Content deleted Content added
move from sandbox |
m →Inaugural service: spelling |
||
| (452 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Railway electrification project in California, US}}
{{Good article}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=June 2024}}
{{Infobox project
| name = CalMod
| logo = CalMod Logo.svg
| image = Caltrain KISS leaving Millbrae station, August 2024.jpg
| caption = A Caltrain KISS electric trainset in revenue service in August 2024
| mission_statement =
| commercial =
| type =
| products =
| ___location = [[San Francisco Peninsula]], [[California]], U.S.
| country =
| owner = [[Caltrain]]
| founder =
| primeminister =
| key_people =
| established = {{Start date|2017|07|21}} (groundbreaking)
| disestablished = <!-- {{End date|YYYY|MM|DD|df=y}} -->
| funding =
| budget = US$2.44 billion
| current_status = Operational
| website = {{URL|calmod.org}}
}}
The '''Caltrain Modernization Program''' ('''CalMod'''), sometimes referred to as the '''Caltrain Electrification Project''', was a $2.44 billion project which added a [[positive train control]] (PTC) system and [[Railway electrification|electrified the main line]] of the U.S. commuter railroad [[Caltrain]], which serves cities in the [[San Francisco Peninsula]] and [[Silicon Valley]]. The electrification included installation of a 25 kV catenary system over the double-tracked line from San Francisco to San Jose, and acquisition of new rolling stock, consisting of [[Stadler KISS]] double-decker [[electric multiple unit]]s (EMU). Caltrain has transitioned from its legacy push-pull trains hauled by [[diesel-electric locomotive]]s, most of which have been in service since 1985.
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 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 schedule. In May 2017, the [[Federal Transit Administration]] (FTA) announced its intention to sign the grant and reversed Secretary Chao's deferment.
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 train sets in the 2020s.|alt=An image of Caltrain's current diesel locomotive, an EMD F40PH model.]]
Commuter railroad service on the [[San Francisco Peninsula]] was inaugurated in 1863 as the [[San Francisco and San Jose Railroad]] and purchased by [[Southern Pacific Transportation Company|Southern Pacific]] (SP) in 1870. SP announced that it would investigate the electrification of its line in September 1921, promising better and more frequent service.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SU19210907.2.139 |title=Electrifying of S.P. to be investigated |date=September 7, 1921 |newspaper=Sacramento Union |access-date=April 27, 2017 |archive-date=April 28, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170428051758/https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SU19210907.2.139 |url-status=dead }}</ref> However, SP cited excessive post-war inflation, taxation, and competition from publicly funded highways as factors making electrification neither "practicable or desirable".<ref>{{cite news |url=https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SU19210917.2.58 |title=Not Practicable to Electrify Lines Down Peninsula—Sproule |date=September 17, 1921 |newspaper=Sacramento Union |access-date=April 27, 2017 |archive-date=April 28, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170428052636/https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SU19210917.2.58 |url-status=dead }}</ref> In the early 1950s, SP began introducing diesel locomotives on the route.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/Caltrain150/Milestones/Early_Milestones.html|title=Early Milestones|publisher=Caltrain|access-date=March 29, 2017}}</ref> By 1977, Southern Pacific were facing rapidly declining ridership and petitioned the state [[California Public Utilities Commission|Public Utilities Commission]] to allow them to discontinue the commuter rail operation. From 1980 until 1992, the [[California Department of Transportation]] (Caltrans) and the three service counties, [[San Francisco]], [[San Mateo County, California|San Mateo]], and [[Santa Clara County, California|Santa Clara]], subsidized Southern Pacific operations on the railway until the local Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) acquired the right-of-way in 1991.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/Caltrain150/Milestones.html|title=Historic Milestones|publisher=Caltrain|access-date=March 29, 2017}}</ref>
===Early electrification proposals===
In 1992, Caltrans released the first feasibility study detailing the possibility of electrifying the railroad between San Francisco and San Jose.<ref>{{harvnb|Morrison Knudsen Corp.|1992|p=1}}</ref> The 1992 ''Feasibility Study'' proposed replacing the existing diesel-electric locomotives with either a fleet of [[EMD AEM-7]] electric locomotives to move the existing gallery passenger cars or [[Metro-North Railroad|Metro North]] [[M2 (railcar)|Budd M-2/M-4]] EMUs.<ref name="Morrison Knudsen Corp. 1992 2">{{harvnb|Morrison Knudsen Corp.|1992|p=2}}</ref> The primary benefits of an electrified railway would be improvements in air quality, noise, and acceleration, but would also save on other ancillary costs, such as lubricating oil, cooling water, maintenance, and refueling.<ref>{{harvnb|Morrison Knudsen Corp.|1992|p=7}}</ref> Because of the relatively close spacing between stops, the improved acceleration using electric locomotives compared to the existing diesel-electric locomotives would cut transit time between San Francisco and San Jose by up to twelve minutes, and using EMUs would cut the time over the same distance by up to 23 minutes, assuming the use of ten-car trainsets.<ref name="Morrison Knudsen Corp. 1992 2"/> The 1992 ''Feasibility Study'' recommended the use of electric locomotives and 25 kV AC overhead lines as the most cost-effective alternative, since the gallery cars, which had been built in 1985, were then relatively new and could be reused.<ref name="Morrison Knudsen Corp. 1992 8">{{harvnb|Morrison Knudsen Corp.|1992|p=8}}</ref>
[[File:SEPTA AEM7.jpg|thumb|right|[[EMD AEM-7]] electric locomotive, part of the equipment proposed in the 1992 ''Feasibility Study'' to electrify Caltrain. This AEM-7 is in revenue service with [[SEPTA]].|alt=An image of an electric locomotive, an AEM-7 model, that was proposed in a 1992 study.]]
Due to funding shortages, the project was postponed for the next two decades. In 1997, Mayor [[Willie Brown (politician)|Willie Brown]] canceled the appropriation for San Francisco's share of costs to extend rail service to downtown, saying Peninsula residents "ought to fund the whole project" since it would mainly benefit their commute. San Francisco instead applied the money to the [[Third Street Light Rail Project]]. [[Mike Nevin]], PCJPB member from San Mateo County noted that while the downtown extension "would have enhanced particularly the electrification of the system", lack of it would not cause Caltrain to collapse.<ref name=SFE-970707>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Backers-Downtown-Caltrain-link-dead-3111189.php |title=Backers: Downtown Caltrain link dead |author=Lewis, Gregory |date=July 7, 1997 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=February 27, 2017}}</ref> Instead, Caltrain studied a list of potential upgrades and went on to publish a draft ''Rapid Rail Study'' on October 1, 1998, which prioritized capital improvements to the physical infrastructure with the overarching goal of expanding rail service.<ref>{{harvnb|Caltrain|1998|pp=4–5}}</ref> At that time, Caltrain was reporting daily ridership of approximately 25,000 passengers, a 40-year high.<ref name=SFE-970707 />
The 1998 ''Rapid Rail Study'' assumed that ridership would increase in direct proportion to improving travel times.<ref>{{harvnb|Caltrain|1998|p=24}}</ref> The study concluded that in order to meet the five goals presented in the ''20-Year Strategic Plan'' of 1997, Caltrain should first rehabilitate and enhance the line, then electrify it.<ref>{{harvnb|Caltrain|1998|pp=11–16}}</ref> By itself, electrification was not projected to significantly improve service, and the high estimated cost of electrification and its lower priority meant electrification would be deferred. Some of the money to accomplish the rehabilitation and enhancement of existing track came from funds that had been intended for the downtown extension. Steve Schmidt, a councilman from [[Menlo Park, California|Menlo Park]], argued that electrification instead should be the top priority to make the rail line more palatable to neighbors, citing improvements in noise and pollution. Other advocates for electrification of Caltrain noted the $1.2 billion [[Bay Area Rapid Transit|BART]] [[History of Bay Area Rapid Transit#San Francisco International Airport extension (1984–2003)|extension]] to [[San Francisco International Airport]] may have revived the decades-old dream of BART around the Bay, which would render an electrified Caltrain redundant.<ref name=SFC-980928>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Caltrain-Wants-Fast-Electric-S-F-San-Jose-Rail-2988377.php |title=Caltrain Wants Fast Electric S.F.-San Jose Rail Link / It must decide whether to do repairs first |author=Pimentel, Benjamin |date=September 28, 1998 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> The electrification of Caltrain was assigned a higher priority than a future expansion of the system, which included proposals to bring service to [[Union City, California|Union City]] across the [[Dumbarton Rail Bridge]] as well as increased service to [[Gilroy, California|Gilroy]] and [[Salinas, California|Salinas]].<ref name="Caltrain 1998 16">{{harvnb|Caltrain|1998|p=16}}</ref> Under the latest proposal to revive rail service over the [[Dumbarton Rail Corridor]], diesel multiple units would first be used to establish Dumbarton Rail service as a rail shuttle between a new rail station in [[Newark, California|Newark]] and Caltrain's [[Redwood City station]], later extending service from Newark to [[Union City, California|Union City]], and finally followed by a commuter rail operation running from Union City to San Francisco and San Jose using EMUs.<ref name=DTCS17>{{cite report |chapter-url=http://www.samtrans.com/Assets/Dumbarton+Rail+Corridor/PDFs/170814+DTCS+-+Full+Report.pdf |title=Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study |date=August 2017 |chapter=12: Recommendations and Phasing |pages=5–7 |publisher=San Mateo County Transit District |access-date=23 August 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170913143624/http://www.samtrans.com/Assets/Dumbarton+Rail+Corridor/PDFs/170814+DTCS+-+Full+Report.pdf |archive-date=13 September 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref>
In 2003, The San Francisco County Transit Authority proposed Proposition K in San Francisco, a local transportation sales tax. Voters were given an expenditure plan estimating the total cost of Caltrain electrification as $183.5 Million with San Francisco's share costing $20.5M, met with Proposition K, which passed.<ref>{{cite book|title=Proposition K Legal Text|date=November 4, 2003|publisher=San Francisco Dept. of Elections|page=155|url=https://sfpl.org/pdf/main/gic/elections/November4_2003.pdf|access-date=January 28, 2018|archive-date=June 17, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190617131802/https://sfpl.org/pdf/main/gic/elections/November4_2003.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>
===Caltrain/HSR blended system===
[[File:StatewideRailMod BubbleMap 013013.jpg|thumb|right|upright=2|The first phase of California's [[California High-Speed Rail|high-speed rail]] project includes funding for public transit systems along its route, including Caltrain.|alt=A map detailing California high-speed rail's "bookend projects", or projects at the tail end of high-speed rail route to improve public transportation and access to high-speed rail stations.]]
