Talk:Caltrain

Bay Meadows

Am I correct in thinking that the Bay Meadows service stops only when there's racing (or something else - I think they do car boot sales in the parking lot) on there? If so, we should say that. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. I will edit it. --ChrisRuvolo 15:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to the Caltrain website the Bay Meadows station will be permanently closed after Dec. 20, I think I'm reading that correctly -- Jorge Vittes 21:23, 14 Dec 2005 (PST)

I quote from their site "After completion of improvements to the Hillsdale station, the Bay Meadows station will be permanently closed to regular Caltrain service on Dec. 20." If nobody comments or anything I'll just make the changes to the page stating Caltrain's decision. -- Jorge Vittes 15:37, 15 Dec 2005 (PST)

I have gone ahead and made the changes, after Dec 20 I will remove it from the list of stations if there is no further discussion on this issue. -- Jorge Vittes 17:21, 17 Dec 2005 (PST)

Please move Bay Meadows to the "Former Stations" section, instead of just delete it. Also, try not to edit something in or out before it actually happened. --Will74205 06:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I fully intended to do that, sorry for the misunderstanding, as for doing it before it acually happens, it says that it will close the station permanently on Dec 20, so after that would be after it happens, unless of course at some point I misread something, I'll double check before I move the station listing, just in case. If you are having trouble finding the information on the closings follow the link titled "Caltrain Station At Hillsdale Closed for Construction – Dec. 17 & 18" from the Caltrain website, or stand at one of their station platforms and read the lit display that provides informations to passengers, it eventually shows up. I know it is important to be able to verify the data provided. -- Jorge Vittes 22:35, 17 Dec 2005 (PST)

Colour coding

I figure it would be a nice addition to put the station list into a table, and in there denote the different ticketing zones. It's been a couple of years since I rode it last, but then there were nice colour codes on the tickets. Caltrain's page shows the different zones, but not the colours. If memory serves, the SF zone was green, but I can't remember the others. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the color codes are used anymore in Caltrain literature. I'll add the zones. --ChrisRuvolo 15:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are color codes on the monthly passes. I'm not sure whether this is recognizable or useful to add since it is not used in other literature. Your call. --ChrisRuvolo 17:45, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Red star

The red star which shows the express train stops works very nice on linux (in both konqueror and firefox) but not on windowsXP (firefox, opera, IE). I think the font (which is explicitly specified in the default wikipedia stylesheet) doesn't contain that star glyph. Might I respectfully suggest this indication be changed to EX or something like that. - Dave

Wow, those MS fonts suck. I'll change it, thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 06:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can someone with MSIE6 tell me if the output from any of these lines below has the star displayed properly? I just found Template:Unicode and related templates that try to get IE to pick correct Unicode fonts. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. ★
2. ★
3. ★
4. ★

Yes I could see all the stars fine. I am using MSIE6.0 that came with Windows XP. Is it possible to change their color? --Will74205 11:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Connection Section

I think the Connection Section should be merged into the Station Stop Section by indicating the connecting transit lines behind the station name. What do you guys think? Also, can someone add a picture of MP36PH-3C in its Baby Bullet consist? Thanks. --Will74205 21:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My two cents: the station stops are crowded enough as is.. but if you can do it and make it not look cluttered, I wouldn't be opposed to it. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 22:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Map is fair use?

Can anyone clarify the fair use status of the newly included map, Image:Caltrain system map1.gif? A similar BART map is listed as "unverified" and "unsure of copyright status": Image:Map500.gif. Other transit services, such as NJ Transit, Long Island Rail Road do not include maps, or have maps that were made for Wikipedia: Image:Amtrak_schematic.png Image:NYC subway map.png. Comments? --ChrisRuvolo 22:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, since Caltrain is a public agency and the map was copy/pasted directly from Caltrain website without modification, I assumed posting on Wikipedia for informational purpose is fair use. I'll be appreciated if someone can e-mail Caltrain to check about this. --Will74205 09:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I doubt Caltrain will offer an opinion about fair use. They might grant use of the image though. The Caltrain pages say © 2002 Caltrain. All rights reserved. so I don't think that the usual California and federal public domain status carries here. --ChrisRuvolo 19:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, according to the draft plan for judging fair use, this image should either be recreated or listed on WP:IFD (step 3 in the plan). --ChrisRuvolo 23:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you might be right. Will a permission from Caltrain make a difference or the route map should be deleted? I noticed that a similar route map exists in the Amtrak article. --Will74205 03:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If permission is obtained, it can be used. Ideally, permission would be obtained under a free (libre) license, but permission to use is sufficient to keep it on the page, I think. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#General non-free licenses. If you decide to ask for permission, see here: Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission and include correspondance on the image description page. Thanks. Re:Amtrak, yes, the page on Image:Amtrak-map.png seems pretty inconclusive, like the BART map. --ChrisRuvolo 04:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am in the process of drawing a new map. In addition to the copyright concerns of the Caltrain one, it is deficient in a number of ways;

• it's too small, particularly when printed
• it doesn't properly indicate which stations are express stops
• it doesn't show Stanford Stadium
• it doesn't make it clear in which zone Atherton and Sunnyvale are located (making them appear to be on the border of two zones)

I'll upload a test version in a couple of days, but I'll be very open to suggestions for improvement. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for making a new route map for Caltrain. When you posted your map, can you list the route map from Caltrain in WP:IFD? Thanks. --Will74205 22:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is Caltrain article getting too long?

