Nixon and Amtrak (Nixon at 100)

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

Richard Nixon would've been 100 this week. One of his legacies was
Amtrak.

In January 1970 the Nixon administration proposed "Railpax" (NYT
1/21/1970) so that intercity passenger train service would continue.
The focus would be on corridors with Metroliner-type service, though
some long distance trains would still be operated.

In the next year, Congress and the Administration dickered internally
and with each other over the details. Policies were not settled when
Amtrak officially opened, indeed, some wanted to delay the opening to
work out more details.


What was Nixon's attitude toward Amtrak?

It's tough to say. Per the above, he did introduce legislation to
have a govt run train service. Certainly Nixon was more for it than
many of today's Republicans. He did recognize that inter-city
passenger trains were an essential public service. But he was
concerned about the operating subsidy and preferred it to be self-
sufficient (not counting capital costs).

Nixon's DOT Secretary, John Volpe, was very much in favor of passenger
trains and fought hard for them. But some other Republicans objected
and had Volpe fired as a result. (Ref Gary Wills, Nixon Agnostics).

Amtrak's early years were plagued by being a political football, and
hurt its efforts to rebuild the worn out infrastructure and provide
quality service.

[Adam H. Kerman]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>Richard Nixon would've been 100 this week. One of his legacies was
>Amtrak.

>In January 1970 the Nixon administration proposed "Railpax" (NYT
>1/21/1970) so that intercity passenger train service would continue.
>The focus would be on corridors with Metroliner-type service, though
>some long distance trains would still be operated.

>In the next year, Congress and the Administration dickered internally
>and with each other over the details. Policies were not settled when
>Amtrak officially opened, indeed, some wanted to delay the opening to
>work out more details.

>What was Nixon's attitude toward Amtrak?

>It's tough to say. Per the above, he did introduce legislation to
>have a govt run train service. Certainly Nixon was more for it than
>many of today's Republicans. He did recognize that inter-city
>passenger trains were an essential public service. But he was
>concerned about the operating subsidy and preferred it to be self-
>sufficient (not counting capital costs).

When did Nixon request capital of Congress?

>Nixon's DOT Secretary, John Volpe, was very much in favor of passenger
>trains and fought hard for them. But some other Republicans objected
>and had Volpe fired as a result. (Ref Gary Wills, Nixon Agnostics).

>Amtrak's early years were plagued by being a political football, and
>hurt its efforts to rebuild the worn out infrastructure and provide
>quality service.

Except for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program, when has Congress
ever appropriated significant monies to rebuild worn out infrastructure and
provide quality service? Jeeze. That hadn't happened since WWI, and it
took Congress 10 years to repay the railroads.

It never happened after WWII, a large part of the reason some railroads
were in bad shape going into the 1960's and couldn't survive.

Political football or no, in a number of cases, Congressionally-designated
routes included routes that should have been retained. Even retaining
service on both the Great Northern and Northern Pacific west of Saint Paul
was justified by ridership patterns.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 10, 1:34 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> Except for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program, when has Congress
> ever appropriated significant monies to rebuild worn out infrastructure and
> provide quality service? Jeeze. That hadn't happened since WWI, and it
> took Congress 10 years to repay the railroads.

Congress never appropriated the moneys. It promised a lot, but
delivered nothing. Indeed, it actually delivered obligations, forcing
Amtrak to clean up asbestos and PCBs--even on facilities it wasn't
even using.

> Political football or no, in a number of cases, Congressionally-designated
> routes included routes that should have been retained. Even retaining
> service on both the Great Northern and Northern Pacific west of Saint Paul

> was justified by ridership patterns.-

I understand there were some routes that were forced to keep running
despite very low patronage. One, IIRC, is extremely cost-inefficient
and Amtrak would like to redo it to improve performance, but nooooo..

[James Robinson]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> What was Nixon's attitude toward Amtrak?
>
> It's tough to say. Per the above, he did introduce legislation to
> have a govt run train service. Certainly Nixon was more for it than
> many of today's Republicans. He did recognize that inter-city
> passenger trains were an essential public service. But he was
> concerned about the operating subsidy and preferred it to be self-
> sufficient (not counting capital costs).

I think you are being too kind to Dick. He believed strongly in private
capital running business, with the government only a referee. The
railroads, in particular, were considered to be profitable enterprises
that should continue to be run by private enterprise.

When the failure of the railroads in the northeast became something the
government had to deal with, he said that the government should only put
the minimum amount of money into saving the railroads, if anym and that
the solution had to be primarily from private captial.

Aviation and highways were in the ascendency in the late '60s, though the
freeway revolts began about that time. Railroads were on the decline.
While aircraft manufacturers like Garrett, Rohr, and Boeing were handed
contracts to apply their "superior" talents to ground transportation,
they were mostly playing with things like maglev, PRVs and hovercraft,
intended to replace railroad passenger service with more "modern"
technologies. The TGV was still almost a decade away.

There were two factions in the government at the time. One felt that the
railroads not only had lost interest in rail passenger service, but also
didn't know how to run it. This group felt that once Amtrak was set up,
that the entity would be concentrating on rail passenger service, and not
just freight services, and that the service would both thrive and become
very profitable.

The other faction thought that the only way to eliminate passenger
service was to set up a company like Amtrak to prove that rail service
could never be popular, and that ridership would continue to decline to
fade away, and that the company running it would fade away as well. They
thought Amtrak would only exist for another few years, and that it would
die a quiet death.

History has shown that neither view was correct, but I can assure you
that Nixon fell into the second group. In spite of his glowing speech
when Amtrak was set up, he only saw the company as a means to finally rid
the railroads and the government of intercity passenger service.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 10, 3:46 pm, James Robinson <NoEm...@nowhere.net> wrote:


> I think you are being too kind to Dick.  He believed strongly in private
> capital running business, with the government only a referee.  The
> railroads, in particular, were considered to be profitable enterprises
> that should continue to be run by private enterprise.

Ok...but... If he wanted private enterprise--then why didn't he get
the ICC to ease up on the railroads and let them abandon unprofitable
passenger trains and weak freight routes? Why didn't he get on
localities that exploited the railroads' fixed plant and tax the hell
out of it? Why didn't he push to sell off airports, interstates, and
toll roads?

> When the failure of the railroads in the northeast became something the
> government had to deal with, he said that the government should only put
> the minimum amount of money into saving the railroads, if anym and that
> the solution had to be primarily from private captial.

Given his attitude (plus I don't think he had any great love for the
NE), why did the govt have to do anything? If the NE railroads
failed, they failed, and the marketplace would sort out was was
salvagable and what wasn't.

> Aviation and highways were in the ascendency in the late '60s, though the
> freeway revolts began about that time. Railroads were on the decline.

By 1970, airports and highways were badly overcrowded and inadequate.
Airports had stackups waiting to land and hijackings. Highways were
deathtraps and jammed. Many folks questioned the prevailing wisdom of
simply building more, and there wasn't the money available, anyway.

As you said, freeway revolts had begun. Moses lost his bid to build
two crosstown expressways in Manhattan, and an Oyster Bay Bridge;
indeed, Moses was kicked out of office.

> While aircraft manufacturers like Garrett, Rohr, and Boeing were handed
> contracts to apply their "superior" talents to ground transportation,
> they were mostly playing with things like maglev, PRVs and hovercraft,
> intended to replace railroad passenger service with more "modern"
> technologies. The TGV was still almost a decade away.

I believe the defense contractors above were handled contracts to give
them something to do in the wake of downsizing in Vietnam. (This of
course contradicted the "private sector" philosophy, but so it
goes).

But those contractors built several more or less 'conventional' rail
projects, such as Boeing's LRVs, the BART system, Rohr's participation
in R-46 cars, and Garrett in turbine powered trains. Part of the
attitude in those days was that the aerospace folks were smart and the
older technology was bad.

However, one pundit told me that BART had to be as it was (fancy high
tech) otherwise it wouldn't have attracted riders. Plain concrete
shoeboxes and NYC subway cars wouldn't do. I think he had a point,
though I think some of that could've been done with conventional low-
tech, as PATCO was.

> There were two factions in the government at the time.  One felt that the
> railroads not only had lost interest in rail passenger service, but also
> didn't know how to run it.  This group felt that once Amtrak was set up,
> that the entity would be concentrating on rail passenger service, and not
> just freight services, and that the service would both thrive and become
> very profitable.

This was in a Republican government?

> The other faction thought that the only way to eliminate passenger
> service was to set up a company like Amtrak to prove that rail service
> could never be popular, and that ridership would continue to decline to
> fade away, and that the company running it would fade away as well.  They
> thought Amtrak would only exist for another few years, and that it would
> die a quiet death.

Again, if those folks wanted to eliminate passenger service, why not
just let it expire on its own? Indeed, expedite train off petitions
(or allow fares to be raised). Indeed, I submit that if railroads
knew they'd be allowed to do as they pleased with passenger service
(keep it, kill it, charge whatever, run whatever), they'd be less
likely to rush to kill off trains when they had the chance--as many
did.

> History has shown that neither view was correct, but I can assure you
> that Nixon fell into the second group.  In spite of his glowing speech
> when Amtrak was set up, he only saw the company as a means to finally rid
> the railroads and the government of intercity passenger service.

For the first view, while there were some examples of railroad
deliberately neglecting their passenger service, an _objective_ view
of the situation would've shown underlying structural problems.

[HAL]

In article
<045e292a-8568-4599...@a8g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> k...but... If he wanted private enterprise--then why didn't he get

The railroads wanted to get out of the passenger business. So Amtrak
was created. The idea was that Amtrak would die in a short time.

[James Robinson]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> On Jan 10, 3:46 pm, James Robinson <NoEm...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> I think you are being too kind to Dick. He believed strongly in
>> private capital running business, with the government only a referee.
>> The railroads, in particular, were considered to be profitable
>> enterprises that should continue to be run by private enterprise.
>
> Ok...but... If he wanted private enterprise--then why didn't he get
> the ICC to ease up on the railroads and let them abandon unprofitable
> passenger trains and weak freight routes? Why didn't he get on
> localities that exploited the railroads' fixed plant and tax the hell
> out of it? Why didn't he push to sell off airports, interstates, and
> toll roads?

The political process would simply take to long, so Amtrak was set up to
pull it away from ICC oversight, and to give the railroads immediate
relief. It was the most expedient way of handling things.

He started the process of deregulation of transportation, and the
ultimate elimination of the ICC. However, it took many acts of Congress
and 20 years to defang the ICC and eventually abolish it. The DOT was
set up under Ford, who continued what Nixon started, and deregulation
eventually came under Carter, again following the path that Nixon
started.

>> When the failure of the railroads in the northeast became something
>> the government had to deal with, he said that the government should
>> only put the minimum amount of money into saving the railroads, if
>> anym and that the solution had to be primarily from private captial.
>
> Given his attitude (plus I don't think he had any great love for the
> NE), why did the govt have to do anything? If the NE railroads
> failed, they failed, and the marketplace would sort out was was
> salvagable and what wasn't.

Politics. The economy in the northeast was collapsing, and the railroads
were a vital part of what industrial economy still existed. He had to so
something quickly, and not let the whole thing wander through the court
system. Further, Penn Central was a management disaster, and needed
immediate management overhaul, which wouldn't have happened without
direct government intervention. There were too many states involved to
leave it at that level. Remember that the Penn Central was the largest
bankruptcy in American history up to that time.

>> Aviation and highways were in the ascendency in the late '60s, though
>> the freeway revolts began about that time. Railroads were on the
>> decline.
>
> By 1970, airports and highways were badly overcrowded and inadequate.
> Airports had stackups waiting to land and hijackings. Highways were
> deathtraps and jammed. Many folks questioned the prevailing wisdom of
> simply building more, and there wasn't the money available, anyway.

The general view of the public was that aviation and highways were the
future. A few questioned that concept, but the vast majority felt that
railroads were pass�, and Nixon was a political animal. He blew with the
political wind.

