Reading some US light rail study...
Hans-Joachim Zierke
In fact, I did not expect, that a Google search for
"Incentro Drehgestell" would lead me to a study of the US Transportation
Research Board,
http://trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_114.pdf
but it includes some interesting information. For example:
1) While I was told on this newsgroup, that no nationwide buff strength
requirement exists for light rail, that study mentions, that standard
European light rail designs are not usable in the USA and Canada.
Only those light rail designs, which are intended for mixed usage on
railroad mainlines over here (at a cost of 160 or 170% weight and
considerable extra money), are applicable in the USA and Canada.
With a similar search, I also found a German study, dealing with
market research, which mentions that 100% low-floor light rail, which
has become the standard setup in many European cities within the last
years, is not practical for application in the USA, due to these
strength requirements.
Question: Do these rules also apply to streetcars?
2) The US study also looks at track maintenance practice in the USA and
Germany. Interesting findings:
a) More substantial ballast shoulders required in Germany.
b) Ballast material size required to be bigger in Germany.
c) Allowance for defunct ties stricter in Germany.
d) Requirements for reaction to track imperfections stricter in the
USA.
e) USA requires 3 walking or 5 mph track inspections per week,
Germany requires 3 such inspections per year.
Hans-Joachim
--
Großer FF-Gottesdienst jeden Sonntag 15 Uhr im Gemeindehaus am Roten
Fuchsstieg 2.0. Nächstes Predigtthema: "Ein Affe ist kein Fuchs. Oder:
Wie man gefährliche Sekten erkennt, die uns nicht zum Heil führen."
Thorsten Weisert
Clark F Morris
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:19:03 +0000 (UTC), Hans-Joachim Zierke
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>In fact, I did not expect, that a Google search for
>"Incentro Drehgestell" would lead me to a study of the US Transportation
>Research Board,
>http://trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_114.pdf
>
>but it includes some interesting information. For example:
>
>1) While I was told on this newsgroup, that no nationwide buff strength
> requirement exists for light rail, that study mentions, that standard
> European light rail designs are not usable in the USA and Canada.
> Only those light rail designs, which are intended for mixed usage on
> railroad mainlines over here (at a cost of 160 or 170% weight and
> considerable extra money), are applicable in the USA and Canada.
I participate in a light rail discussion group and from what I recall
the standard, if any is set by the federal transit agency whatever its
name is these days and isn't that strict. I know that 350 - 400 mm
floor height low floor cars are in use in a number of cities.
Adam H. Kerman
>In fact, I did not expect, that a Google search for
>"Incentro Drehgestell" would lead me to a study of the US Transportation
>Research Board,
>http://trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_114.pdf
>but it includes some interesting information. For example:
>1) While I was told on this newsgroup,
Sounds like something I said.
> that no nationwide buff strength
> requirement exists for light rail, that study mentions, that standard
> European light rail designs are not usable in the USA and Canada.
> Only those light rail designs, which are intended for mixed usage on
> railroad mainlines over here (at a cost of 160 or 170% weight and
> considerable extra money), are applicable in the USA and Canada.
> With a similar search, I also found a German study, dealing with
> market research, which mentions that 100% low-floor light rail, which
> has become the standard setup in many European cities within the last
> years, is not practical for application in the USA, due to these
> strength requirements.
> Question: Do these rules also apply to streetcars?
I'll maintain my position that there's no standards-making body for
transit railroads. And I don't agree with your conclusion. The study
cites a buff strength TRADITION and then mentions it isn't used in New
Jersey. There's no source for this tradition. And it mentions the issue
of potential liability. It mentions that California has a standard, but
doesn't explain where it came from. Is the standard in law? Did the
legislature direct Caltrans to come up with it after study?
The standard you are seeking that applies universally in United States
and Canada doesn't exist.
>2) The US study also looks at track maintenance practice in the USA and
> Germany. Interesting findings:
>
> a) More substantial ballast shoulders required in Germany.
> b) Ballast material size required to be bigger in Germany.
> c) Allowance for defunct ties stricter in Germany.
>
> d) Requirements for reaction to track imperfections stricter in the
> USA.
> e) USA requires 3 walking or 5 mph track inspections per week,
> Germany requires 3 such inspections per year.
Per WEEK? I suspect that's a typo.
I'll ask.
gl4...@yahoo.com
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> > Question: Do these rules also apply to streetcars?
>
> I'll maintain my position that there's no standards-making body for
> transit railroads.
It's called the Federal Transit Administration. TriMet had to extensively
test the first low floor Siemens cars it received in order to demonstrate
that it met these standards.
As to weather they apply to streetcars or not, there are usually
significant exceptions to certain regulations if the operation is below a
certain speed. This even applies to standard freight railroads. For FRA
regulated equipment, I think you will find the speed threshold is 30 mph
and below. I am considerably less familiar with FTA standards.
What you may be thinking of is there are either no FTA standards or very
loose FTA standards for equipment that is completely grade separated from
all street traffic. Thus, such contraptions as automatic people movers
(Detroit, Morgantown, Jacksonville) don't have to meet the same standards
that "light rail" would have to meet.
--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Adam H. Kerman
>>> Question: Do these rules also apply to streetcars?
>>I'll maintain my position that there's no standards-making body for
>>transit railroads.
>It's called the Federal Transit Administration.
They don't write the kind of standards HJK was talking about.
>TriMet had to extensively test the first low floor Siemens cars it received
>in order to demonstrate that it met these standards.
Then ask what standards document they were using.
>What you may be thinking of is there are either no FTA standards or very
>loose FTA standards for equipment that is completely grade separated from
>all street traffic. Thus, such contraptions as automatic people movers
>(Detroit, Morgantown, Jacksonville) don't have to meet the same standards
>that "light rail" would have to meet.
What I'm thinking of is that nobody runs lighter weight rolling stock
than Chicago and we don't meet any buff strength requirements. Three
lines have grade crossings.
FTA's two-man safety office isn't capable of setting these kinds of
standards.
I have a better answer to HJZ's questions, just awaiting the author's
permission to repost the email message to News.
Paul Johnson
wrote:
> In fact, I did not expect, that a Google search for
> "Incentro Drehgestell" would lead me to a study of the US Transportation
>
> but it includes some interesting information. For example:
>
> 1) While I was told on this newsgroup, that no nationwide buff strength
> requirement exists for light rail, that study mentions, that standard
> European light rail designs are not usable in the USA and Canada.
> Only those light rail designs, which are intended for mixed usage on
> railroad mainlines over here (at a cost of 160 or 170% weight and
> considerable extra money), are applicable in the USA and Canada.
>
> With a similar search, I also found a German study, dealing with
> market research, which mentions that 100% low-floor light rail, which
> has become the standard setup in many European cities within the last
> years, is not practical for application in the USA, due to these
> strength requirements.
>
> Question: Do these rules also apply to streetcars?
Apparently not. Portland Streetcar has always had low floor cars,
never had any traditional height cars.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote:
The Skoda cars used by Portland Streetcar are not 100% low floor cars.
The areas over the trucks are still high floor, giving the car somewhere
around 60% or 70% low floor.
The true 100% low floor cars used in some cities in Europe get there by
using some very creative design. Designs used in the USA aren't quite
there yet.
gl4...@yahoo.com
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> FTA's two-man safety office isn't capable of setting these kinds of
> standards.
Unfortunately it isn't so very simple as all that. There is a cooperative
effort between the FTA and the American Public Transit Association to
develop standards.
FTA has developed many complicated standards, but quite a bit of that
effort is based on federal requirements for determining who gets the
federal money.
For example, the FTA's web site deals almost entirely with the federal
funding process:
http://www.fta.dot.gov/leg_reg.html
On the other hand, the safety standards that the FTA develops aren't even
put on their own web site. Instead, you will find them scattered around
elsewhere. For example I found this one (which isn't what Hajo is looking
for, but is only an example of how badly scattered around the government
web sites this stuff is):
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/49cfr659_05.html
CHAPTER VI--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PART 659--RAIL FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEMS; STATE SAFETY OVERSIGHT
To further complicate this idiotic mess, APTA's regulations and
recommended practices have their own domain name:
http://www.aptastandards.com/
What's there is a goofy mixture of both "regulations" and "recommended
practices" and "latest Standards Report to the FTA":
http://www.aptastandards.com/portals/0/fta/FTA%20Grant%20Standards%20Status%20Report%206-30-07.pdf
Now, what's goofy about this web site is that the standards under the
"Rail" heading are only for streetcar and heritage trolley operations.
The category for rail trainsit is some goofy abbreviation that doesn't at
first look like it has anything to do with rail transit.
My impression is that the "safety" standards developed by APTA eventually
make their way to the FTA where they eventually become considerably more
than recommended practices in terms of their legal status, but considering
that the FTA's primary means of enforcement appears to be to threaten to
take away federal money, I'm not sure they can be considered regulations
exactly either, at least not in the FRA or FAA sense of the word.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> With a similar search, I also found a German study, dealing with
> market research, which mentions that 100% low-floor light rail, which
> has become the standard setup in many European cities within the last
> years, is not practical for application in the USA, due to these
> strength requirements.
>
> Question: Do these rules also apply to streetcars?
For some assistance, I suggest starting with the APTA standards:
http://www.aptastandards.com/
If you wander around through the pull down menu system enough, you will
find that there is a section of the standards for streetcars and heritage
trolleys.
These are not exactly federal regulations, but the FTA and APTA work
fairly close together on developing some of these things.
Adam H. Kerman
>>FTA's two-man safety office isn't capable of setting these kinds of
>>standards.
>Unfortunately it isn't so very simple as all that. There is a cooperative
>effort between the FTA and the American Public Transit Association to
>develop standards.
>FTA has developed many complicated standards, but quite a bit of that
>effort is based on federal requirements for determining who gets the
>federal money.
>For example, the FTA's web site deals almost entirely with the federal
>funding process:
>http://www.fta.dot.gov/leg_reg.html
Nevertheless, Congress hasn't identified any particular standard that
must be complied with for funding.
>On the other hand, the safety standards that the FTA develops aren't even
>put on their own web site. Instead, you will find them scattered around
>elsewhere. For example I found this one (which isn't what Hajo is looking
>for, but is only an example of how badly scattered around the government
>web sites this stuff is):
>http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/49cfr659_05.html
>CHAPTER VI--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
>DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
>PART 659--RAIL FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEMS; STATE SAFETY OVERSIGHT
That's my point. That's new with the previous highway bill. You notice
Congress failed to fund a FEDERAL effort and made it a state
responsibility. But that's just about rail inspections and rolling stock
safety checks. There's nothing in there about buff strength.