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>
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 [[Salesforce Transit Center]].<ref name=SFC-121104>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/1-5-billion-Caltrain-deal-packs-some-big-extras-3433993.php |title=$1.5 billion Caltrain deal packs some big extras |author1=Matier, Phil |author2=Ross, Andrew |date=November 4, 2012 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> CHSRA approved the issue of bonds in December 2016.<ref name=SMDJ-161215>{{cite news |url=http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/caltrain-supporters-unfazed-by-high-speed-rail-suit-officials-believe/article_328b5a11-6f56-5fd7-abe5-69533f74a57f.html |title=Caltrain supporters unfazed by high-speed rail suit: Officials believe bond sale, electrification will stay on track despite new case |author=Weigel, Samantha |date=December 15, 2016 |newspaper=San Mateo Daily Journal |access-date=March 31, 2017}}</ref> Critics of high-speed rail felt the slower trips and reduced service caused by "blending" the two systems over the Peninsula Corridor did not meet the original voter-approved vision of a quad-track line between San Francisco and Los Angeles, and ridership would never meet projections.<ref name=PP-130303>{{cite news |url=http://archive.peninsulapress.com/2013/03/03/caltrain-electrification-churns-high-speed-rail-controversy/ |title=Caltrain electrification churns high-speed rail controversy |author=Pandika, Melissa M. |date=March 3, 2013 |publisher=Peninsula Press |access-date=March 25, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170401143908/http://archive.peninsulapress.com/2013/03/03/caltrain-electrification-churns-high-speed-rail-controversy/ |archive-date=April 1, 2017 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
===Lawsuits===
[[File:Caltrain Atherton Station.jpg|thumb|The southbound platform of the [[Atherton station]]. The town of [[Atherton, California|Atherton]] has backed litigation against Caltrain's electrification plans.|alt=An image of a train station, including tracks, platforms, and a shelter.]]
The town of [[Atherton, California|Atherton]], which lies on the tracks, was an early and vocal opponent of electrification. Residents opposed electrification and the proposed high-speed rail route because the overhead electrical lines would require tree removal and the town could potentially be divided in two by permanently closing the two grade crossings at Fair Oaks Lane and Watkins Avenue.<ref name=SFC-040725>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/End-of-an-Era-Caltrain-s-electrification-plans-2738949.php |title=End of an Era / Caltrain's electrification plans threaten Atherton's railroad charm |author=Whiting, Sam |date=July 25, 2004 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref>
In February 2015, shortly after the project received environmental clearance from the state, Atherton sued Caltrain, alleging the agency's environmental impact review was inadequate and that its collaboration with the CHSRA should be further vetted.<ref name=SFC-150210>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Anti-high-speed-rail-groups-sue-over-Caltrain-6071826.php |title=Atherton, high-speed rail foes sue to block electrifying Caltrain |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=February 10, 2015 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref> In July 2015, the suit proceeded after Caltrain's request to the [[Surface Transportation Board]] to exempt it from [[California Environmental Quality Act]] (CEQA) guidelines was denied. Atherton reiterated its opposition to electrification on the basis that overhead wires would require removing a significant number of heritage trees, and city representatives asserted that "newer, cleaner, more efficient diesel trains" should supplant plans for "century-old catenary electrical line technology". Atherton mayor Rick De Golia was quoted as saying "Caltrain is locked into an old technology and 20th century thinking".<ref name=SJMN-150708>{{cite news |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/07/08/atherton-lawsuit-against-caltrain-over-electrification-project-clears-one-hurdle/ |title=Atherton lawsuit against Caltrain over electrification project clears one hurdle |author=Orr, John |date=July 8, 2015 |newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]] |access-date=March 31, 2017}}</ref> After Caltrain issued infrastructure and rolling stock contracts in July 2016, Atherton representatives did not file a temporary restraining order to halt those contracts, preferring to let the suit proceed to a hearing.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/07/11/atherton-wont-seek-temporary-injunction-in-fight-with-caltrain/ |title=Atherton won't seek temporary injunction in fight with Caltrain |author=Orr, John |date=July 11, 2016 |newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]] |access-date=March 31, 2017}}</ref> In September 2016, [[Contra Costa County Superior Court]] Judge [[Barry Goode]] sided with Caltrain, ruling that the electrification project did not hinge on the high-speed rail project's success, and was thus independent from the latter.<ref name=SMDJ-160927>{{cite news|url=http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/judge-gives-caltrain-electrification-green-light-atherton-loses-lawsuit-claims/article_f71026d7-ae96-5e00-a569-785db51990f2.html |title=Judge gives Caltrain electrification green light: Atherton loses lawsuit, claims local project was too closely tied to high-speed rail|newspaper=San Mateo Daily Journal |date=September 27, 2016|author=Weigel, Samantha|access-date=March 29, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.almanacnews.com/news/2016/09/28/atherton-loses-lawsuit-over-caltrain-electrification-project |title=Atherton loses lawsuit over Caltrain electrification project |author=Wood, Barbara |date=September 28, 2016 |publisher=The Almanac |access-date=March 31, 2017}}</ref>
{{blockquote|text=Indeed, at bottom [California High-Speed Rail] is providing funds to Caltrain while hoping that the rest of CHSRA's plans work out well enough that, someday, it can bring the blended system to fruition. But if CHSRA is unable to do that, Caltrain will still have a successful project. Put another way, HSR may need to have Caltrain's Electrification Project completed. But Caltrain does not need to have High Speed Rail completed for the Electrification Project to be a success. |author=Judge Barry Goode |source=2016 ruling<ref name=SMDJ-160927 />}}
Atherton sued CHSRA again in December 2016, stating that using bond money intended for high-speed rail for CalMod was a material change in usage and therefore was unconstitutional because such a change would require voter approval first.<ref name=SMDJ-161215 /> In response, the [[California State Legislature|California Legislature]] allowed the funding to be redirected by passing Assembly Bill No. 1889, which had been championed by Assemblymember [[Kevin Mullin]] in 2015.<ref>{{Cite web | publisher= [[California Office of Legislative Counsel]]| title=An act to add Section 2704.78 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation | url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1889|date=September 28, 2016}}</ref> Mullin noted "this entire Caltrain corridor is the epicenter of the innovation economy and it's a job creation and economic engine. This electrification project, I would argue, is monumental with regard to dealing with [increased traffic and environmental impacts] effectively and efficiently."<ref name=SMDJ-161215 />
===Contracts awarded===
[[Parsons Corporation|Parsons Transportation Group]] was awarded a $138 million contract in November 2011 to design and install CBOSS by October 2015.<ref name=PR-111122>{{cite press release |url=https://www.parsons.com/Media%20Library/11-11-ptg-caltrain-cboss-ptc.pdf |title=Parsons Selected by Caltrain for Communications-Based Overlay Signal System Positive Train Control |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=November 22, 2011 |publisher=Parsons News |access-date=March 31, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130901005646/http://www.parsons.com/Media%20Library/11-11-ptg-caltrain-cboss-ptc.pdf |archive-date=September 1, 2013 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Parsons began physical work on CBOSS in September 2013, starting with the installation of a fiber optic line along the Caltrain right-of-way.<ref name=PR-130917>{{cite press release|url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/News_Archive/Caltrain_Modernization_Kicks_Off_Advanced_Signal_System_Work.html |title=Caltrain Modernization Kicks Off Advanced Signal System Work |date=September 17, 2013 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=March 31, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160507092317/http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/News_Archive/Caltrain_Modernization_Kicks_Off_Advanced_Signal_System_Work.html |archive-date=May 7, 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) approved Caltrain's plans in 2014 and Caltrain noted that CBOSS was due to enter revenue service by the end of 2015.<ref name=PR-141016>{{cite press release|url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Receives_FRA_Approval_to_Proceed_with_New_Positive_Train_Control_System.html |title=Caltrain Receives FRA Approval to Proceed with New Positive Train Control System |date=October 16, 2014 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=March 31, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160507040006/http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Receives_FRA_Approval_to_Proceed_with_New_Positive_Train_Control_System.html |archive-date=May 7, 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Because Caltrain had multiple goals for CBOSS, including increased safety, improved operational efficiency, and ensured interoperability with other rail providers (Caltrain shares tracks with Union Pacific, Altamont Corridor Express, and Amtrak),<ref name=PR-111122 /><ref name=PR-141016 /> implementation was challenging and Caltrain, the busiest commuter rail service on the West Coast, still had not fully implemented the system by the end of 2016.<ref name=SFC-161128>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Major-rail-carriers-slow-to-adopt-safety-10640598.php |title=Major rail carriers slow to adopt safety technology |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |agency=Associated Press |date=November 28, 2016 |newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=March 25, 2017}}</ref>
The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) draft environmental impact report was released in February 2014.<ref name=DEIR>{{cite report|url=http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject/PCEP_DEIR_2014.html |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), February 2014 |date=February 2014 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=April 2, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160507071203/http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject/PCEP_DEIR_2014.html |archive-date=May 7, 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref> After addressing comments received, PCJPB certified the final environmental impact report in January 2015.<ref>{{harvnb|Caltrain|2015}}</ref> A pre-qualification survey was sent out in May 2014, and six firms were pre-qualified to bid on PCEP construction, which was eventually awarded to [[Balfour Beatty Construction]].<ref name=PR-150206>{{cite press release|url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Board_Authorizes_Release_of_Electrification_Design_Build_RFP.html |title=Caltrain Board Authorizes Release of Electrification Design Build RFP |date=February 6, 2015 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=April 2, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160507034804/http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Board_Authorizes_Release_of_Electrification_Design_Build_RFP.html |archive-date=May 7, 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