>> While aircraft manufacturers like Garrett, Rohr, and Boeing were
>> handed contracts to apply their "superior" talents to ground
>> transportation, they were mostly playing with things like maglev,
>> PRVs and hovercraft, intended to replace railroad passenger service
>> with more "modern" technologies. The TGV was still almost a decade
>> away.
>
> I believe the defense contractors above were handled contracts to give
> them something to do in the wake of downsizing in Vietnam. (This of
> course contradicted the "private sector" philosophy, but so it goes).
>
> But those contractors built several more or less 'conventional' rail
> projects, such as Boeing's LRVs, the BART system, Rohr's participation
> in R-46 cars, and Garrett in turbine powered trains. Part of the
> attitude in those days was that the aerospace folks were smart and the
> older technology was bad.

They also built many vehicles that are now in Pueblo Transportation
Museum in Pueblo, CO. They were intended to be the next generation of
transportation, replacing outdated railroads and streetcars. There was a
maglev, an air cushion vehicle that ran in a u-shaped guideway, linear
induction vehicles, PRTs, etc. All with the expectation that something
more modern would be far better than wasting money in old technology.

> However, one pundit told me that BART had to be as it was (fancy high
> tech) otherwise it wouldn't have attracted riders. Plain concrete
> shoeboxes and NYC subway cars wouldn't do. I think he had a point,
> though I think some of that could've been done with conventional low-
> tech, as PATCO was.

They wanted high speed and high comfort, which they felt was needed to
attract people out of cars. It seems to have worked as expected.

>> There were two factions in the government at the time. One felt that
>> the railroads not only had lost interest in rail passenger service,
>> but also didn't know how to run it. This group felt that once Amtrak
>> was set up, that the entity would be concentrating on rail passenger
>> service, and not just freight services, and that the service would
>> both thrive and become very profitable.
>
> This was in a Republican government?

Again, politics. Nixon would have trashed long-distance passenger service
if he could have.

>> The other faction thought that the only way to eliminate passenger
>> service was to set up a company like Amtrak to prove that rail
>> service could never be popular, and that ridership would continue to
>> decline to fade away, and that the company running it would fade away
>> as well. They thought Amtrak would only exist for another few years,
>> and that it would die a quiet death.
>
> Again, if those folks wanted to eliminate passenger service, why not
> just let it expire on its own? Indeed, expedite train off petitions
> (or allow fares to be raised). Indeed, I submit that if railroads
> knew they'd be allowed to do as they pleased with passenger service
> (keep it, kill it, charge whatever, run whatever), they'd be less
> likely to rush to kill off trains when they had the chance--as many
> did.

Because the ICC and Congress would have prevented it, and the railroads
wanted immediate relief. Amtrak was they expedient way to negotiate the
hallways of Congress, since both sides saw it as their salvation.

[Adam H. Kerman]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Jan 10, 3:46 pm, James Robinson <NoEm...@nowhere.net> wrote:

>>I think you are being too kind to Dick. He believed strongly in private
>>capital running business, with the government only a referee. The
>>railroads, in particular, were considered to be profitable enterprises
>>that should continue to be run by private enterprise.

>Ok...but... If he wanted private enterprise--then why didn't he get
>the ICC to ease up on the railroads and let them abandon unprofitable
>passenger trains and weak freight routes? Why didn't he get on
>localities that exploited the railroads' fixed plant and tax the hell
>out of it? Why didn't he push to sell off airports, interstates, and
>toll roads?

You're not thinking about the railroad retirement and railroad unemployment
issue at all. What happened to those funds with railroad employment
dropping like a stone overnight?

>However, one pundit told me that BART had to be as it was (fancy high
>tech) otherwise it wouldn't have attracted riders. Plain concrete
>shoeboxes and NYC subway cars wouldn't do. I think he had a point,
>though I think some of that could've been done with conventional low-
>tech, as PATCO was.

Your pundit doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Of the two,
PATCO was state of the art and BART just wasn't. The difference is that
PATCO bought off-the-shelf signal and control technology and BART
started almost from scratch.

Not a single rider was attracted to BART due to non-standard gauge. They
could have used those car bodies with PCC trucks if they really wanted to.

It would have been to BART's advantage to have installed conventional
railroad technology, for it would have opened sooner and would have been
more reliable and cost less.

[spsffan]

While a lot of things could have been done easier and simpler with
existing off the shelf hardware for BART, it was sold to the voters as a
new kind of transit system. At that time, (1962?) everything was new
technology as we entered the space age, and anything was possible.
Remember, we had JFK calling for a man on the moon in 10 years!

More to the point, I rather doubt that a conventional system could have
been sold to the voters at that time and in that part of the country,
which was about to sprout Silicon Valley, among other things.

Now, the broad gauge is another issue. I've heard several reasons why
that was done, including to quiet the Southern Pacific's fears that they
could be called upon to have BART trains on their right of way at some
future date, and, more likely, for stability in crosswinds on the Golden
Gate Bridge. The latter part is often forgotten, but remember that
originally, BART was to serve Marin and San Mateo Counties.

I don't think that those voters, at that time in history, would have
approved anything that reminded them of the subway systems they had
ridden in other cities. It had to be new, new, new or they weren't going
for it. And, though it was hugely expensive and had a lot of teething
problems, the system does work pretty well these days.

Regards,

DAve

[Adam H. Kerman]

All they had to do was show mockups of rolling stock with modern interiors.
Anyway, nothing looked more modern than those railroad approaches to the
Bay Bridge and Transbay Terminal itself. It continues to amaze me that
after the anti-transit-rail measure eliminating tracks from the bridge
in 1958 was reversed in referendum four years later.

The over-the-top spending on BART extensions have been a nationwide
embarassment. BART's great if we don't think about how little it does
with so much capital monies.

Also, every time I have to wait at one of the transfer stations for a
a significantly long time, I feel like such a sap for leaving home.
I don't have to leave Chicago to enjoy the convenience of transfers
requiring me to wait over 20 minutes at the transfer point.

[John Levine]

>future date, and, more likely, for stability in crosswinds on the Golden
>Gate Bridge. The latter part is often forgotten, but remember that
>originally, BART was to serve Marin and San Mateo Counties.

San Mateo? Where do you think Daly City, South SF, and Millbrae are?
Or do you mean Santa Clara?

Did they really think they'd run trains across the Golden Gate bridge? Would
they add a lower deck or what?

--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

[James Robinson]

John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
>
> Did they really think they'd run trains across the Golden Gate bridge?
> Would they add a lower deck or what?

The bridge was originally designed to include a pair of rail tracks on the
lower deck. The early plans for BART also showed a route to Marin County
over the bridge. Marin County didn't join BART.

However, there has been controversy lately about whether rail transit could
operate over the bridge. A 1990 study of the stresses on the bridge during
high winds suggested that the bridge would be over-taxed in a high wind
with transit running over it. Sustained winds of up to 70 mph have been
recorded.

It's ironic that supposedly one of the reasons broad gauge was selected for
BART was so it could better withstand high cross-winds while crossing the
Golden Gate. Now it appears that the expensive wide gauge wasn't really
necessary.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 11-Jan-13 19:29, James Robinson wrote:
> John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
>> Did they really think they'd run trains across the Golden Gate
>> bridge? Would they add a lower deck or what?
>
> The bridge was originally designed to include a pair of rail tracks
> on the lower deck.

What lower deck? I've been there, and I don't recall seeing anything
below the road deck except structural supports.

Adding another deck now is, of course, impossible.

> It's ironic that supposedly one of the reasons broad gauge was
> selected for BART was so it could better withstand high cross-winds
> while crossing the Golden Gate. Now it appears that the expensive
> wide gauge wasn't really necessary.

I'm not convinced it would have been necessary in the first place.

If double-stack container trains can regularly take 30-40mph winds
around here, BART trains with a smaller cross section, better
aerodynamics and a lower center of gravity should be able to take 70mph
winds without a problem.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[John Levine]

>Adding another deck now is, of course, impossible.

Why? In New York, the Port Authority did it to the George Washington
Bridge and the MTA did it to the Verrazano.

Here's a 1968 study by Ammann and Whitney.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Golden_Gate_Bridge_Lower_Deck_for_Vehicu.html

>I'm not convinced it [broad gauge] would have been necessary in the first place.

Agreed. The combination of cost plus contracts and opposition from
the Southern Pacific are a lot more persuasive than some idea about
wind loads. Winds of 70 MPH are not unknown in storms in New York and
New England, and our trains don't blow off the track.

R's,
John

[James Robinson]

Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 11-Jan-13 19:29, James Robinson wrote:
>> John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
>>> Did they really think they'd run trains across the Golden Gate
>>> bridge? Would they add a lower deck or what?
>>
>> The bridge was originally designed to include a pair of rail tracks
>> on the lower deck.
>
> What lower deck? I've been there, and I don't recall seeing anything
> below the road deck except structural supports.

The lower structure was designed to have an additional deck added for
trains.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/3995092184/lightbox/

> Adding another deck now is, of course, impossible.

Why?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>On 11-Jan-13 19:29, James Robinson wrote:
>>John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:

>>>Did they really think they'd run trains across the Golden Gate
>>>bridge? Would they add a lower deck or what?

>>The bridge was originally designed to include a pair of rail tracks
>>on the lower deck.

>What lower deck? I've been there, and I don't recall seeing anything
>below the road deck except structural supports.

>Adding another deck now is, of course, impossible.

In Chicago, we turned a single-deck bridge into a double-deck bridge
about 20 years ago. And that's a moveable bridge.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 11, 4:31 pm, spsffan <spsf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> More to the point, I rather doubt that a conventional system could have
> been sold to the voters at that time and in that part of the country,
> which was about to sprout Silicon Valley, among other things.

Yes, that's what was suggested. In terms of aesthetics, I agree.
Indeed, while I never liked BART technology, I also think your point
is well taken about that area (as opposed to say the east coast)
wanting something explicitly new and high tech. A NYC style system
wouldn't cut it. Even a PATCO system, though functionally excellent,
was too austere.

> I don't think that those voters, at that time in history, would have
> approved anything that reminded them of the subway systems they had
> ridden in other cities. It had to be new, new, new or they weren't going
> for it. And, though it was hugely expensive and had a lot of teething
> problems, the system does work pretty well these days.

I think you're right about the voters. But I think they wasted a heck
of a lot of money and probably could've achieved the same resutls by
being a little more conventional "under the hood".

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 11, 4:53 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> Anyway, nothing looked more modern than those railroad approaches to the
> Bay Bridge and Transbay Terminal itself. It continues to amaze me that
> after the anti-transit-rail measure eliminating tracks from the bridge
> in 1958 was reversed in referendum four years later.

I don't know the whole history. But I understand the Key System was
owned by National City Lines which would rather run buses sold and
equipped by its stockholders. Further, I read that the so-called
modernized Bay Bridge cars were underpowered and under ventilated and
as such, not particularly attractive to riders nor presenting a
positive rail scheme. While it had a sophisticated signal speed
system, otherwise they could've done much better.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 11, 9:51 pm, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> >Adding another deck now is, of course, impossible.
>
> Why?  In New York, the Port Authority did it to the George Washington
> Bridge and the MTA did it to the Verrazano.

Nit: Yes, the GWB had a lower deck added to it. However, the
Verranzano had the framework installed at the start; it merely had to
be finished when traffic needed it.

Also, the Henry Hudson Br was planned for an upper deck at the start.
Orginally Moses felt a larger bridge was required, but the bond buyers
wouldn't support it due to competition from free streets. Moses was
right--traffic demanded it and the upper deck was added not long
after.

[spsffan]

On 1/11/2013 2:03 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> future date, and, more likely, for stability in crosswinds on the Golden
>> Gate Bridge. The latter part is often forgotten, but remember that
>> originally, BART was to serve Marin and San Mateo Counties.
>
> San Mateo? Where do you think Daly City, South SF, and Millbrae are?
> Or do you mean Santa Clara?
>

The Daly City BART station is actually in San Francisco County, if you
look closely enough. San Mateo County was part of the original proposal,
but backed out, as did Marin county. San Mateo eventually agreed to join
in, decades later, but BART ended at the Daly City station until the
late 1990s, and it still doesn't go south of SFO on the peninsula side.