>To further complicate this idiotic mess, APTA's regulations and
>recommended practices have their own domain name:
>http://www.aptastandards.com/
>What's there is a goofy mixture of both "regulations" and "recommended
>practices" and "latest Standards Report to the FTA":
>http://www.aptastandards.com/portals/0/fta/FTA%20Grant%20Standards%20Status%20Report%206-30-07.pdf
It sounds like APTA got a federal grant to make recommendations from the
industry perspective.
>Now, what's goofy about this web site is that the standards under the
>"Rail" heading are only for streetcar and heritage trolley operations.
>The category for rail trainsit is some goofy abbreviation that doesn't at
>first look like it has anything to do with rail transit.
Are you saying it doesn't apply to light rail or rapid transit?
>My impression is that the "safety" standards developed by APTA eventually
>make their way to the FTA where they eventually become considerably more
>than recommended practices in terms of their legal status, but considering
>that the FTA's primary means of enforcement appears to be to threaten to
>take away federal money, I'm not sure they can be considered regulations
>exactly either, at least not in the FRA or FAA sense of the word.
It's because Congress never gave FTA any such regulatory authority.
gl4...@yahoo.com
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >Now, what's goofy about this web site is that the standards under the
> >"Rail" heading are only for streetcar and heritage trolley operations.
> >The category for rail trainsit is some goofy abbreviation that doesn't at
> >first look like it has anything to do with rail transit.
>
> Are you saying it doesn't apply to light rail or rapid transit?
No. I'm saying the section for light rail and rapid transit was put in a
category that doesn't look like it applies. You'd have to sort through
the menu system to understand.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Paul Johnson schrieb:
> Apparently not. Portland Streetcar has always had low floor cars,
> never had any traditional height cars.
The Portland streetcars are traditional 70% lowfloor units, they don't
belong to the current generation of Stadler "Variobahn", Bombardier
"Incentro", Siemens "Combino Supra", Alstom "Citadis", Bombardier/Alstom
"Cobra", which started in 1990. These trams gave lot of trouble, but
especially the Incentros and Cobras are really fine units meanwhile.
All these standard system trams have 100% of their floor at one foot
above the rail. While European cities have commissioned about one
thousand of them within the last 17 years, they don't exist in North
America.
Nonetheless, your hint is a very good argument, because Portland uses a
standard Czech design (without the coupler).
Paul Johnson
> In article <1192760222.610830.8...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Paul
I still have to wonder what's so wrong about going with traditional
floor height and raising the platforms as appropriate. Seems like
that was the more intuitive idea.
Paul Johnson
wrote:
> Paul Johnson schrieb:
>
> > Apparently not. Portland Streetcar has always had low floor cars,
> > never had any traditional height cars.
>
> The Portland streetcars are traditional 70% lowfloor units, they don't
> belong to the current generation of Stadler "Variobahn", Bombardier
> "Incentro", Siemens "Combino Supra", Alstom "Citadis", Bombardier/Alstom
> "Cobra", which started in 1990. These trams gave lot of trouble, but
> especially the Incentros and Cobras are really fine units meanwhile.
> All these standard system trams have 100% of their floor at one foot
> above the rail. While European cities have commissioned about one
> thousand of them within the last 17 years, they don't exist in North
> America.
>
> Nonetheless, your hint is a very good argument, because Portland uses a
> standard Czech design (without the coupler).
Actually, Portland Streetcars do have couplers. They hide behind the
bumper.
Adam H. Kerman
>On Oct 18, 7:48 pm, gl4...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>The Skoda cars used by Portland Streetcar are not 100% low floor cars.
>>The areas over the trucks are still high floor, giving the car somewhere
>>around 60% or 70% low floor.
>>The true 100% low floor cars used in some cities in Europe get there by
>>using some very creative design. Designs used in the USA aren't quite
>>there yet.
>I still have to wonder what's so wrong about going with traditional
>floor height and raising the platforms as appropriate. Seems like
>that was the more intuitive idea.
What if you're talking about transit rail sharing right of way with a
public street? You may not have room for the ramp at all desirable
locations for stops. On private right of way, yeah, you probably do.
Adam H. Kerman
Of course they have couplers. Are they standard Czech design couplers?
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Paul Johnson schrieb:
> Actually, Portland Streetcars do have couplers. They hide behind the
> bumper.
That would be the standard design, but I was told, that they can't run
double traction for missing couplers.
Jishnu Mukerji
> Paul Johnson schrieb:
>
>
>
>>Actually, Portland Streetcars do have couplers. They hide behind the
>>bumper.
>
>
> That would be the standard design, but I was told, that they can't run
> double traction for missing couplers.
>
>
> Hans-Joachim
But since they do run multiple unit all the time , clearly they do have
couplers. I don;t know if they are Czech design couplers or something else.
/J
Adam H. Kerman
>Paul Johnson schrieb:
>>Actually, Portland Streetcars do have couplers. They hide behind the
>>bumper.
>That would be the standard design, but I was told, that they can't run
>double traction for missing couplers.
I'm not following you. Are you saying that two motors cannot be entrained?
What's the ratio of motors to trailers in the fleet?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I'll maintain my position that there's no standards-making body for
> transit railroads.
True.
UMTA attempted to develop a "standard light rail vehicle", based on
the Boeing LRV. But the Boeing car had many problems and was not
compatible with existing operations. For example, SEPTA immediately
ignored it for its lines, even though Boeing built the cars in its
back yard. SEPTA turned out to be correct because the Kawasaki cars
it purchased have worked out very well in service; the Boeing cars had
a very short trouble plagued service life.
Sadly, all potential U.S. car builders went out of business. That
meant US buyers had less leverage with the manufacturers who were now
overseas and serving their own markets.
For a while it was hoped that the San Diego car would become a
standard but it didn't work out that way.
This is all particularly sad given the PCC experience, where a far
bigger group of transit operators and suppliers agreed on a
comprehensive standards package of an excellent car design. The PCC
design was modular enough so that conditions on different properties
could be accomodated.
Why subsequent all-new US properties (e.g. Hudson-Bergen Light Rail)
couldn't follow up on the successful San Diego design I don't know.
I will note that the PCC design had a relatively short life, about 15
years in the US (1936-1951). Modern light rail is at least 25 years
old, and technology has drastically changed in that time frame. A 25
year old 1982 car design would be unacceptable for many reasons
today. SEPTA's Kawasaki LRVs have no provision for ADA accessibility,
for example.
Adam H. Kerman
>UMTA attempted to develop a "standard light rail vehicle", based on
>the Boeing LRV. But the Boeing car had many problems and was not
>compatible with existing operations.
I've never understood: Boston had an awful experience with them, but San
Francisco didn't see nearly as many problems, even took some of the
Boston cars later.
In Chicago, they worked reasonably well, but a CTA staffer lived in the
factory during production to catch problems early.
>This is all particularly sad given the PCC experience, where a far
>bigger group of transit operators and suppliers agreed on a
>comprehensive standards package of an excellent car design. The PCC
>design was modular enough so that conditions on different properties
>could be accomodated.
Yup.
>Why subsequent all-new US properties (e.g. Hudson-Bergen Light Rail)
>couldn't follow up on the successful San Diego design I don't know.
>I will note that the PCC design had a relatively short life, about 15
>years in the US (1936-1951). Modern light rail is at least 25 years
>old, and technology has drastically changed in that time frame. A 25
>year old 1982 car design would be unacceptable for many reasons
>today. SEPTA's Kawasaki LRVs have no provision for ADA accessibility,
>for example.
That's a social change, not technology. I'd prefer that we all specify
PCCs today. They sure were easy to maintain.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Jishnu Mukerji schrieb:
> But since they do run multiple unit all the time ,
Admittedly, I'm not in Portland OR to watch, but ... on hundreds of
photos, I have never seen Portland streetcars running in multiple.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
> I'm not following you. Are you saying that two motors cannot be entrained?
That two units can't be entrained.
> What's the ratio of motors to trailers in the fleet?
They are traditional, but not traditional enough for motors and
trailers. 1980s style setup, not 1950s.
http://images.nycsubway.org/i52000/img_52267.jpg
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Paul Johnson schrieb:
> I still have to wonder what's so wrong about going with traditional
> floor height and raising the platforms as appropriate. Seems like
> that was the more intuitive idea.
Let's discuss it practically. You want a 3 feet high sidewalk here?
http://images.nycsubway.org/i18000/img_18633.jpg
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Jishnu Mukerji schrieb:
> But since they do run multiple unit all the time , clearly they do have
> couplers. I don;t know if they are Czech design couplers or something else.
They don't run this way, and at least
http://www.lrta.info/articles/art0110.html
states very clearly:
"The trams are not equipped for multiple-unit operation, but do have
limited-use couplers hidden behind a removable panel at each end,
allowing full mechanical and limited electrical coupling, for towing or
pushing."
That's what I remembered about it, too.
Paul Johnson
That's exactly what MAX does in my town. I still don't see what the
problem is unless you're drunk or stupid. Even the blind have dogs or
canes to feel downwards.
The low floor cars MAX has are, without exception, unreliable pieces
of shit that pass every last bit of wheel and track noise directly to
the passenger cabin. Doors and ramps are frequently out of service,
next stop readerboards and autoannouncements are frequently off by 10
or more miles, if they're working at all, and destination boards
frequently jam and show the incorrect routing, they regularly break
down on the mainline and delay service, and they have 12 fewer seats
and 2 fewer bike spots than the original cars. Heating and air
conditioning is frequently out of service. The Bombardier cars MAX
got in 1984 Just Works. They should have raised the platform, filled
in the onboard stairwells and shortened the doors on the existing
cars, and buy more of that kind. About the only thing wrong with them
is they didn't affectively permanently close the windows when they
installed the A/C.
Honestly, I think it would be a vast improvement (not to mention a
fitting demise for those Siemens pieces of shit) for TriMet to let the
meth-heads cut up every last one of the 200 and 300 series cars for
scrap, bought more of the Bombardier cars and went back to using the
platform mounted wheelchair elevators. The small additional wait when
someone boards or disembarks in a wheelchair would be a small price to
pay for the increase in comfort and reliability of service.
