Level Boarding Soon, Fast, and Cheap

Caltrain is working on their level boarding roadmap. If their recent work on grade separations is anything to go by, the capture of the agency by the layers of consultants belonging to the transit industrial complex is likely to result in a gold-plated mega-project approach to delivering level boarding in the late 2030s, where each station platform must be reconstructed from the ground up using cast-in-place methods at a system-wide cost easily topping $2 billion.

We don’t need to let them turn level boarding into another costly and delayed mega-project. Existing platforms need to be raised by just 14” and are perfectly suitable as foundation slabs with built-in drainage, electric, plumbing, grounding and bonding. It can all be done without pouring a single cubic yard of concrete. Better yet: stations don't ever need to be closed during construction!

Note: in this article, we will not revisit the urgent need for level boarding, its advantages for reducing trip times and attracting ridership, improving punctuality, increasing crew/vehicle productivity (not just accessibility), or the choice of 48” versus 22” above top of rail (ATOR). These topics are covered extensively in the archives, accessible by search or by keyword label.

Here’s how to get level boarding done soon, quickly and affordably in five steps.

Step 1: EMU Step Retrofit

Diagram (to scale) of new dual step
arrangement. Fixed step in green.
Retractable gap filler in red, shown
in extended position at 22" platform.

The retractable step modules currently installed on the EMUs are removed and replaced fleet-wide with a new dual step arrangement.

• A fixed (not retractable) step is fitted at 15” ATOR, similar to the step arrangement of the old Bombardier cars, proving the acceptable safety of this configuration. The step is sized to fit inside the allowable vehicle loading gauge. It protrudes outside the tapered profile of the lower car body, with structural fusing built in so that expensive damage to the aluminum primary structure is avoided in case the step is struck e.g. in a grade crossing collision.
• A retractable gap filler step at 22” ATOR that extends flush with EMU lower floor level, overhanging the fixed step. This arrangement exists on Swiss Stadler KISS models, and on MUNI Metro. This mechanism is fitted with ultrasonic sensors that inhibit its deployment at 8” low platforms, on an independent per-car basis, i.e. both doors on each car must sense the presence or absence of a 22” platform face and deploy accordingly. Deployment is controlled by onboard software with no intervention by the train crew.

This dual step arrangement allows an EMU to safely dock at an evolving mix of 22” or 8” platforms, or even at a partially raised (partly 8”, partly 22”) platform in mid construction. As the first step towards level boarding, this upgrade needs to be undertaken immediately in concert with Stadler Rail and their step supplier Bode.

Step 2: Platform Furnishing Modifications

In preparation for raising the level of a platform by 14”, all platform furnishings must be modified for the future height. This preparatory construction is performed without closing stations, although portions of a platform may be temporarily inaccessible as the work is performed during nights and weekends. Work can proceed asynchronously at different stations.

Furnishings fall into three categories:

1. Items that have more than 14” of vertical clearance margin can remain as-is, such as taller shelter canopies, visual messaging signs, light poles, and catenary poles.
2. Items that can be raised straightaway by 14” without affecting their compatibility with an 8” platform are modified, such as perimeter fencing, barriers and railing, Clipper terminals, signage, ticket vending machines, utility cabinets, or modular shelters.
3. Items that can’t be raised until the rest of the platform is also raised, such as benches or garbage cans, are prepared. For benches, 14” leg extension brackets can be prefabricated so the raising can be accomplished quickly.

Concurrently with modifications to existing platform furnishings, new railing or fencing and 14” tall edging is added as needed to the outer perimeter of the platform not facing the tracks.

Step 3: Platform Edge Modules

Concept for a platform edge module

The platform edge modules are  engineered prefabricated assemblies, each 6 to 8 feet long. Caltrain will need many (about 6000 system-wide,) so the non-recurring cost of engineering a good design will be well-amortized over the mass production run. The edge modules have several important design features:

• Lightweight reinforced construction with lifting features to allow handling by pallet jack, small forklift or telescopic handler.
• Mounting holes that allow pinning to the existing concrete platform slab, preventing lateral movement from earthquakes or out-of-clearance trains.
• Integrated 24" wide tactile warning strips and high visibility markings from the factory, eliminating the cost of installing such in the field.
• Jacking pads for precise vertical leveling and horizontal lining of the platform edge, providing the required adjustment to comply with tight ADA clearance tolerances as the track settles or wears, or when track is periodically tamped and lined.
• Resilient rubber platform edges with vertical ribbing that supports the weight of boarding and alighting passengers while also providing longitudinal compliance in case of accidental contact. With an edge offset 68" from track center, ribs another 9" deep would keep hard structures outside the clearance envelope mandated by CPUC General Order 26-D, possibly facilitating a waiver. This also provides a compliant surface with which the train's extended gap filler steps can safely make physical contact for a zero-gap platform interface.
• On the side facing away from the tracks, a step with 7” rise and 12” tread depth, to enable temporary use of the module as a 22” platform prior to the remaining surface of the platform being also raised. This step effectively replaces the train’s step at 15", enabling the station to stay open during construction. Even a partial installation of platform edge modules, if not all are installed within one construction shift, can be operated through: the train will deploy the 22” gap filler where modules are detected, and keep them retracted where portions of the 8” platform remain.

While these edge modules aren't off-the-shelf items, their factory mass production can be made more affordable and field installation quicker than the traditional cast-in-place concrete method familiar to Caltain, especially for a systemwide project involving so many platforms at once. They wouldn't be the first customer for a project like this, with established vendors like Creative Composites Group (USA), A.C. Miller (USA),  HERING Group (Germany), Dura Composites (UK), Poundfield Precast (UK), and doubtless many more.

Step 4: Platform Raising

Cross section (roughly to scale)
of materials used in raising
platforms from 8" to 22"

To bring the remaining platform surface up to 22”, five layers are constructed over the original 8" concrete platform slab that henceforth serves as a foundation, in order from bottom to top:

1. Thin layer of gravel to preserve drainage along the surface of the original platform slab, reusing all existing drainage features.
2. 10” layer of lightweight geofoam blocks with vertical drainage holes. This keeps down the dead load of the raised platform (~40 psf total, most likely well within the structural capacity of elevated stations.)
3. Separator layer made of permeable geotextile, to prevent fouling of the underlying layers.
4. Thin layer of compacted sand.
5. Platform topping layer of 3” thick interlocking concrete pavers, similar to German practice.

The finished layers of the raised platform can straightforwardly be reworked or modified as needed (for example, relocating platform furnishings) without resorting to concrete demolition.