> Did they really think they'd run trains across the Golden Gate bridge? Would
> they add a lower deck or what?
>

I have a scan of a magazine ad from back then, with what appears to be a
lower deck with a BART train on it. In some ways, I'm glad that BART
never went to Marin County, because the ease of commuting would have
destroyed Marin as we know it.

Regards,

DAve

[spsffan]

On 1/11/2013 6:51 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> Adding another deck now is, of course, impossible.
>
> Why? In New York, the Port Authority did it to the George Washington
> Bridge and the MTA did it to the Verrazano.
>
> Here's a 1968 study by Ammann and Whitney.
>
> http://books.google.com/books/about/Golden_Gate_Bridge_Lower_Deck_for_Vehicu.html
>
>> I'm not convinced it [broad gauge] would have been necessary in the first place.
>
> Agreed. The combination of cost plus contracts and opposition from
> the Southern Pacific are a lot more persuasive than some idea about
> wind loads. Winds of 70 MPH are not unknown in storms in New York and
> New England, and our trains don't blow off the track.
>
> R's,
> John
>

Except of course that if your train gets knocked over by a 70mph wind on
dry land, you might very well survive. If it gets knocked off the Golden
Gate Bridge into San Francisco Bay, you'd be considered lucky if you
died on the way down rather than on impact or after it sunk.

Still, going for broad gauge was overkill. But some amount of overkill
was needed to sell the project at the time and to the voters concerned.

Regards,


DAve

[John Levine]

>The Daly City BART station is actually in San Francisco County, if you
>look closely enough. San Mateo County was part of the original proposal,
>but backed out, as did Marin county. San Mateo eventually agreed to join
>in, decades later, but BART ended at the Daly City station until the
>late 1990s, and it still doesn't go south of SFO on the peninsula side.

The Millbrae station looks to me like it's somewhat south of SFO, but
I take your point.

>I have a scan of a magazine ad from back then, with what appears to be a
>lower deck with a BART train on it. In some ways, I'm glad that BART
>never went to Marin County, because the ease of commuting would have
>destroyed Marin as we know it.

Well, maybe. I'm not sure how BART would make Petaluma any worse.

[spsffan]

I agree. Particularly the broad gauge was most likely overkill. But if
I'm not mistaken, BART was about the first post World War II system
proposed or certainly, built. It was a whole new world, with interstate
highways, automobiles with automatic transmissions and air conditioning
and transistor radios. You weren't going to sell even a practical system
like PATCO to San Francisco voters in 1962.

Regards,

DAve

[Adam H. Kerman]

I suppose, but clearly, the taxpayers were in the mood for a rail system.
It's always best to start with what exists, imperfect though it may be.

BART sure as hell wasn't better, just tons more expensive. Preliminary
planning for BART began before Key System shut down, so it does appear
that the 14 year gap in transit rail service could have been avoided.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Uh, what, the Golden Gate bridge as highway only wasn't intended to
influence development at all? C'mon.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Something unique in the wine over there in the late 1950's?

Anyway, Cleveland Rapid Transit, from the mid-1950's, was the first
newly-built rapid transit system after WWII, although the Van Sweringen
brothers had planned it in the late '20's (if not 10 years earlier) and
had reserved the alignment for it in the Nickel Plate relocation for the
Terminal Tower project. Of course, like BART, it was less influential
on the development pattern than it should have been if it had opened
much earlier, prior to post-WWII suburbanization.

[Sancho Panza]

On 1/12/2013 1:35 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> The Daly City BART station is actually in San Francisco County, if you
>> look closely enough. San Mateo County was part of the original proposal,
>> but backed out, as did Marin county. San Mateo eventually agreed to join
>> in, decades later, but BART ended at the Daly City station until the
>> late 1990s, and it still doesn't go south of SFO on the peninsula side.
>
> The Millbrae station looks to me like it's somewhat south of SFO, but
> I take your point.
>
>> I have a scan of a magazine ad from back then, with what appears to be a
>> lower deck with a BART train on it. In some ways, I'm glad that BART
>> never went to Marin County, because the ease of commuting would have
>> destroyed Marin as we know it.
>
> Well, maybe. I'm not sure how BART would make Petaluma any worse.
>

Keep laughing. A 320,000-square-foot casino was topped out last week in
the area. It will be operated by a major Las Vegas corporation, Station
Casinos.

[spsffan]

Uh, who said that? I'm not sure whether it was or was not, but would
guess it was. But it's capacity is limited to 3 lanes into SF in the
morning and 3 lanes back in the evening.

BART would easily double or triple the capacity of the bridge for
commuters. If you've ever been to Marin County, just imagine it with
ticky-tacky Daly City style development all over the hills! I have no
objection to housing or even suburbs, but there's a limit to where and
how much.

D

DAve

[spsffan]

Yes, there was. Cleveland was already a nasty, dirty, polluted city in
1962. The Bay Area was paradise by comparison. And it was looking to a
bright future rather than putting out the river when it caught fire!

> Anyway, Cleveland Rapid Transit, from the mid-1950's, was the first
> newly-built rapid transit system after WWII, although the Van Sweringen
> brothers had planned it in the late '20's (if not 10 years earlier) and
> had reserved the alignment for it in the Nickel Plate relocation for the
> Terminal Tower project. Of course, like BART, it was less influential
> on the development pattern than it should have been if it had opened
> much earlier, prior to post-WWII suburbanization.
>

True enough. Of course the Key System was there before and did influence
the patterns. If nothing else it dictated where the freeways should be
build. :)

D

[John Levine]

>BART would easily double or triple the capacity of the bridge for
>commuters. If you've ever been to Marin County, just imagine it with
>ticky-tacky Daly City style development all over the hills! I have no
>objection to housing or even suburbs, but there's a limit to where and
>how much.

I'm trying to imagine a Marin in which the cities would amend their
zoning to permit that, but it's not working.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Sure, I've visited, but I can't conclude that middle class housing
would have sprung up. Where I live, we have plenty of fancy suburbs
with rail service with negligible middle class housing.

[spsffan]

Petaluma is in Sonoma County.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 12, 10:53 pm, spsffan <spsf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> BART would easily double or triple the capacity of the bridge for
> commuters. If you've ever been to Marin County, just imagine it with
> ticky-tacky Daly City style development all over the hills! I have no
> objection to housing or even suburbs, but there's a limit to where and
> how much.

Playing devils advocate for a moment: if such 'ticky tacky' houses
would get built, there is obviously an unmet demand for them. Why
should that demand be blocked so people could have more desirable
(affordable/better) housing options?

They called the Levittowns ticky tacky and all sorts of other names,
but the people who actually lived there liked it very much, and
appreciated the smart value that went into building their homes. (Nor
did blow down in the first storm as predicted, indeed, held up under
Sandy's high winds very well.)

[Stephen Sprunk]

Ah. When someone says "deck", I think of an open area suitable for
cars, not squeezing trains between structural supports for the deck above.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 13-Jan-13 12:08, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jan 12, 10:53 pm, spsffan <spsf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> BART would easily double or triple the capacity of the bridge for
>> commuters. If you've ever been to Marin County, just imagine it with
>> ticky-tacky Daly City style development all over the hills! I have no
>> objection to housing or even suburbs, but there's a limit to where and
>> how much.
>
> Playing devils advocate for a moment: if such 'ticky tacky' houses
> would get built, there is obviously an unmet demand for them. Why
> should that demand be blocked so people could have more desirable
> (affordable/better) housing options?

Supply does not always equal demand. After the mortgage crash, there
were houses for sale all over the country without buyers.

Also, that people buy a given type of house doesn't mean that's the type
they _want_ to buy. It may be all that is available (eg. due to zoning)
or all that they can afford.

I'd much prefer a townhouse in a dense, walkable neighborhood, but due
to the artificial restriction of supply, that would have cost me three
times as much per sf _and_ is only available in a crappy school
district, so I ended up buying a detached house instead.

[John Levine]

>Ah. When someone says "deck", I think of an open area suitable for
>cars, not squeezing trains between structural supports for the deck above.

They squeezed six traffic lanes between the structural supports in the
lower level of the GWB. (Have you ever been to NYC?)

The Golden Gate is somewhat narrower, 27m rather than 36m, but it's
hard to imagine how they'd have built it so there wasn't room for two
tracks.

Fun fact: the GWB was originally built with six traffic lanes and a
wide median that could be converted to two more lanes or two tracks.
Unfortunately, they chose two more lanes in 1946. If they'd chosen
rail, though, it'd probably have been streetcars that terminated where
the bus terminal is now, not a subway line since the bridge is a long
way above the subways.

[John Levine]

>BART would easily double or triple the capacity of the bridge for
>commuters. If you've ever been to Marin County, just imagine it with
>ticky-tacky Daly City style development all over the hills! I have no
>objection to housing or even suburbs, but there's a limit to where and
>how much.

The famous little boxes in Westlake in Daly City were built in the
1950s, way before BART existed. There's a lot more to land use
patterns than transit lines.

You might want to take a field trip to Greenwich CT, Summit NJ, and
Bryn Mawr PA, all of which remain residential, not very dense, and
very upscale in spite of direct frequent rail service into NY and
Phila. Or for that matter, take a trip to Atherton.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 13, 2:59 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:



> Also, that people buy a given type of house doesn't mean that's the type
> they _want_ to buy.  It may be all that is available (eg. due to zoning)
> or all that they can afford.

In the context of this specific discussion, it appears that the demand
is for lower-cost "ticky tacky" housing while the zoning in the area
doesn't allow that. Perhaps even town houses. So, it does seem that
is the housing they would like to buy, if it were available.

My [devils advocate] question is whether such high density lower-cost
housing should be blocked by Marin County if there is a demand for it?

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 13, 4:59 pm, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:

> Fun fact: the GWB was originally built with six traffic lanes and a
> wide median that could be converted to two more lanes or two tracks.
> Unfortunately, they chose two more lanes in 1946.  If they'd chosen
> rail, though, it'd probably have been streetcars that terminated where
> the bus terminal is now, not a subway line since the bridge is a long
> way above the subways.

Did they ever seriously _plan_ on what kind of rail connection would
be offered on the GWB? That is, how it would connect to other lines
in NY and NJ?

The Phila Benjamin Franklin Br was built for both rapid transit and
trolleys. The RT service was added about ten years after the bridge
opened, as the PTC Bridge Line (later PATCO). The trolleys were to
terminate in a big underground terminal that was built (but never
used) at the foot of the bridge on the Phila side. The trolley space
was paved over for traffic lanes and the terminal sealed.

Question about Roosevelt Island in NYC: Between the time the
Queensboro Br trolley line was shut down and the tramway and subway
opened, what did the residents of the island (built up in the 1970s)
do to get to NYC? Did they have to go backward into Queens and then
to NYC?

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 13, 5:09 pm, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:

> You might want to take a field trip to Greenwich CT, Summit NJ, and
> Bryn Mawr PA, all of which remain residential, not very dense, and
> very upscale in spite of direct frequent rail service into NY and
> Phila.

Bryn Mawr PA and Summit NJ have very busy and dense business districts
jammed with stores, schools, and offices, with row houses and
apartments nearby. Summit is a little city. You have to got a bit to
get to the "not dense" residential sections. If memory serves,
Greenwich CT is like that, too.


You are correct that land use is impacted by a variety of factors.
For example, all three of the Levittowns were NOT built as residences
for commuters to Phila or NYC, but rather for _nearby_ large
industiral plants (Lvn NJ was for a military complex).

[spsffan]

All well and good. I have no objection to people buying the house they
want, like, can afford, etc. But much of Marin County is undeveloped,
even today, and it is beautiful.

On the other hand, Foster City, in San Mateo County, where Bob(?) May
who used to advocate driverless cars here a few years back lives, is
high priced development and ugly as hell, but it's practically under the
San Mateo Bridge moorings so who cares.