Paul Johnson
I'm not familiar with the Czech design, nor have I had the opportunity
to take a look at a bare coupler. Every time I've seen them used,
which is really rare since most streetcar stands aren't even a single
streetcar long, it's because another streetcar malfunctioned and
requires a tow-out.
Paul Johnson
I could be wrong, but AFAICT, the only connections at the coupler on
the Portland Streetcar system besides the obvious physical one is to
repeat turn signals, taillights and brakelights on the second unit.
I've yet to see interior lighting or hear any other equipment
operating when I'm next to a streetcar under tow, it's basically
acting like a road trailer with flanged wheels.
Paul Johnson
> What's the ratio of motors to trailers in the fleet?
Oh, and to answer this question, usually 1:0. All units have traction
motors, no trailers.
Paul Johnson
wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
>
> > I'm not following you. Are you saying that two motors cannot be entrained?
>
> That two units can't be entrained.
>
> > What's the ratio of motors to trailers in the fleet?
>
> They are traditional, but not traditional enough for motors and
> trailers. 1980s style setup, not 1950s.http://images.nycsubway.org/i52000/img_52267.jpg
That photo seems very alien to me, even though I lived in that
neighborhood about four blocks from where it was taken when it was
taken. My brain rejected it as being downtown Portland, because:
1) Portland Streetcar now runs on a dogbone, the terminus shown no
longer exists;
2) The picture strangely lacks the city's official tree: The
temporary highway construction sign.
3) The streetcar driver isn't eternally signalling left (or right)
from a careless streetcar driver.
Paul Johnson
wrote:
> Paul Johnson schrieb:
>
> > I still have to wonder what's so wrong about going with traditional
> > floor height and raising the platforms as appropriate. Seems like
> > that was the more intuitive idea.
>
> Let's discuss it practically. You want a 3 feet high sidewalk here?http://images.nycsubway.org/i18000/img_18633.jpg
No, the Streetcar system runs fine. I'm talking about the MAX. There
should be a 3 foot sidewalk here:
http://www.accentontravelusa.com/images/june-july04/TriMaxHillsboroTrain.jpg
Hey, there's even a Bombardier car leading the train entering the
station...
Adam H. Kerman
Then you are confirming HJZ's statement that they exist for emergencies,
only, and two motors cannot be entrained. Portland is not set up for MU as
apparently the original cars are, if I'm understanding him correctly.
Adam H. Kerman
I didn't say so explicitly, but I was asking about the Czech cars they
are based on. I know Portland operates single units.
Albert J. Reinschmidt
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:1192825052.9...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>
> For a while it was hoped that the San Diego car would become a
> standard but it didn't work out that way.
>
Excuse me but the basic San Diego car is used in Calgary, Edmonton,
Sacramento, Denver, Salt Lake City and St. Louis, not a failure as a
standard in my book.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> Paul Johnson schrieb:
>
>
> > Actually, Portland Streetcars do have couplers. They hide behind the
> > bumper.
>
> That would be the standard design, but I was told, that they can't run
> double traction for missing couplers.
Portland Streetcar was built with very short platforms. Even if they had
fully functioning couplers with all the MU communications, the platforms
aren't long enough to have a two car train, or even a single 5-unit car as
many cities in Europe are using.
Part of the reason for this was to avoid removing parking places, as would
happen with full platforms.
I've been told various things about the couplers, including possibly that
they are fully MU capable or maybe they don't have any of the multiple
unit systems built in to them.
I'm not sure it matters that much, since Portland Streetcar is only able
to run single 3-section cars on its line.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote:
> The low floor cars MAX has are, without exception, unreliable pieces
> of shit that pass every last bit of wheel and track noise directly to
> the passenger cabin. Doors and ramps are frequently out of service,
> next stop readerboards and autoannouncements are frequently off by 10
> or more miles, if they're working at all, and destination boards
> frequently jam and show the incorrect routing, they regularly break
> down on the mainline and delay service, and they have 12 fewer seats
> and 2 fewer bike spots than the original cars. Heating and air
> conditioning is frequently out of service. The Bombardier cars MAX
> got in 1984 Just Works. They should have raised the platform, filled
> in the onboard stairwells and shortened the doors on the existing
> cars, and buy more of that kind. About the only thing wrong with them
> is they didn't affectively permanently close the windows when they
> installed the A/C.
Hah! If you really want to hear someone complain about light rail car
design, talk to someone in San Francisco about the troubles with the Breda
cars. Boeing's LRVs had lots of troubles, but the Breda cars that arrived
to replace them requied so much effort at first the Boeing cars were kept
in operation longer than they were supposed to. My understanding is that
many transit agencies' specifications are now written so that Breda's car
design can't meet the specifications, in order to keep them from winning
any more contracts.
I think you will find that some of those problems were created by customer
specification of equipment (ie, TriMet specified what destination signs
and automatic announcement system to use).
MAX's destination indicator system used to be very reliable compared to
some of the ones used in other cities, but I think they are trying to
change everything (buses and MAX and possibly commuter railroad) to a
common GPS based sign and talking destination system.
The GPS system isn't quite as reliable as the older system used on MAX.
For a while buses would indicate they were going places that had no
relation at all to the bus location. 10 miles off is about right (I've
seen buses on SE 39th Avenue say they were going to Lake Oswego). They
are getting better, but they still aren't completely reliable. Most of
the routes I ride have gone back to changing their signs by hand.
The MAX HVAC systems were not made by Siemens or Bombardier. Some of them
are Thermo-King and some of them are Sutrak. From the noise I hear from
certain TriMet employees, Sutrak's units have proven to be quite
unreliable, and I have heard some noise from people within TriMet about
replacing them. Unfortunately, money is apparently going elsewhere right
now.
Some of the Bombardier cars do have new windows in them that don't open,
but many of them do have the old windows. It wouldn't be a problem except
that the latches to keep them closed haven't aged well, and some of the
windows regularly pop open.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote:
> 2) The picture strangely lacks the city's official tree: The
> temporary highway construction sign.
http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/tp/1a4bd7/
Mark Mathu
news:gl4316-1810...@69-30-10-107.pxd.easystreet.com...
>> > With a similar search, I also found a German study, dealing with
>> > market research, which mentions that 100% low-floor light rail,
>> > which
>> > has become the standard setup in many European cities within the
>> > last
>> > years, is not practical for application in the USA, due to these
>> > strength requirements.
>> >
>> > Question: Do these rules also apply to streetcars?
>>
>> Apparently not. Portland Streetcar has always had low floor cars,
>> never had any traditional height cars.
>
> The Skoda cars used by Portland Streetcar are not 100% low floor cars.
> The areas over the trucks are still high floor, giving the car somewhere
> around 60% or 70% low floor.
>
> The true 100% low floor cars used in some cities in Europe get there by
> using some very creative design. Designs used in the USA aren't quite
> there yet.
Do the rules also apply to streetcars? That is the question.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
> I didn't say so explicitly, but I was asking about the Czech cars they
> are based on. I know Portland operates single units.
I don't think that anybody manufactures trailers these days. China or
Russia perhaps? Czech cities still have old Tatra trams with trailers,
though.
Common approach is, that a city either orders a single type, and MUs
as needed, or orders a mix with longer units. Here is the same Škoda
type as sold to Portland, currently on test runs in Cagliari, Sardinia.
(Another city getting back its tram.)
http://www.trainzitaliafoto.com/contenuti/magazzino/files/marius/tram/n05_a.jpg
http://www.trainzitaliafoto.com/contenuti/magazzino/files/marius/tram/n02_a.jpg
Just 5 segments instead of 3.
Škoda has sold the 3-section type to smaller Czech cities like Brno, and
the 5-section type, outfitted with a different front "face", to Praha.
The Praha type was also sold to Wrocław in Poland.
Here's the Škoda tram for Wrocław:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/16T_Wroclaw_3002.jpg
I'm quite sure, that Škoda would also sell you 7-segment trams, if you
want them for a high-capacity streetcar. In order to fulfill "buy
America" rules, Škoda trams are now manufactured by Oregon Iron Works
(Clackamas OR and Vancouver WA).
Currently, the highest capacity streetcar units are the new trams of Budapest:
http://www.viennaslide.com/p/0730-hungary/Budapest/2007-08-18_4_2026_03.jpg
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/hu/trams/Budapest/Combino/budapest2002_bk0708090375.jpg
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/hu/trams/Budapest/Combino/budapest2019_bk0708090393.jpg
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/hu/trams/Budapest/Combino/budapest2021_bk0708090383.jpg
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/hu/trams/Budapest/Combino/budapest2039_bk0708090394.jpg
http://transportation.siemens.com/shared/data/pdf/ts_internet/ts_mt/combino_budapest_e.pdf
Made for > 10000 passengers / direction / hour.
Want to attach a trailer? :-)
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
> That's a social change, not technology. I'd prefer that we all specify
> PCCs today. They sure were easy to maintain.
By the standards of the 1950s, yes. By the standards of today, you want
AC drive.
The AC drive wheel hub motors, which Stadler uses for the Variotram, are
as close to maintenance-free as you can get in 2007. Today's workshops
might have 1/2 or 1/3 the crew as in the days of PCC cars.
As well, low-floor trams aren't just bought for accessibility. They gain
about 10 seconds / stop, and streetcars stop often. While 100% lowfloor
is unimportant off peak (50% or 70% does just fine then), getting rid of
the stairs means a major dwell time reduction for peak hour runs, those
that are most prone to delays.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
>>That's a social change, not technology. I'd prefer that we all specify
>>PCCs today. They sure were easy to maintain.
>By the standards of the 1950s, yes. By the standards of today, you want
>AC drive.
>The AC drive wheel hub motors, which Stadler uses for the Variotram, are
>as close to maintenance-free as you can get in 2007. Today's workshops
>might have 1/2 or 1/3 the crew as in the days of PCC cars.
In the '50's, there was no such thing as "mid-life rebuilds" and
"remanufacturing", all of which are modern names for seriously deferred
maintenance that magically gets charged to federal capital grants.
That's why the workforce is reduced. It's elsewhere.
Friends who are long-time bus drivers tell me that when they first
started, maintenance forces were able to strip a bus completely and
rebuild it in the garage with no special line set up. It was done as a
matter of routine. We don't hire such talented mechanics any more.
>As well, low-floor trams aren't just bought for accessibility. They gain
>about 10 seconds / stop, and streetcars stop often. While 100% lowfloor
>is unimportant off peak (50% or 70% does just fine then), getting rid of
>the stairs means a major dwell time reduction for peak hour runs, those
>that are most prone to delays.
