Passenger Trains > New Route for Capitol Corridor to San Jose

The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority is starting the process to permanently reroute
its trains via a more direct route between Oakland and  San Jose.  The trains would be removed
from Union Pacific's Niles Subdivision between Elmhurst and Newark(via Niles Jct.) and rerouted
onto the UP Coast Sub(Mulford Line) between those two points.  Service to Hayward and Fremont
(Centerville) would end although Altamont Corridor Express will continue to serve the latter.

A new stop will be built at Fremont(Ardenwood).  Benefits will be a five mile shorter journey
from OKJ-SJC and elimination of the low speed restrictions at Niles Jct. and Newark.  The new
Ardenwood stop will provide quick bus connections to San Francisco Peninsula points via CA84
(Dumbarton Bridge).  The Mulford Line already hosts Amtrak 11/14 and would not need any
significant upgrades(although it does presently lack CTC).

The project is being called South Bay Connect and has been a long term goal of the CCJPA.  The
pre-pandemic timetable had seven weekday roundtrips to San Jose.  The following two links provide
further details:

https://www.capitolcorridor.org/blogs/get_on_board/capitol-corridor-launches-environmental-review-for-south-bay-connect-project/
https://www.southbayconnect.com/projectoverview.html



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/20 13:49 by milepost20.

---

I seem to recall an article in Trains before the Capitol Corridor started.  SP wanted the trains on the current route because it was a way to get the track rebuilt, even though it wasn't the desired route for the psgr trains.
Anyone know anything about this?

milepost20 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A new stop will be built at Fremont(Ardenwood). 
> Benefits will be a five mile shorter journey
> from OKJ-SJC and elimination of the low speed
> restrictions at Niles Jct. and Newark.

Some clarification on the "low speed track" mentioned above.

With the current routing via Niles Jct, trains currently traverse the following slow track on the Niles Sub:

MP 13.5-13.7 (Elmhurst) = 30 mph
MP 29.3-29.8 (Niles) = 35 mph
MP 29.8-30.1 (Niles Jct) = 15 mph
MP 34.5-35.0 (Newark) = 15 mph

Rerouting the trains to the Coast Sub between Elmhurst and Newark would eliminate the slow track listed above, but would add the following slow track that is not currently traversed by the Capitols:

MP 13.5-13.7 (Elmhurst) = 15 mph
MP 29.2-31.0 (Newark) = 35 mph

The rest of the track between Elmhurst and Newark on the Coast Sub is 50 mph, 60 mph, or 70 mph. There is no 79 mph track.

> The Mulford Line already hosts Amtrak 11/14 and would not need any
> significant uprades.

True, but one thing to consider is that Alvarado is the only siding on the Coast between Elmhurst and Newark, and it has hand throw switches and derails. I would imagine the schedule will plan for this siding not to be used as a meeting point, but plans don't always work out.

This is the route of the narrow gauge South Pacific Coast, which once ran from a ferry terminal on Alameda Island (?) through Santa Clara and San Jose then over the Santa Cruz mountains to Santa Cruz.
Question:  Is one route better than the other in terms of at-grade highway crossings?  I think that in general the Mumford has less population density however I do remember apartment houses and closely fenced in quadrants at some urban crossings on it.

ble692 Wrote:

> One thing to consider is that Alvarado
> is the only siding on the Coast between Elmhurst
> and Newark, and it has hand throw switches and
> derails. I would imagine the schedule will plan
> for this siding not to be used as a meeting point, 
> but plans don't always work out.

Equipping the Mulford with CTC and building a controlled
siding at the mid-point of the line(approx. m.p. 21) would
give the dispatcher a lot more flexibility.  In the event of one
train running late a s/b approaching Elmhurst and a n/b
approaching Newark at the same time would result in one
train holding for up to 20 minutes under the present "no
siding" scenario.

RRTom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I seem to recall an article in Trains before the
> Capitol Corridor started.  SP wanted the trains
> on the current route because it was a way to get
> the track rebuilt, even though it wasn't the
> desired route for the psgr trains.
> Anyone know anything about this?

Certainly sounds like the SP I knew.

Back to the Future! This was the route of the original Capitols. The change to the Hayward Line came later. In the beginning there were no stops between Oakland (16th Street) and San Jose.
SR

The new Fremont/Newark station should be at the Newark Junction to facilitate transfers between Capitol Corridor and the future Dumbarton Rail.

Also, does this mean the grand Capitol Corridor/Dumbarton Rail/BART Union City station plan is dead? Capitol Corridor is unlikely to fund it if it is not going to use it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/20 10:19 by will74205.