Heck, even the ticky tacky houses on the hills in Daly City are now an
accepted part of the landscape, and in some ways, nicer on the eyes than
more recent development.

But my issue with Marin County, and I think the issue of the voters
there is that most of it should be spared the kind of development that
was being done in the 1960s when BART was approved. There are some
places there that would be okay, but in general, not. There are other
locations in the Bay Area more suitable to suburban development, and
guess what? BART serves many of them. As do freeways built both before
and after BART. There are lots of places besides Marin County to build
housing. See, Santa Clara and Contra Costa Counties, for example.

And there's the Golden Gate Bridge itself. In my humble opinion, the
most beautiful bridge in the world. As much as I think trains, even BART
trains are pleasing to the eye, don't mess with my GGB!


Regards,

DAve

[spsffan]

On 1/13/2013 2:09 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> BART would easily double or triple the capacity of the bridge for
>> commuters. If you've ever been to Marin County, just imagine it with
>> ticky-tacky Daly City style development all over the hills! I have no
>> objection to housing or even suburbs, but there's a limit to where and
>> how much.
>
> The famous little boxes in Westlake in Daly City were built in the
> 1950s, way before BART existed. There's a lot more to land use
> patterns than transit lines.
>
> You might want to take a field trip to Greenwich CT, Summit NJ, and
> Bryn Mawr PA, all of which remain residential, not very dense, and
> very upscale in spite of direct frequent rail service into NY and
> Phila. Or for that matter, take a trip to Atherton.
>

I've been to Ahterton. It's extremely affluent, served by Caltrain, and
flat and ugly as anyplace in the San Joaquin Valley. Marin County it ain't.

See my previous post in reply to Jeff H.

Regards,

D

[spsffan]

I'm sure it is. If you want to live somewhere (relatively) cheap in the
Bay Area, there's Richmond and Oakland. There are others, but I'm using
them as examples. Both are well served by BART and other transit
options. Both have industrial and dense housing traditions going back a
century or more. If you want high density without regard to cost, you go
to San Francisco.

[Glen Labah]

In article <kcr09...@news4.newsguy.com>,

spsffan <sps...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I agree. Particularly the broad gauge was most likely overkill. But if
> I'm not mistaken, BART was about the first post World War II system
> proposed or certainly, built. It was a whole new world, with interstate
> highways, automobiles with automatic transmissions and air conditioning
> and transistor radios. You weren't going to sell even a practical system
> like PATCO to San Francisco voters in 1962.

Especially not since the 1962 World's Fair in Seattle produced the
Seattle Monorail. Sure it never went beyond its current two station
configuration, but it certainly would have gotten people thinking in a
much different direction about fixed guideway transit.

--
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam due to e-mail address
harvesters on Usenet. Response time to e-mail sent here is slow.

[Sancho Panza]

On 1/14/2013 12:32 AM, spsffan wrote:
> On 1/13/2013 7:36 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 2:59 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Also, that people buy a given type of house doesn't mean that's the type
>>> they _want_ to buy. It may be all that is available (eg. due to zoning)
>>> or all that they can afford.
>>
>> In the context of this specific discussion, it appears that the demand
>> is for lower-cost "ticky tacky" housing while the zoning in the area
>> doesn't allow that. Perhaps even town houses. So, it does seem that
>> is the housing they would like to buy, if it were available.
>>
>> My [devils advocate] question is whether such high density lower-cost
>> housing should be blocked by Marin County if there is a demand for it?
>>
>
> I'm sure it is. If you want to live somewhere (relatively) cheap in the
> Bay Area, there's Richmond and Oakland. There are others, but I'm using
> them as examples.

That would be mainly the war-torn parts of Oakland. The hills and up
College Avenue toward Berkeley are still habitable to a certain extent.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Glen Labah <gl4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>spsffan <sps...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>I agree. Particularly the broad gauge was most likely overkill. But if
>>I'm not mistaken, BART was about the first post World War II system
>>proposed or certainly, built. It was a whole new world, with interstate
>>highways, automobiles with automatic transmissions and air conditioning
>>and transistor radios. You weren't going to sell even a practical system
>>like PATCO to San Francisco voters in 1962.

>Especially not since the 1962 World's Fair in Seattle produced the
>Seattle Monorail. Sure it never went beyond its current two station
>configuration, but it certainly would have gotten people thinking in a
>much different direction about fixed guideway transit.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying any of this. Not building a conventional
railroad meant higher capital costs and a smaller project, which is what
San Francisco got.

The styling chosen for the rolling stock could have been sleek, modern,
and elegant, but it still could have been a conventional railroad. Had
Budd been proving that for years with streamlined intercity consists?

What was a better looking passenger locomotive than an E unit?

It's not like it resulted in political support for a decent monorail
system in Seattle anyway.

I don't believe for a minute that gave a damn about non-standard gauge
nor proprietary command-and-control signalling system. It's not possible
to believe they would have cared about anything beyond the style chosen
for the rolling stock and maybe stations.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 14, 11:59 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> Glen Labah <gl4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry, but I'm not buying any of this. Not building a conventional
> railroad meant higher capital costs and a smaller project, which is what
> San Francisco got.

That is true. But . . .

> The styling chosen for the rolling stock could have been sleek, modern,
> and elegant, but it still could have been a conventional railroad. Had
> Budd been proving that for years with streamlined intercity consists?

Actually, no. While the Budd PATCO car was of a modern design, it was
much more conventional looking, both interior and exterior, than the
BART train. The BART train was the futuristic design they sought.

In Philadelphia, the PATCO car was seen as very modern. But that was
because it was compared to other equipment that was so old in a city
that was very old.

In contrast, the new areas of the Bay Area were very modern.

> What was a better looking passenger locomotive than an E unit?

In 1960, the E unit design was 20 years old.

> I don't believe for a minute that gave a damn about non-standard gauge
> nor proprietary command-and-control signalling system. It's not possible
> to believe they would have cared about anything beyond the style chosen
> for the rolling stock and maybe stations.

It was not a choice I would've made. But as rail author Harre W.
Demoro noted, the Bay Area wanted modern.

At that time, the "space age" was modern. That included the aerospace
and electronics industries, who at that time were considered more
knowledgable than the established railroad industry. It was a
commonplace feeling in those days that new was good and old was bad.
It's how we got stuck with the Boeing LRV--a dismal high tech failure--
as opposed to simply updating the tried and true PCC design. (Thank
goodness SEPTA passed on the Boeing car and went with Kawasaki--those
cars are running fine 30 years later).

As to the "under the hood" stuff, the Bay Area had many modern high
techies who probably pushed for that sort of thing.

Don't forget that the Bay Area was populated by many high-tech types
who likely pushed for the advanced technology.

For what it's worth, after the war IBM found engineers from California
didn't want to come east. So IBM set up a lab in San Jose. That new
lab, free from the constraints of the eastern labs, invented the disk
drive.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 13-Jan-13 15:59, John Levine wrote:
>
>> Ah. When someone says "deck", I think of an open area suitable
>> for cars, not squeezing trains between structural supports for the
>> deck above.
>
> They squeezed six traffic lanes between the structural supports in
> the lower level of the GWB.

Was it designed for that possibility? It's hard to imagine retrofitting
an entire level of car traffic into a bridge after the fact.

Also, are there vertical beams between the lanes? When I think of a
lower deck, I picture something like the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge, which
has (had?) two completely open decks.

> (Have you ever been to NYC?)

Yes, but I haven't _driven_ there; I've always taken taxis or the subway.

> The Golden Gate is somewhat narrower, 27m rather than 36m, but it's
> hard to imagine how they'd have built it so there wasn't room for
> two tracks.

That all depends on how far apart the structural beams are spaced--and
whether any of them are diagonal. Generally, engineers prefer to build
structures out of triangles rather than squares because the former are
inherently stronger.

[Adam H. Kerman]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Jan 14, 11:59 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Glen Labah <gl4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>I'm sorry, but I'm not buying any of this. Not building a conventional
>>railroad meant higher capital costs and a smaller project, which is what
>>San Francisco got.

>That is true. But . . .

>>The styling chosen for the rolling stock could have been sleek, modern,
>>and elegant, but it still could have been a conventional railroad. Had
>>Budd been proving that for years with streamlined intercity consists?

>Actually, no.

Really? Perhaps you need to refresh your memory of what these consists
once looked like in both the steam and diesel eras.

>While the Budd PATCO car was of a modern design, it was much more
>conventional looking, both interior and exterior, than the BART train.
>The BART train was the futuristic design they sought.

What does that have to do with my comment about elegant streamlined intercity
consists?

I got to San Francisco as a kid when BART was just a few years old. The cars
were new. The interiors weren't especially elegant, just practical for a
mostly suburban commuter rail operation. Hell, we had cantilevered seats
on Grumman buses at home.

No one would have mistaken BART interiors as an attempt at a modern car
that would serve the rich attended by Pullman porters.

>At that time, the "space age" was modern. That included the aerospace
>and electronics industries, who at that time were considered more
>knowledgable than the established railroad industry. It was a
>commonplace feeling in those days that new was good and old was bad.
>It's how we got stuck with the Boeing LRV--a dismal high tech failure--
>as opposed to simply updating the tried and true PCC design. (Thank
>goodness SEPTA passed on the Boeing car and went with Kawasaki--those
>cars are running fine 30 years later).

The Boeing cars in Chicago's "L" fleet have worked out ok, once they
passed the teething stage and the door mechanisms were replaced. That's
mostly because CTA sent a guy to sit in the factory and catch errors during
production and get them corrected prior to delivery, when it was still
cheap to do so. Boston and San Francisco failed to do that, and got shit.

>As to the "under the hood" stuff, the Bay Area had many modern high
>techies who probably pushed for that sort of thing.

>Don't forget that the Bay Area was populated by many high-tech types
>who likely pushed for the advanced technology.

In the 1950's and 1960's? I don't think so.

>For what it's worth, after the war IBM found engineers from California
>didn't want to come east. So IBM set up a lab in San Jose. That new
>lab, free from the constraints of the eastern labs, invented the disk
>drive.

Yeah. I've never heard of engineers rejected practical for sleek, untried,
and untrue who keep their jobs.

I think BART is an especially sad story in post-war transit history.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 14-Jan-13 12:05, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jan 14, 11:59 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>> The styling chosen for the rolling stock could have been sleek,
>> modern, and elegant, but it still could have been a conventional
>> railroad. Had Budd been proving that for years with streamlined
>> intercity consists?
>
> Actually, no. While the Budd PATCO car was of a modern design, it
> was much more conventional looking, both interior and exterior, than
> the BART train. The BART train was the futuristic design they
> sought.

... but that "futuristic" shell and interior could have easily been put
on standard-gauge trucks, and they could have used a standard voltage
and signaling system. The public wouldn't have known the difference.

Yes, Silicon Valley has a high concentration of geeks, but geeks
understand the value of standards. Coopetition is the fundamental basis
of our entire field. It's the marketing and business people who push
for gratuitous incompatibilities.

> For what it's worth, after the war IBM found engineers from
> California didn't want to come east. So IBM set up a lab in San
> Jose. That new lab, free from the constraints of the eastern labs,
> invented the disk drive.

One can walk into any corporate office in the country and, within an
hour or two, tell whether the company is headquartered in the East or
West. The cultural differences are astounding.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 14, 1:40 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:



> ... but that "futuristic" shell and interior could have easily been put
> on standard-gauge trucks, and they could have used a standard voltage
> and signaling system.  The public wouldn't have known the difference.

Yes, it could've been done that way, and yes, the general public
wouldn't have known the difference. However. . .

> Yes, Silicon Valley has a high concentration of geeks, but geeks
> understand the value of standards.  Coopetition is the fundamental basis
> of our entire field.  It's the marketing and business people who push
> for gratuitous incompatibilities.

You don't understand the temper of the times. There was a generation
gap between the young and old, between the east and west coasts. The
movers and shakers of the Bay Area wanted high-tech--first, because
that was their world, and secondly, they wanted a piece of the action.