There was less dwell time per passenger when streetcars had two-man crews.
Adam H. Kerman
>Hah! If you really want to hear someone complain about light rail car
>design, talk to someone in San Francisco about the troubles with the Breda
>cars. Boeing's LRVs had lots of troubles, but the Breda cars that arrived
>to replace them requied so much effort at first the Boeing cars were kept
>in operation longer than they were supposed to. My understanding is that
>many transit agencies' specifications are now written so that Breda's car
>design can't meet the specifications, in order to keep them from winning
>any more contracts.
Isn't it the buyer's fault for not writing the specs to begin with?
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
> Then you are confirming HJZ's statement that they exist for emergencies,
> only, and two motors cannot be entrained. Portland is not set up for MU as
> apparently the original cars are, if I'm understanding him correctly.
You can get these trams with a fully configured automatic coupler hidden
behind the front/rear. Wether this option is choosen, depends on the
operator, of course, but extremely short units are usually delivered
with couplers, in order to cater for an increase in passenger numbers
during their 40-years lifecycle.
By European standards, the Portland streetcars are quite small, while
the 5-part units delivered by Škoda to Cagliari, Praha and Wrocław would
be called "normal". Reason is, that trams have two ways of justificating
their higher costs over 61.5 feet bendy buses:
1) Capacity
2) Average speed
There can be other circumstances, which justify small trams, for example
steep grades (which cause high maintenance costs for diesel buses, but
not for trams), or inner city emission control concepts.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Paul Johnson schrieb:
> I'm not familiar with the Czech design, nor have I had the opportunity
> to take a look at a bare coupler.
I would expect a standard lightweight-series Scharfenberg or similar
coupler, which folds to the side to fit. I'm not aware of any special
Czech design for it.
Albert J. Reinschmidt
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
news:slrnfhjkh1.6lc...@Odysseus.Zierke.com...
>
Czech cities still have old Tatra trams with trailers,
> though.
>
As did Budapest untill a few weeks ago, the like is out of service due to
street construction, its possible (but unlikely) they will return to service
when the construction is finished?
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
> In the '50's, there was no such thing as "mid-life rebuilds" and
> "remanufacturing", all of which are modern names for seriously deferred
> maintenance that magically gets charged to federal capital grants.
Doesn't change the fact, that PCC cars are a maintenance headache by
the standards of 2007. If you want low maintenance, AC drive hub motors
are the way to go.
Plus of course, remanufacturing is necessary. If transit is supposed to
win modal share from the car, it is not allowed to cater to the frequent
user only, but it needs to be easy for the /new/ user. That's what the
information displays etc. are for, which need computer bus systems.
BTW: AFAIK, the PCCs weren't even able to feed back brake energy?
> Friends who are long-time bus drivers tell me that when they first
> started, maintenance forces were able to strip a bus completely and
> rebuild it in the garage with no special line set up. It was done as a
> matter of routine. We don't hire such talented mechanics any more.
Today, we replace buses after 8 years, and sell them to Russia,
Pakistan, Egypt, or whereever. Therefore, they need these talented
mechanics in Marocco. One reason is, that the labour costs for
these talented mechanics are far too high today, within a 1st world
country, second reason is, that buses operate far more miles within
today's memory schedules, third reason is, that environmental
regulations have created rapid progress in diesel motors.
> There was less dwell time per passenger when streetcars had two-man crews.
??? What is a second man going to help in streetcar operation? Watching
passengers boarding from the rear? Sounds quite absurd, sorry.
For rapid boarding under rush hour conditions, a streetcar must be 100%
lowfloor, and 1/4 of the side area should be doors. Which means,
practically, that the common 100 feet streetcar units in Europe need to
have 6 doors of 4 feet width. After all, you need to move 50 or 100
passengers within a few seconds.
Paul Johnson
No, not quite. Portland has two light rail systems owned and operated
by entirely different agencies. The Portland Streetcar, owned and
operated by the City of Portland Department of Transportation, does
not do MU service and uses Skoda equipment. The MAX, owned by TriMet
and using AAR reporting mark TMTC, does run MU (all cars are powered);
though TMTC uses Bombardier and Siemens equipment.
Paul Johnson
> I'm not sure it matters that much, since Portland Streetcar is only able
> to run single 3-section cars on its line.
Naito Streetcar (which runs under the somewhat misleading name
"vintage trolley", it runs on tracks and lacks trolley poles, making
it quite un-trolley-like) has some streetcars that they've added turn
signals to on that system's Hospital run (OHSU to Good Samaritan
Hospital), though most of the Naito streetcars still lack turn signals
and thus share alignment with the MAX for most of it's run from
Galleria to Lloyd Center (the final block of that run the Naito cars
get their own station..."Doubletree Hotel Station" is located around
the corner from the Blue/Red line MAX's "Lloyd Center/NE 11th Ave
Station"
Paul Johnson
>
> Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote:
> > The low floor cars MAX has are, without exception, unreliable pieces
> > of shit that pass every last bit of wheel and track noise directly to
> > the passenger cabin. Doors and ramps are frequently out of service,
> > next stop readerboards and autoannouncements are frequently off by 10
> > or more miles, if they're working at all, and destination boards
> > frequently jam and show the incorrect routing, they regularly break
> > down on the mainline and delay service, and they have 12 fewer seats
> > and 2 fewer bike spots than the original cars. Heating and air
> > conditioning is frequently out of service. The Bombardier cars MAX
> > got in 1984 Just Works. They should have raised the platform, filled
> > in the onboard stairwells and shortened the doors on the existing
> > cars, and buy more of that kind. About the only thing wrong with them
> > is they didn't affectively permanently close the windows when they
> > installed the A/C.
>
> Hah! If you really want to hear someone complain about light rail car
> design, talk to someone in San Francisco about the troubles with the Breda
> cars.
That's not news so much as a universal constant. When was the last
time Californians could get /anything/ right?
> I think you will find that some of those problems were created by customer
> specification of equipment (ie, TriMet specified what destination signs
> and automatic announcement system to use).
That wouldn't entirely surprise me. I wish even if TriMet doesn't get
rid of the crappy Siemens cars, that they do at least rip out the
automatic announcements and go back to a simple double-bell for the
door closing warning and make the engineers announce their own stops.
We don't need to hear "The doors are closing" so many times on a
single trip that we hear it when we go to bed at night, everybody who
can afford to take the trains understand enough English to know what
stop they're at, and I've yet to find a MAX engineer who had a voice
anywhere near as grating and annoying as the ones they used for the
autoannouncements.
Whoever thought the low-floor Siemens cars and automatic stop
announcements on the MAX was a good idea given how plain bad it's been
in practice really needs to be strapped to a chair in the middle of
Pioneer Square and have their head smashed in with a hammer in front
of their children.
> MAX's destination indicator system used to be very reliable compared to
> some of the ones used in other cities, but I think they are trying to
> change everything (buses and MAX and possibly commuter railroad) to a
> common GPS based sign and talking destination system.
They were very reliable because the drivers and engineers knew what
route they were on and set the signs appropriately themselves. That
system Just Worked(tm), they shouldn't have fucked with it. I want my
fare increase back for that stupidity.
> The GPS system isn't quite as reliable as the older system used on MAX.
Yeah, no kidding. How hard is it to screw up squeezing a microphone
and saying "The next stop is Pioneer Square North?"
> The MAX HVAC systems were not made by Siemens or Bombardier. Some of them
> are Thermo-King and some of them are Sutrak. From the noise I hear from
> certain TriMet employees, Sutrak's units have proven to be quite
> unreliable, and I have heard some noise from people within TriMet about
> replacing them. Unfortunately, money is apparently going elsewhere right
> now.
Yeah, automatic announcements and sub-par low-floor cars.
> Some of the Bombardier cars do have new windows in them that don't open,
> but many of them do have the old windows. It wouldn't be a problem except
> that the latches to keep them closed haven't aged well, and some of the
> windows regularly pop open.
No, they've aged well, but they have to contend with stupid people.
TriMet bolted the handles shut so the windows could not be opened back
in the 1996/1997 retrofit. The ones that pop open do so as a result
of morons not comprehending that because the air conditioning is on,
and the windows are bolted shut, that perhaps they shouldn't open the
window and just keep pulling until they break the latch.
Paul Johnson
> In article <1192849404.415803.227...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>
> Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote:
> > 2) The picture strangely lacks the city's official tree: The
> > temporary highway construction sign.
>
> http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/tp/1a4bd7/
"I was born in Portland, and it has been like this as long as I can
remember."
Either the author smokes a LOT of pot (even by Po(r)tland standards)
and doesn't get out much; or they're 3 years old...downtown Portland
hasn't seen anything like the construction it has recently in several
decades. Downtown Hillsboro seems to be more consistantly under
construction, and even they've been stable for almost a decade now.
Paul Johnson
wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
>
> > I didn't say so explicitly, but I was asking about the Czech cars they
> > are based on. I know Portland operates single units.
>
> I don't think that anybody manufactures trailers these days. China or
> Russia perhaps? Czech cities still have old Tatra trams with trailers,
> though.
>
> Common approach is, that a city either orders a single type, and MUs
> as needed, or orders a mix with longer units. Here is the same Škoda
> type as sold to Portland, currently on test runs in Cagliari, Sardinia.
> Just 5 segments instead of 3.
>
> Škoda has sold the 3-section type to smaller Czech cities like Brno, and
> the 5-section type, outfitted with a different front "face", to Praha.
> The Praha type was also sold to Wrocław in Poland.
>
> Here's the Škoda tram for Wrocław:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/16T_Wroclaw_3002.jpg
>
> I'm quite sure, that Škoda would also sell you 7-segment trams, if you
> want them for a high-capacity streetcar. In order to fulfill "buy
> America" rules, Škoda trams are now manufactured by Oregon Iron Works
> (Clackamas OR and Vancouver WA).
When did that rule go into place? I seem to recall plaques indicating
that they were built for Bombardier (a Canadian company) by some name
in French, in some town I can't remember in Belgium on the MAX cars
with running numbers starting with 1.
> Currently, the highest capacity streetcar units are the new trams of Budapest
Heh, looks like looking into barbershop mirrors in that interior shot.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Paul Johnson schrieb:
> When did that rule go into place? I seem to recall plaques indicating
> that they were built for Bombardier (a Canadian company) by some name
> in French, in some town I can't remember in Belgium on the MAX cars
> with running numbers starting with 1.