Where electrical junction boxes, pull boxes or water valve boxes are embedded in the existing 8” platform surface, a 14” extension to the existing access frame is installed, sized as needed to preserve good access to existing utilities. This is straightforward to integrate with surrounding geofoam and pavers, and avoids the considerable cost of redoing all platform utilities.

Existing platform access stairs and ramps are extended within the existing footprint of the platform, with new railing installed as needed into the existing slab. Stairs require two more steps, and ramps require a 15-foot extension ramp running lengthwise along the platform to meet ADA regulations.

There will be cases where things get complicated, for example around the BART escalators and turnstiles at Millbrae. These may require special configurations with additional ramps and steps, but these problems will arise regardless of construction approach.

Step 5: EMU Step Removal

Once all remaining 8” platforms have been raised to 22”, the fixed step on the trains can be removed, restoring the EMU’s sleek exterior. The sensors on the gap filler steps can also be removed, as these now always extend and no longer need to detect platform height.

In conclusion, this construction sequence for level boarding will not cost $2 billion nor take until the late 2030s. It can be deployed in three years if Caltrain wants it badly enough. Here we hit upon an underlying problem, that their actions over the past decade imply they may not care for level boarding at all. This must change; let them not rest on their electrification laurels for too long.

It's the Trip Time, Stupid

Components of trip time.
Electrification only improved
time in motion. Photos by
Mliu92, Evan0512, SaarPro.

Marco Chitti recently penned a great piece about Why Speed Matters, a critique of Toronto's recently opened and glacially slow Finch West light rail. It echoes some of the themes that have infused discussions about how best to improve Caltrain, and what to focus on next. Electrification had obvious speed benefits that have now been realized, resulting in a ridership boost recently recognized by an industry group as "America's Fastest-Growing Transit Agency." But what now? As the accolades die down and the catenary fades into the scenery, will Caltrain lose its sense of purpose and fall asleep on its laurels?

Their relentless focus must remain on trip time, which comprises more than the time in motion, the component of trip time that was so remarkably improved by electrification. Trip time also includes time at rest, made up of all those station dwell times, and time waiting for the train, which depends on service frequency. The peninsula rail corridor's entire capital program should be organized around reducing trip time; instead, we see attention and funding being scattered among an incoherent set of gold-plated projects that produce no discernible trip time improvements:

• stupendously expensive grade separation projects such as Broadway in Burlingame ($615M to $889M) or Rengstorff Ave in Mountain View ($395M to $453M) masquerading as train projects are actually massive road traffic sewer expansions that provide negligible benefit to the average train passenger, especially after Caltrain recently demonstrated major reductions in cars-on-tracks incidents.
  
  
• like the White House ballroom, a grandiose remodel of the San Jose station (the "Diridon Integration Station Concept Plan") will plow under (literally!) 3 to 6 billion dollars to over-deliver on Caltrain's need for a single island platform at this not particularly remarkable train stop.

None of these shameful nine- and ten-figure megaprojects do anything to attack the components of trip time. To improve trip time, these are the projects that actually matter, in order of small to large:

1. Fixed EMU door software to reduce each station dwell time by about ten seconds (the cost rounds to zero, serving as a useful litmus test of Caltrain's faith in trip time). Reduces time at rest.
    
2. Updated EMU step design, a prerequisite for the transition to level boarding. The prototype cost is $3M and fleet-wide deployment likely less than $10M. This is currently the most important capital project at Caltrain, whether the college intern assigned to it knows this or not. Enables future reduction of time at rest.
    
3. Twenty-minute base frequency, improved from today's half-hour, when the fleet grows to 21 (reliable!) trains. The capital cost is ~$0.4B but is already sunk. This adds operating cost, but only marginally since Caltrain has high fixed costs that can be better amortized over more riders. Reduces time waiting.
    
4. Level boarding, not as a consultant-bloated megaproject where all platforms are replaced, but as a simple and incremental project using the existing platforms as foundation slab with modular, lightweight elements added to raise the height up by two steps (14 inches). This is likely < $0.5B system-wide and reduces time at rest.
    
5. The four-track hub station in Redwood City, preferably with quadruple approach tracks (for simultaneous local+express arrivals and departures) from CP Dumbarton to San Carlos. This is the only grade separation project on the corridor that has any value for trip time. This one is likely about $1B. Reduces both time at rest (for the local being overtaken, thanks to the quadruple approach tracks) and time in motion (via cross-platform transfer to/from an express).
    
6. The SF downtown extension, another dazzlingly expensive megaproject that will only be worth its cost (>$10B) if San Francisco downtown office towers fill up again, if service is extended through a new Transbay Tube to destinations eastward as part of Link21, and if the federal government ever funds big transit projects again. Compared to a two-seat ride, a direct connection reduces time in motion, time at rest, and time waiting for a transfer.

Ridership and revenue follows from trip time, another way of saying that time is money. All other capital projects are at best value-maintaining, not value-adding.

Note: Trip time forms the basis of timetable scoring in the Taktulator, with the nerdy details laid out in the formulation of a service quality metric and the posts linked therefrom. Reading this material over a decade later, it still rings just as true.

Caltrain's Plan for Level Boarding

Some good news: Caltrain is working on a level boarding plan, as documents requested under the Public Records Act attest. Their "Level Boarding Roadmap: Technical Task Force Platform Report" dated April 2024 is a reasonably well-written document that discusses how the system might be converted to level boarding using the European 550 mm platform standard. After reading it, three questions arise:

1. Why are 48" level boarding platforms never discussed? The roadmap takes for granted that Caltrain's solution is 550 mm (22") platforms. It mentions "Caltrain EMUs have doors (...) at the mid-level (currently these doors are plugged)" and never again mentions how these doors got there, what else might be done with them, or why it shouldn't. While every solution has pros and cons, how is such a fundamental decision of system architecture presented with no context as a done deal, without the slightest technical rationale or public discussion?
    
   
2. Why is the preferred solution allowed to violate HSR specifications?
   
   22" platforms are discussed with two lateral offset alternatives: 64" (preserving today's platform offsets) and 68". The safety argument presented in favor of a 64" offset does not contemplate that such platforms would encroach into the high-speed rail vehicle body dynamic envelope, and that wide-body HSR cars would extend over the platform. These issues are shown in the precisely scaled graphic at right, using dimensions from the HSR vehicle RFP. Neither of these conditions seems safe and neither is addressed in the hazard analysis, unless an unstated assumption is being made that the high-speed rail project should fix Caltrain platform design errors at the public's expense.
    