In July 2016, Caltrain's Board of Directors awarded contracts to Balfour Beatty and [[Stadler Rail]] to construct infrastructure for the electric trains and the electric trains themselves, respectively.<ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/News_Archive/Caltrain_s_Board_Approves_Electrification_Design-Build_and_EMU_Contracts.html |title=Caltrain's Board Approves Electrification Design-Build and EMU Contracts |date=July 7, 2016 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=April 2, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170405170134/http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/News_Archive/Caltrain_s_Board_Approves_Electrification_Design-Build_and_EMU_Contracts.html |archive-date=April 5, 2017 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/intercity/caltrain-awards-electrification-emu-contracts.html |title=Caltrain awards electrtification, EMU contracts |author=Vantuono, William C. |date=July 8, 2016 |magazine=[[Railway Age]] |access-date=April 2, 2017}}</ref> Balfour Beatty was awarded a $697 million contract, its largest contract in the United States, to electrify the line at 25 kV AC, replace signaling systems, construct two [[traction substation|traction power substation]]s, one switching substation, and seven paralleling substations.<ref name=ProgRail-16>{{cite news |url=http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Caltrain-inks-contracts-with-Balfour-Beatty-Stadler-for-electrification-project--49177 |title=Caltrain inks contracts with Balfour Beatty, Stadler for electrification project |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=August 17, 2016 |publisher=Progressive Railroading |access-date=April 2, 2017}}</ref> The Swiss firm Stadler was awarded a $551 million contract to deliver 96 of their "[[Stadler KISS|KISS]]" [[bilevel rail car|bilevel]] [[electric multiple unit]] cars, formed into 16 six-car trains. Under the contract, Caltrain holds an option to increase the order with an additional 96 cars in the future.<ref name=ProgRail-16 /><ref>{{cite magazine|title=For Caltrain, 16 KISSes from Stadler (but no FLIRTs)|url=http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/commuter-regional/for-caltrain-16-kisses-from-stadler-but-no-flirts.html|magazine=[[Railway Age]]|date=August 16, 2016|access-date=March 29, 2017|author=Vantuono, William C.}}</ref> The contract also marks the first American design win for the Stadler KISS.<ref name=ProgRail-16 /> Stadler broke ground for a new factory near the [[Salt Lake City International Airport]] on October 13, 2017.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/63069/new-stadler-plant-salt-lake-city-usa/ |title=New Stadler plant in Salt Lake City, USA |date=20 October 2017 |newspaper=Global Railway Review |access-date=20 October 2017}}</ref> The first trains are scheduled for delivery in August 2019.<ref>{{cite press release |url=https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e96f7.s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/filer_public/ca/72/ca72a91e-ee50-45f9-b1ca-728dc1a0204b/2017_1016_media_release_slc_groundbreaking_en.pdf |title=New Stadler plant in Salt Lake City, USA – a ground breaking ceremony with VIP guests to celebrate |date=16 October 2017 |publisher=Stadler Rail |access-date=20 October 2017}}</ref>
In April 2016, after missing the initial October 2015 deadline, Caltrain requested a third party review of the CBOSS project from the [[American Public Transportation Association]] (APTA). APTA noted that Caltrain was not effectively managing the project schedule and cost because of generally poor communication between Caltrain's project management and Parsons, and Caltrain's project manager did not have the technical experience or authority to resolve technical and contractual issues with Parsons.<ref>{{cite report |url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/CBOSS+PTC/APTA+Peer+Review+Report.pdf |title=American Public Transportation Association Peer Review for Caltrain, San Carlos, California |author=North American Transit Services Association |date=July 4, 2016 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=March 31, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170913044454/http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/CBOSS+PTC/APTA+Peer+Review+Report.pdf |archive-date=September 13, 2017 |url-status=live |pages=3–6 }}</ref> In February 2017, Caltrain terminated its contract with Parsons for failure to perform on time and budget and announced potential litigation.<ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Terminates_Contract_with_Parsons_Transportation_Group__PTG_.html |title=Caltrain Terminates Contract with Parsons Transportation Group (PTG) |date=February 24, 2017 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=March 25, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170320130109/http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Terminates_Contract_with_Parsons_Transportation_Group__PTG_.html |archive-date=March 20, 2017 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Parsons filed suit on February 22, saying delays were due to changing client requirements and circumstances beyond their control.<ref name=SJMN-170301>{{cite news |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/01/caltrain-quietly-fires-contractor-before-testing-of-new-safety-system-is-completed/ |title=Caltrain fires contractor before testing of new safety system is completed |author=Baldassari, Erin |date=March 1, 2017 |newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]] |access-date=April 4, 2017}}</ref> Caltrain filed suit a week later, seeking $98 million in damages; although the system has been mostly installed, testing is still incomplete.<ref name=CHNS-170306>{{cite news |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/caltrain-safety-contractor-trade-lawsuits/ |title=Caltrain, Safety Contractor Trade Lawsuits |author=Renda, Matthew |date=March 6, 2017 |publisher=Courthouse News Service |access-date=April 6, 2017}}</ref>
The plan to complete the installation of positive train control (PTC) was presented to PCJPB in early 2018.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/20/train-safety-system-on-track-in-bay-area-but-not-here-yet/ |title=Train safety system on track in Bay Area, but not here yet |author=Baldassari, Erin |date=December 20, 2017 |newspaper=San Jose Mercury News |access-date=December 20, 2017}}</ref> At the March 1, 2018 meeting, the PCJPB awarded the $49.5 million contract to complete PTC to [[Wabtec]].<ref name=SFCTA-190306>{{cite report |url=https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/Item%2010%20-%20MEMO%20Cal%20Mod%20and%20Business%20Plan.pdf |title=Memorandum: Update on the Caltrain Modernization Program and Business Plan |date=March 6, 2019 |publisher=San Francisco County Transportation Authority |author=Cordoba, Eric |access-date=7 May 2020}}</ref> The switch to Wabtec implements I-ETMS technology, which was evaluated to be "the only technically and financially viable" solution to completing PTC before the FRA's deadline of December 31, 2018.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/infrastructure/single-view/view/wabtec-selected-to-complete-caltrain-ptc-installation.html |title=Wabtec selected to complete Caltrain PTC installation |date=27 February 2018 |work=Railway Gazette |access-date=27 February 2018}}</ref> Approximately 80% of the equipment for CBOSS that had already been installed was able to be reused, and FRA approved a revised schedule in January 2019 to implement PTC by December 2020.<ref name=SFCTA-190306/>
===Federal funding interruption===
[[File:Elaine Chao official portrait 2.jpg|thumb|upright|left|Secretary of Transportation [[Elaine Chao]] deferred expected federal funding for the electrification project just before construction was about to commence.|alt=An image of Secretary of Transportation 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=https://www.politico.com/tipsheets/california-playbook/2017/02/trump-electrifies-ca-republicans-issas-evolution-nunes-doubles-down-on-caltrain-218921 |title=TRUMP electrifies CA REPUBLICANS — ISSA's EVOLUTION — NUNES doubles down on CALTRAIN |author1=Siders, David |author2=Marinucci, Carla |author3=Ocasio, Bianca Padro |date=February 27, 2017 |website=California Playbook |publisher=[[Politico]] |access-date=March 28, 2017 |quote=I don't see them crying about the 30 percent unemployment in Mendota ... I don't see them trying to help the farmworkers ... So you're not going to get me to feel too bad about one of the richest places on the planet not having a train.}}</ref> Fellow Republican Representative [[Jeff Denham]] defended the letter, saying Caltrain's electrification project and CHSRA were closely intertwined because the former derived some funding under the "blended plan" agreement. Representative [[Tom McClintock]] reiterated his opposition to high-speed rail without addressing Caltrain: "I have never supported a dollar of state funding going for [high-speed rail], and would never support a dollar of federal funding".<ref name=SJMN-170207>{{cite news |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/07/california-republicans-want-trump-to-block-caltrain-electrification/ |title=Political battle threatens to halt Caltrain electrification project |author=Murphy, Katy |date=February 7, 2017 |newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]] |access-date=April 4, 2017}}</ref> Representative [[Mimi Walters]] also made a statement that she was not opposed to electrification, but instead held "serious concerns about the use of taxpayer funds for a project that is tied to high speed rail".<ref name=Slate-Grabar />
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>
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>
===Construction and testing===
[[File:Catenary structures at San Bruno station, July 2018.JPG|thumb|left|Newly installed catenary structures at San Bruno station in July 2018]]
A new weekday schedule designed to allow time for construction became effective on April 10, 2017. The weekend schedule was revised on July 15, 2017, which decreased frequency from 60 minutes to 90 minutes between trains and eliminated eight trains per weekend day.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/caltrain-to-begin-reduced-weekend-service/article_8b394514-6773-11e7-b17b-13964ed8ecda.html |title=Caltrain to begin reduced weekend service |date=13 July 2017 |newspaper=San Mateo Daily Journal |access-date=19 July 2017}}</ref>
[[File:Caltrain Electrification Groundbreaking (35843566623).jpg|thumb|right|Political officials, including Rep. [[Jackie Speier]], Cal. Sen. [[Scott Wiener]], San Francisco Mayor [[Ed Lee (politician)|Ed Lee]], Gov. [[Jerry Brown]], and Rep. [[Nancy Pelosi]] at the July 21, 2017 groundbreaking ceremony]]
