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.

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.

BEMU Obsession

Barry the BEMU,
Caltrain's new mascot

"Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget—and I'll tell you what you value."

There's a new obsession gripping Caltrain: the Battery EMU, an electric train that can travel without overhead wires using electricity drawn from a large battery on board the train. The BEMU features prominently in Caltrain's recently approved two-year budget, which offers the best way to understand the agency's values. We find allocations for:

• $80M for a single BEMU prototype train (at a $25M premium over a regular EMU)
  
• $3.7M for in-house BEMU research and development
• $2.5M for operations planning (including BEMU operations)
  
• $1.1M to develop a 10-year capital improvement plan
  
• $1 million to develop a roadmap for level boarding
• $0.5 million to study future grade separations
  

The bottom of this list combines to roughly $5M of planning for Caltrain's entire future, a critically important activity to ensure its continued viability. The top two items in this list are almost $30M to pursue a BEMU obsession that will cost much, much more to scale up to anything resembling a viable service pattern. Going by these numbers, Caltrain values BEMUs about six times more than planning for its entire future!

Going Green by Blowing Green

Recently enacted California air quality mandates will make Caltrain's entire diesel locomotive fleet illegal to operate by 2030. This includes the nine locomotives now being refurbished at great expense and retained to operate diesel service to Gilroy (numbers 920 - 928).

If you start from the premise that rail service to Gilroy must be maintained and expanded at any and all costs (regardless of the much ballyhooed fiscal cliff) then a solution must be found to run trains beyond the end of the wires in San Jose, and soon.

Here is the range of available options, from cheapest and most reasonable to most risky and profligate:

1. Most obviously, purchase the same diesel passenger locomotive that almost every passenger rail operator now uses in California: the Siemens Charger, used by Amtrak, ACE and Coaster. This is a modern low-emission model that will not be outlawed, requires no R&D, and costs about $8M each.
    
   
2. Slightly more ambitious is to purchase an upcoming version of the same Charger locomotive that will have zero emission capability to operate through densely populated areas, thanks to a bank of batteries built into a permanently coupled passenger car. This is a model known as the ALC-42E and has been ordered in large quantities by Amtrak. As a bonus, it can draw power directly from overhead wires where available. This option requires no R&D and likely costs closer to $12M each.
   
   
3. Yet another possibility, if one accepts the idea of a seamless cross-platform transfer at San Jose Diridon, is to serve the low-ridership Gilroy branch with smaller trains that do not interline onto the peninsula rail corridor. Stadler has an existing BEMU product known as the FLIRT Akku, developed for remote branch lines in Germany that have similar ridership profiles as Gilroy. This option requires little R&D (beyond overcoming American "not invented here" syndrome and shepherding the technology through FRA approval) and likely costs about $20M per train.
   
   
4. By far the most risky and expensive option is to apply the Akku technology to the Caltrain version of the Stadler KISS, turning it into a supersized BEMU to serve Gilroy and points beyond (Salinas, anyone?) with massively oversized 650+ seat trains. This requires new research and development to add very large batteries (likely in excess of 1 MWh) that will be lugged around as giant dead weights whenever the train operates under the wire. Adding massive batteries to the KISS EMU defeats the very purpose of this vehicle: to move huge numbers of people quickly even with lots of station stops. Costing $85M for the first example and likely north of $60M for each follow-on, this BEMU can rightly be described as "the wrong tool for the job."

You'd need at least six trains to run anything resembling a reasonable service pattern, so multiply accordingly: Caltrain is contemplating the expenditure of about 1/3 billion dollars to keep the Gilroy branch steadfastly served by steel wheels on steel rails. We all love Gilroy, but at any cost?

the right tool for the job
(original by Grendelkhan)

Considering that the Gilroy branch generates very little ridership (about 1% of Caltrain's total ridership before the pandemic), a better interim solution, until the HSR project electrifies the tracks, is to transfer the Gilroy branch to a mature, affordable and environmentally friendly rubber wheel technology: the express bus. This would have the added benefit of allowing Caltrain to quickly rid itself of all of its polluting and failure-prone diesel equipment by 2025, with enormous savings in operating and maintenance costs just as the agency reaches its purported "fiscal cliff." Caltrain should go 100% electric now.