   
3. Why was this work not done ten years ago, before EMU procurement? There is no value added by testing platform mockups with a real EMU as done in the report, versus testing with a plywood vehicle mockup. Everything discussed in Caltrain's report was known ten years ago and the Stadler EMU fleet could have been delivered with a platform interface solution for level boarding at 22" had Caltrain specified one. Now, we're stuck with a retrofit situation, but better late than never.

The next steps discussed in Caltrain's report are good ones, and should be expedited. Specifically, developing a technical solution for an automatic step arrangement compatible with both 8" and 22" platforms is of the highest urgency. ("Funding a prototype for an estimated $3M lowers technical risk and also shortens the timeframe to begin fleet implementation should funding become available.") This small investment is among the most important and valuable projects that Caltrain should undertake immediately.

A bit over a month of electric service has made it abundantly clear that dwell times are long and on-time performance is systematically poor due to the rosy performance assumptions baked into Caltrain's timetable. The trains are fast, but much of their performance is wasted on long dwells. Level boarding can't come soon enough.

Another Path to Level Boarding

A complication in Caltrain's coming transition to level boarding is found in the train's bathroom, an amenity that requires equal access for passengers with reduced mobility under ADA regulations. During the procurement and design phase of the EMUs, the original plan was to fit in-vehicle wheelchair lifts to enable passengers with reduced mobility to move between the lower level and mid-level, for level boarding compatibility with future high-speed rail platforms (48" above rail, 73" from track center) and to enable bathroom access regardless of boarding level.

This plan fell apart because of practical considerations of cost and vehicle packaging: the bulky 800-pound capacity lifts would have impeded passenger flows in the lower-level vestibules, without providing any value until some distant future where Caltrain would need to dock at high-level platforms in stations shared with high-speed rail. Even then, the lifts would have been required indefinitely, to provide equal access to the bathroom on the lower level. The idea was so unappetizing that it was scrapped, and Caltrain has since focused its nebulous level-boarding strategy around European-like 550 mm platforms.

The EMUs are nevertheless designed for future conversion to high platforms. A different solution is available that would facilitate a transition to 48" platforms: a new single-level, high-floor bathroom car that would take the eighth slot in the consist. The EMUs were always planned to be eight cars long, as their numbering attests by skipping from 1, 2, 3 to 5, 6. Missing car number 4 could have this configuration, as modified from a Stadler drawing:

The new high-floor bathroom car would triple bathroom capacity of the trainset from one to three bathrooms, provide 60 seats with up to six wheelchair spaces, and enable a gradual transition to 48" level boarding using car-borne wheelchair lifts (such as the FRA and ADA compliant PowerLift by Rincon) to board passengers with reduced mobility from legacy 8" platforms, without the need for precise positioning of train doors relative to mini-high platforms. Once the transition to level boarding is completed, these lifts could be removed.

With the bridge plates already engineered for the EMUs (shown in photo at right but not fitted to the fleet as delivered) passengers with reduced mobility could board step-free without any crew assistance, greatly improving the predictability of dwell times and thereby increasing train speeds and corridor capacity.

The transition to high platforms would then entail the following steps:

• Extend all platforms and yards to support eight-car trains
• Incorporate new single-level bathroom cars to all trains
• Commission high level doors and install bridge plates
• Build new 48" platforms!
  

High platforms have the advantage of compatibility with high-speed rail, enabling any train to dock at any platform as needed and making optimal use of future corridor and station capacity. They allow high-speed trains to make stops at important places like Redwood City or Palo Alto with zero additional infrastructure. They allow Caltrain to operate like BART, with brief and predictable station dwell times, something that remains out of reach today even as our swift and modern EMUs must wait for extended periods at low platforms, in the manner of a Ferrari driven on a rutted dirt road.

Level Boarding is Legal in California

Arrow level boarding platforms
at San Bernardino, CA

Comments to old posts on this blog are stored in a moderation queue that your author doesn't visit often enough. Over a year ago, commenter jpk122s discovered quite a gem: an official resolution by the CPUC (California Public Utility Commission) that level boarding station platforms are not bound by General Order No. 26-D section 3.4. This means it's nerd time.

Some California Background

The CPUC regulates all railroads in California, including their clearance dimensions under General Order 26-D. This regulation, originally published in 1948, requires all mainline train platforms to be no higher than 8 inches above top of rail per section 3.3. If you want to build a station platform higher than 8 inches, it needs to be set back at least 7'6" from the track center line per section 3.4. This requirement is deeply inscribed into the built environment of train stations around California, including Caltrain's.

• The taller platforms used for boarding passengers with reduced mobility, known as "mini-highs" and cluttering the north end of most Caltrain station platforms with ramps and railings (see diagram below), must be set back at least 7'6" per section 3.4. This is quite far from the track, requiring the use of bridge plates to cross the wide (~3 foot) gap between the mini-high and the train.
  
• The 48" level boarding platforms used by SMART (in Sonoma and Marin counties) are closer than section 3.4 requires, but as mitigation, a set of gauntlet tracks allows freight trains to stay clear.
• The 23.5" (ish) level boarding platforms used by Sprinter (Oceanside to Escondido) are closer than section 3.4 requires, but as mitigation, they have folding edges that tilt up and out of the way of freight trains that pass during the night.

Current Caltrain platform standards

These examples are all Rube Goldberg solutions that are expensive, clunky and inconvenient – especially when considering that nothing physically precludes freight trains operating past high platforms, as is common practice on the east coast.

Then, along came the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, with a request for an exemption from section 3.4.

Level Boading for Arrow

Arrow is the brand name for a new passenger rail service linking San Bernardino to Redlands. This service uses Stadler FLIRT diesel multiple units, of a standard vehicle design sold in more than 2500 copies around the world. The platforms are built for level boarding at 23.5" to comply with the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Rather than contrive a new technical solution to comply with GO 26-D section 3.4, the parent agency did something unusual: they asked for an exemption.

The May 5th, 2022 resolution adopted by the CPUC, an agency known for its conservatism and dogged focus on safety, was surprising: "The RSD [Rail Safety Division] has determined that an exemption from General Order 26-D, Section 3.4 is not necessary since it is preempted by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)." Section 3.4 (a state regulation enacted in 1948) is preempted by the ADA (a federal law enacted in 1990). The resolution continues:

General Order 26-D, Section 3.4, sets forth a minimum clearance requirement for station platforms. However, this provision of General Order 26-D is preempted by the ADA, which requires a different platform height and distance from track center line to accommodate the introduction of the Multi Unit (MU) equipment– and thus, results in a smaller clearance area – than what is set forth in General Order 26-D, Section 3.4.

Interestingly, the freight railroads that usually complain about the slightest infringements to their operating environment did not comment on the resolution before it was adopted by the CPUC.

