The California Transportation Commission just allocated funding for a new bi-level electric train to run in the San Jose metro area. Electrified service is expected to launch in Fall 2024....
The California Transportation Commission just allocated funding for a new bi-level electric train to run in the San Jose metro area. Electrified service is expected to launch in Fall 2024.
This pioneering train, known as a battery-equipped electric multiple unit (BEMU), combines the power of overhead electric lines with the mobility of battery storage, allowing it to travel across both electrified and non-electrified service areas. Consequently, the train will charge on electrified tracks and then use its battery charge to travel on non-electrified track areas, without the need for diesel locomotives.
Caltrain is already electrifying their tracks, so it was unclear to me why they decided to move ahead with a more complex train with a battery instead of waiting a couple years for electrification to finish and purchase a (probably) cheaper and simpler electric non-battery train. Before having read the article, my guess would have been that it either came down to rolling stock lifecycle requiring an upgrade before they got as far as Gilroy... or conceivably a less good reason. (American transit agencies are not known to make sound financial purchases.)
The current demonstration plan entails the BEMU charging during operations between San Francisco and San Jose, followed by battery-powered travel on non-electrified tracks between San Jose and Gilroy, with intermittent trips to Salinas. Should the demonstration prove successful, subsequent deployment of BEMUs could replace aging diesel locomotives on non-electrified tracks. This potentially paves the way for other operators transitioning to electrified service without necessitating full overhead line coverage throughout entire train corridors, as reported by Caltrain.
I am not knowledgeable enough about BEMU vs. catenary efficiency to have a strong opinion on this. But batteries are extremely heavy. I would have to see the math to determine whether I agree with this decision. For a local transit authority, it probably isn't realistic for your trains to go much faster than 60mph or so anyway, so a bit of extra weight isn't the end of the world.
However, this may be problematic if Caltrain, Amtrak, or another agency ever want to run faster trains on this right-of-way. California High-Speed Rail comes to mind: they obviously need an overhead catenary system. This means that this particular right-of-way will be inaccessible by CAHSR trains. I am not familiar enough with the CAHSR alignment in this area to know whether that was the plan to begin with.
Regardless, we can't let perfect be the enemy of good. This may or may not be an example of unnecessary American transit cost overruns, or it may be a perfectly reasonable decision—I'm really not an expert on rolling stock—but in either case it is a shift away from diesel and toward electric, which is unambiguously good for everyone in and of itself.
My hunch is that they are looking at the costs associated with electrifying the track. It’s at least 30 miles from Gilroy to San Jose, if we assume $5 million per mile (and that’s a generous...
My hunch is that they are looking at the costs associated with electrifying the track. It’s at least 30 miles from Gilroy to San Jose, if we assume $5 million per mile (and that’s a generous assumption), that’s at least $150 million in new infrastructure costs, plus whatever is needed for new rolling stock (you need new stuff to expand service anyway). Caltrain probably thinks this is a way to expand/improve service for less money, while keeping the door open to future improvements should demand warrant.
It may also be a way to justify the electricification project before it's completed to the public, since usually that's a big drawback of infrastructure projects ("okay I'm sure this subway will...
It may also be a way to justify the electricification project before it's completed to the public, since usually that's a big drawback of infrastructure projects ("okay I'm sure this subway will serve a thousand people or whatever in five years, but you're digging up my street right now"). By showing even 50% capacity part of the way through, you're assuring the people of what's coming later.
I feel like how "good" this is depends on where the funds were allocated for, which I couldn't find. If it was funds earmarked for green energy purposes, like a grant from the federal government...
I feel like how "good" this is depends on where the funds were allocated for, which I couldn't find. If it was funds earmarked for green energy purposes, like a grant from the federal government or something, then sure, go for it. If it was funded from general caltrain funds, I can't help but feel like this is solving the least of caltrain's problems.
Spending the money on more coverage, especially if they could better link caltrain and BART, would do much more for the service in general, and the more people that take caltrain, the less emissions, even if it runs on diesel. Or more frequent service - I know it haphazardly throws out that this will make caltrain more reliable, but having more trains more often also makes caltrain more reliable.
Good doesn't have to be the enemy of perfect, but money is fungible and also finite.
There is considerable financial and operational benefit to running electric lines. Diesel locomotives are enormously heavy and require more maintenance than electric locomotives. They are also...
There is considerable financial and operational benefit to running electric lines. Diesel locomotives are enormously heavy and require more maintenance than electric locomotives. They are also more expensive than electric ones right out of the box, as well as dramatically less efficient, increasing fuel costs substantially. The extra money wasted on diesel rolling stock is money that is not spent on improving timetables or efficiency. So electrification is actually really important to service, one way or another.
