The only place which is practical for preserved BART cars to operate is on the BART system.

In addition to the difference in gauge, the legal requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission for total fencing, no grade crossings, and third-rail protection for track at ground level make third-rail operation of BART cars at WRM or any other museum in California impractical.

There were ground-level third-rail systems in California before BART. There were some injuries and fatalities over the years, and there was public pressure to outlaw such installations. After the last system (Key System's track across the Bay Bridge to San Francisco) ceased operation in 1958, the PUC decided to outlaw such systems in the state. They did so by requiring any new systems to either be in subways or on elevated structures.

In order for BART to be constructed with its extensive ground-level trackage, the California PUC's general order (Rule 79 of General Order 95) had to be amended in 1966. They instituted stringent fencing requirements and outlawed grade crossings.

I have also been told by a retired BART engineer that the roof structure of BART cars cannot support trolley poles or pantographs without extensive modification. (They will not even support people walking on them).

It sounds like the only preservation of any BART equipment would be a static display. Which should be considered. Maybe with a display building housing the story of BART and its technology. The one or two (or maybe more) cars could could be displayed at a platform replicating a typical station. Another option would be to replicate a part of a maintenance facility allowing the call-out of the underfloor equipment (although this could be done in the interpretive displays telling the story of BART).

Posting this response on behalf of another volunteer:

We at IRM were told the same about our CTA 2000, 2200, and 2400 series rapid transit cars. Supposedly the roofs were never designed for trolley pole installation, and were very weak. So we considered the past: we knew that CTA had installed trolley equipment on certain early 6000 series cars, so we looked at the carlines and general structure in that area. There was no special provision made by the carbuilder for trolley equipment in them. Walking on the roofs was safe and caused minimal deflection. We had installed trolley poles on later 6000 series cars that never had them, in the same compact, minimalist manner as our earlier 6000s with CTA-installed equipment. No untoward effects had occurred with either.

Next we looked at the roof structure in the 2000s, in terms of carline size and spacing, other means of support, skin thickness, deflection under walking load, etc. We found it very similar to the 6000s. Against warnings that it could cause heavy damage, we installed trolley equipment in the same manner as the 6000s. Those 2000s operate just fine with no detectable ill effects.

When 2200s and 2400s were acquired, they again came with warnings from "those in the know." They are stainless steel cars with corrugated roofs. Again a survey of the roof structure was made, with the general finding that they appeared even stronger than the 6000s and 2000s. An all-stainless method of extending down through into the valleys of the corrugations to reach the carline was devised, and installations made. Again, zero problems or stresses have been noted.

All of these installations that we've made at IRM, from the later 6000s through the 2400s, are made in as minimalist and reversible a manner as possible, and one which corresponds to CTA's original 6000 installation. We are cognizant that we are modifying the cars, and we don't undertake that lightly. But the historic value of the cars seems to us to be far better maintained if they can be demonstrated for the public, instead of sitting idle and decaying. We are honest and upfront that we have added the trolley equipment, both on our signage and when people ask.

What I'm suggesting, is that you have a look for yourself. Just because a car isn't designed for something, doesn't mean it's not possible.

R. W. Schauer

The Seashore Trolley Museum has two "Cars of Tomorrow" on display. I gather they are popular with the visitors. They are outdoors in Maine, so they may not be preserved for long.

As far as I know, they are the only heavy rail "modern cars" preserved. Bart is going to be a problem with all its odd-ball gauge and technology like AC motors.

I am glad to see light rail cars turning up in the museums. San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose and Sacramento should all have cars preserved.

Ted Miles, STM Member

UPDATE:

https://www.facebook.com/WesternRailway ... 5209099617

How creative!

The "modern" cars at Seashore are the "State of the Art" cars (SOAC, pronounced So-ack) commissioned by US DOT in 1972. Boeing managed the project and St. Louis Car built them based on New York's R-44 BMT-IND cars with a nose cone that precluded passage beyond the two cars.

The SOAC cars' downfall came on South Jersey's PATCO High Speed Line where the "State of the Art" cars were demonstrably inferior to the 1968 Budd cars PATCO was running. The Budd cars were rebuilt between 2013 and 2019 and will be running for some years to come, while the SOAC cars were withdrawn in 1977.