An official groundbreaking ceremony was held on July 21, 2017, at the [[Millbrae station]].<ref name=PR-170721>{{cite press release |url=http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Hosts_Groundbreaking_for_Electrification_Project.html |title=Caltrain hosts groundbreaking for Electrification Project |date=21 July 2017 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=22 July 2017}}</ref><ref name=groundbreaking>{{cite news |url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Caltrain-electrification-project-takes-symbolic-11306490.php |title=Caltrain electrification project takes symbolic step forward |author=Cabanatuan, Michael |date=21 July 2017 |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |access-date=22 July 2017}}</ref> {{as of|2018|June}}, 149 poles had been erected in San Bruno and South San Francisco.<ref name=PCEP-PR15>{{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 (PCEP) Q4 Quarterly Update #15: April 1 – June 30, 2018 |date=2 August 2018 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=4 September 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>
In December 2018, Caltrain was carrying 65,000 passengers a day, and expected to carry four times that amount by 2040. Accordingly, Caltrain announced plans to increase its electric train order by a third.<ref name=A>{{cite news |url=https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/12/07/caltrain-electric-train-cars-stadler-order.html |title=Caltrain ups its electric train order by a third |date=December 7, 2018 |newspaper=[[Silicon Valley Business Journal]] |access-date=December 8, 2018}}</ref> After funding was received from the California State Transportation Agency's Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, Caltrain's board unanimously approved the purchase of additional cars from [[Stadler Rail|Stadler]] to increase the fleet from 16 six-car sets to 19 seven-car sets.<ref name=B>{{cite news |url=https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/caltrain-to-purchase-additional-electric-cars/article_f46b0ef8-f9cd-11e8-bd28-73754e3643dc.html |title=Caltrain to purchase additional electric cars|author=Staff |date=December 7, 2018 |newspaper=[[San Mateo Daily Journal]] |access-date=December 8, 2018}}</ref>
Balfour Beatty reported in 2019 the completion of construction could be delayed to April 2022 in a report to the [[San Francisco County Transportation Authority]] (SFCTA); the projected 12-month delay was blamed on the unexpected presence of underground utilities.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sf-lawmakers-warn-caltrain-to-come-clean-on-electrification-project-delays/ |title=SF lawmakers warn Caltrain to come clean on electrification project delays |author=Rodriguez, Joe Fitzgerald |newspaper=San Francisco Examiner |date=September 24, 2019 |access-date=25 September 2019}}</ref> In June 2021, Caltrain announced that electric service would be delayed to late 2024 due to supply chain disruptions during the [[COVID-19 pandemic in the San Francisco Bay Area|COVID-19 pandemic]], issues with the signal system, and "unforeseen conditions under Caltrain's tracks".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Savage |first1=Nico |title=Caltrain electrification delayed to 2024, and the price tag is rising too |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/06/03/caltrain-electrification-delayed-to-2024-and-the-price-tag-is-rising-too/ |access-date=4 June 2021 |agency=The Mercury News |date=3 June 2021}}</ref><ref name=june2021>{{cite press release |date=June 3, 2021 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |url=
https://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Electrification_Delayed_to_2024.html |title=Caltrain Electrification Delayed to 2024}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible collapsed floatright" style="width:20em; text-align:right; font-size:80%;"
|+ style="text-align:center; font-size:125%;"|Cost and estimated completion date
|-
! rowspan=2 | Report date !! colspan=2 | Budget ($M) !! colspan=2 | Cost to Date ($M) !! rowspan=2 | Revenue Service Date<!--Schedule Status table, "RSD (w/o Risk Contingency), according to current Progress Schedule"-->
|-
! Constr. !! EMU
! Constr. !! EMU
|-
! {{dts|2016|07|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-1607>{{cite report |url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/665/download?inline |title=Monthly Progress Report |date=July 2016 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022}}</ref>{{rp|2-1;2}}
| 1,318.1 || 662.1
| 64.8 || 13.7
| {{dts|2021|12|30|abbr=on}}
|-
! {{dts|2017|01|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-1701>{{cite report |url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/610/download?inline |title=Monthly Progress Report |date=January 2017 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022}}</ref>{{rp|2–3}}
| 1,316.1 || 664.1
| 139.3 || 18.6
| {{dts|2021|12|30|abbr=on}}
|-
! {{dts|2017|07|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-1707>{{cite report |url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/616/download?inline |title=Monthly Progress Report |date=July 2017 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022}}</ref>{{rp|2–5;6}}
| 1,316.1 || 664.1
| 235.0 || 51.4
| {{dts|2022|04|22|abbr=on}}
|-
! {{dts|2018|01|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-1801>{{cite report |url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/662/download?inline |title=Monthly Progress Report |date=January 2018 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022}}</ref>{{rp|2–5;6}}
| 1,316.1 || 664.1
| 313.0 || 86.8
| {{dts|2021|12|09|abbr=on}}
|-
! {{dts|2018|07|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-1807/>{{rp|2–4;5}}
| 1,316.1 || 664.1
| 383.5 || 119.2
| {{dts|2021|12|09|abbr=on}}
|-
! {{dts|2019|01|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-1901/>{{rp|2–6}}
| 1,316.1 || 664.1
| 487.8 || 132.7
| {{dts|2022|05|06|abbr=on}}
|-
! {{dts|2019|07|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-1907/>{{rp|2–8;9}}
| 1,316.1 || 664.1
| 584.2 || 149.7
| {{dts|2022|05|06|abbr=on}}
|-
! {{dts|2020|01|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-2001/>{{rp|2–9}}
| 1,316.1 || 664.1
| 679.4 || 198.2
| {{dts|2022|05|06|abbr=on}}
|-
! {{dts|2020|07|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-2007/>{{rp|2–9;10}}
| 1,316.1 || 664.1
| 764.5 || 232.3
| {{dts|2022|07|22|abbr=on}}
|-
! {{dts|2021|01|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-2101/>{{rp|2–9;10}}
| 1,316.1 || 664.1
| 867.7 || 265.5
| {{dts|2022|10|10|abbr=on}}
|-
! {{dts|2021|07|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-2107/>{{rp|2–8;10}}
| 1,316.1 || 664.1
| 986.2 || 303.5
| {{dts|2024|03|31|abbr=on}}
|-
! {{dts|2022|01|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-2201/>{{rp|3-1;2}}
| 1,749.1 || 693.6
| 1,172.6 || 333.6
| {{dts|2024|07|01|abbr=on}}
|-
! {{dts|2022|07|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-2207>{{cite report |chapter-url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/22771/download?inline#page=14 |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Monthly Progress Report - July 2022|date=July 2022 |pages=1–2 |chapter=4.2: Program Budget and Cost |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022}}</ref>{{rp|4-1;3-1}}
| 1,749.1 || 693.6
| 1,391.5 || 464.8
| {{dts|2024|09|26|abbr=on}}
|}
In February 2022, the last foundation required for the new overhead catenary system was completed, with the entire line planned to be energised by summer 2022. Testing of the line would then begin using an [[EMD AEM-7|AEM-7]] electric locomotive, with revenue service planned for 2024.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2022-02-01|title=Final foundation laid on Caltrain electrification project|url=https://www.railjournal.com/infrastructure/final-foundation-laid-on-caltrain-electrification-project/|access-date=2022-02-04|website=International Railway Journal|language=en}}</ref> To expedite construction, the weekday train schedule was reduced and fewer stops were planned north of Hillsdale temporarily in the second half of March 2022.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.caltrain.com/schedules/Summary_of_Changes.html |title=Caltrain Reduces Weekday Service to Expedite Electrification Construction |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=4 March 2022}}</ref> However, construction was suspended temporarily that month after a southbound train collided with work equipment at milepost 11.6 in San Bruno on Thursday, March 10.<ref name=NTSB-RRD22MR007/><ref>{{cite news |url=https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2022/03/11/ntsb-investigators-unraveling-cause-of-fiery-caltrain-collision-that-injured-13/ |title=NTSB Investigators Unraveling Cause of Fiery Caltrain Collision That Injured 13 |date=March 11, 2022 |work=KPIX 5 CBS SF BayArea |access-date=11 March 2022}}</ref> The train came to rest near San Felipe Avenue, and spilled fuel caused a fire, which damaged the tracks, locomotive, and passenger car.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2022/03/10/caltrain-collision-with-vehicle-causes-huge-fire-on-tracks-in-san-bruno/ |title=UPDATE: Caltrain Collision with Vehicle Causes Huge Fireball on Tracks in San Bruno; 13 Injured |date=March 10, 2022 |work=KPIX 5 CBS SF BayArea |access-date=11 March 2022}}</ref> The work crew had contacted the train dispatcher at 9:50 a.m. (local) to establish exclusive occupancy on track 2 for the three hi-rail work vehicles, then released the exclusive occupancy at 9:58; the collision occurred at 10:33. According to the locomotive's event data recorder, the last recorded speed of the southbound train was {{cvt|63|mph}}, but the engineer had pulled the emergency brake upon sighting the work vehicles.<ref name=NTSB-RRD22MR007/> Fourteen people were injured in the collision and fire, but none of the injuries were life-threatening; the fire was extinguished by 11:14 a.m.<ref name=NTSB-RRD22MR007/> The train remained on the tracks while the [[National Transportation Safety Board|NTSB]] conducted an investigation.<ref name=NTSB-RRD22MR007>{{cite web |url=https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/RRD22MR007.aspx |title=Collision with on-track equipment and derailment in San Bruno, CA. {{!}} Accident No RRD22MR007 |date=March 10, 2022 |publisher=National Transportation Safety Board |access-date=22 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/Damaged-Caltrain-Still-On-Tracks-Friday-While-16994738.php |title=Damaged Caltrain Still On Tracks Friday While NTSB Investigates Collision |date=March 11, 2022 |agency=Bay City News |work=SF Gate |access-date=11 March 2022}}</ref> The reduced schedule was implemented again starting in May to accommodate construction activities in San Mateo and Burlingame.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.caltrain.com/may-2022-service-change |title=Temporary Weekday Service Change |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=4 May 2022}}</ref>