They started out with diesel locomotives, though, and presumably they are already paid for? They could probably sell them, though. I think to understand the costs, someone would have to get the...
They started out with diesel locomotives, though, and presumably they are already paid for? They could probably sell them, though.
I think to understand the costs, someone would have to get the data and do the math.
Transit agencies have to periodically replace their rolling stock once it becomes more expensive to maintain them than to replace them. Even if an older model can still technically operate,...
Transit agencies have to periodically replace their rolling stock once it becomes more expensive to maintain them than to replace them. Even if an older model can still technically operate, components may become less available as supply chains adjust to new technology. This is currently a major issue in many industries.
A diesel locomotive could have a lifespan of upward of 30 years, but it could be uneconomical to keep them that long if a new model (like a highly efficient electric locomotive) is released. The lifetime efficiency savings for a new machine can certainly outweigh its initial cost. It is not necessarily a best practice to consider sunk costs with this kind of procurement, as that tends to discourage meaningful improvements to service.
Once replaced, the old machines would usually be dismantled for scrap or potentially sold to another agency.
The other meaningful consideration is that diesel exhaust is a carcinogen which is hazardous to people's health. Whether or not it is strictly financially optimal to replace the vehicles themselves, there is a considerable economic, social, and ethical cost to giving people lung cancer, especially when there is an alternative which does not result in lung cancer. I would venture a guess that the total societal cost of illness and death (lost productivity, generally bad vibes) resulting from diesel engines is higher than the cost of replacing them.
Evidently, Caltrain was replacing their existing rolling stock as a routine matter and had the choice to buy another set of diesel trains or a set of electric trains. They chose to go electric. I think that was a prudent decision.
The news briefing from Caltrain has a single (vague) remark: Emphasis mine. I cannot find more specific information. Their contract with Stadler apparently gave them a discount (p. 6) with this...
The news briefing from Caltrain has a single (vague) remark:
Earlier this month, the Caltrain Board also approved exercising the options on its contract with Stadler, for four electric multiple unit (EMU) trains to replace aging diesel trains.
Emphasis mine. I cannot find more specific information. Their contract with Stadler apparently gave them a discount (p. 6) with this manufacturer. It was also a timing issue. The funding they could use for this purchase would expire August 2023 (p. 6). Had they waited, funding would not be available for new rolling stock of any kind. Cost savings described on p. 8.
This presentation on the Stadler contract (p. 9) gives the following reasons for going with the new electric trains from Stadler in particular (as opposed to a different manufacturer, I think):
Small size of trainset order
Costs associated with different car builder
Lack of available production capacity
Inflation in labor and materials
Supply chain issues
Manufacturers reluctant to enter into long-term fixed price agreements due to recent economic instability
Cost escalation uncertainty going forward
A bit vague. I'm missing context that was probably given in a live presentation. Apparently this was just a good option due to having an existing relationship with the company, in addition to the cost savings offered by running trains that are both new (easier to maintain) and electric (more efficient).
More broadly, switching to electric trains is part of California's broader "2023 Rail Plan" strategic initiative to offer useful service and reduce emissions. That goal may have pushed forward the timeline on procurement of new rolling stock. More info in the actual Rail Plan. So I think this comes down to "we want to shift away from diesel, and these particular trains in San Jose are getting old, so let's replace them with electric trains."
The California Transportation Commission just allocated funding for a new bi-level electric train to run in the San Jose metro area. Electrified service is expected to launch in Fall 2024.
Caltrain is already electrifying their tracks, so it was unclear to me why they decided to move ahead with a more complex train with a battery instead of waiting a couple years for electrification to finish and purchase a (probably) cheaper and simpler electric non-battery train. Before having read the article, my guess would have been that it either came down to rolling stock lifecycle requiring an upgrade before they got as far as Gilroy... or conceivably a less good reason. (American transit agencies are not known to make sound financial purchases.)
I am not knowledgeable enough about BEMU vs. catenary efficiency to have a strong opinion on this. But batteries are extremely heavy. I would have to see the math to determine whether I agree with this decision. For a local transit authority, it probably isn't realistic for your trains to go much faster than 60mph or so anyway, so a bit of extra weight isn't the end of the world.
However, this may be problematic if Caltrain, Amtrak, or another agency ever want to run faster trains on this right-of-way. California High-Speed Rail comes to mind: they obviously need an overhead catenary system. This means that this particular right-of-way will be inaccessible by CAHSR trains. I am not familiar enough with the CAHSR alignment in this area to know whether that was the plan to begin with.