With thanks to everybody, the Caltrain article is probably the most detailed when compare with articles for other commuter rail lines/agencies. But I think this article is getting a little too long. Should we try to pare it down and direct people who need more detailed information to Caltrain website, or leave the article as it is. Thanks for any comments. --Will74205 09:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMO it is not too long. --ChrisRuvolo 19:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's too short. Shamefully ;) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Test version of new map

Proposed new Caltrain map

As promised, here's a test version of my proposed new (free) Caltrain map. I'm very eager for others comments and suggestions for improvement. I'm using Inkscape, a pretty powerful tool, so it's not to late to make changes (although labourious things like changing lots of fonts isn't going to make me happy).

Differences between this version and the offical Caltrain map:

• The official Caltrain map is copyrighted by PCJPB.
• It's bigger than the caltrain map, and clearer when printed .
• The official map doesn't show Stanford Stadium at all.
• The official map doesn't denote express stops properly.
• This version clarifies which stations are in which zones. The official map makes Atherton, Sunnyvale and Lawrence's zones ambiguous.
• Interconnects to airports are shown in legend text, rather than lines, for clarity (the San Bruno/Millbrae section is already very crowded).

Design issues

Things I'm happy with, which I'm probably not going to change:

• The landform and sea/bay.
• The caltrain line, and its stations.
• Fonts and most colours.
• Plane and train icons.

Things I'm not happy with, but don't know how to fix (ideas welcome):

• The zone indications are ugly. I've tried several ways of drawing this, but it never turns out nice.
• The Millbrae/SFO/BART area is crowded and clumsy, but there's little room to move things around.

Stuff I'd like others to verify

• Are stops and interconnects factually correct?
• Is text in legend box both accurate and clear?
• Is everything spelled okay? Mi spelling iz bad.

Comments below, please. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow, nice job. It looks great. I find the Zone indicators perfectly fine. One thing that might be clearer in the text box: "VTA rt10 bus" could be clearer as "VTA #10 bus" .. what do you think? I know you were trying to avoid a line from the station to the airport.. but I think it might make it clearer which station connects to SFO via BART, without reading the infobox. One question about the bay/peninsula outline map.. did you make that? If not, is it under a compatible license? Also, a compass rose might be useful. Thanks for your efforts, this is a great map! --ChrisRuvolo 16:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've amended the bus # in the legend, as you suggested. By moving Millbrae and San Bruno west a bit I found space for a line showing the interconnection (and so I added one for SJC too). The colours of both roughly reflect their respective networks' chosen colours for those services. I added a basic compass rose too, and tweaked a few things here and there. You may need to clear your cache to see the difference. The coast vector is public domain - see the description page for details. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is much better than the official map from Caltrain. I am a little unsure about the dotted line from San Jose to Tamien. Also, VTA Vasona light rail line is schedule to open this summer, adding another light rail connection at San Jose. You might need to update the map soon when they close Paul Avenue, Bay Meadows, and probably Atherton. Stanford Stadium is extremely close to Palo Atlo in reality, the southern-tip of the Palo Atlo platforms almost touch the northern tip of Stanford Stadium. They should just close Stanford Stadium station and build a long walkway from Palo Atlo. --Will74205 21:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new version, which mostly fixes things no-one else would ever notice, and improving monochrome and red/green colourblindness accessibility (man the caltrain one sucks in mono). I'm not terribly happy about the dashed Tamien connection either, but can't think of something better. The official map shows the bus route and train in parallel, which I think could give the misleading impression you could take either on weekends. I don't really want to use a different colour again (it's hard to distinguish them when printed in monochrome) so a different line style seems the only option. If someone has a suggestion how to denote this section easily, I'll give anything a try. As to adding and removing stations and interconnects: this is really easy (well, the line to Monterrey isn't, but that'll be a while!). Once we're set on a final version, I'll upload the source (it's an SVG file, which I can coax mediawiki to accept), so anyone with Inkscape (which is free, and pretty straightforward to use) can change it. Also, although I almost never do wikipedia any more, if someone sends me an email with change requests I'll do it. Lastly, I'm pretty happy with this version, and no-one seems to object to it, so I'll swap it with the official one tomorrow. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for history section