Implications for Caltrain Level Boarding

Perhaps Caltrain already knew this all along, but this CPUC order implicitly relieves one of the key regulatory constraints to platform heights and level boarding, discussed numerous times in the past 15 years of this blog. It turns out that no waiver of GO 26-D section 3.4 is ever needed.

It may take a year or two before Caltrain finds out the hard way why they need level boarding, but this is a positive development. For that, we have the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority to thank.

Level Boarding: Still Not Getting It

The good news: Caltrain has initiated a small study effort to develop a level boarding roadmap, as part of its portfolio of capital projects.

The bad news: in the summary of this study, Caltrain shows no sign of grasping the purpose of level boarding. We might need to display it on a freeway billboard, like this:

Caltrain does a very nice job of explaining the benefits of electrification. Faster acceleration leads to shorter trip times, a strong message that they hammer often. On level boarding, however, the messaging is muddled. It's something-something about steps? Easier and more inclusive access?

NO!!!

It's about shorter trip times, just like electrification. While electrification saves time in motion, level boarding saves time at rest. The savings are big: cutting station dwell time from 45 seconds (typical for Caltrain today) to 30 seconds (typical for BART, which has level boarding) is worth almost as much "acceleration" as electrification. Electrifying without level boarding is half-baked, and Caltrain should be spending a lot more on level boarding than distractions like BEMUs. Please return to your core mission to quickly and efficiently get people where they are going.

About these numbers: the diesel trip time is for an all-stops local with 45 second station dwells and 15% padding. The EMU trip time has the same dwell and padding assumptions. The level boarding time assumes that station dwells drop to 30 seconds, and padding is cut down to 10%. The lower padding is appropriate because level boarding not only makes dwells shorter, but it makes dwells much more consistent and predictable, as discussed previously. If two wheelchair users need to board, it takes the same 30 seconds, not five minutes of staff assistance. Here are the detailed stop-by-stop stats and string diagrams if you want to tinker with assumptions.

Capital Spending for Better Service

Wouldn't it be great if you could quantify the service benefit of capital improvements, to compare and prioritize them by how much better train service results?  We can, and using our handy Taktulator, we will. This service pattern evaluation tool was formulated around time-based service quality metrics. We use it to explore future improvements to the peninsula rail corridor.

Today's 2022 Timetable: 94 service points -- The current peak schedule with four diesel trains per hour features very generous padding and SF - SJ trip times ranging from 66 minutes (express) to 99 minutes (local). The less-than-100 score indicates that service quality has dropped since 2011 when there were five trains per peak hour. The Taktulator score is calibrated such that the 2011 Caltrain timetable scores exactly 100 points.

Caltrain's 2040 service vision foresees eight trains per peak hour per direction (not counting HSR). Let's start with a service frequency of 8 trains per hour-- except for the sake of exploring and quantifying the value of capital improvements, we'll start from a hypothetical case that will never happen: eight trains per hour of today's diesel service, making all local stops.

Hypothetical diesel all-stops local, 8 tph: Score = 109 service points (+16%) -- The doubling of hourly frequency improves the service score by 16%, despite each train being slower. The extra time riding an all-stops trains is more than offset by the much shorter wait time at the station. For example, maximum wait times in Belmont plummet from one hour to just 7.5 minutes. Unfortunately, this service pattern would take an unrealistic 32 trains to operate, because each train takes 94 minutes to go between SF and SJ. The hypothetical scenario still illustrates the magnitude of the effect of doubling frequency.

Add electrification: Score = 121 service points (+11%) -- Electrification is worth another +12 points relative to diesel, thanks to the shorter trip times that come from the higher acceleration capability of EMUs. Those savings accrue to a full ten minutes between SF and SJ for an all-stops local. Station dwell times are still booked at 45 seconds, a longer duration that reflects the lack of level boarding. Thanks to the faster trip times, the fleet requirement has dropped from 32 trains to 28 trains. Service speed saves money, not just on fleet size but also by increasing the hourly productivity of train crews (in terms of passenger-miles served).

Add Redwood City hub station: Score = 131 service points (+8%) -- If trains cannot pass each other, there is no room in such a frequent timetable for express service. A new four-track station at Redwood City, where express trains can overtake locals on opposite sides of the same station platform (so that passengers may transfer seamlessly between local and express) gives the best of both worlds: frequent service AND express service. For now, we'll assume this station has only two-track approaches, requiring trains to arrive and depart serially. In practice, this means every local must wait more than 5 minutes or the equivalent of two signal headways to let the express catch up before RWC and then pull ahead after RWC. The stopping patterns start to look like Caltrain's 2040 service vision.

Add Redwood City quadruple approach tracks: Score = 138 service points (+5%) -- If quadruple tracks are added approaching Redwood City from the north and south, then local and express trains can make parallel moves into and out of the hub station, removing the requirement for every local to wait there for five wasteful minutes. To unlock this benefit, the quadruple track overtake section needs to extend to one station on either side of RWC, so every local train can make productive use of those five minutes. In the Taktulator, we simulate this by having every local train stop at San Carlos and Atherton, which (despite its closure) stands in for a new Fair Oaks infill station at 5th Avenue. This suggests a hub station is about 1.7x more effective if it forms the center of a three-station quadruple track section. Having fully half your trains save five minutes is a huge service improvement!

Add level boarding: Score = 147 service points (+7%) -- Where electrification saved time in motion, level boarding saves time at rest by shaving 15 seconds of dwell time at each station, as step-free access smooths passenger boarding and alighting. Level boarding gives not only short dwell times but predictable dwell times (for example, wheelchairs don't take longer to board) so we can also tighten up the padding margin in the timetable, cut in this example from 12% to 7%. Interestingly, the end-to-end corridor times fall below a threshold that allows turning a train sooner, reducing fleet requirement from 28 to 24 trains. This isn't necessarily an effect of level boarding itself, and only illustrates that a series of small improvements can result in a discontinuous benefit when a certain threshold is reached.

Add SF Downtown Extension: Score = 250 service points (+70%) -- There are more jobs (over 100,000) located within a half mile of the Transbay Transit Center than there are jobs within a half mile of every other Caltrain station combined. This makes downtown SF a dominant node if added to the system, a fact that is reflected in our census-based weighting of available trips. No other improvement comes close.