Further, there were two different "fields" in play. It was a
different set of engineers in the west coast than the east, and
representing new vs. old technologies. In essence, the new engineers,
aside from being generally younger, and were more electronic and
aerospace oriented; as opposed to the old engineers who were more
mechanical and railroad oriented. So you had visions by different
sets of engineers*.

Note at the time the Feds were pushing the new stuff, and it was very
much in fashion.

All this culminated in a 60 Minutes expose comparing the problems of
BART against the reliable fast service of the ancient P&W.

*PATCO picked the PRR's 1920s cab signal protocol. Would have you
chosen that in 1968? PATCO also chose off-the-shelf door bells to
announce door closing instead of electronic chirps. Would have you
chosen that?

> > For what it's worth, after the war IBM found engineers from
> > California didn't want to come east.  So IBM set up a lab in San
> > Jose.  That new lab, free from the constraints of the eastern labs,
> > invented the disk drive.
>
> One can walk into any corporate office in the country and, within an
> hour or two, tell whether the company is headquartered in the East or
> West.  The cultural differences are astounding.

The challenges at IBM during the postwar era illustrates the problem.
Part of IBM strongly disliked electronic computers and wanted to stick
with relay driven tab machines* well past their prime. Another part
disliked tab machines and wanted to go to electronic computers when
much research still needed to be done. (Both points had their
merits) IBM had to set up separate research labs to keep the factions
apart. Later on their were fights over a major jump in computer
architecture (from 6 bit characters to 8 bit multi-mode bytes).

Very simply, in SF, new-tech won. Like I said, I don't agree with
their choice, never did. But I understand how it came about.

*(The old mechanical engineering expertise at IBM allowed it to
develop the excellent 1403 printer, a major computer advance for its
day).

[John Levine]

>> They squeezed six traffic lanes between the structural supports in
>> the lower level of the GWB.
>
>Was it designed for that possibility? It's hard to imagine retrofitting
>an entire level of car traffic into a bridge after the fact.

I think so, but the second level was added about 30 years after the
bridge was built, when vehicles had gotten somewhat larger and
heavier. There are pictures of the GWB with big weights hanging from
it to check that the design would work.

>Also, are there vertical beams between the lanes? When I think of a
>lower deck, I picture something like the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge, which
>has (had?) two completely open decks.

It's been a while since I've driven over the GWB, but as I recall the
three lower level lanes in each direction are clear, but there is
stuff between the eastbound and westbound lanes.

>> The Golden Gate is somewhat narrower, 27m rather than 36m, but it's
>> hard to imagine how they'd have built it so there wasn't room for
>> two tracks.
>
>That all depends on how far apart the structural beams are spaced--and
>whether any of them are diagonal. Generally, engineers prefer to build
>structures out of triangles rather than squares because the former are
>inherently stronger.

Here's a picture of the truss:

http://www.curee.org/projects/GGB/exhibition/graphics/GGB-exhibit2-1_1.jpg

Remember that it's a suspension bridge, the truss just holds up the
sections of deck between each set of suspender ropes.

It would certainly require some modification to make room for two
tracks, but compare that to the cost of a new bridge or a new tunnel.

[Philip Nasadowski]

In article
<53f0fc0d-38b9-4d06...@a8g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> You have to got a bit to
> get to the "not dense" residential sections.

Just head up rt 23 to West Milford - 344.3 people per square mile. Even
in the rush I'm 1/2 an hour from I-80, 15 minutes from 287, and 40 from
my office. The funny part is, I'm only maybe 20 min from the NY state
line.

On second thought, please DON'T head up here. I like not hearing my
neighbors all the time, and prefer it stay that way...

[Philip Nasadowski]

In article <kd1dho$qne$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> What was a better looking passenger locomotive than an E unit?

DB's class 103, for starters. And the 103 could actually pull a train,
unlike the E unit, which just made noise and blew smoke.

[spsffan]

It might not be possible for you to believe it, but it is possible to
believe it. I have family members* and acquaintances who lived through
it. Admittedly these folks are engineers and other technically trained
people, but they DID make the point that the new technology was a huge
selling point when BART was approved.

So, it is entirely likely that San Francisco would have had no project
rather than a larger one. It might well have would up with a better,
bigger, less costly project later, but we will never know that.


*Make that HAD family members. Now deceased.

[Clark F Morris]

A 2200 - 2400 horsepower E unit plus 5 coaches maintain an 85 minute
schedule for 85 miles with 4 intermediate stops on the Chicago and
Northwestern in the 1940's.

Clark Morris

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 14, 6:09 pm, spsffan <spsf...@hotmail.com> wrote:



> It might not be possible for you to believe it, but it is possible to
> believe it. I have family members* and acquaintances who lived through
> it. Admittedly these folks are engineers and other technically trained
> people, but they DID make the point that the new technology was a huge
> selling point when BART was approved.

Correct. It wasn't just engineering, but a cultural aspect as well--
old ideas vs. new ideas. In the 1960s, "modern" was a very big deal
in society, and hotly debated. In education, for example, there were
progressive schools vs. traditional ones. The civil rights issue--the
old guard truly believed integration was 'wrong'.

In the 1960 film, "The Apartment", we see the debate between old and
new values.

> So, it is entirely likely that San Francisco would have had no project
> rather than a larger one. It might well have would up with a better,
> bigger, less costly project later, but we will never know that.

I agree that a low tech PATCO style project would not have been
accepted in the Bay Area. (That would be still frequent 75 mph
trains, just on a more traditional technology).

However, had such a system been approved, the developmen costs
would've been far less, as would've been the construction costs and
initial operating costs. Don't forget, BART suffered under CPUC
supervision and manual train supervision for a long time until they
could get the bugs out of their system. That in itself was very
costly.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 14, 2:51 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jan 14, 1:40 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
> > ... but that "futuristic" shell and interior could have easily been put
> > on standard-gauge trucks, and they could have used a standard voltage
> > and signaling system.  The public wouldn't have known the difference.

> *PATCO picked the PRR's 1920s cab signal protocol.  Would have you
> chosen that in 1968?  PATCO also chose off-the-shelf door bells to
> announce door closing instead of electronic chirps.  Would have you
> chosen that?

Here's another choice: For its internal telephone system, PATCO chose
a second-hand step-by-step switch. It was cheap, but worked fine and
remained in service for years. Further, for passengers who needed to
"addfare' to get out, PATCO obtained second-hand payphones in which
the passengers deposited their coins under the supervision of the
remote Call For Aid desk, a system it still uses to this day (the PAX
switch is new) and the payphones are the single slot Touch Tone kind.

I'm pretty sure they had ESS PAX's available in 1968 but I dare say
PATCO's approach was cheaper. I believe Washington DC used a fancy
internal system with "applique" options.

[Philip Nasadowski]

In article <7sc9f8th6o60b2eet...@4ax.com>,

Clark F Morris <cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> A 2200 - 2400 horsepower E unit plus 5 coaches maintain an 85 minute
> schedule for 85 miles with 4 intermediate stops on the Chicago and

Whoopie. For some odd reason, the LIRR borrowed a few from Metra in the
90's and they lasted about a week in revenue service before being
returned - they couldn't maintain schedule for shit, and that's vs the
GP-38-2s the LI had at the time.

They were brought over for testing bilevels until the FL-9 rebuilds
showed up, but ultimately the LIRR made do with 2 Geeps and an old Alco
'power pack' until then.

The whole bilevel mess (the prototype set was called the 'Bi-Tanic" by
passengers and crews due to the 15% availability) was an interesting,
albeit sad story for the LIRR. The Port Jeff still desperately needs
electrification (ironically, the LIRR claims the grades and close spaced
stations make it a poor candidate for MU operation!).

I rode on the FL-9 hauled version a few times. You kind held your
breath until you reached Jamacia and the thing was on diesel and you
*knew* it was going to continue onward...

[Hank]

In article <nasadowsk-81A21...@news.optonline.net>,

Are you kidding me? A box-cab better looking than an EMD E? And
comparing an electric with twice the power of a GG-1 (which was also
better-looking) with a first-generation 2000 hp diesel from thirty years
earlier is apples-to-oranges absurd. Yes, the E made more noise and smoke
than an electric, but it was pretty tame in both departments compared to the
Alco DL-109's.

Your hot-shot DB103's styling compares favorably with the New Haven's
EP-3a, which was the precursor to the GG-1. But the GG-1 was pure eye
candy compared to any box-cab, as was the P-5a, where the style was
developed. Maybe 4620 continuous horsepower doesn't compare favorably
with 9900 1-hour horsepower, but the G was dual-mode, and probably could
start a freight that would make your DB103 just sit there and make loud
humming noises.

We won't talk about 1349 E's produced over 25 years compared to 145
DB103's. You might as well try to tell me that a Tante Ju airplane
was better than a Douglas Racer.

Hank

[Hank]

In article <7sc9f8th6o60b2eet...@4ax.com>,
Clark F Morris <cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

Clark, you're giving the E's of the 1940's too much power. E-3
through E-7 were all 2000 hp units. And yes, one of them could pull 5
American coaches at such speeds with ease.

Hank

[Adam H. Kerman]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>I agree that a low tech PATCO style project would not have been
>accepted in the Bay Area. (That would be still frequent 75 mph
>trains, just on a more traditional technology).

PATCO wasn't low tech at all, not by any means. It was just inexpensive,
done well.

[Glen Labah]

In article <kd2qmv$9mc$1...@dont-email.me>,

han...@blackhole.lostwells.net (Hank) wrote:

> In article <nasadowsk-81A21...@news.optonline.net>,
> Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
> >In article <kd1dho$qne$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> What was a better looking passenger locomotive than an E unit?
> >
> >DB's class 103, for starters. And the 103 could actually pull a train,
> >unlike the E unit, which just made noise and blew smoke.
>
> Are you kidding me? A box-cab better looking than an EMD E?

The DB 103 is actually quite rounded in front, similar to an E. It
lacks a platform for cab windows, instead molding them to fit the front
end.

Neither style, however, had the utra-modern ugliness combined with the
functionally useless designs that came from architecture of the 1960s in
the USA.

BART unfortunately was part of that movement in architecture. It was
designed to look really cool on promotional pamphlets but really didn't
have much root in how the thing would function OR how it would actually
look when operating.

I can't think of ever hearing anything complimentary about that awful
one-blind-eye front end design,
http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?19584
but somehow it sure looks great in the promotional pamphlets and artists
renderings that I've seen from the time.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 14, 9:44 pm, Philip Nasadowski <nasado...@usermale.com> wrote:

> The whole bilevel mess (the prototype set was called the 'Bi-Tanic" by
> passengers and crews due to the 15% availability) was an interesting,
> albeit sad story for the LIRR.  The Port Jeff still desperately needs
> electrification (ironically, the LIRR claims the grades and close spaced
> stations make it a poor candidate for MU operation!).

Where exactly did the LIRR make that claim about electrification?

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 15, 1:29 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

Compared to BART and WMATA, PATCO was low-tech.

PATCO was mostly "off the shelf". Indeed, I think their early
literature stated "there was nothing new on PATCO". They just took
the best practices of what was out there and combined them. The
faregates were copied from the ICG in Chicago. The cab signals were
PRR, the rest of the signal system was conventional CTC. The
automatic train operation (ATO) was new but fairly basic*.

Unlike BART, PATCO did not have a computer controlling the trains.
IMHO, at the level of technology at the time, that was a good idea.

By the way, PATCO presently has an open motorman's cab where
passengers can watch (by design) the large speedometer. But after the
car overhaul I suspect the cab will be closed. Hopefully the front
railfan's seat will be retained.

*The ATO did not work in the rain with slippery rail. Motormen had to
run the trains manually with lower acceleration and braking. Also,
PATCO found that the high performance was expensive in terms of power
and wear on the propulsion equipment, and later downrated it,
extending the running time by a few minutes.


