Content deleted Content added
verb tense fixes Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit App section source |
m →Inaugural service: spelling |
||
| (41 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
Line 5:
| name = CalMod
| logo = CalMod Logo.svg
| image = Caltrain
| caption = A Caltrain KISS electric
| mission_statement =
| commercial =
Line 21:
| funding =
| budget = US$2.44 billion
| current_status =
| website = {{URL|calmod.org}}
}}
The '''Caltrain Modernization Program''' ('''CalMod'''), sometimes referred to as the '''Caltrain Electrification Project''',
CalMod electrified {{convert|51|mi|km}} of tracks between [[San Francisco 4th and King Street station|4th and King station]] and [[Tamien station]] and installed a PTC management system along the tracks. PTC is designed to fulfill federal safety mandates for passenger rail and is part of the [[Federal Railroad Administration]] (FRA) waiver to use EMUs on tracks shared with freight traffic. Funding for the project came from various federal, state, and local sources, including from the [[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] (CHSRA).
Proposals for electrifying the line began as early as 1992, when the [[California Department of Transportation]] conducted an early feasibility study. For two decades, the project lay dormant due to lack of funding until Caltrain agreed to share its tracks with the [[California High-Speed Rail|California High-Speed Rail Authority]] (CHSRA), which was looking for a route for the legally mandated San Jose–San Francisco segment. The Authority agreed to partially fund the electrification project in exchange for rights to share the track. Construction contracts for electrification were awarded in July 2016 and [[groundbreaking]] was expected to occur in March 2017, but was delayed when the new [[United States Secretary of Transportation]] [[Elaine Chao]] indefinitely deferred federal funding just before construction was about to begin. That same month, Caltrain removed the contractor responsible for implementing PTC for failure to perform on-budget and on-schedule. In May 2017, the [[Federal Transit Administration]] (FTA) announced its intention to sign the grant and reversed Secretary Chao's deferment. Construction formally began two months later.▼
▲Proposals for electrifying the line began as early as 1992
Construction for CalMod began with a groundbreaking ceremony at Millbrae station on July 21, 2017, and completed in April 2024.<ref name="april2024">{{cite news |title=Caltrain fully energizes electrified corridor |url=https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/caltrain-fully-energizes-electrified-corridor/ |access-date=April 10, 2024 |work=[[Trains (magazine)|Trains]] |publisher=[[Kalmbach Media]] |date=April 10, 2024}}</ref> Stadler KISS units began delivery in March 2022, and system testing started in June 2023. Caltrain began public revenue service using the Stadler EMUs on August 11, 2024, with two trainsets, adding more gradually until fully transitioning to all-electric trainsets on September 21.<ref>{{cite press release|title=Caltrain Welcomes First Passengers on New Electric Trains|publisher=Caltrain|___location=San Carlos, California|date=August 10, 2024|accessdate=August 10, 2024|url=https://www.caltrain.com/news/caltrain-welcomes-first-passengers-new-electric-trains}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release|title=The Future of Caltrain is Here|publisher=Caltrain|___location=San Carlos, California|date=September 21, 2024|accessdate=September 21, 2024|url=https://www.caltrain.com/launchparty}}</ref> Some of the newer diesel locomotives and conventional passenger coaches will be retained for service south of Tamien. Switching to EMUs is intended to improve service times via faster acceleration and shorter [[headway]]s, and reduce air and noise pollution. CalMod also enabled planning and implementation to proceed for [[The Portal (San Francisco)|The Portal]], a planned tunnel to extend Caltrain and future [[California High-Speed Rail]] service approximately {{cvt|1|mi}} to downtown San Francisco's [[Salesforce Transit Center]].
==History==
===Background===
[[File:Caltrain JPBX 922 at Santa Clara Station.JPG|thumb|Commuter rail service along the San Francisco Peninsula has been using diesel locomotives ([[EMD F40PH]] pictured above) since the early 1950s; they will be replaced with electric
Commuter railroad service on the [[San Francisco Peninsula]] was inaugurated in 1863 as the [[San Francisco and San Jose
===Early electrification proposals===
Line 47 ⟶ 49:
===Caltrain/HSR blended system===
[[File:StatewideRailMod BubbleMap 013013.jpg|thumb|right|
Despite increasing ridership, Caltrain experienced a budget crisis in 2011 that nearly forced it to cut service to peak commute hours only,<ref name=SFC-110121>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Caltrain-seeks-answers-to-funding-crisis-2478068.php |title=Caltrain seeks answers to funding crisis |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=January 21, 2011 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 30, 2017}}</ref> while funding sources for electrification remained unidentified. At the same time, the [[California High-Speed Rail|California High-Speed Rail Authority]] (CHSRA) was having trouble identifying a route from San Jose to San Francisco in the face of local opposition. In response, U.S. Representative [[Anna Eshoo]], State Senator [[Joe Simitian]], and Assemblymember [[Rich Gordon]] announced a "blended" plan to partially fund electrification with high-speed rail money in return for allowing high-speed rail trains to share tracks in the future.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2011/04/18/reps-high-speed-rail-should-merge-with-improved-caltrain-system-in-san-jose-|title=Reps: High-speed rail should merge with improved Caltrain system in San Jose|newspaper=[[Palo Alto Weekly]]|author=Dong, Jocelyn and Gennady Sheyner|date=April 18, 2011|access-date=March 29, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/Keeping-Calif-high-speed-rail-plan-on-track-2374647.php |title=EDITORIAL: Keeping Calif. high-speed rail plan on track |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=April 21, 2011 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 30, 2017}}</ref> Later, Caltrain announced that it had studied the plan and believed it to be feasible.<ref>{{harvnb|LTK Engineering|2012|p=3}}</ref>
Line 53 ⟶ 55:
Under a proposed agreement between Caltrain and the CHSRA, details of which were leaked in February 2012, up to $1 billion could be available from the high-speed rail project to help fund the CalMod project, including the [[positive train control]] system (dubbed "CBOSS"), electrification of the infrastructure, and elimination of some grade crossings. Under the agreement, the Peninsula Corridor would become eligible for high-speed rail money because the planned routing to San Francisco would use the same lines.<ref name=SFC-120213>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Caltrain-plan-would-fast-track-electric-rail-3308582.php |title=Caltrain plan would fast-track electric rail |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=February 13, 2012 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> This was one of two investments in "bookend" electrification projects, which were intended to upgrade existing passenger rail services near the planned CHSRA San Francisco and Los Angeles terminals to allow high-speed rail to share infrastructure.<ref name=SMDJ-161215 /> In March 2012, Caltrain and other local agencies signed a [[memorandum of understanding]] with the CHSRA that detailed the blended plan,<ref>{{harvnb|Caltrain|2012}}</ref><ref name=SFC-120322>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Caltrain-upgrades-a-step-toward-high-speed-rail-3425806.php |title=Caltrain upgrades a step toward high-speed rail |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=March 22, 2012 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> which received approval from the [[Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area)|Metropolitan Transportation Commission]] a week later.<ref name=SFC-120329>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/MTC-approves-Caltrain-electrification-plan-3442745.php |title=MTC approves Caltrain electrification plan |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=March 29, 2012 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref>
Under the memorandum, $706 million from the high-speed rail bond would be matched by state, regional, and local transportation funds to pay for the estimated $1.5 billion needed for CalMod.<ref name=SFC-120322 /><ref name=SFC-120329 /> However, since the bonds had not yet been issued, the money was not available, and a prior environmental impact report that had been issued for electrification in 2009 needed to be reissued before construction could start.<ref name=SFC-120728>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Fast-electric-Caltrain-still-years-away-3743563.php |title=Fast electric Caltrain still years away |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=July 28, 2012 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> In September 2012, the [[California Transportation Commission]] released $39.8 million to modernize CBOSS.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/modernization-dream-now-reality/article_2040f837-0d72-5fe7-a5b2-0731e91967a7.html |title=Modernization dream now reality |author=Silverfarb, Bill |date=September 28, 2012 |newspaper=San Mateo Daily Journal |access-date=March 26, 2017}}</ref> A month later, the expected funding from high-speed rail bonds rose to $1.5 billion, which alongside electrification provided funding for the planned Downtown Extension (DTX), which would move the northern terminus of the Caltrain line from 4th and King to the [[
===Lawsuits===
Line 77 ⟶ 79:
===Federal funding interruption===
[[File:Elaine Chao
In early 2016, the CHSRA had selected a route that required extensive and costly tunneling in [[Southern California]] and revised its initial operating plans for high-speed rail to include the Bay Area.<ref name=SFC-160218>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/High-speed-rail-on-fast-track-to-Bay-Area-6830444.php |title=High-speed rail on fast track to Bay Area |author1=Matier, Phil |author2=Ross, Andrew |date=February 18, 2016 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> By February 2017, the electrification project had secured $1.3 billion in state, local, and regional funding, with the remaining funding gap to be closed by a $647 million grant from the FTA's Core Capacity program.<ref name=PCEP-CCE>{{cite web |url=https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/CA%20San%20Carlos%20Caltrain%20Peninsula%20Corridor%20Electrification%20Project%20Profile.pdf |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Core Capacity Engineering |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=August 2016 |publisher=[[Federal Transit Administration]] |access-date=April 4, 2017}}</ref> The grant had undergone a two-year review process starting in November 2015 under the [[Obama Administration]] and received a "medium-high" rating from the FTA in August 2016,<ref name=PCEP-CCE /> and was waiting for a signature from the newly appointed [[First presidency of Donald Trump|Trump Administration]] Secretary of Transportation [[Elaine Chao]] after a 30-day review period to secure a grant approval.<ref name="contractextension">{{cite news|url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/28/caltrain-agreement-with-contractors-to-extend-deadline-keeps-electrification-project-alive/|title=Caltrain: Agreement with contractors to extend deadline keeps electrification project alive|newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]]|author=Green, Jason|date=February 28, 2017|access-date=March 29, 2017}}</ref><ref name=SFC-170317>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Trump-transportation-plan-could-derail-Bay-Area-11009336.php |title=Trump transportation plan could derail Bay Area transit projects |author=Brekke, Dan |date=March 17, 2017 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> However, during the review period, the fourteen [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican party]] [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. House]] representatives from California sent a letter to Secretary Chao, urging her to deny funding due to the project's ties with high-speed rail, which they opposed.<ref name=SFC-170206>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/With-Trump-in-charge-Republicans-target-Caltrain-10907794.php |title=With Trump in charge, Republicans target Caltrain |author=Matier, Phil |author2=Ross, Andrew |date=February 6, 2017 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=April 4, 2017}}{{subscription required}}</ref> The letter went on to call the project "an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars".<ref name=RepublicanLetter>{{cite letter |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2017_01_24-ca-delegation-letter-to-secretary-chao-on-high-speed-rail-1.pdf |author1=Denham, Jeff |author2=McCarthy, Kevin |author3=Walters, Mimi |author4=Lamalfa, Doug |author5=Royce, Ed |author6=McClintock, Tom |author7=Hunter, Duncan |author8=Rohrabacher, Dana |author9=Issa, Darrell |author10=Cook, Paul |author11=Valadao, David G. |author12=Calvert, Ken |author13=Knight, Steve |author14=Nunes, Devin |date=January 24, 2017 |recipient=The Honorable [[Elaine Chao]], Secretary of Transportation |subject=CA Republican Delegation HSR Letter to Secretary Chao |access-date=March 28, 2017}}</ref>