Here is how these service improvements stack up against each other, plotted as the logarithm of the ratio of after/before scores, which gives you their relative impact. They can be constructed in a different order than imagined above, but the relative proportion of each improvement should remain approximately similar:

Bar graph of the relative service quality improvement of Caltrain capital projects

Here are some key takeaways:

1. Grade separation projects do not improve train service. Exceedingly rarely, they do prevent a train delay, something that is not captured in this analysis. On the basis of the time metrics of a typical trip, however, the service improvement of grade separations is ZERO. This should factor strongly into how many billions we are collectively willing to spend on them relative to the other capital improvements discussed here.
    
   
2. The benefits of electrification alone (without other improvements) are mediocre at best. On the basis of our time metrics, service quality is only improved by about 11% relative to an equivalent diesel scenario. Caltrain can't just finish the electrification project and call it good enough.
    
   
3. The Redwood City hub station now in the planning stages is surprisingly beneficial to service quality. While packaged and sold as a grade separation with a bonus of expanding the train station, it is hard to overstate the service quality benefit of the new hub station. Even as planned by Caltrain (with two-track approaches from the north and south) the new station produces nearly as much service improvement as the entire electrification project.
    
   
4. The Redwood City hub station as planned by Caltrain with two-track approaches is operationally ineffective. It can be juiced up to 1.7x more benefit to service quality by making it the center of a four-track overtake facility spanning just three stations: San Carlos, Redwood City and a new Fair Oaks infill station at 5th Ave. The southern portion of this four-track facility already exists today. Together with 4-track approaches, the Redwood City hub improves service quality by a greater proportion than the entire electrification project! That's why it is critical that planning for the Redwood City grade separations allow for four tracks throughout.
    
   
5. Level boarding provides over half the service quality improvement of electrification, and is likely to be a much cheaper capital investment. However, it makes sense to do it after the hub station.
    
   
6. The downtown extension in San Francisco will be a game changer for service quality. The transportation industrial complex knows this and will make us pay dearly for the DTX project. However, the additional billions for the PAX (Pennsylvania Avenue Extension, a city-desired grade separation) add absolutely nothing to service quality, and should never be allowed to be bundled with the DTX project. Every capital dollar should improve service quality.
    
   
7. The Redwood City hub station (with four tracks, not two!) is worth one fourth of the service benefit of the DTX. That means we should (a) not be shy about spending capital dollars to build it and (b) stop selling it as a grade separation, because that isn't the story here-- it should be about a new infill station, seamless transfers, and better service quality system-wide.
   

As always, the analysis provided here can be quibbled with and improved upon, and you are encouraged to "do your own research" by trying out your own service patterns in the Taktulator.

Three Next Steps

Caltrain's exhaustive business plan effort has resulted in a long range service vision for how to grow the railroad to the year 2040, recently adopted by the board as official policy. This is the mountain we wish to climb. How do we climb it? One step at a time. In fact, with electrified service now unlikely to begin before 2023, there is extra time to plan and execute three next steps.

Step One: Extend Platforms

The biggest short-term constraint to growing Caltrain capacity is  limited platform length. The new EMUs will be 685 feet long when extended to eight cars, too long for many existing platforms. The existing platform lengths are shown in the graphic at right (source), with the required extensions to 700 feet highlighted in orange. The diagram shows the year of construction of each platform, proving that Caltrain is a champion of platform construction, having poured about five linear miles of new platforms over the last two decades. The amount missing is about 3500 linear feet, or a bit over two years' worth of average platform production. There are a couple of tight spots boxed in by grade crossings, most notably Burlingame (767 feet between pedestrian crossings), but most locations have plenty of space.

Longer platforms enable the operation of 7-car diesel express trains, each with about 950 seats. While diesel trains don't feature prominently in future plans, they can still fill an important interim role once they become freed up by the arrival of the EMU fleet. The diesels can easily handle longer trains. It may not look good to continue belching diesel fumes, but it gets the job done at far lower emissions per passenger-mile than by forcing unmet demand to drive instead.

At the recent going rate of 7 to 10 thousand dollars per linear foot of platform, including all capital project overheads, the entire job should cost in the range of $25 - $35 million. For perspective, that's a percent or two of the modernization budget. This project is within reach of Caltrain's existing resources and is now official policy under section (1).E.ii of the service vision. There is no plausible excuse for not undertaking it immediately, to finish by 2023 concurrently with the start of electrified revenue service.

Step Two: Add 8th Car to EMU Fleet

The EMU order currently stands at 19 seven-car trains. The seventh car was ordered in a recent exercise of an option on the original contract, at an average price of $4.7 million per car. Assuming 10% price escalation, another 19 cars to extend this fleet to 8 cars would cost about $100M. This is a large sum, but one that could be scraped together over the next year or so if some high-speed rail funding gets re-allocated to interconnected "book end" projects.

The eighth car represents a significant step up in capacity: since it has no traction equipment cabinets, bike spaces or bathrooms, it has room for a whopping 132 seats, bringing seated capacity per EMU from 667 to 799, a 20% increase. So, for an extra 5% of the modernization budget, you buy an extra 20% capacity. This should be undertaken as soon as possible.

From an emissions point of view, ordering the eighth car is far preferable to ordering additional 7-car EMU formations to displace the diesel fleet sooner. Growing the fleet before fully replacing it provides a short-term peak-hour capacity boost that will remove traffic from roads and alleviate congestion, easily offsetting the emissions of the small remaining diesel-hauled fleet. Going all-electric sooner sounds "green" if you look at Caltrain in isolation, but keeping some diesels in the short term is greener when considering the overall transportation system of which Caltrain is a part, which is what ultimately matters for the air we breathe. Seven-car diesels can be used exclusively in express service, where fewer stops and starts (which are dreadfully slow with diesel) pose less of a time penalty.

There is the small wrinkle of where to park these longer trains when they are not in service. CEMOF, the maintenance facility in San Jose, currently stores two trains end-to-end on four 1200-foot sidings where two longer trains (EMU-8 at 685 ft, or diesel+7 at 664 ft) won't fit. This means at least four trains will need to be stored somewhere else, presumably at San Francisco or San Jose, as was the practice before CEMOF was built. In a real pinch, trains can be stored during the off-peak in the controlled sidings south of Redwood Junction, with certain shoulder-of-peak trains originating and terminating at Redwood City to avoid long deadhead moves.

Step Three: Accelerate Planning for Level Boarding

Level boarding (discussed extensively on this blog) decreases trip times, improves punctuality, increases crew productivity per hour of labor, and increases the frequency of service that can be provided by a train fleet of a given size. While Caltrain's embrace of the concept has been hesitant, it is now policy under the same section (1).E.ii of the service vision adopted by the board. The next step is to get serious about planning how to actually do it, because it is a far more complicated problem than it first appears.