If anyone has a source, I think it would be interesting to track the comings and goings of various stations. Paul Ave is new, isn't it, and San Antonio replaced Castro. Belmont and Millbrae are essentially new stations with old names too. With the deprecations Will74205 describes above, I think the article can give an insight into changes in the area - I guess there's an ongoing shift in commuting patterns, with emphasis moving away from the mid peninsula and into the south bay. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you mean that San Antonio replaced Rengstorff, yes?. Castro is still operational (the Mountain View stop, connecting to VTA). --ChrisRuvolo 00:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Confusingly, the Caltrain stop at Rengsdorff Park was called Castro (after the Castro City neighbourhood west of Rengsdorff Ave). I don't believe it was ever called Rengsdorff (although that would be more logical). Search for "castro station" in these pages: [1], [2], and [3]. As far as I can tell, VTA call their stop at MTV "Downtown Mountain View Transit Center". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is a good idea to have a section dedicate to the coming and going of Caltrain stations, probably include the reason for the addition/closure. Paul Avenue will probably close within this year but a new station, Oakdale, is scheduled to be opened in 2008 a little north to Paul Avenue. I wonder what Oakdale would do to the ridership to 22nd St. station. I mean, people like new station better, right, especially when 22nd St. station is in a ditch under the freeway. --Will74205 03:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am moving toward adding a "Historical Stations" section when Caltrain modified its schedule this August, although I still need to do more research. Of course, if someone who is more knowledagable adds this section before I do, that would be great. --Will74205 20:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

New map

I've updated the map on the article, as promised. I won't be on wikipedia for several months (heck, I didn't plan on being here this long) so can I ask a couple of favours:

• Can someone list the old version on IFD.
• If a tweak or revision is required, please send me an email (contact details on my user page).

Later. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Baby Bullet Trainset Picture

I think it would be a good idea to add a picture of the Baby Bullet trainset (MP36PH-3C + Bombardier Bi-Level Coaches) in the article. I like to take a picture of it then posted here but couldn't find the time, can someone post a Baby Bullet picture? Also, I noticed that in the Japanese part of Caltrain article there is a Baby Bullet trainset picture but I couldn't find a way to link to it. Does anyone know how? Thanks. --Will74205 10:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There isn't a japanese interwiki from Caltrain, so which article do you mean? I can (probably ) put the image on commons, if I knew where to get it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:20, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

The interwiki link was removed for some reason. I've re-added it. See: ja:画像:Caltrain Baby Bullet.JPG ja:カルトレイン. The image will either have to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or the EN wiki. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll put it on commons. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Done. It needs a better caption. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:08, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

here is another baby bullet picture if you guys would like to use it http://picasaweb.google.com/grey3050/MakersFair02#5474351689550138994 --- Grey3k (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC).

Revising map

I'm about to produce a revised map, with the red-listed stations removed from it. I'll upload it tomorrow. Are we confident that these three stations will close, or have they had some kind of last-minute reprieve? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:42, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've done it (you may need to clear your cache to see the change), and I moved the three closed stations to a new section (as discussed briefly above). I also added a mention of the Castro (Castro City, Mountain View) stop, which I think closed in 1999. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 09:58, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

On looking at Will's improvements, I think I need to revise the map again. Clearly the stations I removed should be readded, with an additional legend describing their new status. I'm also included to include the A,B stuff in express stops (maybe a little letter inside the circle, if I can get it to fit). Is the A/B scheme Caltrain's official nomenclature? Additionally, do Caltrain have special colours or something for them. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Per the revised map, the light rail icon should be removed from its location adjacent to the Santa Clara station, as there is no rail connection there. The legend should be corrected to read that VTA provides light rail connections at Mountain View, Diridon, and Tamien. While not technically incorrect, it may be confusing to use "Paul Avenue" as an example of a regular stop. -DavDaven 08:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates. Answering specific points individually:

• "Paul Avenue" in legend: D'oh, yes, that should be fixed. I'll probably use Menlo Park instead
• VTA at Diridon: Am I correct in saying this is the new "Vasona" line?
• Rail at Santa Clara: The rail icon there indicates the ACE-rail connection (per http://www.vta.org/schedules/pdf/vta_system_map_jul2005.pdf). Surely that's still correct?

In general, one place where the Caltrain map differs from mine is that they use different icons for the different kinds of rail connection (Caltrain, ACE, VTA, BART, Amtrak). I resisted doing likewise, as it's not really very easy to distinguish one little train icon from another. Should I do this? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It is the new Vasona extension; however, the same line that operates to Mountain View serves Diridon. I would list it simply as VTA light rail, as the agency has been restructuring its lines and has put up new signage that states destinations, not line names.