If nobody makes the product in the USA, no problem. As well, there is
no problem, if the price difference is big enough. But this gets quite
difficult now, even with Czech labour costs, if the dollar looses 10%
every year.
(If the trend persists, GDP/citizen of the old EU member states will
pass the USA in two years, just by the exchange rate. Should make
holidays in the USA truly attractive, but exporting will be far more
difficult.)
> Heh, looks like looking into barbershop mirrors in that interior shot.
The new streetcars are all like this, by request of the operators. See
the new Paris T3 tramway units in this small 4 MB video:
http://www.cestpascher.com/images-tramway/vtramF2516.wmv
If the inside is well-lit and open from front to rear, the tram has more
female passengers, that's why the operators want it this way, all open
and with big windows.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
>>In the '50's, there was no such thing as "mid-life rebuilds" and
>>"remanufacturing", all of which are modern names for seriously deferred
>>maintenance that magically gets charged to federal capital grants.
>Doesn't change the fact, that PCC cars are a maintenance headache by
>the standards of 2007. If you want low maintenance, AC drive hub motors
>are the way to go.
It's a difference in management's attitude. Routine maintenance was
once, well, routine. Today, we fear it. We train mechanics just enough
to learn to yank out and put in replacement systems, making necessary
connections, without expecting them to understand troubleshooting. There
was some awful story at CTA about a mechanic who kept replacing some
part that failed frequently on a rapid transit car, making no effort to
rectify the short. He replaced the part on the same car three times
before he was stopped; it was a part that cost 10s of thousands.
>Plus of course, remanufacturing is necessary.
Why would you want a transit operator to defer all major maintenance for
10 years, then pay to have it all done at once?
>If transit is supposed to win modal share from the car, it is not allowed
>to cater to the frequent user only, but it needs to be easy for the /new/
>user. That's what the information displays etc. are for, which need computer
>bus systems.
I guess. I've managed to find my way around foreign systems without them.
>BTW: AFAIK, the PCCs weren't even able to feed back brake energy?
Depended on what the purchaser specified. Some cities ordered air brakes
and air doors and others ordered all-electric. I always thought the dynamic
brakes were regenerative; I'll have to ask.
I vaguely recall that the PCC patent itself was for standard trucks and
a basic streetcar platform. It was not a patent for a one-size-fits-all
car design, but an easily adaptable one.
>>There was less dwell time per passenger when streetcars had two-man crews.
>??? What is a second man going to help in streetcar operation? Watching
>passengers boarding from the rear? Sounds quite absurd, sorry.
Fare collection.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote:
Not "most" of the cars. Half. There were only four such reproduction
Council Crest cars built. Two operate on the Portland Streetcar, and the
remaining two operate on the MAX line.
Those cars are only 35 feet long or so, and therefore are even shorter
than the Skoda streetcars. So, yeah, it is true they don't have to
operate only 3-section cars on its line. They could operate something
even shorter such as the Council Crest replica cars. The point is,
however, they built that line with the shortest car on the market today.
gl4...@yahoo.com
<ma...@mathu.com> wrote:
> > The Skoda cars used by Portland Streetcar are not 100% low floor cars.
> > The areas over the trucks are still high floor, giving the car somewhere
> > around 60% or 70% low floor.
> >
> > The true 100% low floor cars used in some cities in Europe get there by
> > using some very creative design. Designs used in the USA aren't quite
> > there yet.
>
>
> Do the rules also apply to streetcars? That is the question.
Since much of this equipment has to be built to APTA standards one placeto
start answering that question is on the APTA standards web site. If you
rummage through their menu system you will find these:
Rail Equipment:
http://www.aptastandards.com/PublishedDocuments/PublishedStandards/PRESS/tabid/85/Default.aspx
Streetcar and Heritage Trolley:
http://www.aptastandards.com/PublishedDocuments/PublishedStandards/Rail/StreetcarHeritageTrolley/tabid/180/Default.aspx
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
> It's a difference in management's attitude. Routine maintenance was
> once, well, routine. Today, we fear it.
Sure. Labour costs aren't the same as in the 1960s, plus in the 1960s,
we simply did not have bearings, which are maintenance-free for some
million kilometers, and we did not have AC technology for driving
streetcars.
> We train mechanics just enough
> to learn to yank out and put in replacement systems, making necessary
> connections, without expecting them to understand troubleshooting.
For weekly maintenance, that might do. But we still strip down every
6 years for a major overhaul.
For an operator with less than 50 streetcars, there is the question,
wether that should be done in-house. Best approach might be, to contract
the major overhauls out, to the manufacturer, and buy these overhauls
together with the streetcars, within a lifecycle cost guarantee by the
manufacturer. At least for operators with less than about 50 streetcars,
that's normally the lowest-cost approach.
> Why would you want a transit operator to defer all major maintenance for
> 10 years, then pay to have it all done at once?
Defer maintenance? That's not how it is done in a well-run system.
A streetcar will typically be taken out of service every 50000 km, for a
thorough check performed within 1-3 days.
>>If transit is supposed to win modal share from the car, it is not allowed
>>to cater to the frequent user only, but it needs to be easy for the /new/
>>user. That's what the information displays etc. are for, which need computer
>>bus systems.
>
> I guess. I've managed to find my way around foreign systems without them.
We don't have to win you for transit!
For the average person, personal transport is a secondary demand. The
person does not want transport, but wants to do something, for which
he/she needs transport. Result is a serious underinvolvement with
transport issues.
That person learns to drive a car once (well, sort of), and expects to
find the same user interface (roadsigns, gas stations, etc.) everywhere.
Learned once, not dealt with ever again. (Secondary effect: After
10 years, tests will show serious deficiencies in highway code
knowledge.)
This means, that transit competes with a standardized, already-learnt
user interface, and shouldn't be more difficult than, say, driving your
car in a different city. At least, that's true if a transit system
seriously tries to win new users.
And it looks, as if I'm less clever than you. In the early 1990s, when I
had to travel a lot within Germany and neighbour countries, I normally
took my bicycle with me on city trips. Reason was, that transit rules
and ticket systems weren't easily available via Internet, while I could
buy city maps in a neighbourhood bookshop 200 m from here. Within the
timeframe, which I needed to find information about the transit system
of that city, read it, understand the logic, buy the ticket, I would
already have covered half the distance on the bicycle. There was a
holder for citymaps on the handlebar.
Today, it's better. For most major cities in Germany, the railroad
ticket doubles as a transit ticket to the destination, so one doesn't
have to worry about that anymore.
>>??? What is a second man going to help in streetcar operation? Watching
>>passengers boarding from the rear? Sounds quite absurd, sorry.
>
> Fare collection.
Sure you can collect fares with a conductor, but wether you do it with a
TVM in the streetcar, or on the platform, or by selling them in tobacco
shops as in Italy, doesn't matter one second for the dwell time.
For the user, the door-to-door time is lowest with a conductor or a TVM
in the streetcar, yes. But since the installation costs for a TVM are
lower than one year's wage of a conductor...
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
> Isn't it the buyer's fault for not writing the specs to begin with?
Handling quality deficiencies within the specs isn't that easy. The
Danish state railroad has bought IC-4 DMUs from Ansaldo Breda, but after
4 years of tests and repairs and modification, they still aren't in
service yet. The Norwegians have bought transit EMUs from Ansaldo Breda,
but they were more than 1 year late into service, and even after that,
NSB wasn't pleased with the quality. They didn't use their options, but
instead, remanufacture some 30 year old EMUs, which are still better
than buying from Ansaldo Breda. Ansaldo Breda has also won the bidding
for the Dutch high-speed trains, but they aren't expected to be in
service without some years of delay. (Thanks to trackside delays, it's
not as bad as to be expected.)
With the track record of the last 5 years, I do not think, that many
operators outside of Italy are inclined to buy from Ansaldo Breda in
future. Best treatment might be the way, in which RENFE handled
Bombardier in the days, before Bombardier bought Adtranz: They threw
them out in the first bidding round, for lack of demonstrated
competence.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
>>It's a difference in management's attitude. Routine maintenance was
>>once, well, routine. Today, we fear it.
>Sure. Labour costs aren't the same as in the 1960s, plus in the 1960s,
>we simply did not have bearings, which are maintenance-free for some
>million kilometers, and we did not have AC technology for driving
>streetcars.
I'm not discussing wages of individual mechanics.
>>We train mechanics just enough to learn to yank out and put in replacement
>>systems, making necessary connections, without expecting them to understand
t>>roubleshooting.
>For weekly maintenance, that might do.
Really? Then how can there be any preventative maintenance?
>>Why would you want a transit operator to defer all major maintenance for
>>10 years, then pay to have it all done at once?
>Defer maintenance? That's not how it is done in a well-run system.
I don't agree with the premise that today's parts are reliable enough that
a system need hire mechanics with only minimal skills (possibly at higher
hourly wages than their more knowledgable counterparts in olden days). If
there's something that needs correction, they are not going to be able to
spot it until there's an expensive breakdown.
>>>If transit is supposed to win modal share from the car, it is not allowed
>>>to cater to the frequent user only, but it needs to be easy for the /new/
>>>user. That's what the information displays etc. are for, which need computer
>>>bus systems.
>>I guess. I've managed to find my way around foreign systems without them.
>We don't have to win you for transit!
We need to win people over for map reading, then transit use follows.
>And it looks, as if I'm less clever than you. In the early 1990s, when I
>had to travel a lot within Germany and neighbour countries, I normally
>took my bicycle with me on city trips. Reason was, that transit rules
>and ticket systems weren't easily available via Internet, while I could
>buy city maps in a neighbourhood bookshop 200 m from here. Within the
>timeframe, which I needed to find information about the transit system
>of that city, read it, understand the logic, buy the ticket, I would
>already have covered half the distance on the bicycle. There was a
>holder for citymaps on the handlebar.
That's clever. Travel via bicycle sounds fun; there's no better way to
learn a new city.
As far as obtaining system maps, I used to employ the sophisticated
communication methods known as the telephone and post office.
>>>??? What is a second man going to help in streetcar operation? Watching
>>>passengers boarding from the rear? Sounds quite absurd, sorry.
>>Fare collection.
>Sure you can collect fares with a conductor, but wether you do it with a
>TVM in the streetcar, or on the platform, or by selling them in tobacco
>shops as in Italy, doesn't matter one second for the dwell time.
I don't agree. As we still have operators (motormen, drivers) with fare
collection duties, there's dwell time.