Caltrain staff have decided to forgo boarding using the high-level doors, and recently issued a change order to have the EMU fleet delivered with these doors replaced by plug panels. Level boarding will happen with European-style 550 mm platforms, which can't be a bad thing, although accessibility requirements are more difficult to meet in the United States. The trick is then how to get there, and how to end up with a level boarding solution that doesn't require crew assistance whenever a person of reduced mobility needs to board or alight, in the current inefficient fashion of Northeastern railroads.

The trains will require a boarding step arrangement that deploys to serve either 8-inch legacy platforms (using a drop step mechanism) or to close the gap to newly raised 550 mm platforms, during an extended transition period where some stations may have been modified before others. Due to a lack of foresight on Caltrain's part, this capability is not available on the new EMUs as procured. The EMUs will need to be retrofitted with new three-position step modules (presumably engineered by Stadler's step supplier, Bode / Schaltbau) roughly like this:

The primary engineering challenge is to meet the ADA horizontal gap requirement in Position 2, which is 3 inches maximum (in current law) and is planned to be reduced to 2 inches. The step mechanism must also deploy to the correct height without crew intervention.

The platforms will need to be raised by a bit less than 14 inches, preferably without demolishing and starting over. One intriguing way to do this cheaply and with minimal service disruption would be to re-use the existing platforms as a slab foundation, with drainage, electrical grounding and bonding, and utilities staying as they are. The platforms would first be fitted with prefabricated adjustable edge modules. An adjustable platform edge that can be jacked to the correct height at initial installation and periodically adjusted during maintenance (e.g. after track tamping) is an unavoidable requirement of meeting the demanding ADA gap specifications for unassisted level boarding.

View of a single six-foot-long 550-mm platform edge module installed on a legacy 8” platform

After suitable modifications to platform amenities, the remaining area of the platform would be raised using lightweight expanded polystyrene fill (Geofoam) and modular pavers. The pavers cover the temporary boarding step that is integral to each edge module, which is no longer needed. The resiliency of the resulting platform structure enables periodic adjustment of the platform edge jackscrews to maintain compliance with the ADA gap criteria.

The modular construction technique with edge modules and pavers lends itself to rapid “blitz” construction schedules, since no platform concrete curing is necessary. After each night's construction, the platform can be left in a usable state for the next day's service, avoiding the logistical complications of closing entire platforms during construction.

Regardless of the technical solution ultimately adopted, level boarding starts with a robust planning process to define the problem and consider all the engineering approaches. This planning process is not expensive, and it needs to be funded and staffed now that level boarding is policy.

State of Good Design

Railroad operating departments work hard to achieve and maintain what is known in industry lingo as a state of good repair (SOGR). If that's all that Caltrain is going to do in the next decade, electrification will fall flat, like a sort of MBTA with pantographs on top. We have a chance to move beyond the narrow commuter-rail SOGR mindset, striving for something far bigger: a state of good design. The three next steps described here are a small way to get started right now on the way to the visionary service improvements described in Caltrain's business plan.

Emergency Exit Fail

Caltrain's new EMU train cars have an unusual configuration with two sets of doors. The lower level doors will be used at existing Caltrain stations, while the intermediate level doors (above the wheels at the ends of each car) are intended to be used at an undetermined date in the 2030s once these trains begin sharing stations with California high-speed rail, which will use high-floor trains and high platforms with boarding at about 50" above the rail. The California High-Speed Rail Authority, which Caltrain cryptically refers to as "external stakeholders," required this design feature as a condition of funding Caltrain's modernization to the tune of $750M, to maintain the option of sharing platforms at future HSR stations in San Francisco, Millbrae and San Jose.

The Original Plan

To maximize the short-term seating capacity of the new trains until the 2030s, Caltrain specified that the intermediate level should have temporary flip-up seats installed in front of the unused doors, five per door vestibule, with the seating blocking off the doors like this:

Configuration of intermediate level in A, B, C, E, and G cars

Because EMU cars are filled with electrical cabinets (labeled with yellow lightning bolts), the seating capacity of the train is reduced compared to a conventional train. This is the price you pay for not having a locomotive; all the bits that make the train go still need to find a place, which makes for a challenging packaging problem in a bi-level train. The reduced seating capacity of the train has been controversial and makes these temporary seats quite important. For each 7-car train, there are 70 of these intermediate level flip-up seats that make up a non-trivial 10% of the overall seating capacity of 667.

At some undetermined future date when the intermediate doors would be needed for compatibility with high platforms, the blue flip-up seating modules would be removed from the intermediate level.

A Regulatory Conundrum

In the design of any new train, federal safety regulations require that any passenger seating compartment be fitted with at least two emergency exit windows (for passenger egress) and two rescue access windows (for first responder ingress). The intermediate level counts as a passenger compartment because these flip-up seats are located within it. However, the intermediate level does not have what regulations consider to be a window; the only opening to the outside is through the doors. This set up a conflict with safety regulations.

In late 2017, Caltrain petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration for a waiver (docket FRA-2018-0003) by arguing that the emergency release feature of the doors would provide an equivalent level of safety, despite not meeting the letter of the regulation, allowing emergency access by climbing over the seat backs.

In June 2018, the FRA denied Caltrain's request because the flip-up seating installed longitudinally such that it blocks the doors could impede egress and access and therefore did not meet the intent of the regulation. The FRA stated that "the absence of need for these intermediate level doors to support current revenue boarding and alighting requirements does not negate the necessity for an unobstructed path in the event of an emergency." Curiously, this unobstructed path requirement applies only to doors, not to windows!

Implicitly, Solution A is to remove all seating from the intermediate level of the affected cars, which effectively sidesteps the emergency window requirement. But given that seating in Caltrain's EMUs is already quite limited, this solution seems like a non-starter as it would reduce seating capacity of a 7-car train by 9% from 667 seats to just 617 seats.

Solution A: not a passenger seating compartment

The FRA helpfully suggested some other possibilities.

Solution B: equip the intermediate level doors with a regulation-size emergency window of minimum dimensions 26" wide by 24" high. Unfortunately, that is too large for the dual-leaf design of the train doors; in other words, the window in each door leaf is too narrow to function as an emergency window.

Solution B: the minimum clear opening is too big for dual-leaf doors

Solution C: replace the intermediate level doors with a plug panel (essentially, a structural wall panel that does not function as a door) fitted with a regulation-size emergency window of minimum dimensions 26" wide by 24" high, until such time as the door-blocking seating is removed, the panel is removed, and the doors and platform bridge plates are re-installed.