The ''[[Sacramento Bee]]'' pointed out that despite regularly soliciting campaign funds from Silicon Valley business leaders, Representative and House Majority Leader [[Kevin McCarthy]], the author of the Republican letter to Secretary Chao, was targeting a project that benefited the region directly.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/dan-morain/article134903629.html |title=Kevin McCarthy displays his clout, for good and ill |author=Morain, Dan |date=February 24, 2017 |newspaper=[[Sacramento Bee]] |access-date=March 28, 2017}}</ref> Another Republican signatory, Representative [[Devin Nunes]], was unmoved by arguments on infrastructure benefits, saying in late February that he would not "feel too bad about one of the richest places on the planet not having a train."<ref>{{cite web |url=
The 39-member House and Senate [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] congressional delegation from California wrote a rebuttal letter to Secretary Chao on February 3, noting "a material misstatement of fact" in the Republican delegation's letter, which stated that the grant was being sought by the CHSRA, while in reality it is being sought by Caltrain. The rebuttal letter further delineated the separation between the electrification project and CHSRA and urged Secretary Chao to approve the grant by citing past precedent that only one low-rated project failed to receive a signature from the Secretary of Transportation over the prior twenty-year history of the Core Capacity program.<ref name=DemocraticLetter>{{cite letter |url=http://cal.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2017/02/CA-Delegation-letter-to-Secretary-Chao-re-Caltrain-2.3.17.pdf |author1=Eshoo, Anna |author2=Lofgren, Zoe |author3=Feinstein, Dianne |author4=Harris, Kamala |author5=Bass, Karen |author6=Bera, Ami |author7=Correa, Luis |author8=Brownley, Julia |author9=Chu, Judy |author10=Aguilar, Pete |author11=Lee, Barbara |author12=Davis, Susan |author13=Peters, Scott |author14=Torres, Norma |author15=Thompson, Mike |author16=DeSaulnier, Mark |author17=Lieu, Ted |author18=Takano, Mark |author19=Swalwell, Eric |author20=Costa, Jim |author21=Speier, Jackie |author22=Panetta, Jimmy |author23=Khanna, Ro |author24=Roybal-Allard, Lucille |author25=Carbajal, Salud O. |author26=Barragán, Nanette Diaz |author27=Huffman, Jared |author28=Lowenthal, Alan |author29=Cárdenas, Tony |author30=Matsui, Doris O. |author31=Sánchez, Linda T. |author32=Waters, Maxine |author33=McNerney, Jerry |author34=Napolitano, Grace F. |author35=Garamendi, John |author36=Sherman, Brad |author37=Ruiz, Raul |author38=Vargas, Juan |author39=Schiff, Adam B. |date=February 3, 2017 |recipient=The Honorable [[Elaine Chao]], Secretary of Transportation |subject=CA Democratic Delegation Letter to Secretary Chao |access-date=March 28, 2017}}</ref> The Democratic letter went on to note the infrastructure benefits of the project and the creation of 9,600 jobs, including 550 jobs at a new Stadler USA plant in Salt Lake City.<ref name=SMDJ-170208>{{cite news |url=http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/dems-fight-for-electrification-congressional-debate-centers-on-funding-for/article_85cd9996-3d01-593f-bab0-3daadc2d2cd8.html |title=Dems fight for electrification: congressional debate centers on funding for Caltrain modernization |author=Weigel, Samantha |date=February 8, 2017 |newspaper=San Mateo Daily Journal |access-date=April 1, 2017}}</ref>
Line 86 ⟶ 88:
In the end, Secretary Chao heeded the Republican letter's arguments, and deferred the grant in a letter written by FTA Executive Director Matthew Welbes to Caltrain which stated the FTA needed "additional time to complete review of this significant commitment of Federal resources".<ref name=SMDJ-170218>{{cite news |url=http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/electrification-funds-in-peril-federal-transit-administration-delays-million-caltrain/article_16d7f9d6-7ea3-52b7-992d-cf3528c708fe.html |title=Electrification funds in peril: Federal Transit Administration delays $647 million Caltrain decision |author=Weigel, Samantha |date=February 18, 2017 |newspaper=[[San Mateo Daily Journal]] |access-date=April 4, 2017}}</ref><ref name=SFC-170217>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Trump-administration-deals-a-big-setback-to-10941880.php |title=Trump administration deals a big setback to Caltrain |author1=Matier, Phil |author2=Ross, Andrew |date=February 17, 2017 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> Caltrain had expected Secretary Chao to approve the grant and sign the grant agreement by March 1, which is normally a ''[[pro forma]]'' step performed after the thirty-day comment period for a highly rated project, and had already awarded construction contracts.<ref name="contractextension"/><ref name="SV">{{cite news|url=http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/03/24/trump-chao-get-an-earful-on-caltrain-funds/|title=Trump, Chao get an earful on Caltrain funds from Silicon Valley leaders|newspaper=[[East Bay Times]]|author=Richards, Gary|date=March 24, 2017|access-date=March 29, 2017}}</ref> [[Balfour Beatty Construction]] and [[Stadler Rail]] had already begun preparations to upgrade the existing tracks and build electrical trainsets, respectively. Caltrain negotiated an emergency four-month contract extension at a potential cost of $20 million.<ref name="contractextension"/><ref name=SFC-170227>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Caltrain-acts-to-keep-electrification-plan-alive-10964012.php |title=Caltrain acts to keep electrification plan alive |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=February 27, 2017 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> Under the preliminary budget proposal released in mid-March 2017, the [[United States Department of Transportation]]'s Capital Investment Grant Program would be eliminated, although approved projects would continue to be funded.<ref name=SFC-170317 /> Since Secretary Chao had withheld grant approval for the electrification project, its future fell into doubt.<ref name=SFC-170317 />
In response to the grant deferral, various local officials traveled to [[Washington, D.C.]], to lobby federal officials to release the money. Editorials in local and national newspapers urged approval of the grant, including the ''[[Sacramento Bee]]'', which called the deferral "a petty attack",<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article140446843.html |title=House Republicans launch a petty attack on a smart rail project |author=Editorial Board |date=March 24, 2017 |newspaper=[[Sacramento Bee]] |access-date=March 28, 2017}}</ref> the ''[[East Bay Times]]'', a noted CHSRA detractor,<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/02/24/editorial-feds-should-electrify-caltrain-kill-bullet-train/ |title=Editorial: Feds should electrify Caltrain, kill bullet train |author=Editorial Board |date=February 24, 2017 |newspaper=[[East Bay Times]] |access-date=March 28, 2017}}</ref> and ''[[The New York Times]]'', which called the delay "counter to Mr. Trump's campaign promises of increased infrastructure spending."