>For the user, the door-to-door time is lowest with a conductor or a TVM
>in the streetcar, yes. But since the installation costs for a TVM are
>lower than one year's wage of a conductor...
There is a world in which vending machines don't require maintenance
with trained technicians or restocking?
Andrew Price
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
[---]
>With the track record of the last 5 years, I do not think, that many
>operators outside of Italy are inclined to buy from Ansaldo Breda in
>future.
They seem to have a serious quality control problem at the moment. I
heard similar stories recently from a colleague who works for a major
tram operator in Europe, concerning the cars AB supplied in Greece.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
>>For weekly maintenance, that might do.
>
> Really? Then how can there be any preventative maintenance?
The most important elements will normally have their own monitoring, and
phone home for any sign of bad health. Weekly maintenance is normally
one hour of work, checking certain parts for signs of wear, like the
pantograph, or checking free flow of air to cooling devices, possibly
adding some fluids, etc. Since you don't strip down a streetcar for
a 1-hour maintenance, ;-) you don't need somebody with the competence
for it.
> I don't agree with the premise that today's parts are reliable enough that
> a system need hire mechanics with only minimal skills (possibly at higher
> hourly wages than their more knowledgable counterparts in olden days). If
> there's something that needs correction, they are not going to be able to
> spot it until there's an expensive breakdown.
The judgement should be with the manufacturer here. If they sell
streetcars with a lifecycle cost guarantee, it's up them to decide, what
kind of preventive maintenance is necessary at what kind of skill level.
Making high maintenance costs backfire at the manufacturer's bottom
line, is the only way to achieve optimization towards reliability. Some
of the first-generation 100% low-floor trams have had major maintenance
issues, and only the operators with well-written contracts could deal
with that in a relaxed way.
> We need to win people over for map reading, then transit use follows.
It does not end with map reading, especially in the USA, where you
usually need more than 1 ticket within a cities' transit system.
> That's clever. Travel via bicycle sounds fun; there's no better way to
> learn a new city.
>
> As far as obtaining system maps, I used to employ the sophisticated
> communication methods known as the telephone and post office.
Phone call to Brussels, where people at the phone will typically speak
Dutch and French, find a department feeling responsible for it, which
may or may not find information in English or German to mail. Today's
phone costs are different, but back then, that phone call could almost
buy a taxi.
I did one-hour broadcastings back then - due to the amount of research
required, our external costs were the highest of any department in the
station. It's so much cheaper to invite somebody to the studio, for some
blah blah. So we were told to restrict costs whereever possible, in
order to get acceptance for what we needed.
<grin> I still remember some security guard telling me, not to lock my
bicycle to the front of the Commission building... :-)
> I don't agree. As we still have operators (motormen, drivers) with fare
> collection duties, there's dwell time.
No such duty will be included in a serious attempt, to use streetcars
for a transit system. When shuffling tourists around in a vintage
trolley, okay, but trying the same in a system, which needs serious
amounts of money ... In that case, I would team up with Jack May, and
vote against such obvious wasting of taxpayer money.
Plus I think, that not even the most braindead transit manager would try
driver fare collection with streetcars like this:
http://www.cestpascher.com/images-tramway/vtramF2252.wmv
(Paris Tramway T3, 2MB)
> There is a world in which vending machines don't require maintenance
> with trained technicians or restocking?
Let's assume 2500 passengers a day, high load in rush hour, low load off
peak. Of these 2500 passengers, 1750 will have a season ticket, which
typically isn't sold by mobile TVMs. 50 passengers will be fare
betrayers. This leaves 700 passengers on single tickets, of which about
200 will already have bought their ticket in a bus or railroad station.
So we have to sell 500 tickets a day.
I really don't see any reason, why that job can't be performed in the
depot at night, by a single person for all units.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
> With the track record of the last 5 years, I do not think, that many
> operators outside of Italy are inclined to buy from Ansaldo Breda in
> future.
Here in North America their track record is closer to 15 years old, though
not with rail. Seattle bought a fleet of dual mode buses (diesel or
overhead trolley) from Breda in the early 1990s. Their performance was
not good, though my understanding is that they did eventually get the
fleet running. At the time, there was much criticism of Seattle for
trying to specify a vehicle that was simply too complicated. As
experience with Breda with rail equipment in other cities has now shown,
the problem may not have been the fault of the transit system.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> > We train mechanics just enough
> > to learn to yank out and put in replacement systems, making necessary
> > connections, without expecting them to understand troubleshooting.
>
> For weekly maintenance, that might do. But we still strip down every
> 6 years for a major overhaul.
>
> For an operator with less than 50 streetcars, there is the question,
> wether that should be done in-house. Best approach might be, to contract
> the major overhauls out, to the manufacturer, and buy these overhauls
> together with the streetcars, within a lifecycle cost guarantee by the
> manufacturer.
In Portland, there is a link between the MAX line and the Portland
Streetcar line. Heavy equipment such as wheel lathes are located at the
MAX maintenance facilities for keeping that much larger and heavily used
fleet going.
I think even you would be surprised at how few people are actually
employed by the city in operating the Portland Streetcar.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> Let's assume 2500 passengers a day, high load in rush hour, low load off
> peak. Of these 2500 passengers, 1750 will have a season ticket, which
> typically isn't sold by mobile TVMs. 50 passengers will be fare
> betrayers. This leaves 700 passengers on single tickets, of which about
> 200 will already have bought their ticket in a bus or railroad station.
> So we have to sell 500 tickets a day.
With the Portland Streetcar, one unique situation is that the vast
majority of the stations are located inside the "fareless square" area.
Thus, the number of people using the machines is tiny indeed because the
number of people who need to pay to get where they need to go is tiny. To
serve that tiny number of passengers, they would have had to install
something like 30 ticket station vending machines, or have the 12 on-car
machines they have now.
> I really don't see any reason, why that job can't be performed in the
> depot at night, by a single person for all units.
It could be a major maintenance headache if the machines are scattered all
over the city.
Which is a significant advantage to the Portland Streetcar method of
putting the ticket machines in the cars. Each evening all of the ticket
machines are all located in the same location.
Vandalism, which is a significant source of repairs, also seems to be
considerably less with car-mounted machines than it is with street-mounted
ones.
Emptying the machines of money is also not something that requires driving
all over the city to accomplish either. Again, each evening all of the
ticket machines are all located in the same location.
Also, with the machines located in the cars, there are several advantages
to riders:
1. If the machine doesn't work and a fare inspector gets on to inspect
fares, one can demonstrate how the machine doesn't work.
2. If the train is right there when you show up at the platform, you don't
have to fool around with the machine to get on. You get on and pay for
your ticket while the train is moving just like everyone else.
I have my criticisms of what was done when they built Portland Streetcar,
but putting ticket vending machines on the cars was definitely the correct
one.
Adam H. Kerman
>Here in North America their track record is closer to 15 years old, though
>not with rail. Seattle bought a fleet of dual mode buses (diesel or
>overhead trolley) from Breda in the early 1990s. Their performance was
>not good, though my understanding is that they did eventually get the
>fleet running. At the time, there was much criticism of Seattle for
>trying to specify a vehicle that was simply too complicated.
Not to mention specifying a bus that cost more than the cost of a
trolley coach plus a diesel transit bus combined. Those weren't electric
buses that could be run with diesel engines, but buses with two entirely
separate transmission systems. There was an awful lot of running of
diesel engines in the tunnel.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Paul Johnson schrieb:
> No, the Streetcar system runs fine. I'm talking about the MAX.
MAX, however, can't possibly work as a comparison example, because this
kind of cars does not exist in Europe.
Paul Johnson
> In article <slrnfhnjdr.dtq.Usenetspam...@Odysseus.Zierke.com>,
>
> Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenetspam...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> > Let's assume 2500 passengers a day, high load in rush hour, low load off
> > peak. Of these 2500 passengers, 1750 will have a season ticket, which
> > typically isn't sold by mobile TVMs. 50 passengers will be fare
> > betrayers. This leaves 700 passengers on single tickets, of which about
> > 200 will already have bought their ticket in a bus or railroad station.
> > So we have to sell 500 tickets a day.
>
> With the Portland Streetcar, one unique situation is that the vast
> majority of the stations are located inside the "fareless square" area.
That's never been the case, most stations are outside Fareless
Square. On the original alignment before they extended it to OHSU, it
was closer to 50/50.
> Vandalism, which is a significant source of repairs, also seems to be
> considerably less with car-mounted machines than it is with street-mounted
> ones.
Why vandalize what's already broken? It's rare enough to see one of
the ticket machines working on the streetcar, it's usually easier and
more reliable to prepurchase tickets off of TriMet since TriMet and
City of Portland fares are interchangable.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote:
> > With the Portland Streetcar, one unique situation is that the vast
> > majority of the stations are located inside the "fareless square" area.
>
> That's never been the case, most stations are outside Fareless
> Square. On the original alignment before they extended it to OHSU, it
> was closer to 50/50.
http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/map.php
On the original route, there were 7 stations (northwest Portland) that
were outside fairless square.
Currently, there are 12 stations outside fairless square.
There are 30 stations inside fairless square on the map, but several of
the ones in the Riverplace area are actually two platforms due to there
being two separate lines at those locations. So, total actual platforms
inside fairless square is closer to 34.
So, to serve the 12 stations that require a fare, they would have had to
put in some 46 ticket vending machines, or the 12 that are on the cars
today.
Paul Johnson
> In article <1193060084.740330.306...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>
> Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote:
> > > With the Portland Streetcar, one unique situation is that the vast
> > > majority of the stations are located inside the "fareless square" area.
>
> > That's never been the case, most stations are outside Fareless
> > Square. On the original alignment before they extended it to OHSU, it
> > was closer to 50/50.
>
> http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/map.php
>
> On the original route, there were 7 stations (northwest Portland) that
> were outside fairless square.
>
> Currently, there are 12 stations outside fairless square.
>
> There are 30 stations inside fairless square on the map, but several of
> the ones in the Riverplace area are actually two platforms due to there
> being two separate lines at those locations. So, total actual platforms
> inside fairless square is closer to 34.
Are we counting all the platforms, or just the ones that are
functionally distinct? I'm inclined to group stations serving the
same square block, just opposite directions, as well as all stops
within Portland State University as single stations (much the same way
nobody including TriMet considers the different blocks on the Bus Mall
as distinct stops).
gl4...@yahoo.com
Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote:
I'm counting all places that fare machines would have to be installed if
they went that direction. Just like the MAX machines in downtown Portland
are two blocks apart when stations are two blocks apart, I would imagine
they would follow the same location idea.