Solution C: doors replaced by plug panels

Caltrain is now in the process of pursuing Solution C, plug panels. This change order is expected to cost about $4 million total up front, about $30000 per car, or $7000 per door. When intermediate-level doors are required a decade or more from now, a net sum of approximately another $10 million ($14 million future installation cost to be set aside, minus $4 million of door maintenance savings) would be needed to retrofit them. That is a LOT of money for a change that fundamentally reduces and complicates compatibility with HSR stations and platforms.

Other Solutions

There are other solutions that strike a better balance of functionality and simplicity without a seven-figure cost impact.

Solution D: short of removing all the seating from the intermediate level vestibule, the regulations require only one emergency window (instead of two) if there are four or fewer seats in the compartment. Removing seats from one side only and applying for a new waiver to allow unobstructed use of one of the doors in lieu of a single emergency window could work, addressing the FRA's stated concern with door obstruction. This would reduce seating capacity of a 7-car train by just 22 seats or 3% (5 seats lost in cars A and B, and 4 seats lost in cars C, E and G).

Solution D: reduced seating with unobstructed emergency access

Solution E: reconfigure the mounting bracket for the flip-up seating so that seats flip up and out of the way of the doors when not used, allowing the unimpeded use of both doors in lieu of emergency windows. This solution requires applying for a new waiver to allow the use of doors in lieu of emergency windows, but also addresses the FRA's stated concern with door obstruction. Placing the flip up seats in this manner would reduce the clear width of the door opening by a couple of inches on each side, from 51" to about 47", with no reduction to seating capacity.

Solution E: change flip-up seating orientation to provide unobstructed door access
(flip-up seats are shown in use; they fold flush against wall when not occupied)

Solution E would require no modifications whatsoever when the intermediate level doors are needed in the future, and could be implemented at all doors throughout the train including the lower level, adding seating capacity. Seats placed in doorways may sound like a bad idea, but in a crowded train, social signaling fairly quickly communicates to occupants of these seats that it's time to stand up and make way. This is the French "strapontin" seating in common use on some of the busiest rail lines in Paris:

Flip-up seats in a doorway of a brand new Bombardier EMU on Paris RER line D.
(foreground at left) credit: Wikipedia / KiHa 52

Indeed, the photo above, taken inside the same Bombardier EMU often vaunted in front of the Caltrain board by a certain member of the public as having so much more seating than Stadler's EMU, shows one of the secrets of achieving very high seating densities: flip-up seating in all doorways. The other three secrets are five-abreast seating, not having as much space dedicated to bikes, and lower acceleration performance that requires fewer electrical cabinets, leaving more space for seats. After adjusting for these four factors, it turns out that the Bombardier EMU provides no higher seating density than the Stadler EMU.

Ultimately, it is entirely possible that Caltrain simply does not wish to interface with high-speed rail in any station as a matter of policy, because it would require sharing and collaborating with another agency, and solving a somewhat complicated ADA compliance problem. Which agency would voluntarily bring that upon itself? Caltrain already took the HSR money, and installing plugs will "erase" the clunky and unpalatable concession they made in the name of compatibility, with the further bonus of not requiring another run at the FRA for a new waiver. The complicated ADA compliance issues associated with interior lifts are kicked as far down the road as possible!

No matter how you look at it, Caltrain's chosen approach is a ~$15 million mistake that reduces and complicates compatibility with HSR stations and platforms. There are cheaper, simpler and easier ways to achieve compliance with emergency window regulations. It's not too late to change course.

Still Dithering on Level Boarding

EMU low door configuration

Recent documents seeking regulatory relief from certain FRA requirements for Caltrain's new EMU fleet reveal details of the interface between the train and a station platform.

The lower doors of the EMUs will feature a deploying step at 15 inches (measured above the top of the rail), halfway between the 8-inch platform and the 22-inch train floor. The resulting step arrangement, when deployed, is similar to the existing Bombardier cars, although the floor height of the Bombardiers is 3 inches higher.

So far, so good.

A closer examination of the step mechanism (see Stadler engineering drawing, as submitted to FRA) shows that the step module retracts upward from its 15 inch deployed height, using a cam mechanism, and stows with the step tread 2.5 inches below the door sill. This makes the step unusable for an ADA-compliant level boarding interface, where it might have been configured to close the gap with a 22" platform, at the same height as the train floor. Recall that ADA regulations for unassisted level boarding require a platform gap less than 3 inches, with vertical discontinuity less than 5/8".

One faction of Caltrain staff evidently envisions level boarding using the low doors of the new EMUs, but the engineering drawing proves this is out of the question without a complete redesign and replacement of the door step mechanism. Even then, there are serious questions about the feasibility of a gradual transition to level boarding where the train fleet must serve a slowly evolving mix of 8-inch and raised level platforms.

As per usual with level boarding, the end goal is clear, but getting there is the hard part and often involves lots of hand waving.

Consultant Still Doesn't Get It

Not only is the lower level door step mechanism unsuited for future level boarding, but Caltrain's vehicle engineering consultant, LTK Engineering Services, states that low platforms will be used indefinitely. On page 1 (PDF page 5) of the recent FRA waiver application, we read:

Initially, Caltrain will utilize only the lower level doors to serve their existing 8-inch platforms. Once CHSRA service begins in the corridor, there will be a station or two that will have high level platforms and will be served by the Caltrain EMUs via the intermediate level doors. Other Caltrain stations will remain low level and will be served by the lower level doors.

No! Continued use of 8-inch platforms means long dwell times and time-consuming conductor-assisted boarding for persons of reduced mobility using a manually emplaced bridge plate. This antiquated state of affairs cannot be allowed to persist. Blithely ignoring the minutes that can be saved while the train is at rest is unacceptable, especially after spending two billion dollars to save minutes while the train is in motion.

It is time to adopt a policy on level boarding, and to push Caltrain's staff and consultants to reach agreement on the technical approach to get there. Here we are in 2018 and there is still obvious disagreement about whether to implement level boarding at all (a no-brainer if you look at the big picture) and at what height, using what doors on the new EMU fleet. Stop dithering and do it!

Footnote: there are multiple waiver petitions relating to EMU design details.
FRA-2009-0124 Tier I Alternative Vehicle Technology crashworthiness (approved)
FRA-2017-0104 Position of bathroom car emergency exit window (approved)
FRA-2018-0003 Use of upper doors in lieu of emergency exit windows (denied)
FRA-2018-0067 Emergency brake handles, grab irons and steps, clearances (pending)

Over-Promising on Electrification

Numerous recent Caltrain materials include the following quantitative claims (see slide at right) about the service benefits of the electrification project:

1. A baby bullet train making 5-6 stops will make the SF - SJ trip in 45 minutes, down from 60 minutes today.
    
2. A train making the SF - SJ trip in 60 minutes will be able to stop 13 times, up from 6 stops today.

Both of these claims are greatly inflated. They are easy to verify using a computer program known as a train performance calculator, which numerically integrates the differential equations of motion of a train based on the known characteristics of the track (vertical profile, curve, speed limits, station stops, etc.) and of the train (power, weight, tractive effort, drag, etc.) Physics and math can predict timetable performance quite accurately.

