traffic segments.

When I mentioned San Fran, I was thinking of BART, not MUNI. However I now see that BART is technically classed as being out of Oakland, not San Fran, so I was wrong on that account.

 

[sechs]

From the American Public Transportation Association:

Heavy Rail is high-speed, passenger rail cars operating singly or in trains of two or more cars on fixed rails in separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded. Also known as "rapid rail," "subway," "elevated (railway)," or "metropolitan railway (metro)."

Their extensive list includes a few systems that I didn't think of, Baltimore, Cleveland, Atlanta, PATH, PATCO, and Miami, as well as many that I did mention.

Their definition of "heavy rail" appears to be biased. Particularly, they exclude systems which have street-running -- which some definitively "heavy rail" systems have.

The fact of the matter is that I've never found satisfactory and succinct definitions of "heavy rail" and "light rail," among other categories of difference. Your own APTA example draws a difference between "commuter rail" and "heavy rail" which doesn't really seem to exist, in my opinion.