As an aside, for business purposes, PATCO had an IBM 1130 computer.
This was one of IBM's cheapest machines of the time, but it was
intended more for science/engineering, not business (though some
businesses did use it). PATCO did use it to track all parts and wear,
which was helpful to spot problem areas. (The MTA used a similar
system, developed by LTK&A).

[Adam H. Kerman]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Jan 15, 1:29 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>>>I agree that a low tech PATCO style project would not have been
>>>accepted in the Bay Area. (That would be still frequent 75 mph
>>>trains, just on a more traditional technology).

>>PATCO wasn't low tech at all, not by any means. It was just inexpensive,
>>done well.

>Compared to BART and WMATA, PATCO was low-tech.

>PATCO was mostly "off the shelf".

That didn't make it "low tech"; you're wrong.

>Indeed, I think their early literature stated "there was nothing new
>on PATCO".

That didn't make it low tech either.

>They just took the best practices of what was out there and combined them.

Common sense doesn't mean low tech.

>The faregates were copied from the ICG in Chicago.

Gawd, I hope not. btw, don't say ICG, for Illinois Central plus Gulf,
Mobile, & Ohio merger didn't take place till 1972. IC experimented with
clamshells, didn't like them, and implemented turnstiles instead. WMATA
and BART, which used a newer version of the same fare collection system
as IC suburban, were able to use clamshells.

I actually never read that PATCO bought the Litton fare control system,
and had always wondered what they were using.

>The cab signals were PRR, the rest of the signal system was conventional
>CTC. The automatic train operation (ATO) was new but fairly basic*.

I realize that CTC was 40 years old at that point, but it wasn't widely
implemented until railroads were eliminating "unneeded" third and fourth
mains, and sometimes second mains, starting in the 1950's and were sold a
bill of goods by letting themselves believe that CTC doubled the capacity
of a single main as it was bi-directional, as the salesmen told them.

But CTC isn't low tech.

>Unlike BART, PATCO did not have a computer controlling the trains.

It could have, under some circumstances, probably.

The thing about signal and control systems is that it should be seen as
assisting the motorman/engineer, not replacing him. BART didn't want to
operate a signal and control system that didn't require a motorman without
paying a conductor to sit in the cab twiddling his thumbs, so that's
pointless.

Morgantown and SkyTrain/Scarborough were only a little newer. I don't
consider UTDC's signal and control technology to be revolutionary but
evolutionary; you may disagree.

>IMHO, at the level of technology at the time, that was a good idea.

>*The ATO did not work in the rain with slippery rail. Motormen had to
>run the trains manually with lower acceleration and braking. Also,
>PATCO found that the high performance was expensive in terms of power
>and wear on the propulsion equipment, and later downrated it,
>extending the running time by a few minutes.

Ah, yes. South Shore increased running times, too, when it bought new trains
because they didn't like the high marginal cost of the extra performance.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 14-Jan-13 13:51, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jan 14, 1:40 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> Yes, Silicon Valley has a high concentration of geeks, but geeks
>> understand the value of standards. Coopetition is the fundamental
>> basis of our entire field. It's the marketing and business people
>> who push for gratuitous incompatibilities.
>
> You don't understand the temper of the times.

Perhaps; I wasn't even alive then, so I have no first-hand knowledge.

> There was a generation gap between the young and old, between the
> east and west coasts.

There still is.

> The movers and shakers of the Bay Area wanted high-tech--first,
> because that was their world,

You incorrectly ascribe the same fault to techies today, so I don't
blindly accept your judgment of similar people's motives in the past.

> *PATCO picked the PRR's 1920s cab signal protocol. Would have you
> chosen that in 1968? PATCO also chose off-the-shelf door bells to
> announce door closing instead of electronic chirps. Would have you
> chosen that?

I'd choose them today if they were the better solution for my
requirements. My personal biases are only a tie-breaker; they only
matter when there is truly no "better" answer in the first place.

Requirements do change over the years, though, and the "better" solution
even to the same requirements can change over time as well for various
reasons--and that is particularly true in the tech industry.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Even if there's a better solution out there, you'd still want to start with
a contractor who hasn't rejected all currently available options in favor
of building something proprietary.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 16, 2:23 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:


> > There was a generation gap between the young and old, between the
> > east and west coasts.
>
> There still is.

Not like it was back then--between the baby boomers and the greatest-
generation.

That's how "All in the Family" became a mega-hit TV show--the
arguments between Mike and Archie reflected the difference in
attitudes between the generations (exaggerated for comedic effect, of
course).

Given their respective backgrounds of the generations, it's easy to
see the differences:

Greatest Generation: grew up in hard times (Depression), then went to
war. Limited opportunities for education. Society was strictly
authoritarian, hierarchial, and class-conscious.

Baby Boomers: Grew up in affluent times with relatively little
trauma. Many were first time college attendees of the family. Their
society was more egalitarian, participative, and social class
distinctions were frowned upon.

(This is not to say the Baby Boomers were always right in their
arguments with their parents, indeed, many times they were idiots--
going for new stuff for the sake of going new. In watching All in the
Family today, many times--with the benefit of hindsight--Mike comes
off as hopelessly naive.)

[Glen Labah]

In article <kd6umn$4t9$1...@dont-email.me>,

Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> On 14-Jan-13 13:51, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> > The movers and shakers of the Bay Area wanted high-tech--first,
> > because that was their world,
>
> You incorrectly ascribe the same fault to techies today, so I don't
> blindly accept your judgment of similar people's motives in the past.

The Oakland and San Francisco of the era had quite a lot of heavy
industry as well as the very early beginnings of the tech industry.
However, the move to have a high degree of technology and abandon the
old ways of doing things was not unique to the Bay Area at the time.

Sputnik had appeared on the scene, broadcasting a radio signal anyone
with a HAM radio could pick up.

We were going to have flying cars in just a few years, and computers
were being used to solve all of the world's problems on TV and in comic
books.

In 1962 there was the Seattle world's fair, called the "Century 21
Exhibition" and heavily emphasizing technology of the future.

In 1962 the animated TV program The Jetsons appears on the scene, with
domestic robots and computers and IT WAS IN COLOR (which only a few ABC
affiliates could do at the time!), and a work week that lasts all of a
few hours due to a high degree of automation.

In the railroad world, the Japanese were in the process of constructing
the first Shinkansen line, and their test facility for high speed
rolling stock was opened that year. Advanced technology of various
types were planned to be used on the line.

In the optimistic days before computer viruses, software security
patches and a hefty dose of reality, there were an awful lot of people
that genuinely believed technology was the answer to all problems.

There was actually an article or two about the BART catastrophe (the
entire project) written up as engineering ethics and business management
examples. While they made a few minor technical errors about how
railroads work i remember their ultimate points being quite sound: the
problem with BART wasn't the level of technology being applied, but that
the overall project management was pretty bad so that when problems did
happen with the technology they were not solved in an effective manner.

[Adam H. Kerman]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Jan 16, 2:23 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:

>>>There was a generation gap between the young and old, between the
>>>east and west coasts.

>>There still is.

>Not like it was back then--between the baby boomers and the greatest-
>generation.

>That's how "All in the Family" became a mega-hit TV show--the
>arguments between Mike and Archie reflected the difference in
>attitudes between the generations (exaggerated for comedic effect, of
>course).

>Given their respective backgrounds of the generations, it's easy to
>see the differences:

>Greatest Generation: grew up in hard times (Depression), then went to
>war. Limited opportunities for education. Society was strictly
>authoritarian, hierarchial, and class-conscious.

>Baby Boomers: Grew up in affluent times with relatively little
>trauma. Many were first time college attendees of the family. Their
>society was more egalitarian, participative, and social class
>distinctions were frowned upon.

Uh, Viet Nam was the war fought by Boomers. They were drafted, remember?
It lasted longer than WWII and quite a lot of them got caught in the draft.

Anyone born between 1946 and 1951 stood a good chance of getting drafted
and fighting in Viet Nam.

Not good times.

[conklin]

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:kd97fd$opi$3...@news.albasani.net...

And we lost the war too. So now my winter coat was made in Viet Nam.
Strange.

[Adam H. Kerman]

conklin <nilkn...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>Uh, Viet Nam was the war fought by Boomers. They were drafted, remember?
>>It lasted longer than WWII and quite a lot of them got caught in the

>>draft. . . .

>And we lost the war too. So now my winter coat was made in Viet Nam.
>Strange.

We lost Viet Nam at Potsdam, the moment we gave Indochina back to those
French assholes. And then we were too stupid to notice that the French
lost bad, so we took over. I guess it was better than fighting a hot
war versus the Russians.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 16, 10:36 pm, Glen Labah <gl4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The Oakland and San Francisco of the era had quite a lot of heavy
> industry as well as the very early beginnings of the tech industry.
> However, the move to have a high degree of technology and abandon the
> old ways of doing things was not unique to the Bay Area at the time.

While progressiveness was certainly not unique to the Bay Area, it did
have a strong progressive element. UC Berkeley had a very progressive
presence dating back years.

> In the optimistic days before computer viruses, software security
> patches and a hefty dose of reality, there were an awful lot of people
> that genuinely believed technology was the answer to all problems.

True. But the extent of that belief in new technology varied from
place to place. Some believed in an evolutionary approach, others
sought a revolutionary approach. As mentioned, the best illustration
of the two philosophies for our purposes was how BART and PATCO were
designed.

> There was actually an article or two about the BART catastrophe (the
> entire project) written up as engineering ethics and business management
> examples.  While they made a few minor technical errors about how
> railroads work i remember their ultimate points being quite sound: the
> problem with BART wasn't the level of technology being applied, but that
> the overall project management was pretty bad so that when problems did
> happen with the technology they were not solved in an effective manner.

There was quite a bit written up about BART. BART's technical
problems were significant and required a major redo at great expense.
It also limited operations until the redo was completed, again, adding
expenses.

If I recall correctly...

--Inadequate hardware for railroad conditions: critical signal and
control electronic components and cabling failed due to inability to
withstand the railroad environment. A control failure resulted in a
revenue train flying past a station into the parking lot. Initially
BART had a poor reputation for service reliability.

--Limitations of computer control: the California PUC was worried
that their system would not protect against train collisions and
ordered extensive modifications.

--Wideguage track: meant every rail vehicle (cars and utility) had to
be specially built for the odd track size.

--No manual operation. Initially, BART operators did not have signal
display indications on their console, nor could operate the train
manually beyond 25 mph. (This was corrected in a retrofit). This
meant no backup ability to run trains if the automation failed, as it
often did. PATCO had full manual backup.

--Separate A and B units: unlike standard rapid transit, special head-
end cars were used. This made yard work cumbersome and if a cab unit
failed, it hurt service recovery.


BART spent a lot of money making its stations very attractive. That
probably was a good idea in generating public support to build the
system and then attract passengers in the Bay Area environment. I
don't think BART's stations suffered physical problems from
construction. WMATA in DC seems to do many repairs. (PATCO built
utilitarian stations, though with heated and a/c waiting rooms, and
still attracted many riders).

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 17, 11:05 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> Uh, Viet Nam was the war fought by Boomers. They were drafted, remember?
> It lasted longer than WWII and quite a lot of them got caught in the draft.
> Anyone born between 1946 and 1951 stood a good chance of getting drafted
> and fighting in Viet Nam.
> Not good times.

While there was a draft, the numbers were much lower than in WW II, so
many people of that age simply didn't get called up. Also, many who
were drafted did not get sent to 'Nam but served stateside or in other
places, like Germany or Japan.

It was also relatively easy to get a draft deferment. Many young
people of that age went to college and than on to a draft-exempt job
(teachers were exempt and many baby boomers went into that). Medical
4-Fs were relatively easy to get. As a result, the draft tended to
take the poor and less educated people.

Of the entire eligible population, only a small minority actually
ended up in combat in 'Nam. In contrast, during WW II a very
substantial part of the population was in the military and served for
a longer time. Further, at the homefront families, faced rationing,
substandard defense housing, very long work hours, relocation and
other disruptions, and of course missed their fathers / sons/ brothers
in the service.