Consultant Featherbedding

The root of this insanity is understandable: Caltrain has for many years retained the services of in-house vehicle consultant LTK, tasked with supporting the highly complex procurement and regulatory approval of a new fleet of electric vehicles. Now that the Stadler contract will be winding down as this new fleet enters service, these people's jobs will be finished. They desperately need to justify their continued existence, and an open-ended research and development project to send oversized bilevel BEMUs all the way to Gilroy, Salinas and beyond is the perfectly timed green-washing opportunity.

Sadly, the BEMU is an expensive solution looking for a problem.

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.

Growing Caltrain into an 8-Lane Freeway

Caltrain can and should become an eight-lane freeway. Not like an ugly concrete scar tearing loudly through the landscape, but in terms of throughput capacity in people per hour. Today, Caltrain already carries the equivalent of nearly 3 freeway lanes, and more than doubling the system's capacity is hardly a moonshot. For perspective, BART's Transbay Tube carries up to 27000 people per hour, almost double the entire capacity of the Bay Bridge with its ten freeway lanes.

More than doubling Caltrain's capacity has been proposed before and is now being studied by the agency itself, after a decade of not thinking much past electrification.

Capacity calculations can be controversial and rely on many details and assumptions, so the suggested path to expand Caltrain ridership from 3 to 8 lanes of freeway-equivalent is provided in the form of a spreadsheet, embedded below. You can dig into all the numbers and assumptions for each capacity increase and see the underlying formulas for yourself, down to the detailed number of seats in each train car, to understand how it all adds up.

This is a living document, and feedback is appreciated!

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)

Frequent Trains Off Peak

After electrification, Caltrain aspires to operate off-peak service at 2 or 3 trains per hour, instead of the current 1 train per hour. All-local service at 3 trains per hour works out to a fleet requirement of 12 trains in service, far less than needed for rush hour, but still racking up almost 300 train-miles per hour, or triple today's rate. That sort of service level will not be cheap to operate, unless two conditions are met to reduce operating and maintenance costs:

1) Operate Short Trains Off Peak

Shorter trains off-peak reduce maintenance costs by putting less wear and tear on the vehicles and track. The same revenue train-miles can be offered with fewer car-miles. The more off-peak service is provided, the greater the savings: at 3 trains per hour, operating 4-car EMUs instead of full-length 8-car EMUs off-peak results in a huge reduction of 25% fewer weekday car-miles.

Operating and vehicle maintenance
costs of US commuter rail, per car mile

Just how big are the savings? Typical commuter rail costs are available from the FTA's National Transit Database. The operating and vehicle maintenance costs for Caltrain and selected commuter rail operators are shown at right for the year 2015, normalized by the total number of car-miles operated. Some on this list (Metro North, LIRR, SEPTA and New Jersey Transit) operate sizable fleets of EMUs, but their maintenance costs are not significantly out-of-family with Caltrain; therefore, it's fair to assume that maintenance costs will not materially change after electrification. Since the FTA maintenance totals are not broken out by fixed and variable costs, we will conservatively assume that the variable cost (which scales directly with the number of car-miles operated) accounts for half of the vehicle maintenance cost. Squinting at the chart, let's estimate this variable cost at $2 per car-mile.

When you operate 12 hours of off-peak service at 300 train-miles per hour, the variable cost of vehicle maintenance racks up at 12 hours/day * 300 train-miles / hour * 8 cars/train * $2/car-mile = $58k/day. By reducing off-peak train length to 4 cars/train, the savings are half of this, or $29k/day. The savings from shorter trains accrue not just on weekdays but on weekends too, yielding annual savings of roughly $10 million.