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/a-silicon-valley-train-gets-stuck.html |url-access=subscription |title=A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck |author=Editorial Board |date=March 13, 2017 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=April 5, 2017}}</ref> Henry Grabar noted the grant deferral could be "an early test of a simmering fear that the state's outspoken political opposition to the Trump administration might come with a price".<ref name=Slate-Grabar>{{cite web |url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/02/16/will_elaine_chao_axe_federal_funding_for_caltrain.html |title=If Elaine Chao Axes This Bay Area Rail Funding, We'll Know She's Politicizing Transportation |author=Grabar, Henry |date=February 16, 2017 |work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]: Moneybox (blog) |access-date=March 28, 2017}}</ref> San Jose Mayor [[Sam Liccardo]] met with Department of Transportation officials, urging them to upgrade a system that "was built under the presidency of [[Abraham Lincoln]]". Additionally, more than 120 Silicon Valley business leaders sent a letter to Secretary Chao, asking her to explain "the last-minute attempt to derail two decades of work".<ref name="SV"/> In early March, California Governor [[Jerry Brown]] sent a letter to Secretary Chao, asking to discuss the funding grant,<ref name=EBT-170303>{{cite news |url=http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/03/03/call-me-jerry-brown-urges-trump-administration-to-fund-caltrain-project/ |url-access=subscription |title=Call me? Jerry Brown urges Trump administration to fund Caltrain project |author=Murphy, Katy |date=March 3, 2017 |newspaper=[[East Bay Times]] |access-date=March 28, 2017}}</ref> and subsequently met with Secretary Chao and Representative McCarthy, urging them to reconsider the funding deferral, saying afterward that he was "cautiously optimistic" that the money would be released.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article139943463.html |first1=Christopher |last1=Cadelago |title=Jerry Brown meets with Republicans, 'cautiously optimistic' about Caltrain approval|newspaper=[[Sacramento Bee]]|date=March 21, 2017|access-date=March 29, 2017}}</ref>
On April 30, legislators in the U.S. Congress released the proposed 2017 federal budget, which included partial funding for the electrification project, but restricts its distribution unless Secretary Chao signs off on the grant.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules.house.gov/files/115/OMNI/DIVISION%20K%20-%20THUD%20SOM%20OCR%20FY17.pdf|title=Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017 |publisher=U.S. House of Representatives|access-date=May 2, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170502011347/https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules.house.gov/files/115/OMNI/DIVISION%20K%20-%20THUD%20SOM%20OCR%20FY17.pdf|archive-date=May 2, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref> The proposed budget includes $100 million of the $647 million grant, with the balance expected in future years. Secretary Chao claimed she could not sign the grant without the full grant being budgeted, which was disputed by Caltrain and both California Senators [[Dianne Feinstein]] and [[Kamala Harris]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/17/elaine-chao-caltrain-grant-hearing/ |title=Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao says she can't approve Caltrain electrification grant yet |author=Tolan, Casey |date=May 17, 2017 |newspaper=San Jose Mercury News |access-date=May 19, 2017}}</ref> On May 22, the FTA announced its intent to sign the funding grant, restoring the final piece of funding for the electrification project.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfexaminer.com/feds-flip-will-approve-funding-caltrain-electrification/ |title=Feds flip, will approve funding for Caltrain electrification |author=Rodriguez, Joe Fitzgerald |date=May 22, 2017 |newspaper=San Francisco Examiner |access-date=May 22, 2017 |archive-date=May 23, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170523152650/http://www.sfexaminer.com/feds-flip-will-approve-funding-caltrain-electrification/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> The official grant was finally signed on May 23.<ref>{{cite news|title=It's officially done. Caltrain's GM, Jim Hartnett, signed the FFGA @USDOT this morning.|url=https://twitter.com/Caltrain/status/867083183820611584|access-date=May 28, 2017|work=Official Caltrain [[Twitter]] Account|date=May 23, 2017}}</ref>
Line 180 ⟶ 182:
=== Inaugural service ===
On August 10, 2024, Caltrain concluded its tests of the Stadler KISS on the line with a non-revenue special run from 4th and King to Diridon Station and back.<ref name="First Pax 2024">{{cite web | title=Caltrain Welcomes First Passengers on New Electric Trains | website=Caltrain | date=August 10, 2024 | url=https://www.caltrain.com/news/caltrain-welcomes-first-passengers-new-electric-trains | access-date=August 11, 2024}}</ref> Caltrain Board Chair Dev Davis, Governor [[Gavin Newsom]], [[Federal Railroad Administration]] chair [[Amit Bose (government official)|Amit Bose]], U.S. Senator [[Alex Padilla]], U.S.
==Funding==
Line 190 ⟶ 192:
{{quote box|width=30.0em|align=right|quote=Modernizing Caltrain is a priority because we need an improved rail system that will help reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and serve our growing ridership. Not only will the electrification project reduce diesel emissions in this corridor by 96 percent by 2040, but it will also allow Caltrain to provide additional service to more stations, increasing ridership and providing faster service in Silicon Valley from San Francisco to San Jose.|author= —Jim Hartnett, Caltrain Executive Director<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/12186524/caltrain-modernization-program-to-electrify-bay-areas-silicon-valley-rail-corridor|title=Modernization: Electrifying the Bay Area's Silicon Valley Rail Corridor|publisher=Mass Transit Magazine|date=21 April 2016|author=Tasha Bartholomew|access-date=29 March 2017}}</ref>}}
The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) electrified the entire {{convert|51|mi|adj=on}} right-of-way owned by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB), which extends from the San Francisco terminus at [[San Francisco 4th and King Street