Clearance testing of the first electric trainset on the Caltrain corridor began in July 2022.<ref>{{cite press release |url=https://www.caltrain.com/news/caltrains-first-electric-trainset-tests-clearance-along-corridor |title=Caltrain's First Electric Trainset Tests Clearance Along Corridor |date=July 18, 2022 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board}}</ref> The southern Traction Power Substation was energized that August.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/infrastructure/press-release/21279194/caltrain-caltrain-and-pge-celebrate-major-milestone-of-electrification-project |title=Caltrain and PG&E celebrate major milestone of electrification project |date=August 30, 2022 |work=Mass Transit |access-date=9 June 2023}}</ref> Initial testing of the overhead catenary system and trains began along the Santa Clara Drill Track in June 2023, between the Santa Clara and College Park stations.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/vehicles/press-release/53062769/caltrain-caltrain-begins-testing-of-first-electric-trains |title=Caltrain begins testing of first electric trains |date=June 7, 2023 |work=Mass Transit |access-date=9 June 2023}}</ref> The electrification of the line was completed in April 2024.<ref name="april2024"/>
=== 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. Representatives [[Nancy Pelosi]], [[Kevin Mullin]] and [[Anna Eshoo]], [[California State Transportation Agency]] chief Toks Omishakin, noted transit advocates and state legislators [[Phil Ting]] and [[Scott Wiener]], and the mayors of San Francisco and San Jose, [[London Breed]] and [[Matt Mahan]], respectively, were among the passengers.<ref name="Forrest 2024">{{cite web | title=Press Kit |last=Forrest|first=Julia| website=Canva | date=August 10, 2024 | url=https://www.canva.com/design/DAGLyjeLzxo/d_tHBkjd5J-6WIAvchWrOQ/view?utm_content=DAGLyjeLzxo | access-date=August 11, 2024}}</ref> Revenue service began the next day, and was scheduled to ramp up to its highest frequency by September 21.<ref name="Cano 2024">{{cite web | last=Cano | first=Ricardo | title=Why California's high-speed rail project could look different if Trump regains the presidency | website=San Francisco Chronicle | date=August 11, 2024 | url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/california-high-speed-rail-trump-19628640.php | access-date=August 11, 2024}}</ref> On that date, Caltrain held a celebration to mark the launch of the new schedule, and offered free rides throughout the day.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.caltrain.com/launchparty |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241216133902/https://www.caltrain.com/launchparty |archive-date=December 16, 2024 |url-status=live |title=The Future of Caltrain is Here |publisher=Caltrain}}</ref>
==Funding==
Funding for the originally-$1.9 billion project comes from a mix of funds contributed by the [[California Department of Transportation]], [[California High-Speed Rail|California High-Speed Rail Authority]], California [[Emissions trading|cap and trade]] revenue, [[Bay Area Air Quality Management District]], [[Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area)|Metropolitan Transportation Commission]], the city and county of [[San Francisco]], [[SamTrans]], and [[Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority]]. 32% of the funding, or $647 million, will come from [[Federal Transit Administration]]'s Core Capacity grant, with the funding agreement approved on May 22, 2017, after a three-month delay.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2017/05/22/feds-approve-647-million-grant-for-caltrain-electrification-project/|title=Feds Approve $647 Million Grant for Caltrain Electrification Project|date=May 22, 2017|publisher=[[KQED Inc.|KQED]]}}</ref> An additional $600 million comes from [[California Proposition 1A (2008)|Proposition 1A]] funds that authorized the construction of high-speed rail, $113 million from cap and trade revenue, and the rest coming from local and regional sources.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/PCEP+Quarter+4+2016+Report.pdf|title=Caltrain Modernization Program 4th Quarter FY 2016 Progress Report|publisher=Caltrain|access-date=March 29, 2017|page=13|archive-date=November 7, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161107025711/http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/PCEP+Quarter+4+2016+Report.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>
The delays announced in June 2021 will add $333 million to the cost for a total of $2.3 billion. Of the increase, $161 million is known and allocated costs with a funding plan, while $172 million is unallocated costs.<ref name=june2021 /> An additional cost increase of $162 million, for a total cost of $2.44 billion, was announced in December 2021.<ref>{{cite press release |url=https://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Cost_of_Caltrain_Electrification_Increases__Project_on_Track_for_2024.html |title=Cost of Caltrain Electrification Increases, Project on Track for 2024 |date=December 6, 2021 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board}}</ref>
==Design==
{{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 station|4th and King]] to a power substation south of [[Tamien Station]].<ref>{{harvnb|Caltrain|2015|loc=Chapter 2: Project Description|p=1}}</ref> New electrical infrastructure includes installation of approximately {{convert|130|to|140|mi}} of 25 kV 60 Hz single-phase AC overhead contact lines and ten new power stations (two traction power stations, a switching station approximately halfway along the line, and seven paralleling stations).<ref>{{harvnb|Caltrain|2015|loc=Figure 2-2, Chapter 2: Project Description}}</ref> Land totaling {{convert|290000|ft2|acre+ha|abbr=on}} was acquired from private property owners along the Peninsula Corridor in order to set up safety buffer zones between the overhead contact system and public property; PCJPB authorized [[Eminent ___domain in the United States|eminent ___domain]] proceedings in July 2017 in case negotiations broke down.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/caltrain-may-take-private-land/article_ed1c1ef4-62d3-11e7-99fb-1b1677cbb014.html |title=Caltrain may take private land |author=Weigel, Samantha |date=July 7, 2017 |newspaper=San Mateo Daily Journal |access-date=July 11, 2017}}</ref> Barriers were installed where road and pedestrian bridges cross over tracks to prevent damage to the electrical wires.<ref>{{harvnb|Caltrain|2015|loc=Chapter 2: Project Description|pp=9–10}}</ref> New electric trainsets were purchased for use on the new electrified segment, while service from Tamien to Gilroy, which is not planned to be electrified due to ownership by [[Union Pacific Railroad]] instead, continue to be served with existing diesel locomotives.<ref name="factsheet">{{cite web|url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/21596/|title=Caltrain Electrification Frequently Asked Questions|publisher=Caltrain}}</ref>
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>
According to Caltrain, the electrification project will bring multiple benefits to the corridor. Firstly, electric trains can accelerate and decelerate more quickly than the existing diesel locomotives, resulting in faster and more frequent service. They will also replace Caltrain's current diesel locomotives and passenger cars, a significant portion of which are nearing the end of their lives.<ref name=SJMN-170404>{{cite news |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/04/sunnyvale-council-gets-update-on-caltrain-modernization/ |title=Sunnyvale council gets update on Caltrain modernization |author=Kezra, Victoria |date=April 4, 2017 |newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]] |access-date=April 5, 2017}}</ref> Additionally, electric trainsets are quieter and produce less air pollution than diesel locomotives, and the use of electric trains will lower Caltrain's fuel costs while increasing passenger revenue, due to an expected increase in ridership. Once complete, Caltrain expects to annually reduce [[carbon dioxide]] emissions by 176,000 metric tons and increase daily ridership by 21% by 2040. Restoring daily service to Atherton and Broadway stations was considered,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Wood|first1=Barbara|title=Atherton: Caltrain will soon cut trees to install electric wires|url=https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2017/07/26/atherton-caltrain-will-soon-start-cutting-trees-to-install-electric-wires|access-date=31 July 2017|date=26 July 2017}}</ref> although with the permanent closure<ref>{{cite press release |url=https://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Implements_New_Service_Changes_and_Permanently_Closes_Atherton_Station.html |title=Caltrain Implements New Service Changes and Permanently Closes Atherton Station |date=December 7, 2020 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board}}</ref> of Atherton station, only Broadway station will receive restored daily service. Under the original schedule, Caltrain planned to complete the project by the end of 2021.<ref name=groundbreaking />
===Electrical station configuration===
{{OSM Location map
|coord={{Coord|37.5405|-122.1386}}
|float=right
|zoom=10
|width=480 |height=480
|scalemark=20
|shape1=n-square
|shape-color1=#b80
|shape-outline1=#000
|mark-size1=20
|mark-coord1 ={{Coord|37.764323|-122.393529}}
|mark-title1 =PS1 ({{cals|San Francisco}}/{{cals|22nd Street}}, milepost 1.3)
|mark-coord2 ={{Coord|37.711621|-122.401446}}
|mark-title2 =PS2 ({{cals|Bayshore}}, MP 5.0)
|mark-coord3 ={{Coord|37.656269|-122.405145}}
|mark-title3 =TPS1 ({{cals|South San Francisco}}, MP 9.2) |shape-color3=#808 |shape-outline3=#fff
|mark-coord4 ={{Coord|37.588637|-122.365510}}
|mark-title4 =PS3 ({{cals|Broadway}}, MP 15.0)
|mark-coord5 ={{Coord|37.536998|-122.296716}}
|mark-title5 =PS4 ({{cals|Hillsdale}}, MP 20.4)
|mark-coord6 ={{Coord|37.474986|-122.213525}}
|mark-title6 =SWS1 ({{cals|Redwood City}}/{{cals|Atherton}}, MP 26.7 [option 1] or MP 26.2 [option 2]) |shape-color6=#08a |shape-outline6=#fff
|mark-coord7 ={{Coord|37.426329|-122.137518}}
|mark-title7 =PS5 ({{cals|San Antonio}}, MP 32.0)
|mark-coord8 ={{Coord|37.378835|-122.031937}}
|mark-title8 =PS6 ({{cals|Sunnyvale}}, MP 38.7)
|mark-coord9 ={{Coord|37.345977|-121.921249}}
|mark-title9 =TPS2 ({{cals|College Park}}, MP 46.0) |shape-color9=#808 |shape-outline9=#fff
|mark-coord10={{Coord|37.305246|-121.879079}}
|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|#b80|Paralleling Station|#fff|border=silver}}
* {{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 [[catenary]] shape due to sag, and a contact wire suspended below the messenger wire. The contact wire is nearly parallel to the ground, and supplies traction current to the pantograph(s) of an electric train. Both the messenger wire and the contact wire are energized with single-phase alternating current at 25 kV with a frequency of 60 Hz. This allows the OCS to be used for both Caltrain and future California High-speed Rail service, and this electrical configuration matches that of Amtrak on [[Amtrak's 60 Hz traction power system|portions of the Northeast Corridor]] and portions of the [[New Jersey Transit]] commuter rail system.<ref name=DEIR-14-ch2 />
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 />
Contact wire heights vary between {{convert|16|and|23|ft}}, depending on overhead clearance required, with the messenger wire another {{convert|2|to|5|ft}} above that, and pole heights vary between {{convert|30|and|50|ft}}. Nominal clearance under the contact wire is {{convert|23|ft}} to accommodate freight and non-electrified passenger rail service. Poles are nominally spaced {{convert|180|to|200|ft}} apart, but can be reduced to {{convert|75|ft}} for the tightest-radius bends (at [[Sierra Point (Brisbane)|Sierra Point]] in [[Brisbane, California|Brisbane]], and just north of {{cals|San Jose}}). Typical pole spacing in bends is {{convert|120|to|150|ft}}, and for straight sections of track, maximum spacing is {{convert|230|ft}} between poles.<ref name=DEIR-14-ch2 />