Then you might want to factor in energy cost savings. Each car weighs about 60 tons loaded, and is accelerated to about 60 mph between two typical stops. The electricity consumed to accelerate is re-generated into the grid while braking for the next stop, with a round-trip efficiency likely in the neighborhood of 80%. That means overcoming the inertia of one car for one stop (neglecting drag) takes 4 MJ of electricity, or 1.2 kWh in more familiar units. At typical electricity rates of 12 cents/kWh, that's just $0.14/car/stop. Multiplying it up, $0.14/car/stop * 20 stops * 3 trains/hour/direction * 2 directions * 12 hours/day * 8 cars/train = $1600/day.  (Note that drag will significantly increase this figure, but can be neglected for this estimate because the drag of a 4-car train is similar to that of an 8-car train.) By reducing off-peak train length to 4 cars/train, the savings are $800/day. At less than $300k per year, this is just a rounding error compared to the vehicle maintenance, and can be ignored.

The Scharfenberg automatic coupler,
nicknamed "Schaku," linking up two
short EMUs (click for movie)

Offsetting these savings are the costs of making and breaking train formations several times per day, since the entire fleet needs to be available for morning and evening peak service with full length 8-car EMUs. Traditionally, this is a cumbersome operation that involves expensive and specialized labor, with ground crews stepping onto the tracks to connect pneumatic hoses and high-voltage cables. Caltrain is breaking with tradition by using a neat technological trick: the couplers on each end of the new EMUs are fully automatic Schakus, making mechanical, pneumatic and electrical connections in a matter of seconds at the touch of a button in the train cab. Barring any union rules relating to craft distinctions, making and breaking trains can be performed by train crews with zero additional labor cost.

2) Operate With One Conductor

Labor accounts for about two thirds of operating costs in typical commuter rail systems. Operating costs are strongly driven by train crew size. Minimum crew size is constrained by union rules that govern how many conductors must work on each train. Currently, the minimum crew size (dictated by Rule 11 of the agreement with the UTU) is 1 engineer, 1 conductor and 1 assistant conductor for trains up to seven cars, with a second assistant conductor required for an 8-car train or longer.

When contemplating a tripling of off-peak service, the cost of this minimum staffing level becomes prohibitive. Conductors are paid about $40/hour, and assistant conductors about $35/hour. Including benefits and other employee costs, the overall cost of these employees is easily double these figures. Additionally, conductors typically spend about half their shift time on board a revenue-producing train, so the necessary staffing levels are roughly double the number of trains in service. We saw earlier that it takes a fleet of 12 trains to operate off-peak service at 3 trains per hour per direction; staffing an assistant conductor on these trains would cost $70/hour/conductor * 1 conductor/train * 2 hours/(revenue hour) * 12 trains * 12 (revenue hours)/day = $20k/day. Again this is big money: the savings from removing the assistant conductor and going to one-conductor operation accrue not just on off-peak weekdays but on weekends too, yielding annual savings of roughly $7 million.

How do you sell this lower staffing level to the union?

1. EMUs can relieve conductors of some of their workload, after automation of many of their traditional roles (such as stop announcements, door and lift operation, or signal aspect acknowledgement). Fare verification (proof of payment) could even become a separate role carried out by roving fare inspectors.
2. Conductor staffing levels or pay rates can be renegotiated on the basis of actual ridership, instead of the number of train cars, since the new EMUs will have automatic passenger counters that collect detailed and accurate passenger ridership statistics.
3. Most importantly, the total amount of work for UTU-represented employees would increase, since one-conductor operation would enable a tripling of off-peak service, resulting in 1.5 times more labor hours even after cutting conductors staffing levels in half.

It isn't a stretch to envision Caltrain and the UTU re-negotiating the labor agreement to allow just one conductor on four-car off-peak trains; there is room for a compromise that can benefit everyone.

Future Fleet Implications

If you zoomed way, way, into Caltrain's
exterior paint scheme concepts,
the Schaku was plain to see

Caltrain's initial fleet of sixteen six-car EMUs (total 96 cars) will not have the ability to split into shorter formations, but once the option for 96 additional cars (total 192 cars) is exercised, and all trains are extended to their intended length of eight cars, the practice becomes not only possible, but necessary for providing frequent off-peak service.