Regardless, we can't let perfect be the enemy of good. This may or may not be an example of unnecessary American transit cost overruns, or it may be a perfectly reasonable decision—I'm really not an expert on rolling stock—but in either case it is a shift away from diesel and toward electric, which is unambiguously good for everyone in and of itself.
My hunch is that they are looking at the costs associated with electrifying the track. It’s at least 30 miles from Gilroy to San Jose, if we assume $5 million per mile (and that’s a generous assumption), that’s at least $150 million in new infrastructure costs, plus whatever is needed for new rolling stock (you need new stuff to expand service anyway). Caltrain probably thinks this is a way to expand/improve service for less money, while keeping the door open to future improvements should demand warrant.
It may also be a way to justify the electricification project before it's completed to the public, since usually that's a big drawback of infrastructure projects ("okay I'm sure this subway will serve a thousand people or whatever in five years, but you're digging up my street right now"). By showing even 50% capacity part of the way through, you're assuring the people of what's coming later.
Duplicate comment, plz delete.
Thank you for the notification (deleted other comment).
I feel like how "good" this is depends on where the funds were allocated for, which I couldn't find. If it was funds earmarked for green energy purposes, like a grant from the federal government or something, then sure, go for it. If it was funded from general caltrain funds, I can't help but feel like this is solving the least of caltrain's problems.
Spending the money on more coverage, especially if they could better link caltrain and BART, would do much more for the service in general, and the more people that take caltrain, the less emissions, even if it runs on diesel. Or more frequent service - I know it haphazardly throws out that this will make caltrain more reliable, but having more trains more often also makes caltrain more reliable.
Good doesn't have to be the enemy of perfect, but money is fungible and also finite.
There is considerable financial and operational benefit to running electric lines. Diesel locomotives are enormously heavy and require more maintenance than electric locomotives. They are also more expensive than electric ones right out of the box, as well as dramatically less efficient, increasing fuel costs substantially. The extra money wasted on diesel rolling stock is money that is not spent on improving timetables or efficiency. So electrification is actually really important to service, one way or another.
They started out with diesel locomotives, though, and presumably they are already paid for? They could probably sell them, though.
I think to understand the costs, someone would have to get the data and do the math.
Transit agencies have to periodically replace their rolling stock once it becomes more expensive to maintain them than to replace them. Even if an older model can still technically operate, components may become less available as supply chains adjust to new technology. This is currently a major issue in many industries.
A diesel locomotive could have a lifespan of upward of 30 years, but it could be uneconomical to keep them that long if a new model (like a highly efficient electric locomotive) is released. The lifetime efficiency savings for a new machine can certainly outweigh its initial cost. It is not necessarily a best practice to consider sunk costs with this kind of procurement, as that tends to discourage meaningful improvements to service.
Once replaced, the old machines would usually be dismantled for scrap or potentially sold to another agency.
The other meaningful consideration is that diesel exhaust is a carcinogen which is hazardous to people's health. Whether or not it is strictly financially optimal to replace the vehicles themselves, there is a considerable economic, social, and ethical cost to giving people lung cancer, especially when there is an alternative which does not result in lung cancer. I would venture a guess that the total societal cost of illness and death (lost productivity, generally bad vibes) resulting from diesel engines is higher than the cost of replacing them.
Evidently, Caltrain was replacing their existing rolling stock as a routine matter and had the choice to buy another set of diesel trains or a set of electric trains. They chose to go electric. I think that was a prudent decision.
That makes sense. Where did you read about why Caltrain is replacing their rolling stock?
The news briefing from Caltrain has a single (vague) remark:
Emphasis mine. I cannot find more specific information. Their contract with Stadler apparently gave them a discount (p. 6) with this manufacturer. It was also a timing issue. The funding they could use for this purchase would expire August 2023 (p. 6). Had they waited, funding would not be available for new rolling stock of any kind. Cost savings described on p. 8.
This presentation on the Stadler contract (p. 9) gives the following reasons for going with the new electric trains from Stadler in particular (as opposed to a different manufacturer, I think):
A bit vague. I'm missing context that was probably given in a live presentation. Apparently this was just a good option due to having an existing relationship with the company, in addition to the cost savings offered by running trains that are both new (easier to maintain) and electric (more efficient).
More broadly, switching to electric trains is part of California's broader "2023 Rail Plan" strategic initiative to offer useful service and reduce emissions. That goal may have pushed forward the timeline on procurement of new rolling stock. More info in the actual Rail Plan. So I think this comes down to "we want to shift away from diesel, and these particular trains in San Jose are getting old, so let's replace them with electric trains."