[[File:Traction Power Substation 1 (Caltrain) at South San Francisco.jpg|thumb|left|Traction Power Substation 1, South San Francisco (2022)]]
A total of ten electrical stations were built: two traction power substations, one switching station, and seven paralleling stations. Each traction power substation (TPS) has a footprint of {{convert|150|by|200|ft}} and contains two 60 [[Volt-ampere|MVA]] transformers to step down supply power (at 115 kV AC) to the 2×25 kV AC required for the messenger/contact and feeder lines.<ref name=DEIR-14-ch2 /> The switching station (SWS) is located near the Redwood Junction, approximately halfway between the two traction power substations. The SWS includes a [[Overhead line#Neutral section (phase break)|phase break]] to electrically isolate the power supplied from each TPS and two 10 MVA [[autotransformer]]s, in a footprint of {{convert|80|by|160|ft}}. The paralleling stations (PS) each maintain system voltage with one or two 10 MVA autotransformers and have a footprint of {{convert|40|by|80|ft}}.<ref name=DEIR-14-ch2 />
PS3 in Burlingame was originally approved via the FEIR for a ___location near the intersection of California and Lincoln; however, this would interfere with plans to grade separate the crossing at Broadway, so PS3 was moved west of the tracks to a ___location near Mills and California.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/caltrain-updates-burlingame-on-electrification/article_25d28bb2-8bdb-11e8-9306-4b24cef0dd97.html |title=Caltrain updates Burlingame on electrification |author=Clark, Zachary |date=20 July 2018 |newspaper=San Mateo Daily Journal |access-date=4 September 2018}}</ref> Based on resident objections to the new site, however,<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.ktvu.com/news/tensions-build-between-caltrain-burlingame-residents-over-tall-electrification-tower |title=Tensions build between Caltrain, Burlingame residents over tall electrification tower |author=Gary, Jesse |date=2 August 2018 |work=KTVU Fox 2 |access-date=4 September 2018}}</ref> the City of Burlingame offered an alternative site east of the tracks at 1369 North Carolan adjacent to the city-owned Corporation Yard.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/2018/2018-08-02+-+PCEP+FEIR+Presentation.pdf |title=PCEP FEIR Addendum #5 – Relocation of PS-3 Burlingame |date=2 August 2018 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=4 September 2018 |archive-date=September 4, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180904192150/http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/2018/2018-08-02+-+PCEP+FEIR+Presentation.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/2018/2018-09-06+JPB+FULL+REVISED+PACKET.pdf |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project - Proposed Modification to Siting for Paralleling Station 3 (PS-3) in Burlingame |author=Brownrigg, Michael |date=1 August 2018 |access-date=4 September 2018 |archive-date=September 4, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180904192002/http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/2018/2018-09-06+JPB+FULL+REVISED+PACKET.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>
===Construction plans===
The PCJPB-owned right-of-way has been divided into four construction segments. From the north, the segments are arranged as:<ref name=ConstUpdates>{{cite web |url=http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject/Weekly_Installation_Activity_Updates.html |title=Construction Activity Updates |website=Caltrain |access-date=29 September 2017 |archive-date=September 30, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170930041703/http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject/Weekly_Installation_Activity_Updates.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>
# {{cals|4th and King}}, {{cals|22nd Street}}, {{cals|Bayshore}}
# ({{cals|South San Francisco}}, {{cals|San Bruno}}); ({{cals|Millbrae}}, {{cals|Broadway}}, {{cals|Burlingame}}); ({{cals|San Mateo}}, {{cals|Hayward Park}}, {{cals|Hillsdale}}); ({{cals|Belmont}}, {{cals|San Carlos}}); ({{cals|Redwood City}}, {{cals|Atherton}})
# {{cals|Menlo Park}}, {{cals|Palo Alto}}, {{cals|Stanford}}, {{cals|California Avenue}}, {{cals|San Antonio}}, {{cals|Mountain View}}, {{cals|Sunnyvale}}, {{cals|Lawrence}}
# ({{cals|Santa Clara}}, {{cals|College Park}}, {{cals|San Jose}}, {{cals|Tamien}})
[[File:Peninsula Corridor, Lafayette overpass, Santa Clara.jpg|thumb|right|Single-pole structure (supporting wires for both northbound and southbound tracks) in Santa Clara at the Lafayette Avenue overpass (2021); the catenary wire for the northbound tracks are in place.]]
Segments are further divided into work areas, indicated by brackets in the list above. Work began in Segments 2 and 4 and proceeded from north to south within each segment before moving on to Segments 1 and 3. The first work area was in the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno.<ref name=ConstUpdates /> Within each work area, the first two months of activity involved tree pruning and removal, followed by three to five months of construction of the foundations for the overhead contact system poles. Once completed, construction of the electrical station(s) (if present) and pole and wire installation work in parallel and take about a year. By January 2022, all foundations were complete. Pole and wiring work in Segments 3 and 4 was also complete, with work remaining in Segments 1 and 2.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Caltrain Electrification Update January 24 2022|url=https://www.caltrain.com/Assets/caltrain+electrification+update.pdf|page=14|access-date=January 24, 2022|archive-date=January 24, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220124032645/https://www.caltrain.com/Assets/caltrain+electrification+update.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>
In Atherton, 18 trees were planned to be removed with an additional 63 trees pruned more than 25%. 83 trees would be replaced as a result, per the Atherton Tree Replacement Plan.<ref name="seg2-wa1.2">{{cite web|date=18 January 2018|title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Update Meeting: Atherton Community Meeting|url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Atherton+Work+Area+Community++Meeting.pdf|access-date=31 January 2018|website=Caltrain|archive-date=February 1, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180201075300/http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Atherton+Work+Area+Community++Meeting.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> Atherton residents objected to the plans in November 2017, stating the five planned double-cantilever side poles (spanning both tracks from one side) were taller than expected, and asked PCJPB to redesign the OCS support to use ten shorter single-cantilever side poles (spanning one track each).<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2017/12/05/atherton-residents-protest-height-of-planned-caltrain-poles |title=Atherton residents protest height of planned Caltrain poles |author=Wood, Barbara |date=5 December 2017 |newspaper=Menlo Park Almanac |access-date=14 June 2018}}</ref><ref name=Almanac-1803>{{cite news |url=https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2018/03/01/caltrain-and-atherton-cant-reach-a-deal-on-electrification-poles |title=Caltrain and Atherton can't reach a deal on electrification poles |author=Wood, Barbara |date=1 March 2018 |newspaper=Menlo Park Almanac |access-date=14 June 2018}}</ref> In their response, PCJPB stated it would cost an additional $200,000 to redesign and would require more extensive tree removal; a later response asked that Atherton pay the difference and indemnify Caltrain from further lawsuits related to PCEP,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/4861/Item-18 |title=Item No. 18, Town of Atherton: Caltrain Electrification Project - Discuss and provide direction regarding Caltrain response letter dated February 6, 2018 |author=Kashiwagi, Michael |date=21 February 2018 |publisher=Town of Atherton |access-date=14 June 2018}}</ref> which Atherton rejected.<ref name=Almanac-1803 />
When work is being performed at a station, both northbound and southbound trains will stop on the same platform to accommodate station construction. Signs will be posted to indicate which platform remains active for passengers.<ref name=ConstUpdates />
Segment 4 was powered on in summer 2022, following testing of the new traction power facilities.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Caltrain |title=Electrification Update March 2022 |url=https://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Electrification+Update2.pdf |page=10 |access-date=March 3, 2022 |archive-date=March 3, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220303052632/https://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Electrification+Update2.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>
===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,<ref name=PCEP-Progress-1904>{{cite report |url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/635/download?inline#page=21 |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Monthly Progress Report |date=April 2019 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022}}</ref> with testing scheduled to start in late 2021.<ref name=Seg4-Update-Nov-2021>{{cite web |url=https://calmod.org/wp-content/uploads/Caltrain.Electrification.Segment-4.Community.Meeting.Nov_.2021.Final_.pdf |title=Caltrain Electrification Update: Santa Clara & San Jose |date=November 3, 2021 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=9 November 2021 |archive-date=November 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211109174554/https://calmod.org/wp-content/uploads/Caltrain.Electrification.Segment-4.Community.Meeting.Nov_.2021.Final_.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>{{rp|22}} By January 2024, three trains had successfully completed over {{convert|1000|mi|km}} of test runs, and six trains had been delivered.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.railway-technology.com/news/caltrain-completes-electric-train-testing/?cf-view |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250114105412/https://www.railway-technology.com/news/caltrain-completes-electric-train-testing/ |archive-date=January 14, 2025 |url-status=live |title=Caltrain completes electric train testing |first=Cat |last=Vitale |publisher=Railway Technology |date=January 10, 2024}}</ref>
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>
===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 and historical landmark which 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]] are 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> The lack of exhaust emissions will benefit air quality throughout the railway corridor, and the new units are significantly quieter than the previous stock. However, the lower noise levels have resulted in Caltrain warning the public to take extra care at crossings.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.railway-technology.com/news/caltrain-electrification-on-track/?cf-view |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250114111033/https://www.railway-technology.com/news/caltrain-electrification-on-track/ |archive-date=January 14, 2025 |url-status=live |title=Caltrain electrification “on track” |first=Patrick Rhys |last=Atack |publisher=Railway Technology |date=March 15, 2024}}</ref>