Sorry, I am used to seeing that logo used strictly for light rail connections and forgot to check the legend. A single rail icon should be clear to any casual observer, though. However, I recently discovered here that ACE service to the Santa Clara station has been suspended, so you should remove the icon anyway. -DavDaven 19:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. Do we know the reason (or duration) of the Santa Clara suspension? I'm reluctant to make changes to the map that I'd need to reverse in a month or two, but if it's a long term suspension then I'll change it, as you suggest. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I found a news release stating the closure will end once UP track work ends, so don't worry about it. Cheers. -DavDaven 21:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ticketmachine.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Ticketmachine.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

We should also note that Image:IMG 4291.sized.jpg, which is the last image on the article, is also listed for deletion for the same reasons as ticketmachine.jpg. Neither image has source or licensing information. Is there someone in the area who can create new images to replace these two? Preferably with images that have level horizons? AdThanksVance. Slambo (Speak) 20:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Rating

So what improvements we need to do if we want this article to receive an rating that is above B? And what makes BART article a GA rated article compare to this one? --Will74205 05:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The first and most obvious improvement would be to add references. There are a couple of inline external links, and there is exactly one reference in the References section. For comparison, take a look at other Good articles about railroad companies such as California Southern Railroad, Amtrak, Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad or Pennsylvania Railroad. Compare the article against the Good article criteria and when it's ready, nominate it for GA status. Once that's achieved, compare it against the Featured article criteria and then nominate it for FA status. Slambo (Speak) 10:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have started adding some references, but I need help in doing so, as you may have noticed the formating on the references is not great, also more references need to be found for a few things. I'll try to get to it when I can, but any help will be appreciated. --JVittes 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we really need to start to revive the point of adding citations, a lot of the things listed are listed as facts without citations to back them up, and I think it would help in improving the rating to add citations, with that in mind I will start adding citation needed tags to areas were I think a citation should exitst but doesn't and I have been unable to find a source. --JVittes 00:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board merge into Caltrain article

I think Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board article should become a section in the Caltrain article, since it only manages Caltrain. Also, I have been trying to find the funding formula of Caltrain but without much success, can someone point me to an website or provide the info? Thanks. --Will74205 08:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is no objections I'll begin merge the PCJPB article to the Caltrain article. --Will74205 23:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Peninsula Commute and San Francisco and San Jose Rail Road Merge

I think it would make the Caltrain article too long if we merge these two articles into the Caltrain article. However, a separate article about the history of Caltrain is worth considering. There we can add more detailed history than what is in the Caltrain main article. --Will74205 21:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would also make the article to long, while the PCJPB article is pretty short the other two combined with the current history section will be quite a long section, while having a lot of information on one page may seem useful, it can make the page hard to deal with, and a long boring read, if one thinks that a certain section should have more information, or that there is more notable information than what is written, there is always the option of making an article for the section, this does not mean that nothing about it will be mentioned on the main page, just not all information will be given on the main page. --JVittes 17:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Another vote against merger. The connection between Caltrain and this historic road is sufficiently distant to maintain separate articles. Tmangray 03:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio removed

I reverted the recent edit because it was a direct copy/paste from http://www.caltrain.com/news_2006_07_31_high-speed_internet.html Slambo (Speak) 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

SVG map

SVG map

In an attempt at making editing of the Caltrain map more accessible to others, I have taken User:Finlay McWalter's Caltrain map source at commons:Image:Wfm caltrain.png/source and made it into a SVG file and uploaded it to commons.

I had to make some changes to the layout, since the Wikimedia renderer doesn't have the same fonts as used in the PNG map. I also shrunk the compass rose, as I thought it was unnecessarily large.

So, the previous time this map was updated was September 2005. Are there more changes to the map that are needed? Let me know. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Caltrain no longer stops at Bay Meadows, otherwise the map is fine, at least for one or two years, unless Caltrain decides to increase service frequency to Gilroy sooner. --Will74205 20:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Do you think it is worth noting the A vs. B schedules for express service? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be good to differentiate express stops from local stops, but probably not necessary to separate them into A or B express stops. Also, do you think putting future extensions, such as Dumbarton Rail, on the map is a good idea? Thanks. --Will74205 00:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Updated. I don't think the future extensions are a good idea at this point since it would contain a lot of speculation. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Caltrain GP9

Can anyone provide some info on the current status of Caltrain's two GP9s? Last I heard was that they are broken. --Will74205 05:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I heard that they have been "mothballed" and are up for sale. I have also heard that one may have a bent frame, which means for sure it will never run again. - Insomniac186

Wireless Service

I was thinking we should have something written here about the wireless internet service, here are two useful sources [4], and [5], I haven't been able to find a good section for it though. --JVittes 02:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Benefits of electrification

I just made the following change to the article:

Since Downtown Extension requires tunneling and thus electrification, Caltrain also plans to electrify the whole system from San Francisco to Gilroy. This project has the potential to decrease equipment maintenance costs, lessen impact of fuel price fluctuation, reduce noise, and give Caltrain a modern image that is comparable to the BART service. The recent diesel price volatility has lent this project more urgency. (Rising fuel costs have caused Caltrain to plan a fare increse to go into effect in April 2007.) Caltrain plans to complete electrification by 2025.

