Railroad Forums 

Discussion related to commuter rail and transit operators in California past and present including Los Angeles Metrolink and Metro Subway and Light Rail, San Diego Coaster, Sprinter and MTS Trolley, Altamont Commuter Express (Stockton), Caltrain and MUNI (San Francisco), Sacramento RTD Light Rail, and others...

Moderator: lensovet

 #1244143  by ExCon90
 
I recall from the time BART was under design that some apprehension was expressed about lateral wind forces on the Golden Gate Bridge (which turned out to be irrelevant for other reasons). Certainly the planners realized that all of their prospective passengers already had a way of getting to work in an air-conditioned vehicle with comfortable seats--that's how they were getting to work as it was. What spurred a desire for BART was that these vehicles spent more time standing in traffic than moving, at least during rush hours. The planners felt they had to offer something better than a plain box with benches, since riders could revert to using their own cars in a heartbeat, traffic jams notwithstanding, and the more generous loading gauge made wider carbodies possible. (An interesting parallel here with the construction of the Metropolitan Railway in London in 1863; the target ridership at the time was fairly prosperous residents who used hansom cabs and their own carriages, and if they were offered wooden benches they'd take one ride and never come back. Thus equipment on the London Underground has traditionally had comfortably upholstered seats and armrests ever since.) It seems that the interiors of the new BART cars are not going to measure up to the comfort of the originals.
 #1247726  by lpetrich
 
Checking on SFBART (SFBART) on Twitter, I found Twitter / SFBART: Check out public feedback details ... a picture of a proposed interior of a new BART railcar. From there, New Train Car Project | bart.gov showing more views of their proposed designs, including a preview of what they plan to show on the video screens that each railcar will have.

The ceilings will have lots of straps, and some of the poles will split in three to make more room for holding them.
 #1289868  by modorney
 
New BART cars - about 2.5 million apiece -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/3 ... 42360.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

New York City - about 2 million apiece for R-179 cars (Second Ave)
http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/docs ... h_2012.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BART cars are longer (75 feet, versus 60 feet) - cost "per foot" is the same, which is
probably more coincidental, than significant.
 #1289870  by Myrtone
 
Is this in spite of the BART track gauge, 5'6''? Are any standard gauge metro cars the same length as the BART and do they cost any less? Track gauge being equal, do longer cars cost less per foot, given that they don't need twice as many bogies, motors, etc?
 #1292263  by Fan Railer
 
BART cars are 70 feet long each. The primary cost factor would be the gauge difference, with standard gauge cars cheaper to manufacture. And yes, with gauge being equal, longer cars do technically incur cost savings due to the reasons you mentioned.
 #1382294  by lpetrich
 
Testing equipment wire caused brake issue; not car or operators; new cars on schedule | bart.gov
The crux of what happened: A wire running from testing equipment to the train car shorted out when pinched in a cabinet door. This caused the auxiliary power supply to short to ground and shut down. This is the system that supplies power to the pump that replenishes the brake fluid.

As a result, once the fluid in the accumulator had been expended it was not replenished. The electric brakes slowed the car to 5mph; the friction brakes did not have adequate fluid to complete the stop and the car rolled into the sand box. This failure can only occur with a single car (which does not happen in passenger service) because in a train the other cars in the train would carry through the braking process.
What an accident.
 #1382617  by HiLoMo
 
Big design oversight IMO. The fail-safe of loss of brake fluid pressure should be friction brakes applied. The train should not have to rely on the consist to come to a complete stop. That means if there is a sudden loss of third rail power within BART and a consist is on grade, the train will roll uncontrollably.
Last edited by Jeff Smith on Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:10 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Removed immediately preceding/nesting quote
 #1395621  by Ryand-Smith
 
HiLoMo wrote:Big design oversight IMO. The fail-safe of loss of brake fluid pressure should be friction brakes applied. The train should not have to rely on the consist to come to a complete stop. That means if there is a sudden loss of third rail power within BART and a consist is on grade, the train will roll uncontrollably.

So it's a hydraulic aculimator which I am used to, and e brakes. Shouldn't there be an air brake which upon loss of pressure or operate action cause the mechanical brakes to shut?
 #1395676  by lpetrich
 
farecard wrote:What is the propulsion system of the new cars: VFD's+multiphase motors, chopper+DC, etc?
I looked through BART's pages on its new railcars, and there was no mention of any such technical details. Those pages mostly discussed what passengers will experience, like the railcars' floor plans and seats.