===Rolling stock===
{|class="wikitable collapsable" style="text-align:center;font-size:90%;"
|+ style="font-size:120%;" | Electric rolling stock compared with existing diesel & electric locomotives
|-
! Type
! colspan=2 | Diesel locomotive
! colspan=2 | Electric locomotive
! colspan=2 | Electric multiple unit
|-
|
! [[Electro-Motive Diesel|EMD]]<br />[[EMD F40PH|F40PH-2]]
! [[MotivePower|MPI]]<br />[[MPI MPXpress#MP36PH-3C|MP36PH-3C]]
! [[Electro-Motive Diesel|EMD]]<br />[[EMD AEM-7|AEM-7]]
! [[Siemens Mobility|Siemens]]<br />[[Siemens ACS-64|ACS-64]]{{efn|As configured for Amtrak [[Northeast Corridor]] service}}
! [[Stadler Rail|Stadler]]<br />[[Stadler KISS|KISS EMU]]<br />single car
! Stadler<br />KISS EMU<br />7-car set
|-
! Length
| {{convert|56|ft|2|in|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|68|ft|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|53|ft|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|20.32|m|disp=br()|order=flip|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|85|ft|10.5|in|disp=br()|abbr=on}}{{efn|name=Average|Average assumed from dividing values for six-EMU consist by 6. Leading and trailing cab cars are different than trailer cars due to crash energy management structures and traction equipment. Some trailer cars do not have traction motors.}}
| {{convert|598|ft|11|in|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
|-
! Weight
| {{convert|260000|lb|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|265000|lb|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|200000|lb|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|215537|lb|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
| TBC{{efn|name=Power}}
| {{convert|946000|lb|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
|-
! Power
| {{convert|3000|hp|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|3600|hp|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
| {{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 five of seven cars in the consist are powered, according to the Stadler brochure: two cab cars (leading and trailing cars with operator cabins, each with one powered truck) and three passenger trailers (each with two powered trucks); the two bike trailers per train have electrical conversion equipment but both trucks do not have traction motors.<ref name=Stadler2023/> Weight and power per car will differ from car to car. Tractive effort is not meaningful for a single car.}}
| {{convert|7000|kW|hp|disp=br()|order=flip|abbr=on}}{{efn|Continuous rated power.}}{{efn|name=7-EMU-upgrade|Rating is upgraded for 7-EMU train, the diagram indicates there are eight powered trucks in the 7-EMU consist,<ref name=Stadler7/><ref name=Stadler2023/> compared to six powered trucks in the 6-EMU consist.<ref name=StadlerData/>}}
|-
! Starting<br />[[Tractive effort#Rail vehicles|tractive effort]]
| {{convert|65000|lbf|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|85000|lbf|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|51700|lbf|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
| {{convert|72000|lbf|disp=br()|abbr=on}}
| N/A{{efn|name=Power}}
| {{convert|645850|N|lbf|disp=br()|abbr=on|order=flip}}{{efn|name=7-EMU-upgrade}}
|-
! References
|<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.thedieselshop.us/Data%20EMD%20F40PH-2.HTML |title=EMD F40PH-2 |website=The Diesel Shop US |access-date=April 28, 2017}}</ref>
|<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.thedieselshop.us/Data%20MP36PH-3C.HTML |title=Motive Power Industries M36PH-3C |website=The Diesel Shop US |access-date=April 28, 2017}}</ref>
|<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>
|}
;Notes
{{notelist|25em}}
====Stadler EMU====
{{stack|
[[File:Caltrain EMU testing at Palo Alto station.jpg|thumb|A Caltrain Stadler KISS undergoing testing at Palo Alto station.]]
[[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 are compliant with the [[Federal Railroad Administration|FRA]] alternative Tier-I crash-worthiness standard.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://rollingstockworld.com/passenger-cars/caltrain-introduces-the-kiss-double-deck-emus-by-stadler-for-california/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230604224222/https://rollingstockworld.com/passenger-cars/caltrain-introduces-the-kiss-double-deck-emus-by-stadler-for-california/ |archive-date=June 4, 2023 |url-status=live |title=Caltrain introduces the KISS double-deck EMUs by Stadler for California |publisher=Rolling Stock World |date=November 9, 2022}}</ref> Under the alternative standard, it has Crash Energy Management (CEM) features which allow parts of the EMU to collapse whilst keeping the passenger seating area intact in the event of collision, instead of relying on pure structural strength as in the traditional Tier-I standard.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/90/TR_RSAC_Report_final_2.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241130180117/https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/90/TR_RSAC_Report_final_2.pdf |archive-date=November 30, 2024 |url-status=live |title=Technical Criteria and Procedures for Evaluating the Crashworthiness and Occupant Protection Performance of Alternatively Designed Passenger Rail Equipment for Use in Tier I Service |publisher=U.S. Department of Transportation |date=October 2011 |pp=22-23}}</ref> The implementation of the alternative Tier-I standard results in a lighter train that will save energy and track maintenance cost. Coupled with the positive train control system that is being installed on the Caltrain line, Caltrain KISS trains will be allowed to operate in mixed traffic with heavier trains, such as Amtrak passenger trains and Union Pacific freight trains, instead of the temporal separation required in the 2009 waiver.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/for-caltrain-16-kisses-from-stadler-but-no-flirts/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240530000057/https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/for-caltrain-16-kisses-from-stadler-but-no-flirts/ |archive-date=May 30, 2024 |url-status=live |title=For Caltrain, 16 KISSes from Stadler (but no FLIRTs) |first=William C. |last=Vantuono |publisher=Railway Age |date=August 16, 2016}}</ref>
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 />
{|class="wikitable" style="font-size:85%;text-align:center;"
|+Stadler/Caltrain KISS capacity<ref name=Stadler7/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.tillier.net/stuff/caltrain/Caltrain_Waiver_Request_20180705.pdf#page=15 |title=Caltrain EMU Base Waiver |date=July 5, 2018 |author=Bouchard, Michelle |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=29 March 2021}}</ref>
|-
!colspan=2 | !! B !! C !! D !! G !! E !! F !! A !! Total
|-
! rowspan=2 | Fixed Seats
| Upstairs
| 52 || 52 || 60 || 52 || 52 || 60 || 52 || 380
|-
| Downstairs
| 32 || 17 || 16 || 32 || 32 || 16 || 32 || 177
|-
! Folding Seats
| Downstairs<!--Each car has 10 seats in each car at the mezzanine level doors and 3 folding seats in each of the wheelchair spaces = 16 folding seats in "C" and "E" passenger trailers; note the "D" and "F" bike cars only have folding seats in one of the two wheelchair spaces (= 13 folding seats in bike cars), and cab cars have two additional folding seats immediately behind the cab section (=18 folding seats in "A" and "B" cab cars). Refer to illustrations in the "Base Waiver" document above.-->
| 18 || 16 || 13 || 16 || 16 || 13 || 18 || 110
|-
! colspan=2 | Wheelchairs
| 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || 14
|-
! colspan=2 | Bikes
| || || 36 || || || 36 || || 72
|-
! colspan=2 | Bathroom
| || 1 || || || || || || 1
|}
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 updated EMU consist configuration, according to Stadler brochures released in 2021 and 2023, adds a seventh car, which is a passenger trailer with two powered trucks, giving the EMU a total of eight powered trucks.<ref name=Stadler2023/><ref name=Stadler7/>
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible collapsed floatright" style="width:20em; text-align:right; font-size:80%;"
|+ style="text-align:center; font-size:125%;"|Stadler EMU progress
|-
! Date !! Shells Shipped !! In [[Salt Lake City|SLC]] !! At [[Caltrain Centralized Equipment Maintenance and Operations Facility|CEMOF]]
|-
! {{dts|2018|07|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-1807>{{cite report |chapter-url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/626/download?inline#page=21 |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Monthly Progress Report |date=July 2018 |page=4-1 |chapter=4.1: Electric Multiple Units |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022}}</ref>
| 2 || 0 || 0
|-
! {{dts|2019|01|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-1901>{{cite report |chapter-url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/632/download?inline#page=21 |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Monthly Progress Report |date=January 2019 |page=4-1 |chapter=4.1: Electric Multiple Units |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022}}</ref>
| 12 || 8 || 0
|-
! {{dts|2019|07|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-1907>{{cite report |chapter-url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/638/download?inline#page=23 |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Monthly Progress Report |date=July 2019 |page=4-1 |chapter=4.1: Electric Multiple Units |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022}}</ref>
| 21 || 19 || 0
|-
! {{dts|2020|01|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-2001>{{cite report |chapter-url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/644/download?inline#page=23 |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Monthly Progress Report |date=January 2020 |page=4-1 |chapter=4.1: Electric Multiple Units |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022}}</ref>
| 28 || 25 || 0
|-
! {{dts|2020|07|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-2007>{{cite report |chapter-url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/650/download?inline#page=25 |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Monthly Progress Report |date=July 2020 |page=4-1 |chapter=4.1: Electric Multiple Units |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022}}</ref>
| 43 || 34 || 0
|-
! {{dts|2021|01|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-2101>{{cite report |chapter-url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/656/download?inline#page=26 |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Monthly Progress Report |date=January 2021 |page=4-1 |chapter=4.1: Electric Multiple Units |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022}}</ref>
| 66 || 49 || 0
|-
! {{dts|2021|07|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-2107>{{cite report |chapter-url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/6799/download?inline#page=26 |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Monthly Progress Report |date=July 2021 |page=4-1 |chapter=4.1: Electric Multiple Units |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022}}</ref>