The second part of the CalMod project is a positive train control system, "CBOSS" (Communications Based Overlay Signal System), which is designed to meet federal safety requirements and as a condition set by the FRA to allow mixed traffic on the corridor. Key decisions in the development of CalMod can be traced back to the 1992 ''Feasibility Study'', which recommended 25 kV AC [[overhead line]]s;<ref name="Morrison Knudsen Corp. 1992 8"/> the 1998 ''Rapid Rail Study'', which recommended low-cost upgrades to first improve service and build demand;<ref name="Caltrain 1998 16"/> the 2006 ''Caltrain 2025'' proposal, which proposed the use of lightweight electric multiple units;<ref name=Project2025>{{cite report |url=http://www.caltrain.org/pdf/project2025/Project2025_REPORT_113006.pdf |title=Project 2025 |date=November 30, 2006 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=March 29, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071026221620/http://www.caltrain.org/pdf/project2025/Project2025_REPORT_113006.pdf |archive-date=October 26, 2007 |url-status=dead|pages=20–21}}</ref> the 2009 FRA waiver, which imposed certain conditions on mixed traffic;<ref>{{harvnb|Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board|2009|p=8}}</ref> and the 2012 memorandum of understanding with CHSRA, which resulted in a "blended" system to use the existing twin-track line as much as possible.<ref>{{harvnb|Caltrain|2012|pp=5–6}}</ref> The 2012 ''Blended Operations'' report concluded a new {{convert|8|mi|adj=on}} quad-track overtake section would allow Caltrain and CHSRA to coexist on the Peninsula Corridor with up to ten trains per peak hour: six Caltrain and four high-speed rail trains.<ref>{{harvnb|LTK Engineering|2012|pp=34–38}}</ref> Peak load on the system assuming twelve eight-EMU consists in each direction per hour was estimated to be approximately 75 MW, with the load generally remaining under 40-50 MW at any point.<ref>{{cite magazine |doi=10.1109/MVT.2009.932544 |author=Kneschke, Tristan A. |date=June 2009 |magazine=IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine |volume=4 |issue=2 |issn=1556-6072 |pages=44–52 |title=Caltrain electrification}} [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224468863_Caltrain_electrification alternate ResearchGate link with PDF]</ref>
Line 204 ⟶ 206:
|scalemark=20
|shape1=n-square
|shape-color1=#
|shape-outline1=#000
|mark-size1=20
Line 228 ⟶ 230:
|mark-title10=PS7 ({{cals|Tamien}}, MP 49.7 [Variant C] or MP 49.8 [Variant D])
|fullscreen-option=1
|caption=Proposed electrical station locations for PCEP<br />(closest train stop and milepost distance from {{cals|San Francisco}})<ref name=DEIR-14-ch2>{{cite report |chapter-url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/DEIR/Chapter+2+Project+Description.pdf |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project EIR |chapter=2: Project Description |author=ICF International |date=February 2014 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=14 June 2018 }}{{Dead link|date=September 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref name=PCEP-re-eval>{{cite report |url=https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/PCEP_Re-Eval_Full_020416.pdf |title=Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Environmental Re-Evaluation for Proposed Project Changes After Finding of No Significant Impact (December 2009); Changed Traction Power Facility Locations, Overhead Contact System and Electrical Safety Zone Alignments, and Right of Way Acquisition |author1=ICF International |author2=Walter, Rich |date=February 2016 |publisher=Federal Transit Administration |access-date=14 June 2018}}</ref> <small>{{flatlist|
* {{color box|#
* {{color box|#808|Traction Power Substation|#fff|border=silver}}
* {{color box|#08a|Switching Station|#fff|border=silver}}}}</small>
|auto-caption=1
}}
Power is supplied to the trains through an [[overhead line|overhead contact system]] (OCS), consisting of a messenger wire, which assumes a
The [[25 kV AC railway electrification#2 x 25 kV autotransformer system|2×25 kV autotransformer electrification system]] includes a third energized parallel negative feeder wire which helps control [[electromagnetic field]] propagation.<ref name=DEIR-14-ch2 /><ref name=HSR-Sibal>{{cite report |url=http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/eir_memos/Proj_Guidelines_TM3_1_1_1R02.pdf |title=Technical Memorandum: Traction Power 2x25 kV Autotransformer Feed Type Electrification System & System Voltages, TM 3.1.1.1 |date=April 2010 |author=Sibal, Vinod |publisher=California High-Speed Rail Authority |access-date=14 June 2018}}</ref> The feeder wire is electrified at the same voltage and frequency, but is shifted 180° out of phase so the voltage difference between the contact wire and the feeder wire is always 50kV.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M169/K717/169717211.docx |title=Resolution SED-2 adopting safety requirements governing the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of the 25 kV AC (Alternating Current) railroad electrification system of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) on the San Francisco Peninsula Rail Corridor |date=10 November 2016 |publisher={{DOClink}} Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Electric Safety and Reliability Branch, Safety and Enforcement Division |access-date=14 June 2018}}</ref> The choice of a 2×25 kV autotransformer system means more traction power facilities are required in total, but also requires fewer traction power substations.<ref name=HSR-Sibal />
Line 262 ⟶ 264:
===Specific modifications===
The Santa Clara Drill track, an existing maintenance track approximately {{convert|1.5|mi}} long from CEMOF to Santa Clara station, was converted to an electrified test track.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://calmod.org/wp-content/uploads/Caltrain_Construction_NSJ-FACT_15Mar_Final.pdf |title=San Jose Traction Power Substation and Test Track Fact Sheet |date=March 2018 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=5 June 2019 |archive-date=June 5, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190605164443/https://calmod.org/wp-content/uploads/Caltrain_Construction_NSJ-FACT_15Mar_Final.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> Testing is anticipated to take place during the daytime between late 2019 and spring 2022.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://calmod.org/wp-content/uploads/PCEP_Community_Presentation_UNSCC_1.8.19_Final.pdf#page=32 |title=Caltrain Electrification Update: Presentation to the United Neighborhoods of Santa Clara County |date=January 9, 2019 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=5 June 2019 |archive-date=October 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211009191526/https://calmod.org/wp-content/uploads/PCEP_Community_Presentation_UNSCC_1.8.19_Final.pdf#page=32 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The rehabilitation of Santa Clara Drill track began in February 2018.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://calmod.org/wp-content/uploads/Caltrain-Test-Track-Postcard.pdf |title=Caltrain Test Track postcard |date=January 2018 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=5 June 2019 |archive-date=June 5, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190605164442/https://calmod.org/wp-content/uploads/Caltrain-Test-Track-Postcard.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> In April 2019, the anticipated completion date for the test track was in May 2020