The fleet needs to operate two service patterns:

1. peaks at 6 trains per hour with a fleet of 8-car EMUs
2. off-peak at 3 trains per hour with a fleet of 4-car EMUs

To support both service patterns using the planned fleet size of 192 cars (including a rather large spares ratio, to withstand regular grade crossing collisions), the optimal fleet configuration is probably something close to:

• 16 4-car EMUs for off-peak service, each with one bike car and one bathroom car, that can be coupled in pairs during peak hour service to form eight trains with eight cars each.
• 16 8-car EMUs for peak service, lengthened from the base order

This results in the following order breakdown for the 96 additional option cars:

• 32 passenger cars for CalMod 1.1
• 32 cab cars, for 4-car EMUs
• 16 bathroom cars (powered), for 4-car EMUs
• 16 bike cars (unpowered), for 4-car EMUs

This EMU fleet configuration enables 20-minute off-peak service frequency for at least $17 million/year cheaper operating and maintenance cost than would otherwise be achieved with a uniform fleet of all 8-car trains. That's a large amount, easily over 10% of Caltrain's current annual operating budget. Considering that Caltrain struggles every year to scrape together enough operating funds, a stronger way of stating it is that without 4-car EMUs and one-conductor train crews, Caltrain will simply not have the financial means to provide 20-minute off-peak service frequency.

Core Capacity Math

With federal funding for Caltrain modernization on indefinite hold, a diverse flock of vultures have started circling the skies over the peninsula corridor--opponents of electrification, boosters of peninsula BART, opponents of high-speed rail, and detractors of rail or transit in general. Some opponents have latched on to a perceived vulnerability of the modernization project, using a legal parsing of federal regulations to allege that Caltrain's application for federal transit funding is fraudulent and illegal. This sensational claim merits closer examination.

FTA "Core Capacity"

The $647M of funding that Caltrain has pursued for several years, and came agonizingly close to obtaining, is allocated by the Federal Transit Administration and disbursed by congress under a competitive grant program known as a Capital Investment Grant or nicknamed "5309," after the section number of the United States Code under which the program is defined. One of the ways to obtain federal funding under this program is to increase the capacity of an existing transit system by at least ten percent. This is known as a "core capacity" grant, the type that Caltrain is pursuing.

The fracas is all about this ten percent, and whether Caltrain is actually meeting the criteria for eligibility.

To prevent gaming of the system, section 5309 policy guidance specifies how that ten percent increase is to be counted for a core capacity project to become eligible for funding. Importantly, the FTA makes an artificial distinction between "light rail / heavy rail" (where passengers traditionally sit and stand) and "commuter rail" (where passengers traditionally only sit) that fundamentally changes the metric used to measure capacity.

• Light rail / heavy rail capacity is measured by "peak hour person capacity in the peak direction," a measurement that includes standees and is based on floor space.
   
• Commuter rail capacity is measured by "peak hour peak direction seated load," a measurement that excludes standees and is based solely on seat count.

Under this uniquely American taxonomy, Caltrain is an odd duck: the modernization project seeks to transform it from a traditional diesel commuter train into a swift and frequent transit system whose attributes will bear a closer resemblance to a heavy rail system like BART than to a stereotypical American commuter train. Indeed, Caltrain's choice of a Swiss train design underscores the cultural disconnect with the rigid system of American train categories.

If you needed any more proof, BART is removing seats to increase capacity!

EMU seating capacity

As ordered, Caltrain's EMUs will have significantly fewer seats per train  than today's six-car diesels. EMUs are not a magical technology: they may lack a locomotive, but all the traction components that would normally be found in the locomotive still need to be accommodated elsewhere in the train. In a preliminary brochure of Caltrain's new EMUs, the traction bits show up as cabinets marked with a spark symbol. These things take up space, so a six-car EMU offers fewer seats than a traditional six-car train hauled by a diesel locomotive.

(In passing, some have blamed the lower seating capacity of the Stadler EMUs on the dual door configuration. A cursory review of proposed seating layouts can retire this fallacy.)