| 82 || 73 || 0
|-
! {{dts|2022|01|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Progress-2201>{{cite report |chapter-url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/19708/download?inline#page=17 |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Monthly Progress Report |date=January 2022 |page=4-4 |chapter=4.3: EMU (Rolling Stock) |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022}}</ref>
| 93 || 89 || 0
|-
! {{dts|2022|07|abbr=on}}<ref name=PCEP-Update-2207>{{cite report |url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/21574/download?inline#page=16 |title=Caltrain Electrification Project Update |date=August 4, 2022 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022 |quote=Two trainsets on site}}</ref>
| ? || ? || 14
|}
The first two shells, destined for cab cars, were shipped from [[Altenrhein]] to Salt Lake City on June 5, 2018. At the time, Stadler's new Salt Lake City final assembly plant was still under construction, but a portion was ready by the time the first shell arrived in August 2018.<ref name=PCEP-PR15 /> Stadler announced the first car bodies arrived on September 5, 2018, and were rolled directly into the new Salt Lake facility.<ref>{{cite press release |url=https://wwwstadlerrailcom-live-01e96f7.s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/filer_public/3a/fe/3afebc09-a9e8-46ed-b1c2-affc22ae918e/2018_0907_media_release_first_car_bodies_in_slc_en.pdf |title=First CalTrain car bodies roll into new Stadler SLC facility |date=7 September 2018 |publisher=Stadler |access-date=31 October 2018}}</ref> {{as of|January 2019}}, an option has been exercised to expand the order to 133 cars using Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program funding, to be delivered as 19 trainsets, each consisting of 7 railcars.<ref name=PCEP-Progress-1901/> By April 2019, Stadler had completed and shipped 15 shells, with 10 received and being finished at Salt Lake City.<ref name=PCEP-Progress-1904/> Stadler moved into its new building on May 15, 2019; at the ceremony, attended by Governor [[Gary Herbert]] and Stadler CEO Peter Spuhler, one of the KISS EMUs for Caltrain was displayed alongside the final [[Stadler FLIRT|FLIRT]] diesel multiple unit for [[TEXRail]], named [[Golden spike|"Spike"]]. The press conference also was staged to re-enact and honor the 150th anniversary of the completion of the [[First transcontinental railroad]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.railway-technology.com/news/stadler-rail-manufacturing-facility-salt-lake-city/ |title=Stadler opens rail manufacturing facility in Salt Lake City, US |date=May 15, 2019 |work=Railway Technology |access-date=29 March 2021}}</ref>
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 to order four additional seven-car EMU trainsets ($220 million) and a single four-car [[battery electric multiple unit]] (BEMU) trainset ($80 million). This will result in a fleet of 23 EMU trainsets, six diesel-hauled trainsets, and one BEMU trainset by 2030, with over 90% of service using electric trains. The BEMU trainset will be used on the non-electrified portion of the corridor between San Jose and Gilroy.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/31302/download |title=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board: Board of Directors Meeting |chapter=Approve Execution of Stadler Electric Multiple Unit Option and Funding Plan |date=August 3, 2023 |pages=88–95 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release |url=https://www.caltrain.com/news/caltrain-pilot-first-nation-bi-level-dual-electric-and-battery-powered-train-expand-zero |title=Caltrain to Pilot First-in-the-Nation Bi-Level Dual Electric and Battery Powered Train to Expand Zero-Emission Service |date=August 3, 2023 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board}}</ref>
====EMD AEM-7AC====
[[File:Amtrak 929 and 938 at Oakland Maintenance Facility, July 2019.JPG|thumb|right|The locomotives in July 2019]]
Since Amtrak has replaced its fleet of [[EMD AEM-7]] locomotives with [[Siemens ACS-64]], PCJPB entered discussions to purchase retired AEM-7s to test the electrification system and to serve as reserve locomotives in the event of EMU unavailability. Because of the delay in delivering ACS-64s, the target sale date for the AEM-7s was moved out to June 2016.<ref>{{cite report |url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/May+2016+Quarterly+Report.pdf |title=Caltrain Modernization Program, Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) 3rd Quarter FY 2016 Progress Report |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=May 2016 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=April 7, 2017 |page=4 |archive-date=November 7, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161107025712/http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/May+2016+Quarterly+Report.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> Although procuring an ACS-64 for testing was considered, Siemens stated no locomotives were available for lease, and the cost to purchase a new ACS-64 exceeded the budget allowance for testing.<ref name=JPB-2018-06/>
The May 2017 PCEP ''Monthly Progress Report'' noted that PCJPB was drafting two requests for proposals: one to purchase an electric locomotive to test the electrification system, and another to refurbish an electric locomotive.<ref>{{cite report |url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/614/download?inline |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Monthly Progress Report |date=May 2017 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022 |page=18-1}}</ref> By October 2017, the work in progress had identified two vendors: [[Mitsui Rail Capital|Mitsui]] for purchase, and Amtrak for refurbishment;<ref>{{cite report |url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/618/download?inline |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Monthly Progress Report |date=October 2017 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022 |page=18-1}}</ref> in January 2018, contracts were ready to be awarded to those vendors.<ref>{{cite report |url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/662/download?inline |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Monthly Progress Report |date=January 2018 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=17 September 2022 |page=18-1}}</ref> Mitsui owns several ex-Amtrak AEM-7 locomotives.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.stb.gov/recordations_2000s.nsf/f8e6632940c078dd85256b70005e5183/85257ca8005cf0ca85256b68006d6a04/$FILE/6690-GGGGGGGG.pdf |title=Termination and Release of Lien |date=25 September 2001 |publisher=Surface Transportation Board |access-date=27 February 2018 |archive-date=February 16, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170216194623/https://www.stb.gov/recordations_2000s.nsf/f8e6632940c078dd85256b70005e5183/85257ca8005cf0ca85256b68006d6a04/$FILE/6690-GGGGGGGG.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> On June 7, 2018, Caltrain staff recommended that two contracts be awarded for a total of approximately $610,000: one to purchase two AEM-7ACs from Mitsui & Co, and the other to Amtrak for refurbishment, training, and transportation to the [[Caltrain Centralized Equipment Maintenance and Operations Facility]] (CEMOF),<ref name=JPB-2018-06>{{cite report |url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/2018/2018-06-07+JPB+REVISED+PACKET+REMOVING+DUP+TOD.pdf#page=219 |title=Agenda: PCJPB Meeting |page=219 |date=June 7, 2018 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=13 June 2018 |archive-date=June 13, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180613234854/http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/2018/2018-06-07+JPB+REVISED+PACKET+REMOVING+DUP+TOD.pdf#page=219 |url-status=dead }}</ref> which passed unanimously.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/2018/2018-08-02+-+JPB+PCEP+REVISED+page.pdf#page=9 |title=Minutes: PCJPB Meeting |date=June 7, 2018 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |page=9 |access-date=October 31, 2018 |archive-date=November 1, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181101015337/http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/2018/2018-08-02+-+JPB+PCEP+REVISED+page.pdf#page=9 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The AEM-7AC locomotives were scheduled to arrive in February 2019,<ref name=PCEP-Progress-1811>{{Cite web |url=https://www.caltrain.com/media/630/download?inline#page=11 |title=Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: November 2018 Monthly Progress Report |date=November 30, 2018 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |pages=2–3 |access-date=17 September 2022}}</ref> but were still at Amtrak's Ivy City facility (near Washington D.C.) in April 2019 and did not arrive in California until June 28.<ref name=PCEP-Progress-1904/><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/06/28/eyes-on-the-rails-caltrains-first-electric-train-arrives/|title = Eyes on the Rails: Caltrain's First Electric Train Arrives|date = June 28, 2019}}</ref> They were moved to CEMOF in early August<ref>{{cite tweet |number=1159462860017287168 |user=Caltrain |date=August 8, 2019 |title=Correct. They arrived earlier this week.}}</ref> and by September, were being stored at the San Francisco Rail Yard.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.caltrain.com/Assets/_Marketing/Caltrain+Connection/2019+Summer+CT+Connection.pdf |title=CalMod Corner |date=Summer 2019 |work=Caltrain Connection |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=August 31, 2021 |archive-date=August 31, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210831234357/https://www.caltrain.com/Assets/_Marketing/Caltrain+Connection/2019+Summer+CT+Connection.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> After testing is completed, the used locomotives will be disposed.<ref name=JPB-2018-06/>
==Footnotes==
{{reflist}}
==References==
{{
*{{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}}
==External links==
{{Commons category}}
* [https://calmod.org/ Official site for the CalMod Project] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190605124542/https://calmod.org/ |date=June 5, 2019 }}
* [http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationProject.html Electrification Project Page on Caltrain main site]
* {{cite web |url=http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization.html |title=Caltrain Modernization Program |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=2017 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board |access-date=March 25, 2017}}
* {{cite web |url=https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FRA-2009-0124 |title=FRA-2009-0124 Caltrain – Waiver Petition |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date=2016 |publisher=Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation |access-date=March 30, 2017}}
===Caltrain videos===
* {{YouTube |id=RudWu_DB6Tw |title=Caltrain's CBOSS and PTC Project Will Upgrade Safety}}
* {{YouTube |id=Q8vohi6esaE |title=CalMod – Electrification and the Future of Caltrain}}
{{Caltrain}}
{{California High-Speed Rail navbox}}
[[Category:Caltrain]]
[[Category:2024 in rail transport]]
[[Category:25 kV AC railway electrification]]
[[Category:Electric railways in California]]
[[Category:Railway electrification in the United States]]
| |||