The four tunnels originally constructed for the Bayshore Cutoff were modified to accommodate overhead wires.<ref name=PCEP-Q4-15 /> The tunnel lining was notched at the crown to allow clearance under the wire for freight trains, which mainly removes [[shotcrete]] placed in 2004, but some of the historical brick lining was removed as part of the tunnel modification work. In addition, up to {{convert|21|in}} of the decorative stone portal was removed. In the FEIR, PCJPB noted they may exercise the option to lower tracks to minimize tunnel notching.<ref>{{cite report |chapter-url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/FEIR/3.4+Cultural.pdf |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, Final Environmental Impact Report |date=December 2014 |chapter=3.4: Cultural Resources |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=13 August 2018 |archive-date=May 14, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200514054241/http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain%20Modernization%20Program/FEIR/3.4%20Cultural.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>{{rp|3.4-19 to -21}} The tunnel notching work was performed during weekends, so service between Bayshore and 4th and King was replaced by buses starting on October 6, 2018, with a planned "late Spring 2019" resumption.<ref name=PCEP-Q4-15>{{cite web |url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Directors/Presentations/2018/2018-08-02+PCEP+Quarter+report.pdf |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, Q4 Quarterly Update #15 (April 1 – June 30, 2018) |date=2 August 2018 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=10 August 2018 |archive-date=August 1, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180801164108/http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Directors/Presentations/2018/2018-08-02+PCEP+Quarter+report.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.caltrain.com/riderinfo/newsletterandnotices/Weekend_SF_Caltrain_Closure_Oct__6__2018___Late_Spring_2019.html |title=Weekend SF Caltrain Closure Oct. 6, 2018 – Late Spring 2019 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=25 September 2018 |archive-date=September 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180925180736/http://www.caltrain.com/riderinfo/newsletterandnotices/Weekend_SF_Caltrain_Closure_Oct__6__2018___Late_Spring_2019.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>
[[Caltrain Centralized Equipment Maintenance and Operations Facility|CEMOF]] was modified to accommodate the new EMUs. An existing inspection pit was extended by {{convert|330|ft}}, allowing work over the entire length of a seven-car EMU train. In addition, a rolling maintenance platform was added to the building to allow work on the top of the train cars, and a permanent tent was erected for parts storage.<ref>{{cite report |url=https://calmod.org/wp-content/uploads/Caltrain.CEMOF-Modifications-Project.San-Jose.7.24.19.FINAL_.pdf#page=27 |title=Caltrain CEMOF Modifications/Electrification Update |date=July 24, 2019 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=29 March 2021 |archive-date=October 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211009191526/https://calmod.org/wp-content/uploads/Caltrain.CEMOF-Modifications-Project.San-Jose.7.24.19.FINAL_.pdf#page=27 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://calmod.org/construction/cemof-modifications/ |title=Caltrain CEMOF Modifications |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=29 March 2021 |archive-date=April 10, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210410220936/https://calmod.org/construction/cemof-modifications/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>
===FRA waiver and I-ETMS PTC===
[[File:Stadler KISS of CFL in Trier in July 2014.jpg|thumb|right|Under U.S. federal regulations, light-weight trainsets such as this [[Stadler KISS]] belonging to [[Luxembourg]]'s [[Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Luxembourgeois|CFL]] are not allowed to share rail lines with heavy freight trains.|alt=An image of a Stadler "KISS" electric train.]]
As a result of the blended plan, PCJPB mandated that Peninsula Corridor infrastructure and equipment should be compatible with future [[California High-Speed Rail|California High-Speed Rail Authority]] (CHSRA) trains.<ref name=ProgRail>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article/At-Caltrain-running-electric-multiple-units-is-a-key-component-of-the-agencys-long-term-growth-plans--32040 |title=At Caltrain, running electric multiple units is a key component of the agency's long-term growth plans |author=Cotey, Angela |date=July 2007 |magazine=Progressive Railroading |access-date=March 28, 2017}}</ref> CHSRA had proposed that mandated speeds and transit times could be met by using lighter-weight vehicles that did not comply with Federal requirements.<ref name=ProgRail /> These required physical separation between FRA "compliant" and "non-compliant" rail vehicles<ref>{{CodeFedReg |49|211}}, [https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d7639aa51ad5d25def7e153058af5551&mc=true&node=pt49.4.211&rgn=div5#ap49.4.211_177.a Appendix A to Part 211]. Issued {{USFR|65|42546}} and amended {{USFR|74|25172}}</ref> and structural strength.<ref>{{CodeFedReg |49|238|subpart=C}}</ref> Caltrain saw this as an opportunity to apply for an FRA waiver to run lighter-weight EMUs, which could accelerate faster and provide headways as low as five minutes.<ref name="Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 2009 4">{{harvnb|Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board|2009|p=4}}</ref> The December 2009 FRA waiver application detailed Caltrain's plans to prevent collisions: first, reduce the probability of collisions to nearly zero by employing temporal and spatial separation from freight rail and restricting freight traffic to the non-revenue hours, then mitigate the impact of a collision by deploying vehicles with crash energy management (CEM) structures, and then deployment of an enhanced [[positive train control]] system, designed to check for speeding trains and protect rail workers.<ref>{{harvnb|Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board|2009|pp=3, 5, 14, 48}}</ref>
Positive train control became a Federal mandate with the passing of the [[Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008]].<ref name="Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 2009 4"/> After review, the FRA waiver was granted in May 2010, marking the first time lighter-weight EMUs were allowed to share rails with freight in the United States.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/05/27/electric-train-plan-granted-key-waiver/ |title=Electric train plan granted key waiver |author=Rosenberg, Mike |date=May 27, 2010 |newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]] |access-date=March 30, 2017}}</ref> The grant was conditioned on meeting nine additional requirements, including demonstrating minimum [[crashworthiness]], seating, improving grade crossing, meeting FRA positive train control standards in [[Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations]], part 236<ref>{{CodeFedReg |49|236|subpart=I}}</ref> with CBOSS, formalizing the temporal separation plan, and issuing a safety system program.<ref>{{cite letter |url=https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=FRA-2009-0124-0014&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf |last=Cothen Jr. |first=Grady C. |recipient=Michael Scanlon |subject=Docket Number FRA-2009-0124 |date=May 27, 2010 |access-date=March 30, 2017}}</ref>▼