Although technically correct, the existing text was misleading:

• Electrification will decrease equipment maintenance costs but increase track maintenance costs, especially given the use of a concateray structure instead of a 3rd rail.
• Electrification will (obviously) eliminate concerns about fuel costs, but replace them instead with concerns about electricity costs, which are subject to essentially the same pressures.

If anyone has comments about this change, please leave them here. Vectro 19:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I partially agree with your first point, most savings on equipment maintenance will be off-set by increase in track maintenance, but I disgree with you on that 3rd-rail is less maintenance intensive than OCS type systems, mainly because OCS, especially on AC systems, typically requires fewer transforming stations, than 3rd-rail type systems. The original "lessen impact of fuel price fluctuation" is valid because electricity is generated from many sources, a sudden increase in fossil fuel price will not significantly impact electricity rate. Also, Caltrain can negotiate long-term supply contract with the utility company. Modern electricify railways can also save electricity by feed power generated from the regenerative brake back into the grid. --Will74205 02:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue the 3rd-rail versus concatenary point, because that wasn't in the article is isn't really relevant. Caltrain can negotiate a long-term fuel delivery contract just as easily as a long-term electricity delivery contract. And fuel efficiency is a very different issue from fuel volatility. If the new cars are more efficient (and we have a citation to that effect), then we should just say as much. Similarly, if there is a difference in the price (not volatility) of energy delivered via electricity versus via diesel, we should say that, too. The point is, it's quite disingenuous to claim decreased maintenance costs or exposure to volatility, because these issues have actually very little to do with electrification. Cheers, Vectro 15:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's misleading here. Electrification will reduce equipment maintenance costs. Where are you getting the data that overhead catenary is high-maintenance? lensovet–talk – 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's misleading to talk about cost savings related to a project without also talking about extra costs associated with that same project. Will74205 agrees that reduced equipment maintenance will be mostly offset by increased track maintenance. Are you claiming that the catenary structure will not require any maintanence? Vectro 17:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that fuel prices fluctuate daily, and electricity prices don't. It's a valid argument to make, and I haven't heard of anyone making long-term fuel contracts, while long-term electricity contracts are made by agencies all the time, the above-linked BART being one of them. —lensovet–talk – 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

While all of that is true, it has nothing to do with electrification. It's disingenuous to claim reduced fuel price volatility due to electrification, because Caltrain could just as easily buy fuel contracts for delivery in 2010. You could claim reduced fuel cost if energy from electricity is cheaper than energy from diesel, but I have no idea if that's actually the case or not. Vectro 17:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, what are you trying to say here? That the only benefit of electrification is an improved image? Seems a little POV, no?... —lensovet–talk – 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective (and as discussed in the article) the main benefit of electrification is that it would allow the system to be extended under tunnels to connect to BART in San Francisco along with a new transbay terminal. Frankly, I think that it's hard to argue for the project otherwise -- the only other real advantages are improved timings, reduced noise, and a better image. It's especially difficult to argue for electrification on a cost basis since the installation is so expensive. Vectro 17:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Caltrain had done a diesel fuel price versus electricity rate comparision in the electrification report that is referenced in the elctrification section. In that report, Caltrain estimate it can save $1 Million or more per year in fuel cost with electrification. Also, as train frequency goes up, as Caltrain has planned, fix costs like the OCS structure and its maintenance will be smaller part of Caltrain's yearly expense. Of course there are potential cons about electrification, but the electrification section in this article merely states the benefits it can bring to Caltrain, and some reasons why Caltrain is proceeding with it. --Will74205 19:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If electricity is cheaper than diesel, then we should just say that and not talk about volatility. As far as avoiding the cons, it's not NPOV to bring up the benefits without the associated costs. What if we change this section as follows?

The proposed caltrain electrification project would convert the entire caltrain system from the current diesel-electric locomotive power source to a fully electric rolling stock. Although the project has an estimated total cost of $600-865 million, some of these costs can be offset by savings of $1-2 million a year in fuel and other saved costs. Electrified vehicles require less maintenance, but electrification will increase required track maintenance by approximately the same dollar amount, at least initially. In addition to the San Francisco extension, electrification can reduce noise and improve service times. Caltrain plans to complete electrification by 2025, since at least partial electrification is required for any downtown extension.

During the latest development, the electrification project was split into two phases, with first phase between San Fransicso and Tamien in San Jose, and second phase between Tamien and Gilroy. The capital cost, excluding electric rolling stock, for the first phase is estimated at $471 Million (2006 dollars). Options for the new electric rolling stock include electric locomotives with new or overhauled passenger cars, or electric multiple units.