Also, I miscounted. I forgot that they never went though with that
proposal to increase the northern end of fareless square, so it stops at
Hoyt rather than at Interstate 405. So, that's seven more stations that
require fare that I didn't count.
Even so, there are still more stations inside fareless square than outside it.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
>
>
> > I didn't say so explicitly, but I was asking about the Czech cars they
> > are based on. I know Portland operates single units.
>
> I don't think that anybody manufactures trailers these days. China or
> Russia perhaps? Czech cities still have old Tatra trams with trailers,
> though.
I think Japan still manufactures trams with trailers for some lesser
developed countries. For example, my understanding is that they recently
supplied tram + trailer units for the lines in Alexandria, Egypt.
> Common approach is, that a city either orders a single type, and MUs
> as needed, or orders a mix with longer units. Here is the same Škoda
> type as sold to Portland, currently on test runs in Cagliari, Sardinia.
> (Another city getting back its tram.)
>
http://www.trainzitaliafoto.com/contenuti/magazzino/files/marius/tram/n05_a.jpg
>
http://www.trainzitaliafoto.com/contenuti/magazzino/files/marius/tram/n02_a.jpg
> Just 5 segments instead of 3.
They look like they are operating on meter gauge lines, which somewhat
justifies the narrow car style.
> I'm quite sure, that Škoda would also sell you 7-segment trams, if you
> want them for a high-capacity streetcar. In order to fulfill "buy
> America" rules, Škoda trams are now manufactured by Oregon Iron Works
> (Clackamas OR and Vancouver WA).
Last I knew (as reported in our local newspaper) they were still working
on a prototype car Considering they have not made rail equipment before,
it should be interesting to see how these turn out. Some large industrial
works can make a mess of making rail equipment (Boeing's light rail car)
while others with no rail experience have gone into the market very well
(Bombardier 35 years or so ago).
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I've never understood: Boston had an awful experience with them, but San
> Francisco didn't see nearly as many problems, even took some of the
> Boston cars later.
San Fran had their share of problems, too, and the cars didn't last
that long in service.
> In Chicago, they worked reasonably well, but a CTA staffer lived in the
> factory during production to catch problems early.
The Boeing Chicago L cars were a completely different design. Not
comparable to the LRVs.
> That's a social change, not technology. I'd prefer that we all specify
> PCCs today. They sure were easy to maintain.
Not always. According to some histories, one type of internal
mechanism (I forget if it was GE or WH) was a pain to maintain. As
time went on, carriers got sloppy with maintenance resulting in jerky
acceleration and braking. Modern solid-state propulsion control
should be easier to maintain than electro-mechanical rotors.
While the PCC design was flexible and modular, I don't think it could
support articulation which is very popular today. Also, I'm not sure
how the ventilation system, which was tightly integrated with the body
design and propulsion components, could handle air conditioning.
The Phila Kawasaki cars have performed very well after 25 years of
service. I suspect the builders copied a lot of PCC technology. They
didn't waste stuff, for instance, the single end cars still use an old
fashioned trolley pole, why spend $$$ to convert the overhead for
pantograph and the pantographs themselves when a trolley pole works
just fine? (The double end cars did get a pant since they have to
reverse ends often.)
But I agree that the PCC design was excellent and probably should've
remained the standard. It's a shame US public policy of the 1940s and
1950s was to kill of streetcars. In New York city, Mayor La Guardia,
who is generally seen as a god, pushed hard to get rid of streetcars
even though the companies and public were happy with them. He also
built lots of roads.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> Plus of course, remanufacturing is necessary. If transit is supposed to
> win modal share from the car, it is not allowed to cater to the frequent
> user only, but it needs to be easy for the /new/ user. That's what the
> information displays etc. are for, which need computer bus systems.
I disagree. Certainly some basic information ought to be readilly
available, but some of today's whiz-bang systems are COUNTER
PRODUCTIVE. They are often wrong, which is worse than no information
at all. They "talk" constantly, which is very annoying to a passenger
trying to relax. Too many carriers are worried about fancy stuff when
their basics (ie clear station and busstop signs) are missing.
The best way to help prospective new passengers is to have _well-
trained_ _experienced_ humans promptly answer the phone at
information center. These agents should be well experienced with the
entire system and its routes and the region's geography, so they can
intuitively provide the best route. Automated computer systems simply
can't 'think' like a person does and consider all factors, such as
when one transfer point is preferable to another (as is so often the
case). This is particularly critical today when one route may have
only an hourly headway but another route 15 minute headway; the agent
could discuss each route the caller and recommend the best for the
caller's individual circumstances. A computer can't do that.
When we go someplace new by car, we get directions from our host as to
best route and where to park. It is perfectly reasonable for a new
transit user to get similar directions from their host. If one is
starting a new job, one will ask the employer about parking; one
should be able to equally ask about transit route(s) serving the
place.
Unfortunately, far too many destinations today merely provide a
website for the transit agency, not the specific routes and stations
one should use. That's not enough.
> BTW: AFAIK, the PCCs weren't even able to feed back brake energy?
No. For their day, the PCCs had a modern feature which was dynamic
braking. That used the resistors to slow the car, and used the heat
to heat the interior. That saved wear on brake shoes and was
smoother. Trolley lines generally can't take back braking energy
because of gaps in the wire or risk if the pole fails.
> Today, we replace buses after 8 years, and sell them to Russia,
> Pakistan, Egypt, or whereever.
More like 12 years.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Why would you want a transit operator to defer all major maintenance for
> 10 years, then pay to have it all done at once?
Unfortunately federal funding policies encouraged it. There was no
subsidy for routine work. There was subsidy for capital projects,
which including rebuilding.
Also, full rebuild projects look more glamorous to legislators than
routine maintenance. They're more likely to kick in money for the
glamorouse than everyday stuff. Human nature.
> I vaguely recall that the PCC patent itself was for standard trucks and
> a basic streetcar platform. It was not a patent for a one-size-fits-all
> car design, but an easily adaptable one.
The PCC had several varieties of trucks, one size did not fit all.
Welded rail and jointed rail required different kinds of trucks. PCCs
used in rapid transit service had a different design altogether. Note
that the Chicago PCCs were not "rebuilt" into L cars, rather, they
were scrapped and dismantled, and individual components re-used as
appropriate. The underframe had to be new.
> >>There was less dwell time per passenger when streetcars had two-man crews.
> >??? What is a second man going to help in streetcar operation? Watching
> >passengers boarding from the rear? Sounds quite absurd, sorry.
>
> Fare collection.
Many systems today use pre-purchased tickets, so all doors can open
and fare collection is not an issue in car speed. However, it does
mean the rider must be at the carstop earlier than previously to allow
time to purchase a ticket; he can't just rush up and board the car.
That adds effectively five minutes per trip for the rider.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
>
> As far as obtaining system maps, I used to employ the sophisticated
> communication methods known as the telephone and post office.
I'm pleased to report that MTA Metro North answered their phone
promptly and was very helpful. They immediately mailed me out useful
materials that came quickly.
I reget that other carriers don't seem to be as responsive. I tried
calling NJ Transit information, for example, and was told of a 15
minute wait. That sort of thing isn't welcoming to new riders.
Stephen Sprunk
news:1193252436....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> The best way to help prospective new passengers is to have _well-
> trained_ _experienced_ humans promptly answer the phone at
> information center.
That's very expensive, and transit agencies are generally very strapped for
opex money. How much in service cutbacks are you willing to tolerate so
that there'll be friendly, helpful people on the phone?
The reason everything is automated today, at least at the first level, is
because you can serve 90% of the need for 10% of the cost.
> These agents should be well experienced with the entire system
> and its routes and the region's geography, so they can intuitively
> provide the best route.
Intuition is only relevant when the necessary facts aren't available; cold
hard calculations win every time they can be applied.
> Automated computer systems simply can't 'think' like a person
> does and consider all factors, such as when one transfer point is
> preferable to another (as is so often the case). This is particularly
> critical today when one route may have only an hourly headway
> but another route 15 minute headway; the agent could discuss
> each route the caller and recommend the best for the caller's
> individual circumstances. A computer can't do that.
Yes, it can, if its software tells it to. Computers aren't as incapable as
people think; it's that the majority of programmers are stupid, or
companies/agencies don't buy quality products when they do exist.
DART's web site will take any pair of addresses and a departure or arrival
time and give you several options, depending on whether you want to minimize
travel time, connections, walking, etc. It's not perfect, but it's a heck
of a lot better than most systems I've seen. The phone customer service
folks use the same tool, and if you ask for anything it can't handle, you
can hear as they look up routes and schedules on the web site -- just like
you can do for yourself.
The _only_ time I've gotten a better answer from a human is when the
automated system comes back with a response that the address I entered isn't
served. The human was able to look it up, compare to a system map, and find
the nearest bus route (which was further away than the program's search
radius). It'd be a trivial matter to correct that flaw, though probably not
very useful.
> When we go someplace new by car, we get directions from our
> host as to best route and where to park. It is perfectly reasonable
> for a new transit user to get similar directions from their host. If
> one is starting a new job, one will ask the employer about parking;
> one should be able to equally ask about transit route(s) serving
> the place.
I never ask a host how to get somewhere because they usually give suboptimal
directions. My GPS unit does much better (and has live traffic updates, not
that they generally get me there faster, but they let me know within a
minute or so how late I'll be), as do various online mapping services.
Google Maps does transit now too, in select cities, with the next few
departures right on the map when you hover over a rail station.
> Unfortunately, far too many destinations today merely provide a
> website for the transit agency, not the specific routes and stations
> one should use. That's not enough.
Then they're incompetent; there are plenty of better examples -- usually the
newer agencies that aren't stuck in 100+ year old thinking.
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
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Paul Johnson
> In article <1193185304.548118.24...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>
> Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote:
> > Are we counting all the platforms, or just the ones that are
> > functionally distinct? I'm inclined to group stations serving the
> > same square block, just opposite directions, as well as all stops
> > within Portland State University as single stations (much the same way
> > nobody including TriMet considers the different blocks on the Bus Mall
> > as distinct stops).
>
> I'm counting all places that fare machines would have to be installed if
> they went that direction. Just like the MAX machines in downtown Portland
> are two blocks apart when stations are two blocks apart, I would imagine
> they would follow the same location idea.