Originally, Caltrain employed [[Parsons Brinkerhoff|Parsons Transportation]] to develop a custom PTC system, called CBOSS, for CalMod, but due to delays, Caltrain switched to [[Wabtec]] and their I-ETMS system. Caltrain announced the Federal Railroad Administration had certified its PTC implementation in December 2020.<ref>{{cite press release |url=https://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Positive_Train_Control_Project_Certified_by_FRA.html |title=Caltrain Positive Train Control Project Certified by FRA |date=January 11, 2021 |publisher=Peninsular Corridor Joint Powers Authority |access-date=22 February 2021}}</ref>
▲Positive train control became a Federal mandate with the passing of the [[Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008]].<ref name="Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 2009 4"/> After review, the FRA waiver was granted in May 2010, marking the first time lighter-weight EMUs were allowed to share rails with freight in the United States.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/05/27/electric-train-plan-granted-key-waiver/ |title=Electric train plan granted key waiver |author=Rosenberg, Mike |date=May 27, 2010 |newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]] |access-date=March 30, 2017}}</ref> The grant was conditioned on meeting nine additional requirements, including demonstrating minimum [[crashworthiness]], seating, improving grade crossing, meeting FRA positive train control standards in [[Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations]], part 236<ref>{{CodeFedReg |49|236|subpart=I}}</ref> with CBOSS, formalizing the temporal separation plan, and issuing a safety system program.<ref>{{cite letter |url=https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=FRA-2009-0124-0014&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf |last=Cothen Jr. |first=Grady C. |recipient=Michael Scanlon |subject=Docket Number FRA-2009-0124 |date=May 27, 2010 |access-date=March 30, 2017}}</ref>
===Environmental effects===
Replacing the diesel locomotives with electric multiple units is expected to reduce air pollution and noise.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Swan|first=Rachel|date=2017-11-27|title=Some Mission Bay neighbors fuming over Caltrain's diesel dust|url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Some-Mission-Bay-neighbors-fuming-over-12383764.php|access-date=2022-02-04|website=San Francisco Chronicle|language=en-US}}</ref> The reduced air pollution would improve the health of [[El Palo Alto]], a coastal redwood tree
▲Replacing the diesel locomotives with electric multiple units is expected to reduce air pollution and noise.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Swan|first=Rachel|date=2017-11-27|title=Some Mission Bay neighbors fuming over Caltrain's diesel dust|url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Some-Mission-Bay-neighbors-fuming-over-12383764.php|access-date=2022-02-04|website=San Francisco Chronicle|language=en-US}}</ref> The reduced air pollution would improve the health of [[El Palo Alto]], a coastal redwood tree that stands about {{convert|25|ft}} away from the Caltrain tracks and lends its name to [[Palo Alto, California|Palo Alto]]. Coal soot and [[diesel exhaust]] is presumed to have killed parts of the tree's crown since the 19th century.<ref>{{cite news|title=The Unlikely Survival of the 1,081-Year-Old Tree That Gave Palo Alto Its Name|first=Jim|last=Robbins|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=June 26, 2021|access-date=June 26, 2021|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/26/us/palo-alto-redwood.html}}</ref>
===Rolling stock===
Line 319:
| {{convert|6700|hp|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|5000|kW|hp|disp=br()|order=flip|abbr=on}}{{efn|Continuous rated power. Maximum power is {{convert|6400|kW|hp|order=flip|abbr=on}}.}}
| {{convert|0|–|2000|hp|disp=br()|abbr=on}}{{efn|name=Power|Only
| {{convert|
|-
! Starting<br />[[Tractive effort#Rail vehicles|tractive effort]]
Line 328:
| {{convert|72000|lbf|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
| N/A{{efn|name=Power}}
| {{convert|
|-
! References
Line 335:
|<ref>{{cite report |url=http://sonic.net/~mly/Caltrain-Electrification/2000-08-Rolling-Stock-Draft/4.pdf|title=Assessment of Electrically Powered Rolling Stock Equipment |section=Section 4: Electric Rolling Stock Equipment Power|page=7|author1=Raul V. Bravo and Associates |author2=Parsons Transportation Group |date=August 2000 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=May 23, 2017}}</ref>
|<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/sitecollectiondocuments/en/rail-solutions/locomotives/customspecific-solutions/amtrak-acs64-en.pdf |title=Amtrak Cities Sprinter ACS-64 Electric Locomotive |publisher=Siemens Mobility |access-date=18 January 2019 |archive-date=January 19, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190119121213/https://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/global/SiteCollectionDocuments/en/rail-solutions/locomotives/customspecific-solutions/amtrak-acs64-en.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>
| colspan=2 |<ref name=StadlerData>{{cite web|title=KISS Double-Decker Electric Multiple Unit EMU for Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (CALTRAIN), California, USA|url=https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/kcal0716us.pdf |access-date=October 16, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161006171237/https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e96f7.s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/filer_public/21/81/21816a39-9448-4b8a-8f2f-3811c6ee8006/kcal0716us.pdf |archive-date=October 6, 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=Stadler7>{{cite web |url=https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/kcal0220e_us.pdf |title=KISS Double-Decker Electric Multiple Unit EMU for Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (CALTRAIN), California, USA [7-EMU consist] |publisher=Stadler Rail Group |access-date=March 29, 2021}}</ref><ref name=Stadler2023>{{cite web |url=https://stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/kcal0823e_us.pdf |title=KISS double-decker electric multiple unit EMU for Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (CALTRAIN), California, USA [7-EMU consist] |publisher=Stadler Rail Group |date=August 2023 |access-date=October 17, 2024}}</ref>
|}
Line 346:
[[File:Caltrain EMU interior upper deck.jpg|thumb|The interior of the upper deck of a Caltrain Stadler KISS.]]