—Vectro 20:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to say that any discussion about pros and cons about the electrification project should be kept at minimal, instead we should focus on how it would change Caltrain from its present form. One last argument about fuel price: while we don't know how Caltrain purchases diesel fuel for its trains, Caltrain has cited that increasing fuel price as the main reason for the last two fare increases. The statement about diesel fuel price being more volatile than electricity rate is at least true in open market, and that appears to be how most transit agencies purchase their fuels.

One additional electrification benefit is improvement in air quality, from both the removal of diesel locomotives and increased appeal of electric rolling stocks. Caltrain plans to keep around 6~10 locomotives for the Dumbarton and south of San Jose services. Finally, I appreciate that you tried to improve the statement rather than just deleting it. --Will74205 21:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

- The citation provided for the date of electification says that Caltrain will have a plan by 2012, but final electrification will be done by 2025. Also, the citation provided about the stages of electrification shows three stages, SF to redwood City, Redwood City to Tamien, and Tamien to GIlroy. In contradiction, I spoke with Robert Doty a little while ago, where I heard electrification would be completed in many stages; SF to Millbrae, Millbrae to Redwood City, Redwood City to Mountian View, and Mountian View to San Jose, with no plans to electrify all the way to GIlroy.

Please provide some verifiable sources saying that Caltrain has modified its electrification plans. All sources that I found, such as the Caltrain's official website, say that Caltrain will complete electrification from San Francisco to Tamien by 2012. Your conversation with Robert Doty was not verifiable, even if he is the one responsible for the electrification project. An e-mail from him describing the project would be consider verifiable, and the e-mail has to be released by him to Wikipedia. --Will74205 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

References

Commuter vs. regional

User:72.85.160.83 changed the type from "Commuter rail" to "Regional Rail". Then User:70.231.136.49 reverted it. I was skeptical of the change until I realized that Commuter rail redirects to Regional rail and treats them as the same thing. So maybe it makes sense. What do people think? aaronrp 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

New T Line

Can someone add some information about the new Muni T line connection? I would do so, but I don't feel I'm qualified. Thanks 69.109.124.192 03:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Cameron

"Suntan special"

Concerned about the flat-out statement that such service "will be popular". Seems like fortune-telling. I'd be fine with "is expected to be popular" or even "would probably be popular". I'm also concerned about the tone of the statement that "even the purchase of the rail line is being opposed by certain activists from Aptos". Probably factually true, but could be worded better, IMHO. Thoughts? 69.110.235.117 19:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

no longer has direct transfers to SFO via Millbrae as of Jan 1, 2008

As of January 1, BART is eliminating the Millbrae-SFO trains, so the only way to connect from Caltrain to the airport will be by taking BART up to San Bruno, transferring, and then going back down to SFO. Unless Caltrain re-institutes its Millbrae-SFO bus shuttle, it effectively makes Caltrain no longer a reasonable airport option. --Delirium (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the brusqueness, but this has what to do with the Caltrain article? —Kurykh 22:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Caltrain article currently says: "Caltrain also has connection to San Francisco International Airport via BART at the Millbrae Station...", but BART is eliminating that connection. --Delirium (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

We can change that on January 1. —Kurykh 22:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Add cost and budget section

One thing i usually look for when reading about public transportation systems is how much it cost to build and what its budget is like. This information helps me decide whether my elected officials are doing a good job. I realize this information can lead to arguments, so I propose adding the information without adding opinion with it. The most recent information i found was in (DRAFT) Short Range Transit Plan – Fiscal Years 2008 to 2017 on page 27. It's located at http://www.caltrain.com/pdf/Caltrain_SRTP/SRTP_Caltrain_Draft_2008-2017.pdf . It lists Total operating cost, fare revenue, etc. A box is a possibility that lists these figures over the last few years, similar to how caltrain listed it in the report. I feel it is good to add to wikipedia because the information is difficult to find and this will make the information more available. I'll add it below the ticketing section since it has to do with money, but can be moved to another section if people feel if fits there better. --RTrain33 24 Jan 2008

List of Caltrain stations

I plan to create a list about Caltrain stations, similar to current FLC List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations. But it seems to me that there is a detailed list of stations here already, I thought I should ask first. If there is no objection, I will go ahead and create it. Thanks—Chris! _ct 05:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems okay with me. I'd remove it from here. But see what others think. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to remove the stations info. We just need to keep a simple version here.—Chris! _ct 07:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

fair 'nough. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I merged the entire list back into this article. The model of List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations is a poor one for Caltrain, as it is a single line service, not a multiple-branched system, so it's more akin to South Shore Line (NICTD) or Altamont Commuter Express. In such cases, having the stations list in the main article prevents unnecessary splitting of info, as the article is ultimately about both the service provided and the physical line upon which it runs.the fact that every other part of the list article was redundant and near-verbatim from this article only convinced me further. oknazevad (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Caltrain