The seating capacity directly counted from the brochure was 573 seats per six-car EMU, although Caltrain's FTA grant application assumes only 558, averaging just 93 seats per car.

A Shifting Baseline

Ten percent, but compared to what? The baseline present-day capacity is also contentious, since Caltrain's record ridership has created the need to provide more seats today.

In Caltrain's September 2016 grant application materials and correspondence with the FTA (helpfully obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request by CARRD Morris Brown), the capacity baseline is tabulated as 3403 seats per peak hour per peak direction, with a net increase of 365 seats (barely squeaking by with a 10.7% increase) to a total of 3768 after the modernization project is completed.  Detailed tabulation is provided below, as extracted from the grant application.

Detail of Existing Operations					Commuter Rail
Train #	Train Line Reference (e.g. Name/Color/Number)	Departure Time	Number of Cars	Seats per Car	Seats Per Train
1	#217	6:57	5	121	605
2	#319	7:03	6	132	792
3	#221	7:18	5	120	600
4	#323	7:45	6	131	786
5	#225	7:50	5	124	620
Total	During the Peak Hour				3,403
Detail of Operations At Project Opening					Commuter Rail
Train #	Line Reference	Departure Time	Number of Cars	Seats per Car	Seats Per Train
1	#305	7:00	6	134	804
2	#113	7:07	6	93	558
3	#115	7:12	6	93	558
4	#307	7:29	6	122	732
5	#117	7:36	6	93	558
6	#119	7:42	6	93	558
Total	During the Peak Hour				3,768

Opponents have pointed out that well before the date of the FTA grant application, train 225 was converted to a six-car Bombardier consist seating about 790 passengers, as was train 217, thus increasing today's peak hour baseline by 170 + 185 = 355 seats, and cutting the future capacity increase fully in half from 10.7% to an ineligible zero percent 5%. Caltrain may have done itself in simply by serving its customers today.

How to solve the FTA seating equation
To meet the FTA requirements without question, and to shoo those vultures away, here are some solutions Caltrain could reasonably pursue:

• Build the train cars 3.2 meters wide with five-abreast seating on the upper deck (the lower deck would remain four-abreast with a wider aisle). A car width of 3.2 meters is within the AAR Plate F loading gauge that is cleared to operate on the peninsula corridor, and is a common width in East Coast commuter railroads (the LIRR M7, the Metro North M8, and the SEPTA Silverliner V are all 3.2 meters wide with sections of five-abreast seating). Why Caltrain hasn't already pursued this is baffling, because it is a low-cost and high-benefit change regardless of FTA rules. The Stadler KISS EMU that Caltrain ordered has previously been delivered in widths up to 3.4 meters. This design change is worth +64 seats per six-car EMU, or +256 seats/peak hour, or +7.5% core capacity.
   
• Increase the size of the initial EMU order.  This is a tough sell, given how hard it has been to fund the modernization project, but the relative cost increment is minor when considered in proportion to the entire budget. The Stadler contract already includes an additional 96 cars under a fixed-price option, 32 of which (one third) could be exercised to make all 16 of the EMUs on order eight cars long.  The incremental cost would be another $130M (one third of $390M, or less than 7% of the entire value of the PCEP project), and the seating capacity would go up by +186 seats per EMU, or +744 seats/peak hour, or +21.9% core capacity.  That's right: for an extra 7% cost you can triple the capacity increase.
   
• Both measures applied together would increase seating capacity by +272 seats per EMU, or +1088 seats/peak hour, or +32% core capacity (over and above the +10.7% capacity increase in Caltrain's FTA application).

The devil is of course in the details: changing the Stadler car shell is not free at this late stage of design, and lengthening trains to eight cars isn't just a financial headache but brings about awkwardness with certain platforms that are shorter than they ought to be.

Nevertheless, if it comes down to an existential issue of project eligibility, seat count nitpickers can undoubtedly be satisfied, and to everyone's benefit, by making a few basic adjustments. When a project's core capacity metric can be tripled for just 7% extra cost, it's a clear indication that it isn't an illegitimate fraud. Core capacity seat math either isn't an issue, or it can easily be resolved.