Blame San Mateo county in the 50s who chose against participating in the then BART project. If they had voted in, BART would be going down the peninsula to SJ (sorry Morgan Hill) and there'd be no need for a Caltrain. But as we know, SM voted down participating in BART and now we are left with Caltrain on the pen. and BART going the long way to SJ (via Fremont).

Oh, well, hindsight, NIMBYism, pop growth etc.

I'll take Caltrain in its current state over BART any day.

BART is a costly system and they've been masking the true costs for decades by deferring maintenance, the $3.5B they've gotten from taxpayers is just a portion of what they need to bring the system up to date. And worse, they can spend up to a third of that on operational costs... which are sky high in part because BART is saddled with high labor costs and can't rein in its union's lucrative work rules. Case in point, the Warm Springs station is not even open yet, but it's fully staffed, including janitors to clean an empty, unused station.

But the problems don't end there -- BART's equipment is non-standard gauge so every order is a custom order with high lead times and there's no world market for BART's gauge. While Caltrain is able to supplement capacity by buying surplus cars.

And BART is designed with no passing tracks, so there's no such thing as an "express" train. Want to go from San Jose to SF? Well you've got to stop at every station in between. While with Caltrain you can take a 5 stop "baby bullet".

And finally, the capacity of nearly the entire system is dependent on how fast passengers can get on and off the trains at Embarcadero station. BART has a billion dollar band-aid for that, by digging out the other side of the station so passengers can board from both sides. What they really need are multiple tracks, like what Caltrain has at their SF station (and other high volume transit systems throughout the world)

I grant you the custom gauge issue. That's unforgivable. Labor costs (Janitor earning quarter mill) are something they can work on --They just seem unwilling to go the union-busting way. Passing tracks, I'm not aware of most Caltrain stations having passing tracks --they just schedule things so far apart they can pass at a couple of stations. I'd prefer more frequent service.

A ring around the bay or a second Transbay tube would alleviate the Transbay bottleneck.

On the plus side it's all electric and works with minute headway.

Of course, BART is no picnic to ride on either...

Most of Caltrain's locomotives date back to 1985, so they are more like Windows 2.1

You should see the old metro north ones that run from CT to NYC, they are even older.

Which cars are you referring to?? The new haven line M8's are some of the newest rail cars in the country, if not the newest.

I know there are some M2 sets still sometimes used but those will be replaced once the 30-60 some odd bar car sets come in.

Also on a separate note, you really can't fault the MTA here for running old cars, they actually do some pretty good maintenance on there fleets both commuter and subway. Running old cars is about maximizing the invest in your fleet, the average lifetime generally being around 40 years.

It seems the MTA learnt there lesson with differed maintanance after the 80's. Just look at the current state of MBTA to the north or WAMTA to the south (it also helps the MTA has a large dedicated funding stream which allot of other transit properties in US lack)

they have M8s but on certain lines they still run those old ones that are over 40 years. Back in 2013 40% of the fleet was out of service due to extremely cold weather

Nothing really wrong with old trains tbh assuming they are maintained and refurbished.

The intercity 125 in the UK despite being over 40 years old is still fast (125mph), reliable (engines have all been replaced fairly recently) and very comfortable and quiet, even in standard class.

And in my experience, the 125 is much nicer than the newer Pendolino, which is claustrophobic, dimly lit, and the areas around the toilets smell of piss.

If you want to see a case study in exactly what you're talking about, you could check out the Australian version of the same train, the XPT, which is in dire need of refurbishment.

> Rush-hour trains are so crowded that their aisles are filled with passengers

I thought that was normal. Is there anywhere that this isn't the case?

The thought is that "subway" mass transit can be full of people, even stuffed, but "commuter" lines are a bit lighter after they deboard passengers at the first few suburbs and you can find a nice comfy seat somewhere around the midway point.

Commuter lines can be pretty rough. I've been on some gnarly NJ Transit trains heading out of NYC.

The midway point of this line is Palo Alto, which is also a big destination. There are several other stations in the middle which are also big destinations.

Here in Southern Ontario (GO train) I have never seen aisles full with passengers. Although on the lower level there are some people standing, the upper deck is usually all seated. Often with some free seats.

Right, because everyone is too busy driving their cars, clogging up your poorly designed expressways. 401 traffic is hell at any hour of the day.

The GO Train is probably my favorite commuter rail service. People line up properly at the doors, it's never too crowded, it's clean, there aren't delays very often, and it's generally civilized.

Iunno, on rush hours' Lakeshore West trains going into Union, if you're not on by Bronte, you ain't getting a seat.

Regarding exhaust fumes, get a seat at the back of the train: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/02/07/go-transit-passe...