For those keeping score at home, PATCO is owned by the Delaware River Port Authority, and is a separate operation from SEPTA. When it opened in 1969 the ICC classified it as an "Interurban."

No PATCO car is in a museum. One was lost to an arson fire, the rest are in service between 16th and Locust, Philadelphia and Lindenwold NJ.

Phil Mulligan

I'm assuming the SOAC cars are these ones?

They appeared to be the most "modern" cars at Seashore on my visits there.

Yes, they are the SOAC cars. Note the US DOT Frisbee between the nose cone and the side door.

https://collection.trolleymuseum.org/br ... d=SOAC2RDC

That's a Philadelphia trackless trolley behind them. PTC 336 (Marmon-Herrington, 1955)

https://collection.trolleymuseum.org/br ... d=00336TPA

Phil Mulligan

Seashore has MBTA Boeing LRV 3424 (Boeing-Vertol, 1977). That's newer than the SOAC cars.

https://collection.trolleymuseum.org/br ... d=03424SMA

Western Railway Museum has SF MUNI Boeing LRV 1258 (Boeing-Vertol 1977) and Oregon Electric Railway Museum has MUNI 1213.

US Standard Light Rail Vehicles (SLRV) were built for Boston's MBTA and San Francisco's MUNI. They were in service 1977-2007 in Boston and 1976-2001 in SF.

https://www.wrm.org/visit/car-roster/pa ... ilway-1258

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_El ... n_2001.jpg

Philadelphia's SEPTA could not use the US SLRV as they could not take 33 foot radius curves (10 metres) or meet some of SEPTA's 19th Century clearances.

Phil Mulligan

Did quite a few miles on the MBTA ones over the years on visits to Boston from 1987...

....but all the SF ones had been withdrawn from service by the time I actually spent any time in the City.

Wonder how many SEPTA Kawasaki cars will end up being preserved (as and when they can afford replacements..). Done a fair bit of travel on those since 2002 as well!

Update:

https://charity.gofundme.com/o/en/campa ... ory-center

I'm bumping this thread to mention that BART published a news article about why it uses a non-standard gauge:
BART.gov - 07.08.22 - 50 years of BART: Why BART uses a nonstandard broad gauge

The article included a PDF scan of an April 1964 report by Parsons Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel that is titled “Assuring the Stability of the BARTD Lightweight Rapid Transit Vehicle.”

There are a few little mistakes in the article. The BART cars originally weighted 59,000 lbs. After the Transbay tube fire, BART went through a program to fire proof the cars. This raised the cars weight to 63000 lbs. But the original design planed on a 50,000 lb car. Rohr was never able to come close to this. The maximum design load for the elevated structures was 100,000 lbs. That is a 60,000 lb car with a crush load of passengers. When it became apparent that the C-1 cars were going to come in over this, the District’s bridge engineer sharpened his pencil and was able to get the design load for the elevated structure up to 110,000 lbs. This design load is based on an infinite life for the elevated bridge sections. Heavier cars would mean a finite life, and at some date in the future the elevated spans would have to be replaced.

The wind criteria came from crossing the Golden Gate Bridge on a lower deck. Winds as high as 93 mph had been recorded on the bridge. So the wind criteria for design became a 80 mph train with a 93 mph cross wind. Marin county pulled out of the District just before the vote on the construction bonds, so the Golden Gate Bridge cross winds were never an issue.

Philadelphia has two different track gauges for its rapid transit (called High Speed in Philly). The Market-Frankford line is trolley gauge (62 1/4") and the Broad Street and PATCO lines are RR gauge (56 1/2"). The Broad Street and PATCO cars are too big to fit on the Elevated so the track gauge is moot.

The wind story is interesting as the PATCO cars operate over the Ben Franklin Bridge between Camden and Philadelphia, and they're RR gauge.

The State of the Art Cars do have provision for overhead wire operation and operated from overhead wire in Cleveland and Chicago (Skokie Swift). The SOAC cars were based in the NYCTA R44 cars.

Phil Mulligan