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Caltrain's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "map":

• From List of Caltrain stations: "Caltrain timetable". Caltrain. Retrieved November 4, 2008.
• From San Francisco 4th and King Street Station: San Francisco Municipal Railway Map, 2007, access date July 10, 2008

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the first reference on ridership is orphaned and should be replaced with http://www.caltrain.com/AssetFactory.aspx?did=3242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.76.33 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

SF Examiner

To get a revised version of this page to save, I had to remove the URLs for both the San Francisco Examiner articles in the refs. I don't know what Wikipedia has against this particular newspaper, but both URLs should be Google-able in future, or findable via the history, when the policy changes back to allowing them. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

examiner.com is considered as spam site here nowadays, as the site has become a blog hosting site, at least in part. There was a discussion around somewhere about it, but I don't remember where. oknazevad (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board

Seems like these should be merged, which the JPB becoming a "Governance" section. The Joint Powers Board has no independent notability, as it exists solely to oversee Caltrain, and the article is only about one paragraph of material. Just seems like we don't need a separate article for it. oknazevad (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to that.--Will74205 (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just created an article about Butler Road, SP commute station closed in 1983

Please see Butler Road (Peninsula Commute station). I know the refs look messy; I'll clean them up. My main question is: Should we add that long-closed (since 1983) station to the Caltrain template, which lists other closed stations like Castro and Paul Avenue? Technically, Butler Road was never a Caltrain station, since Southern Pacific ran the line until just after it was closed, but Butler Road is still part of the historical service on what is now Caltrain. Thoughts? Moncrief (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Edit: On looking again at the Peninsula Commute page, my belief is that the new article should be added to the Caltrain template as one of the italicized closed stations there, since the Caltrain template also includes the Peninsula Commute itself. Moncrief (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Old image

Not sure where to work it in, but I've just imported a photo by Drew Jacksich showing Caltrain's original paint scheme from 1985 (at right). I think those are ex-SP Pullman-Standard gallery cars. Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Locomotive names

Would it be useful to have locomotive names alongside their numbers? E.g. 901 San Jose, 905 Sunnyvale, 906 Burlingame, 919 County of Santa Clara. Runner1928 (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think so; it's a lot of extra information and wouldn't fit well in the table. Mackensen (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• All right. In case someone wants to expand the table someday, or create a list page, here are the Caltrain engine numbers and names I caught while trainspotting:
  • 900 San Francisco
  • 901 San Jose
  • 902 San Mateo
  • 903 Santa Clara
  • 904 Palo Alto
  • 905 Sunnyvale
  • 906 Burlingame
  • 907 Mountain View
  • 908 Redwood City
  • 909 Menlo Park
  • 911 San Carlos
  • 912 San Bruno
  • 913 Belmont
  • 914 Atherton
  • 915 South San Francisco
  • 916 California
  • 917 Gilroy
  • 918 County of San Mateo
  • 919 County of Santa Clara
  • 921 San Martin
  • 922 Tamien
  • 923 no name visible on locomotive side
  • 924 no name visible on locomotive side
  • 925 no name visible on locomotive side
  • 927 no name visible on locomotive side
• Runner1928 (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

925 is Jackie Speier; in general, though, the MPI locomotives do not have names like the EMDs do. For what it's worth, the List of Peninsula Commute locomotives has featured these names since the list's creation. I've put a couple of inline links to that list in the main article.

—Mliu92 (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent undiscussed move

Recently, this article was moved to CalTrain (San Francisco). I've moved it back as there was no consensus for this move, and the move is inappropriate for two reasons: this service is named Caltrain, not CalTrain, and this article is absolutely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Caltrain" or "CalTrain". Mackensen (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Caltrain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812232233/http://burlingame.patch.com/articles/caltrain-funding-reconfigured to http://burlingame.patch.com/articles/caltrain-funding-reconfigured
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716181308/http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline/more/hotline_656/ to http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline/more/hotline_656/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130201184837/http://www.redwoodcitydailynews.com/article/2008-6-15-dumbarton to http://www.redwoodcitydailynews.com/article/2008-6-15-dumbarton

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Caltrain Stops

Template:Caltrain Stops has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 13#Template:Caltrain Stops. You are invited to comment in the linked discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Listing Santa Clara Valley vs. SF first in lede paragraph