So now the Capitols will have to share the track with UP freights and operate at slower speeds with no CTC for the sake of saving five miles.
And what happens to the Hayward line? A lot of money was spent to upgrade that track from 30 mph to 79, and now it's going to sit empty, except for a local freight or two?
Makes no sense to me.

The Freights will use the hayward (niles) line, as they do now at night.  Of course, Caltrain will have paid for the track upgrade for nothing, but its ok cause the JPB is a money wasting machine.   They think they are singlehandedly going to save the world from carbon...imho.

Do Amtrak 11/14 exclusively use the Mulford Line now, or do they still have the option of going by Niles and Fremont-Centerville these days?

Thanks for the info,

Rich

milepost20 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
 The Mulford Line already
> hosts Amtrak 11/14 and would not need any
> significant uprades(although it does presently
> lack CTC).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/20 12:50 by PasadenaSub.

11/14 can go either way, altho usual is little coast

CPCoyote Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So now the Capitols will have to share the track
> with UP freights and operate at slower speeds with
> no CTC for the sake of saving five miles.

Freight will be shifted over to the Hayward Line.  Upgrading the speed and adding CTC isn't hard;  Just takes money.

CPCoyote Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And what happens to the Hayward line? A lot of
> money was spent to upgrade that track from 30 mph
> to 79, and now it's going to sit empty, except for
> a local freight or two?
> Makes no sense to me.

UP will laugh their way to the bank, and there's an option for rerouting trains in th event of a line closure.  Besides, that money's been spent already...  We have to spend the money we have RIGHT NOW, not worry about money that was already spent!

pdt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 11/14 can go either way, altho usual is little
> coast

IF the crew is qualified- not all are.
SR

RRTom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I seem to recall an article in Trains before the
> Capitol Corridor started.  SP wanted the trains
> on the current route because it was a way to get
> the track rebuilt, even though it wasn't the
> desired route for the psgr trains.
> Anyone know anything about this?

No, not the reason. MDO can probably better explain, but let me take a stab.

Back in the day, SP still had a significant carload business around Mulford. The main line was possessed during spotting and pulling activities, and these activities transpired over many hours of the day. It was felt by SP that the proposed passenger trains would be too disruptive to this switching work. South of Niles/Newark, the freight switching activity was all on the Milpitas Line. So SP requested that the proposed Corridor passenger trains be routed on the lines where the freight activity wasn't. This required double-track on the Niles - Newark connector so the passenger and freight could switch sides. Passenger management agreed.

If they had asked me, I would have told the passenger folks that in effect you are investing in the past rather than the future, because sooner or later the Mulford Line freight activity would be largely gone. Plus, you will be taking a running time penalty. Well, now the Mulford line freight business is gone. The proposed routing change of course means the investment in rebuilding the Hayward Line and the investment in the second track on the Centerville Line are about to be foregone. In defense of passenger management, that investment did allow the San Jose service to ramp up before the freight business went away.

I agree that a reliable passenger service is going to require a controlled siding and probably a track upgrade on the Mulford Line. I wonder if they could simply abandon the Hayward Line and one of the tracks on the Centerville Line and recover the rail for use in passenger territory.

Best regards,

Rob L.

"... I wonder if they could simply abandon the Hayward Line and one of the tracks on the Centerville Line and recover the rail for use in passenger territory..."



That is NOT up to the Capitol Corridor, Amtrak or CalTrans. That is now Union Pacific property.

Any freight business on the old WP (Oakland Sub) between
Melrose and Niles Tower? Is that line used for anything?

If you want to understand what went into the decision on routing the Capitol Cottidor trains between San Jose and Oakland you should first read or reread mad dog chronicles number 270 and 271,   Rob L has it mostly right.    
yes at the very beginning the trains did run via Mulford.  That was to facilitate the reconstruction of the Hayward and Centerville lines.
mdo

I read a report about a year ago or so regarding this being in the works and that UP would build a connecting track between the Niles Sub. And Oakland Sub.  The connection would be on the south side of Indusrial Parkway where the the old WP and Bart tracks cross the Niles sub. UP would then use this for freights.
 

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "... I wonder if they could simply abandon the
> Hayward Line and one of the tracks on the
> Centerville Line and recover the rail for use in
> passenger territory..."
>
>
>
> That is NOT up to the Capitol Corridor, Amtrak or
> CalTrans. That is now Union Pacific property.

I get that. But maybe UP could abandon the line and sell the rail to the passenger folks. It would be worth more to UP that way but it would be cheaper than new rail for the passenger folks.

Best regards,

Rob L.