}}
The Stadler KISS double-decker EMU that Caltrain ordered
Because the existing Caltrain platforms are at a different [[railway platform height|height]] compared to proposed high-speed rail vehicles, the EMU trains will be equipped with doors at two heights, at {{convert|22|in|adj=on}} and {{convert|50.5|in|adj=on}} above-top-of-rail, allowing Caltrain to eventually transition from the existing {{convert|8|in|adj=on}} low platforms to CHSRA-compatible high platforms, enabling unassisted boarding of all passengers as specified by the [[Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990]].<ref name=StadlerData />
Line 375:
|}
In January 2018, PCJPB applied for $631.5 million in state funds for the Electrification Expansion Project (EEP), part of which would be used to exercise the option to purchase an additional 96 EMUs at a cost of $600M. The existing funding for PCEP includes the purchase of 96 EMUs, which would displace 75% of the current diesel-hauled passenger trains from the Peninsula Corridor. The additional funds requested for EEP would bring the electric fleet to 192 EMUs, enabling Caltrain to displace all diesel passenger locomotives between San Francisco and Tamien with a fleet of 24 8-EMU consists. $11.5M of the request would be used for station improvements: $8M to expand certain platforms to accommodate 8-EMU trains and $3.5M to increase secure bicycle storage. An additional $14M would be used to implement on-board WiFi for passengers. The remaining $6M would be used to support planning and policies along the Peninsula Corridor.<ref name=2018-TIRCP>{{cite web |url=http://www.tillier.net/stuff/caltrain/Caltrain_TIRCP_Application_Jan_2018.pdf |title=2018 Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program Application for Peninsula Corridor Electrification Expansion |date=12 January 2018 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=31 January 2018}}</ref> The
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible collapsed floatright" style="width:20em; text-align:right; font-size:80%;"
Line 414:
The first seven-car trainset was moved to Stadler's onsite test track in Salt Lake City for static testing in May 2020;<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.railwayage.com/news/caltrain-emu-under-way-to-ttci/ |title=Caltrain EMU Arrives at TTCI (Updated) |date=February 25, 2021 |work=Railway Age |author=Vantuono, William C. |access-date=28 March 2021}}</ref> it was completed in July 2020<ref name=MT-2020>{{cite news |url=https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/vehicles/press-release/21147913/caltrain-caltrains-first-complete-electric-multiple-unit-trainset-assembled |title=Caltrain's first complete electric multiple unit trainset assembled |date=July 28, 2020 |work=Mass Transit |access-date=4 May 2022}}</ref> and began low-speed initial type testing in November 2020.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/first-electric-calmod-trainset-on-track/ |title=First CalMod EMU on Test Track |date=May 28, 2020 |work=Railway Age |author=Corselli, Andrew |access-date=28 March 2021}}</ref> It was shipped to the [[Transportation Technology Center]] in [[Pueblo, Colorado]] for dynamic type testing in February 2021,<ref>{{cite report |chapter-url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/19871/download?inline#page=27 |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Monthly Progress Report |date=February 2021 |page=4-1 |chapter=4.1: Electric Multiple Units |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022}}</ref> and arrived in March 2021.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/first-caltrain-emu-to-undergo-test-running-at-ttc-pueblo/ |title=First Caltrain EMU to undergo test running at TTC Pueblo |author=Cuenca, Oliver |date=March 2, 2021 |work=International Railway Journal |access-date=4 May 2022}}</ref> At the same time, one car was sent to [[Elmira, New York]] for environmental testing.<ref name=PCEP-Progress-2107/>{{rp|2–6}}<ref name=MT-2020/> New trains are scheduled to be delivered through 2024; the first tests of the new electric trainsets in California were scheduled for Spring 2022.<ref name=Seg4-Update-Nov-2021/>{{rp|18}}
In late March 2022, Caltrain received its first Stadler EMU trainsets at CEMOF.<ref>{{cite tweet |user=CVmakhijani |author=cv 🌁 |title=New Caltrain EMUs arrived last night! |number=1505750797388173316}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://sf.streetsblog.org/2022/03/23/first-caltrain-electrics-arrive/ |title=First Caltrain Electrics Arrive |author=Rudick, Roger |date=March 23, 2022 |publisher=Streetsblog SF |access-date=4 May 2022}}</ref> Two trainsets were displayed at the 4th and King station during a ceremony attended by politicians on September 24, 2022.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/vehicles/article/21281917/public-gets-first-glimpse-at-caltrains-new-electric-trainsets |title=Public gets first glimpse at Caltrain's new electric trainsets |author=Wanek-Libman, Mischa |date=September 26, 2022 |work=Mass Transit |access-date=3 October 2022}}</ref> In August 2023, Caltrain exercised an option
====EMD AEM-7AC====
Line 428:
{{refbegin}}
*{{cite report |url=http://bayrailalliance.org/files/library/Caltrain_RRP_draft.pdf |title=Draft Caltrain Rapid Rail Study |author1=Caltrain |author2=STV Incorporated |date=October 1, 1998 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |ref={{harvid|Caltrain|1998}} }}
*{{cite report|url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/Bay+Area+HSR+Early+Investment+MOU-+JPB+Board+Resolution+2012.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130119014325/http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/Bay+Area+HSR+Early+Investment+MOU-+JPB+Board+Resolution+2012.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 19, 2013|title=Authorizing Approval of the High-Speed Rail Early Investment Strategy for a Blended System, Memorandum of Understanding|publisher=Caltrain|date=May 3, 2012|ref={{harvid|Caltrain|2012}}}}
*{{cite report|url=http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject/PCEP_FEIR_2014.html|title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)|publisher=Caltrain|date=January 2015|ref={{harvid|Caltrain|2015}}|access-date=April 4, 2017|archive-date=May 7, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160507055222/http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject/PCEP_FEIR_2014.html|url-status=dead}}
*{{cite report |url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/Final-Caltrain-California+HSR+Blended+Operations+Analysis.pdf |title=Caltrain/California HSR Blended Operations Analysis |author=LTK Engineering Services |date=March 2012 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |ref={{harvid|LTK Engineering|2012}} |access-date=April 6, 2017 |archive-date=November 6, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141106225751/http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/Final-Caltrain-California+HSR+Blended+Operations+Analysis.pdf |url-status=dead }}
*{{cite report |url=http://bayrailalliance.org/files/library/Caltrans_feasibility_study_of_electrification.pdf |title=Feasibility Study for Electrifying the Caltrain/PCS Railroad |author=Morrison Knudsen Corporation |publisher=[[California Department of Transportation]] |date=October 1992 |ref={{harvid|Morrison Knudsen Corp.|1992}} }}
*{{cite report|url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/FRA+Waiver+2009/Caltrain+Mixed+Traffic+Request.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140701185415/http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/FRA+Waiver+2009/Caltrain+Mixed+Traffic+Request.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=July 1, 2014|title=Petition of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board/Caltrain for Approval of Mixed-Use and Waiver of Certain FRA Regulations|publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board|date=December 2009|ref={{harvid|Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board|2009}}}}
{{refend}}
Line 453:
[[Category:25 kV AC railway electrification]]
[[Category:Electric railways in California]]
[[Category:Railway electrification in the United States]]
| |||