Hello all! If you've noticed, there has been a series of edits on the page over this matter and I think this merits discussion instead of the indirect back-and-forth through reverts. I'm starting this conversation here out of good faith, and I hope editors will join me in doing the same. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let's discuss the matter based on facts. The fact is, ridership statistics (2019 report, the most recent available) shows that the San Francisco terminal has over twice as many daily hoardings as the next station on the list. So by that particularly relevant measure, SF remains the single most significant city for the service. So, with that in mind, and Claire ring the decade-long description here, along with the typical description of the service by reliable sources (as already seen in the article), what benefit does changing it from the long-standing, widely understood description provide? oknazevad (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Precisely. Caltrain has always been a San Francisco-centric service; as has already be explained to you by three different people at another talk page, listing Santa Clara Valley first does not make sense. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll also point out to you that Palo Alto, SJ Diridon, Mountain View, Sunnyvale have roughly 20,800 riders-- meaning the Valley's 4 most used stations have more than 5,000 riders than SF's two stations combined. Hardly a San Francisco-centric service when 4 out of the 10 most used stations are in Santa Clara County, half of the most used stations are in Silicon Valley (which also includes RWC), and the plurality of Caltrain's ridership is in Santa Clara County. The article's infobox lists Santa Clara Valley and the San Francisco Peninsula as its main served corridors. I happen to think ridership shouldn't be the sole metric used to determine these listings. But if we're going to use that logic, since Santa Clara County/Silicon Valley make up a at least a plurality of Caltrain's ridership and half of its top 10 stations, it should go first, as should its main terminus: San Jose Diridon Station. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, the reason ledes change after 10 years is because boarding statistics and commute patterns change. Caltrain's ridership skyrocketed in the 2010s. SF made up part of that growth, but the vast majority of it was in Santa Clara County and Silicon Valley, as reflected in ridership statistics showing Santa Clara County with the clear lead in riders, thus reflecting its current status ahead of San Francisco Peninsula in the infobox and the lede. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the weekday schedule and "traditional" commute direction (to SF in the mornings; to SJ in the evenings) is set up to as a commuter rail system that prioritizes destinations in San Francisco: the first northbound train of the day (101) reaches 4+K approximately half an hour before the first southbound train of the day (102) reaches Diridon. Comparing the sum of four stations in SCC - all served by bullets - with the sum of two stations is disingenuous and misleading. Bullet service has had a clear effect on ridership, as explained by Clem Tillier. Why not count 4+K, 22nd, and Millbrae (BART transfer), then, for SF-bound riders, as MIL is an obvious stop for riders whose ultimate destination is along the BART line in central/southwest SF, or SFO-bound riders (SFO is physically located in San Mateo County, but considered part of SF County)? Finally, refer to Table 7 on page 11 of the 2019 Annual Passenger Count Findings Report, the most current ridership count (no count conducted in 2020 due to pandemic). Traditional peak ridership (NB in AM, SB in PM) for the SF-bound commuter is nearly double reverse peak ridership (SB in AM, NB in PM) for the SCC-bound commuter; as noted, the split is generally around 60/40 tradition/reverse. Yes, there has been growth in the job market in SCC. However, the magnet of SF as a job destination still outweighs that growth. I support maintaining the traditional order. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Another thought on the ridership numbers: the statistics published by Caltrain are the combination of boardings and alightings, meaning it measures passenger traffic. As a thought exercise, let's simplify the system to two stops (SJD & 4+K) and say the system serves 15K riders/day when all trains are counted. If 6,000 board in San Francisco, then 6,000 would depart (alight) in San Jose; by extension, 9,000 board in SJ and 9,000 depart in SF. The Caltrain statistics would say 15K riders (boardings + alightings) per station, and by that metric, both stations would be equally busy, but that is misleading in terms of which station is the primary destination - in this example, it's San Francisco, not San Jose.

Table IV (page 56) effectively illustrates the differences between the northbound (traditional) and southbound (reverse) commutes by providing the on/off (boardings/alightings) passenger numbers during peak morning hours. On the traditional commute, a combined 9,692 passengers alight at 4+K from northbound trains during the morning peak. In contrast, on the reverse commute, a combined 6,173 passengers alight at Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Diridon from southbound trains during the morning peak -- by volume, SF is still serving as the primary destination of the system compared to potential destinations in Silicon Valley. Although Sunnyvale is still a busy stop, it's clearly not a destination - 2,118 northbound boardings, 199 southbound alightings; it's misleading to look at strict passenger traffic numbers. In the morning, nearly as many passengers alight at Palo Alto from northbound trains (2,146) as from southbound trains (2,709); based on that, PA is clearly the second most important stop on the line, but no one is arguing that Caltrain is a commuter railroad serving primarily San Francisco and Palo Alto. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• D2noxoguyaezpez.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

216,400 riders a day?

There has got to be a mistake in that APTA report. There is no way Caltrain has more riders than LIRR or Metro-North. Also, 216,400 per weekday would translate to over 70 million riders a year, not 5 million. Monthly totals around 500,000 are more believable. I am going to look for a more accurate daily ridership; if I cannot find any, we should removed the daily number and keep just monthly or annual figures. Mirza Ahmed (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Definitely a typo. Pinging @RickyCourtney: who maintains that template. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)