Around 1971 they began to modify the draft to tighten up the many
exemptions. They also instituted a new lottery. But by then draft
calls were getting rather low and soon stopped altogether.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 17, 12:21 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> We lost Viet Nam at Potsdam, the moment we gave Indochina back to those
> French assholes. And then we were too stupid to notice that the French
> lost bad, so we took over. I guess it was better than fighting a hot
> war versus the Russians.

The failure of Viet Nam was partly due to partisan politics. When
China went communist in 1948, the Republicans turned it into a huge
issue "Who Lost China?" and blamed Truman and his administration. (In
reality China was a hopeless lost cause all along and couldn't be
saved). Politicians like Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon never forgot
that lesson and got involved in something they should've avoided.

Another cause was the Communist situation of the era. The Russians
and Chinese were very warlike--Stalin and Mao brutally murdered
millions of their own people and had no hesitation to murder others.
Accordingly, western political leaders took great alarm at the Domino
Theory. Given the record of the Communists, it is quite
understandable that western leaders took the stance they did. After
the communists won in Vietnam, even liberal anti-war activists by GB
Trudeau had to acknowledge their brutality. There was some legitimacy
in what the US was fighting for. Unfortunately, the bigger picture
was quite convoluted.

While many people today utterly despise McNamara, he wrote several
candid books on Vietnam and was quite up front with the errors he
made.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 17, 12:21 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> We lost Viet Nam at Potsdam, the moment we gave Indochina back to those
> French assholes. And then we were too stupid to notice that the French
> lost bad, so we took over. I guess it was better than fighting a hot
> war versus the Russians.

P.S. Returning to trains and BART, one of BART's problems was heavy
dependence on the aerospace industry instead of traditional railway
suppliers. This was an intentional policy fostered by the government
to throw some work at the aerospace folks in the wake of downsizing
Vietnam.

[James Robinson]

Some of the biggest problems were with the control system, the traction
system, and the HVAC. All were from Westinghouse, a traditional supplier.

[Adam H. Kerman]

James Robinson <NoE...@nowhere.net> wrote:

>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>>P.S. Returning to trains and BART, one of BART's problems was heavy
>>dependence on the aerospace industry instead of traditional railway
>>suppliers. This was an intentional policy fostered by the government
>>to throw some work at the aerospace folks in the wake of downsizing
>>Vietnam.

>Some of the biggest problems were with the control system, the traction
>system, and the HVAC. All were from Westinghouse, a traditional supplier.

I thought hancock was right, that these were built to specs from defense
contractors. You're saying Westinghouse developed it all?

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 17, 2:55 pm, James Robinson <NoEm...@nowhere.net> wrote:

> > P.S.  Returning to trains and BART, one of BART's problems was heavy
> > dependence on the aerospace industry instead of traditional railway
> > suppliers.  This was an intentional policy fostered by the government
> > to throw some work at the aerospace folks in the wake of downsizing
> > Vietnam.
>
> Some of the biggest problems were with the control system, the traction
> system, and the HVAC.  All were from Westinghouse, a traditional supplier.

The initial fleet of cars were built by Rohr, an aerospace supplier.

While Westinghouse (electric) had a long record of building traction
motors and their control systems, I'm not sure if it had much
experience in computers or railway signalling. I don't think the
separate signal specialist company, Westinghouse Air Brake (WABCO) was
involved.

The HVAC was by a Westinghouse subsidiary.

Regarding the runaway train, I was in error, that was an unoccupied
test train, not a revenue train.

The wikip BART history says they used a non-standard voltage for track
occupancy resulting in ghost trains and missing trains.


BART's initial cars were built by Rohr, which was an aerospace firm.

BART used chopper control for its traction motors. I'm not sure at
what state of the art chopper control was when BART opened. PATCO
used more conventional technology.

As to the role of aerospace firms in transit, companies like Rohr,
Garrett AiResearch, Jet Propulsion Labortory, Bendix, The Aerospace
Corporation, and Boeing got involved with transit projects. Part of
the motivation was the wind-down of the space project.

[David Lesher]

At the time, I recall reading in IEEE Spectrum about the
?4? different power schemes investigated before
construction. They ended up with 1000V DC motors. They were
just a few years too soon for good VFD's to be available in
their size.

They did have many problems as the motor manufacturers seemed to
be unable to build motors that met spec. (I assume they now
have been upgraded to VFD/AC motors. True?)

As for the gauge, there were real plans to cross the Golden
Gate, and it's rather windy.

It's rather fanciful to say either of the above were attempts
to be sexier for the riding public.

Two other issues were the signaling, and the car design.
I recall Westinghouse seemed to have totally blown it on the
signaling, and HP ended up looking into at the request of
the governor.

As for the stoopid bullet-nose A car, and the resulting
dispatching grief. I recall reading some local pol spouting
about the very thread here saying roughly "we have to give them
something sexy...."

Didn't read somewhere that the A cars have since gotten
rinoplasties?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 17, 6:11 pm, David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
> At the time, I recall reading in IEEE Spectrum about the
> ?4? different power schemes investigated before
> construction. They ended up with 1000V DC motors.

What were the advantages, if any, of going to a non-standard design of
1,000 voltes? Wouldn't that mean heavier motors due to more
insulation for the higher voltage? The industry standard was 600-650
V.

> Didn't read somewhere that the A cars have since gotten
> rinoplasties?

Subsequent car orders were more conventional. Don't know about the
original cars.

[Glen Labah]

In article
<7c1de632-8b92-4835...@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Jan 17, 6:11�pm, David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
> > At the time, I recall reading in IEEE Spectrum about the
> > ?4? different power schemes investigated before
> > construction. They ended up with 1000V DC motors.
>
> What were the advantages, if any, of going to a non-standard design of
> 1,000 voltes? Wouldn't that mean heavier motors due to more
> insulation for the higher voltage? The industry standard was 600-650
> V.

They probably were trying to get the most distance between substations
they could get, and still have a 3rd rail power supply. Remember that
they have several miles of tunnel under San Francisco Bay where it is
best to not have phase breaks or substations or anything else
inaccessible. Moving to a higher voltage than the common 600v of
decades past wasn't such a bad idea, because light rail lines decided
that 750 was the best overhead voltage. New lines are not built to 600v
any more in North America.

1000 volts, however, is a really odd voltage.

For traction equipment, the next logical voltage is 1,500 because that
is what the IC and CSS&SB uses in Chicago. It means there is a bit of
traction equipment kicking about at that voltage in North America, and
outside North America it isn't exceptionally rare. In fact, a number of
the more modern metro lines in the rest of the world use it as well as
some of the older overhead powered suburban lines. Also, I think there
are diesel locomotives that use this voltage for their traction motors.

The voltage decision is probably one of those things that was settled
upon by those with no familiarity with what is available off the shelf
in railroad traction power systems, or how the decision to go with a
non-standard voltage would impact everything.

[James Robinson]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Jan 17, 2:55�pm, James Robinson <NoEm...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> > P.S. �Returning to trains and BART, one of BART's problems was
>> > heavy dependence on the aerospace industry instead of traditional
>> > railway suppliers. �This was an intentional policy fostered by the
>> > government to throw some work at the aerospace folks in the wake of
>> > downsizing Vietnam.
>>
>> Some of the biggest problems were with the control system, the
>> traction system, and the HVAC. �All were from Westinghouse, a
>> traditional supplier.
>
> The initial fleet of cars were built by Rohr, an aerospace supplier.

They just designed and built the car shells. All the other equipment was
provided by Westinghouse, the low bidder. Rohr was also responsible as
the prime contractor to make things work.

> While Westinghouse (electric) had a long record of building traction
> motors and their control systems, I'm not sure if it had much
> experience in computers or railway signalling. I don't think the
> separate signal specialist company, Westinghouse Air Brake (WABCO) was
> involved.

The signal company that George Westinghouse created was the Union Switch
and Signal company, which was by the time of BART an entirely separate
company. Neither US&S nor WABCO were involved.

> The HVAC was by a Westinghouse subsidiary.

Yes, Thermo King, which was then a subsidiary of Westinghouse, and
specialized in HVAC systems ... and it still didn't work well.

> BART's initial cars were built by Rohr, which was an aerospace firm.

That's nice, but all the stuff that didn't work was made by Westinghouse,
a tradtional transit supplier which also did some NASA work.

> BART used chopper control for its traction motors. I'm not sure at
> what state of the art chopper control was when BART opened. PATCO
> used more conventional technology.

Westinghouse was and continues to be (now Bombardier) the main supplier
of chopper controls for transit.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Of course, since one of my fundamental requirements would be not using
proprietary technology.

[James Robinson]

Glen Labah <gl4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> What were the advantages, if any, of going to a non-standard design
>> of 1,000 voltes? Wouldn't that mean heavier motors due to more
>> insulation for the higher voltage? The industry standard was 600-650
>> V.
>
> They probably were trying to get the most distance between substations
> they could get, and still have a 3rd rail power supply. Remember that
> they have several miles of tunnel under San Francisco Bay where it is
> best to not have phase breaks or substations or anything else
> inaccessible. Moving to a higher voltage than the common 600v of
> decades past wasn't such a bad idea, because light rail lines decided
> that 750 was the best overhead voltage. New lines are not built to
> 600v any more in North America.
>
> 1000 volts, however, is a really odd voltage.

BART's motors were wired in series-parallel, so each motor would only have
seen 500V max. They are the same motors that are under the Buffalo,
Boston, and Philly LRVs, plus the Miami, Baltimore, SEPTA and Path metros
as examples.

> The voltage decision is probably one of those things that was settled
> upon by those with no familiarity with what is available off the shelf
> in railroad traction power systems, or how the decision to go with a
> non-standard voltage would impact everything.

Motors were standard. It was only the choppers that would see a different
voltage.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 17, 11:25 pm, James Robinson <NoEm...@nowhere.net> wrote:



> They just designed and built the car shells.  All the other equipment was
> provided by Westinghouse, the low bidder. Rohr was also responsible as
> the prime contractor to make things work.

In press releases of the time, Rohr touted its "aerospace systems
engineering approach" to put everything together reliably.

Also, the trucks were built by Rockwell. Were they a rail supplier?
If memory serves, they also provided the NYC R-46 trucks which were a
failure.

> That's nice, but all the stuff that didn't work was made by Westinghouse,
> a tradtional transit supplier which also did some NASA work.

As mentioned, I'm not sure if Westinghouse had experience beyond
traction motors and their control, and power plants.

In that era, "all electric" homes were touted, and Westinghouse was
one of the suppliers. The stove, hot water, heat, a/c, washer, dryer,
disposal were all provided by Westinghouse. Later on they sold their
appliance division to White industries.

> > BART used chopper control for its traction motors.  I'm not sure at
> > what state of the art chopper control was when BART opened.  PATCO
> > used more conventional technology.

> Westinghouse was and continues to be (now Bombardier) the main supplier
> of chopper controls for transit.

Again, chopper control was new back then, BART may have been the first
user. I thought it was obsolete today, having been replaced by AC
propulsion.

I thought Westinghouse no longer exists, with its power plant unit
sold to Siemens.

[James Robinson]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> James Robinson <NoEm...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> They just designed and built the car shells. �All the other equipment
>> was provided by Westinghouse, the low bidder. Rohr was also
>> responsible as the prime contractor to make things work.
>
> In press releases of the time, Rohr touted its "aerospace systems
> engineering approach" to put everything together reliably.
>
> Also, the trucks were built by Rockwell. Were they a rail supplier?
> If memory serves, they also provided the NYC R-46 trucks which were a
> failure.

Rockwell makes the truck frames for EMD locomotives, along with most
castings for transit trucks.

>> That's nice, but all the stuff that didn't work was made by
>> Westinghouse, a tradtional transit supplier which also did some NASA
>> work.
>
> As mentioned, I'm not sure if Westinghouse had experience beyond
> traction motors and their control, and power plants.

As I said, the three areas that gave the greatest grief were the HVAC,
train control and traction systems. Westinghouse and their subsidiaries
were all major transit suppliers of those systems.

