This still misses the point I'm trying to address here. Caltrain will go through the process for applying for it even if it's not necessary. Regardless of whether the rule is preempted, they will still use it as a justification for costly or otherwise poor solutions.
I would agree with you if Caltrain staff were sensible, but they have a pretty significant track record of not being sensible.
Even beyond that, GO-26-D §3.2 still requires an exemption which is necessary to build level boarding platforms, as §3.2 covers passenger walkways.
No, the rule very much still exists: docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/GE.... CPUC has not rescinded it nor have they changed it, they only said in a resolution that it can be preempted by ADA when asking for an exemption, which is exactly what SBCTA did.
Yes, this is what I meant by CPUC stating that ADA preempts their own rule. However, transit agencies are notoriously cautious about relying on rulings like this. I personally guarantee should Caltrain pursue level boarding (a big if), they will still go through the process to get a waiver.
They contain the wayside equipment for the signaling system and sometimes stuff to control turnouts and grade crossings. In terms of the stuff that's in them it's usually a couple of racks of PLCs and other low voltage electrical equipment.
Yeah this is definitely the case of following some kind of internal specification too rigidly.
The irony is that they operate the trains on the viaduct at the same speed as if they were driving them at grade. That portion of the line is unbearably slow for some reason.
It's a very basic ABS system, basically something you'd see on any given NA mainline that sees a moderate amount of traffic. it's fairly common on late 20th century American light rail systems that have exclusive rights of way.