Myth #1: the 45-minute Baby Bullet express

Today's diesel performance
(pure run time, no padding)

Here is what a typical baby bullet run looks like today, with an MP-36 diesel locomotive, six Bombardier coaches, and a load of 600 passengers. There are five stops in this example, each lasting (very optimistically, as riders will attest) just 60 seconds. The pure run time from San Jose to San Francisco 4th and King is 52:22 under ideal conditions, without any margin or padding that is added to a real timetable; compare to the weekday northbound timetable at 64 to 67 minutes, or up to 25% longer (!) than the pure run time. Note that the weekday timetable has been extensively padded lately due to crowding; in 2012, the same run was timetabled at 59 minutes with 12% padding.

Tomorrow's EMU performance
(pure run time, no padding)

All other things being equal, let's substitute an EMU train for our slow diesel. The same run drops to 48:15, just four minutes quicker. This isn't surprising: baby bullet trains spend most of their time cruising near the speed limit, where the faster acceleration of EMUs doesn't provide a benefit. With all other things being equal (including crowding and long dwell times--why would electrification resolve these?) we can expect the timetable for our five-stop baby bullet to drop by the same four minutes, or 60 to 63 minutes. That is a full 15 to 18 minutes slower than claimed by Caltrain! Even if you remove the copious 5-8 minutes of extra padding present in today's timetable and compare to the 2012 timetable, we're still 10 minutes slower than claimed, at 55 minutes.

EMU performance at 110 mph
(pure run time, no padding)

How could you possibly get to 45 minutes? One approach is to raise the speed limit to 110 mph, which is planned in the long term but clearly outside of the scope of the electrification project. Changing only that variable, and slowing down as needed where curves limit the speed to below 110 mph, our EMU now makes the same San Jose to San Francisco run in 41:32, almost seven minutes faster. However, we're still 7 to 10 minutes slower than Caltrain's 45-minute claim, or 2 minutes slower when using 12% padding. Again, the reasons for having such enormous amounts of timetable padding will not suddenly disappear after electrification!

The best way to get there is with level boarding, which alleviates Caltrain's crippling dwell time problem. Level boarding has two benefits: the primary benefit is in the form of reduced dwell time during each stop, and the secondary benefit is in the smaller amount of timetable padding that is needed, thanks to the improved schedule adherence that is possible when the occasional wheelchair lift deployment no longer threatens to inject random three-minute delays. Padding could conceivably be cut to 7%, and dwell time to 30 seconds. No new simulation runs are required-- our five-stop 79 mph EMU makes it in (48:15 - 2:30)*1.07 = 49 minutes on the timetable; the 110 mph EMU makes it in (41:32 - 2:30)*1.07 = 42 minutes.

Caltrain's claim of a 45-minute baby bullet is readily attainable only after three major improvements are made. These are not included in the scope of the electrification project and are currently unfunded:

1. Conversion of the baby bullet fleet from diesel to EMU
2. Implementation of system-wide level boarding
3. Curve realignment, track upgrades and grade crossing safety upgrades for 110 mph

To promise a 45-minute baby bullet run in the short term is at best misleading and at worst a flat-out lie. Once the electrification project is complete, we can expect approximately zero improvement in baby bullet performance, with timetabled runs in the range of 64 to 67 minutes. If the initial slight increase in capacity of the electrification project relieves crowding (but will it, enough to offset the performance loss from dragging a seventh Bombardier car?) then we could return to the 2012 timetable performance of 59 minutes.

Myth #2: the one-hour, 13-stop limited

Let us assume for the moment that padding returns to the 2012 level of about 12%. Assuming 60-second dwells and a 79 mph speed limit, how many intermediate stops can a limited train make between San Jose and San Francisco before the timetable hits one hour?  Subtracting 12% pad from one hour, we need to make a pure run time of 53:34.

With today's diesel bullet performance, Caltrain's claim of six stops in one hour checks out reasonably closely at 54:57 or just over one hour including padding, i.e. close enough. Let's change the assumptions, one by one:

Simulation Case	Pure Run Time	Timetable
Case A, Diesel, dwell 60, 6 stops, 12% pad	0:54:57	1:01:33
Case B, EMU, dwell 60, 6 stops, 12% pad	0:50:10	0:56:11
Case C, EMU, dwell 60, 7 stops, 12% pad	0:52:04	0:58:19
Case D, EMU, dwell 60, 8 stops, 12% pad	0:53:58	1:00:27
Case E, EMU, dwell 30, 8 stops, 7% pad (level boarding)	0:49:58	0:53:28
Case F, EMU, dwell 30, 9 stops, 7% pad (level boarding)	0:51:22	0:54:58
Case G, EMU, dwell 30, 10 stops, 7% pad (level boarding)	0:52:46	0:56:28
Case H, EMU, dwell 30, 11 stops, 7% pad (level boarding)	0:54:10	0:57:57
Case I, EMU, dwell 30, 12 stops, 7% pad (level boarding)	0:55:34	0:59:27
Case J, EMU, dwell 30, 13 stops, 7% pad (level boarding)	0:56:58	1:00:57
Case K, EMU, dwell 30, 13 stops, 7% pad (level boarding), 110 mph	0:53:08	0:56:51

Simulation Case K
(pure run time, no padding)

Case D shows that the maximum number of stops permissible under post-electrification conditions is at most 8, just two more stops than today, and not 13 as claimed by Caltrain. Only after level boarding does the number of stops increase to 13 as shown by Case J, but once again, level boarding is not included in the scope of the basic electrification project. Case K illustrates the diminishing returns from increasing the speed limit to 110 mph; the more stops a train makes, the less benefit there is from the higher allowable speed. Case K (see diagram at right) shows the train almost constantly accelerating and braking, which is not how one would choose to operate given the cost of electricity in the real world.

The takeaway message to Caltrain is this: don't over-promise and under-deliver on the modernization project. Your electrification project reduces time in motion and establishes a foundation for further improvements, but is not sufficient by itself. To deliver the service benefits promised in your public presentations, you absolutely need level boarding to reduce time at rest.

(do I sound like a broken record?)