>>> BART used chopper control for its traction motors. �I'm not sure at
>>> what state of the art chopper control was when BART opened. �PATCO
>>> used more conventional technology.
>
>> Westinghouse was and continues to be (now Bombardier) the main
>> supplier of chopper controls for transit.
>
> Again, chopper control was new back then, BART may have been the first
> user. I thought it was obsolete today, having been replaced by AC
> propulsion.

Yes, choppers were relatively new at the time. The first use was on the
CTA Skokie line in 1967. They were considered much more efficient, since
you didn't need large dropping resistors that wasted energy, and you
could regenerate power into the third rail when braking.

Choppers are still used in many legacy systems. Anything new will be AC.
The rebuilt BART cars were converted to AC.

> I thought Westinghouse no longer exists, with its power plant unit
> sold to Siemens.

Various bits were sold off over time. The old Westinghouse transit
division is now owned by Bombardier, and is based in Pittsburgh.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 17-Jan-13 22:15, Glen Labah wrote:
> Moving to a higher voltage than the common 600v of decades past
> wasn't such a bad idea, because light rail lines decided that 750
> was the best overhead voltage. New lines are not built to 600v any
> more in North America.

I've wondered about the shift from 600VDC to 750VDC; was the difference
really worth completely breaking with the past? Who was the first to
make the jump, and why? Where did the 600VDC standard come from in the
first place?

> 1000 volts, however, is a really odd voltage.

Indeed. It's high enough to make working with it a pain, but low enough
that doing so is not worth the minimal benefits.

If you cross the line into "high voltage" territory, eg. to deal with
long distances between substations such as the Transbay Tube, you might
as well go to 1500V--but not exactly for the reasons you state below.

> For traction equipment, the next logical voltage is 1,500 because
> that is what the IC and CSS&SB uses in Chicago. It means there is a
> bit of traction equipment kicking about at that voltage in North
> America, and outside North America it isn't exceptionally rare. In
> fact, a number of the more modern metro lines in the rest of the
> world use it as well as some of the older overhead powered suburban
> lines.

For metro and tram lines, 600VDC (older) and 750VDC (newer) are far more
common, both in the US and around the world.

For mainline railway electrification, France, Japan, the Netherlands and
Spain used 1500VDC; Belgium, Italy, Poland, South Africa, Spain and the
Soviet Union used 3000VDC. Exact multiples mean dual-voltage equipment
was relatively easy to build, too: just flip the transformer secondary
taps between series and parallel to change voltage.

1500VDC and 3000VDC are both being slowly phased out in favor of the new
worldwide standard, 25kV 50/60Hz.

> The voltage decision is probably one of those things that was
> settled upon by those with no familiarity with what is available off
> the shelf in railroad traction power systems, or how the decision to
> go with a non-standard voltage would impact everything.

Agreed.

[James Robinson]

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

Westinghouse was by far the low bidder on a specification that had been
written. They built to the spec.

[Adam H. Kerman]

And the spec was written by a defense contractor, right? The problem was
the spec itself, right, and not failure to build to a decent spec?

Why are you making me defend hancock?

[Adam H. Kerman]

James Robinson <NoE...@nowhere.net> wrote:

>Yes, choppers were relatively new at the time. The first use was on the
>CTA Skokie line in 1967. They were considered much more efficient, since
>you didn't need large dropping resistors that wasted energy, and you
>could regenerate power into the third rail when braking.

You're talking about SOAC, right, which was touring the country? I didn't
recall CTA ever experimenting with them. They certainly never bought them
for any car orders.

[bob]

On Jan 18, 6:05 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 17-Jan-13 22:15, Glen Labah wrote:
>
> > Moving to a higher voltage than the common 600v of decades past
> > wasn't such a bad idea, because light rail lines decided that 750
> > was the best overhead voltage.  New lines are not built to 600v any
> > more in North America.
>
> I've wondered about the shift from 600VDC to 750VDC; was the difference
> really worth completely breaking with the past?  Who was the first to
> make the jump, and why?  Where did the 600VDC standard come from in the
> first place?

At that voltage, because of the high current draw, the actual voltage
seen at the third rail varies a great deal. A nominally 750 V system
may involve trains seeing a voltage on the 3rd rail as low as 500 V
and as high as 850 V. The increase in nominal voltage from 600 to 750
isn't so much a jump as a gradual creep. If all the equipment both on
trains and on the supply side is actually good for 750 V, which
anything installed after about 1950 probably would be, makign the
switch is little more than changing transformer taps in the substation
and having a little more power for the trains.

> > For traction equipment, the next logical voltage is 1,500 because
> > that is what the IC and CSS&SB uses in Chicago.  It means there is a
> > bit of traction equipment kicking about at that voltage in North
> > America, and outside North America it isn't exceptionally rare.  In
> > fact, a number of the more modern metro lines in the rest of the
> > world use it as well as some of the older overhead powered suburban
> > lines.
>
> For metro and tram lines, 600VDC (older) and 750VDC (newer) are far more
> common, both in the US and around the world.
>
> For mainline railway electrification, France, Japan, the Netherlands and
> Spain used 1500VDC; Belgium, Italy, Poland, South Africa, Spain and the
> Soviet Union used 3000VDC.  Exact multiples mean dual-voltage equipment
> was relatively easy to build, too: just flip the transformer secondary
> taps between series and parallel to change voltage.

To be nit-picking, on a DC system, the transformer is in the
substation, not on the train. The normal method to switch would be a
series/parallel switch on board the train. In some cases, such as
certain Belgium/Netherlands cross border services, 3 kV equipment ran
short distances under Dutch 1500 V wires with no changes at all,
simply running on reduced power.

Robin

[James Robinson]

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

No. IIRC cars 1-4 were retrofitted with both GE and Westinghouse triac
motor controls. They didn't last long. The SOAC didn't appear until 1975.

CTA ordered chopper controls on some of the last 2400 series cars. They
found that the motor control system interfered with the signaling system.
In mid-order, the cars that had been delivered were retrofitted with cam
controllers, and the remainder of the order was shipped with cams.

[James Robinson]

The spec was pushing technology. Nothing wrong with that as long as you
are prepared to be a leader and suffer the inevitable teething problems.
The problem was that at the time the traditional suppliers were stuck in
the past, and needed a boot in the butt.

I remember Pullman announcing that it was impossible to build a car with
cantelever seats, yet Rohr did just that.

The other problem at the time was that transit agencies were all
demanding their own specifications, and refused to adopt any standards.
When Rohr later bid on the Washington Metro, they proposed using the BART
cars, but that was rejected for a totally new design. Later, Rohr bid on
the Atlanta MARTA cars, and proposed both the BART and WMATA cars, and
both designs were rejected for yet another new design. Rohr threw up
thier hands and left the industry.

> Why are you making me defend hancock?

Because I disagree with both of you.

Yes, the specs pushed the state of the art, but Westinghouse was a
supplier that knew the business, and also knew what they were getting
into. They blew it. Don't blame it on the aerospace industry.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 18, 12:04 am, James Robinson <NoEm...@nowhere.net> wrote:

> Yes, choppers were relatively new at the time.  The first use was on the
> CTA Skokie line in 1967.  They were considered much more efficient, since
> you didn't need large dropping resistors that wasted energy, and you
> could regenerate power into the third rail when braking.

Around that time (circa 1970), Garrett Airesearch* was developing a
flywheel energy storage system for the NYC subway. The flywheel would
be spun by power generated by braking, and then used to generate power
to help with acceleration. At the time they said braking power could
not be sent back to the third rail because there were too many third
rail gaps--so if a train passed a gap while braking it would lose
braking effort. (Presumably today's AC regenerative power supplies
can accomodate that.) Anyway, I don't think the flywheel worked out.

As an aside, SEPTA is experimenting with wayside batteries to capture
returned braking energy.


*Garrett was also experimenting with a turbine self propelled
"Metropolitan" style train on the diesel end of the LIRR. I don't
think that worked out either.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 18, 12:15 am, James Robinson <NoEm...@nowhere.net> wrote:

> > I thought hancock was right, that these were built to specs from
> > defense contractors. You're saying Westinghouse developed it all?
>
> Westinghouse was by far the low bidder on a specification that had been
> written.  They built to the spec.

All I can say is that the press release cites Rohr as the _designer_
of the cars and responsible to ensure all the sub-systems work
together. Rohr also touted the "aerospace systems engineering
approach" which it utilized for the design and construction.

As to Westinghouse and the computerized train control system,
including track circuits, did they have any prior experience with that
sort of thing? Also, you mentioned Westinghouse had done work for
NASA. Was their NASA unit involved with the BART work? (At the time,
finding work for aerospace contractors was a goal since Vietnam and
the space program were winding down.)

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jan 18, 1:04 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> You're talking about SOAC, right, which was touring the country? I didn't
> recall CTA ever experimenting with them. They certainly never bought them
> for any car orders.

I doubt SOAC ever ran on the CTA because each SOAC was 75' long and
probably wouldn't fit anywhere on CTA. Indeed, it had to be squeezed
in on some eastern subways.

I don't think SOAC was intended as a prototype for subsequent car
orders. Rather, it was to simply demonstrate the "state of the art"
in transit technology. SOAC was under the management of Boeing and
the cars actually built by St. Louis (based on an NYC subway shell).

[James Robinson]

Technically, all those techniques work. It becomes a question of
economics, where the cost of the extra equipment is higher than the
savings.

One other approach that is gaining momentum is the use of supercapacitors
to store energy on-board. They are now often used to keep lighting and AC
from going off when passing over gaps.

The idea of capturing braking energy goes back to the streetcar days, when
you could use a car running downhill to regenerate electricity to power a
car running uphill, and provide electric braking to the downhill car.
Everything was fine until the uphill car shut off its controller to come to
a stop, then the downhill car took off since the braking resistance was no
longer there. The solution was to put resister grids switchgear in the
substation to capture the energy when there was no load on the line, but
ultimately the cost of the extra equipment and maintenance was higher than
the value of the energy saved, hence the whole concept was scrapped.

[James Robinson]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Jan 18, 12:15�am, James Robinson <NoEm...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> > I thought hancock was right, that these were built to specs from
>> > defense contractors. You're saying Westinghouse developed it all?
>>
>> Westinghouse was by far the low bidder on a specification that had
been
>> written. �They built to the spec.
>
> All I can say is that the press release cites Rohr as the _designer_
> of the cars and responsible to ensure all the sub-systems work
> together. Rohr also touted the "aerospace systems engineering
> approach" which it utilized for the design and construction.

It's normal for the prime contractor to be responsible for the
integration of all the systems. It doesn't mean they designed them.

Take a Budd RDC, for example. They used a modified Detroit Diesel engine
for power with an Allison transmission (Both GM subsidiaries). Budd was
responsible to get the engine to work on their cars, but they certainly
didn't design either the engine or the transmission. They relied on the
experience of GM to do that.

As an aside, that was one of the problems of being a car builder. The
economics were poor, since the builder was responsible for the system
integration, but the value added by the builder was substantially diluted
by the cost of all the subsystems that had to be added to their car
shell, but which they didn't make themselves. (Air brakes, HVAC, trucks,
wheels and axles, light fixtures, seats, etc. etc.) Overall, the
carbuilder's value add was a small percentage of the overall cost of the
equipment, yet they were responsible for making sure that everything
worked together.

> As to Westinghouse and the computerized train control system,
> including track circuits, did they have any prior experience with that
> sort of thing? Also, you mentioned Westinghouse had done work for
> NASA. Was their NASA unit involved with the BART work? (At the time,
> finding work for aerospace contractors was a goal since Vietnam and
> the space program were winding down.)

Is suspect that their NASA work was simply name dropping on the part of
Westinghouse to show they had the capability to handle high-tech
projects. I doubt they used that division for anything significant in
the BART project. It was their transit division that did most of their
work.

As to computerized train control, that was something that was relatively
new, so they stuck their necks out to do something that had a lot of
risk.