Note that this is a relatively recent thing. MAX stations only had
ticket machines on eastbound platforms only in downtown prior to about
2000; oddly enough, it's those older, original machines that tend to
be the only ones that actually work downtown, especially every time it
rains (and it rains a lot here)...they should never have switched
models of ticket machines, the new ones suck big floppy donkey dick
for taxi fare, then walks home.
> Also, I miscounted. I forgot that they never went though with that
> proposal to increase the northern end of fareless square, so it stops at
> Hoyt rather than at Interstate 405. So, that's seven more stations that
> require fare that I didn't count.
Actually, fareless square's north boundary was moved south to Hoyt
when Portland Streetcar opened, prior to that, it was formerly I-405
to the north, west and south, and I-5 to the east. I'm not sure why
TriMet bothered with moving /their/ fareless square, except maybe as
continuity with the city's transit (Portland Streetcar), though that
still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me given that Portland
Streetcar has it's own fares, collection, equipement... Portland
Streetcar really screwed TriMet users on the lower northwest side when
it opened.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
> I disagree. Certainly some basic information ought to be readilly
> available, but some of today's whiz-bang systems are COUNTER
> PRODUCTIVE. They are often wrong, which is worse than no information
> at all.
In the history of transit, we've seen plenty of defective equipment.
Wether it's traction motors or information displays, there are exactly
2 solutions:
1) Repair it.
2) Buy better products.
I am aware, that plenty of junk exists on the market. The first
generation of information displays in our local buses wasn't able, to
display German umlauts, and has had a tendency, to announce a stop after
it had happened.
As with traction motors, the solution isn't, not to have them, but
instead, buying working solutions.
> Too many carriers are worried about fancy stuff when
> their basics (ie clear station and busstop signs) are missing.
Come into my arms for a whole-hearted agreement. :-)
I fully agree that the basics come first, but these basics were known
100 years ago already.
> The best way to help prospective new passengers is to have _well-
> trained_ _experienced_ humans promptly answer the phone at
> information center.
That's a waste of money, either the money of the user, or the money of
the taxpayer. Since a transit agency can't employ illegal immigrants
with their usual wages for it, something more productive than 1-on-1
must be found. A service desk can handle only requirements outside of
the normal, complaints, questions of novice users for information
packages, somesuch.
> These agents should be well experienced with the
> entire system and its routes and the region's geography, so they can
> intuitively provide the best route.
No human is able to do that. I think that I'm really quite good in
knowledge about the German railroad and transit systems. At age 15,
I developed travel plans for relatives and friends, because I did that
better than most ticket office employees back then. But one should know
one's limitations: I'm completely unable, to come even close to Hafas,
even if I get 500 times the search time for it. Knowledge of the system
might help with the selection of clever search options, though.
> Automated computer systems simply
> can't 'think' like a person does and consider all factors, such as
> when one transfer point is preferable to another (as is so often the
> case).
??? That's a really simple thing. If you have a less comfortable
transfer relation, you add, for example, "2 minutes walk" within the
system, use it for the calculation and display it to the user. If you
do not only display the "best" solution found by the computer, but also
the secondbest etc., the user can draw his/her own solution from it.
Computer trip planners have come a long way since the early 90s, when
your cristicism was justified. The problem in the USA is not the
programs, the problem is, that they don't exist. There is no trip
planner for the NEC cities, even a decade after such installations were
standard in central Europe.
> This is particularly critical today when one route may have
> only an hourly headway but another route 15 minute headway; the agent
> could discuss each route the caller and recommend the best for the
> caller's individual circumstances. A computer can't do that.
Any computer timetable, with the exception of the worst junk that no
mentally sane manager will buy, will happily do that.
Let's ask the timetable computer of Deutsche Bahn AG for a transit
connection from Berlin, street corner stop Turmstraße / Lübecker Straße,
to Wilhelm-von-Siemens-Straße, which is a bus stop in a completely
different part of the city. Result:
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Station | Arr. | Dep. | Train No | Comments |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Turmstr./Lübecker Str., | | 08:20 | Bus 101 |1. |
| Turmstr. (U), Berlin | 08:22 | 08:25 | U U9 |2. |
| Walther-Schreiber-Platz | 08:38 | 08:44 | Bus M76 |3. |
| Friedenstr./Großbeerens | 09:01 | 09:08 | Bus M77 |4. |
| Wilhelm-von-Siemens-Str | 09:10 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Duration: 0:50; |
| runs not every day, 25., 26. Oct |
| Fares not available |
| 1.: Breitenbachplatz (U), Berlin |
| 2.: Rathaus Steglitz (S+U), Berlin |
| 3.: Lichtenrade (S), Berlin |
| 4.: Waldsassener Str. |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Turmstr./Lübecker Str., | | 08:25 | Bus 187 |1. |
| Göttinger Str., Berlin | 08:58 | 09:00 | Bus M76 |2. |
| Friedenstr./Großbeerens | 09:11 | 09:13 | Bus 277 |3. |
| Wilhelm-von-Siemens-Str | 09:15 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Duration: 0:50; |
| runs not every day, 25., 26. Oct |
| Fares not available |
| 1.: Halbauer Weg, Berlin |
| 2.: Lichtenrade (S), Berlin |
| 3.: Stadtrandsiedlung |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Turmstr./Lübecker Str., | | 08:30 | Bus 123 |1. |
| Turmstr. (U), Berlin | 08:31 | 08:35 | U U9 |2. |
| Walther-Schreiber-Platz | 08:48 | 08:54 | Bus M76 |3. |
| Friedenstr./Großbeerens | 09:11 | 09:13 | Bus 277 |4. |
| Wilhelm-von-Siemens-Str | 09:15 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Duration: 0:45; |
| runs not every day, 25., 26. Oct |
| Fares not available |
| 1.: Mäckeritzwiesen, Berlin |
| 2.: Rathaus Steglitz (S+U), Berlin |
| 3.: Lichtenrade (S), Berlin |
| 4.: Stadtrandsiedlung |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Turmstr./Lübecker Str., | | 08:35 | Bus 187 |1. |
| Göttinger Str., Berlin | 09:08 | 09:10 | Bus M76 |2. |
| Friedenstr./Großbeerens | 09:21 | 09:28 | Bus M77 |3. |
| Wilhelm-von-Siemens-Str | 09:30 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Duration: 0:55; |
| runs not every day, 25., 26. Oct |
| Fares not available |
| 1.: Halbauer Weg, Berlin |
| 2.: Lichtenrade (S), Berlin |
| 3.: Waldsassener Str. |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Turmstr./Lübecker Str., | | 08:40 | Bus 101 |1. |
| Turmstr. (U), Berlin | 08:42 | 08:45 | U U9 |2. |
| Walther-Schreiber-Platz | 08:58 | 09:04 | Bus M76 |3. |
| Friedenstr./Großbeerens | 09:21 | 09:28 | Bus M77 |4. |
| Wilhelm-von-Siemens-Str | 09:30 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Duration: 0:50; |
| runs not every day, 25., 26. Oct |
| Fares not available |
| 1.: Fehrbelliner Platz (U), Berlin |
| 2.: Rathaus Steglitz (S+U), Berlin |
| 3.: Lichtenrade (S), Berlin |
| 4.: Waldsassener Str. |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Turmstr./Lübecker Str., | | 08:45 | Bus 187 |1. |
| Göttinger Str., Berlin | 09:18 | 09:20 | Bus M76 |2. |
| Friedenstr./Großbeerens | 09:31 | 09:33 | Bus 277 |3. |
| Wilhelm-von-Siemens-Str | 09:35 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Duration: 0:50; |
| runs not every day, 25., 26. Oct |
| Fares not available |
| 1.: Halbauer Weg, Berlin |
| 2.: Lichtenrade (S), Berlin |
| 3.: Stadtrandsiedlung |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Turmstr./Lübecker Str., | | 08:50 | Bus 123 |1. |
| Turmstr. (U), Berlin | 08:51 | 08:55 | U U9 |2. |
| Walther-Schreiber-Platz | 09:08 | 09:14 | Bus M76 |3. |
| Friedenstr./Großbeerens | 09:31 | 09:33 | Bus 277 |4. |
| Wilhelm-von-Siemens-Str | 09:35 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Duration: 0:45; |
| runs not every day, 25., 26. Oct |
| Fares not available |
| 1.: Mäckeritzwiesen, Berlin |
| 2.: Rathaus Steglitz (S+U), Berlin |
| 3.: Lichtenrade (S), Berlin |
| 4.: Stadtrandsiedlung |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Turmstr./Lübecker Str., | | 08:55 | Bus 187 |1. |
| Göttinger Str., Berlin | 09:28 | 09:30 | Bus M76 |2. |
| Friedenstr./Großbeerens | 09:41 | 09:48 | Bus M77 |3. |
| Wilhelm-von-Siemens-Str | 09:50 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Duration: 0:55; |
| runs not every day, 25., 26. Oct |
| Fares not available |
| 1.: Halbauer Weg, Berlin |
| 2.: Lichtenrade (S), Berlin |
| 3.: Waldsassener Str. |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Turmstr./Lübecker Str., | | 09:00 | Bus 101 |1. |
| Turmstr. (U), Berlin | 09:02 | 09:05 | U U9 |2. |
| Walther-Schreiber-Platz | 09:18 | 09:24 | Bus M76 |3. |
| Friedenstr./Großbeerens | 09:41 | 09:48 | Bus M77 |4. |
| Wilhelm-von-Siemens-Str | 09:50 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Duration: 0:50; |
| runs not every day, 25., 26. Oct |
| Fares not available |
| 1.: Olivaer Platz, Berlin |
| 2.: Rathaus Steglitz (S+U), Berlin |
| 3.: Lichtenrade (S), Berlin |
| 4.: Waldsassener Str. |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Turmstr./Lübecker Str., | | 09:05 | Bus 187 |1. |
| Göttinger Str., Berlin | 09:38 | 09:40 | Bus M76 |2. |
| Friedenstr./Großbeerens | 09:51 | 09:53 | Bus 277 |3. |
| Wilhelm-von-Siemens-Str | 09:55 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Duration: 0:50; |
| runs not every day, 25., 26. Oct |
| Fares not available |
| 1.: Halbauer Weg, Berlin |
| 2.: Lichtenrade (S), Berlin |
| 3.: Stadtrandsiedlung |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Turmstr./Lübecker Str., | | 09:10 | Bus 123 |1. |
| Turmstr. (U), Berlin | 09:11 | 09:15 | U U9 |2. |
| Walther-Schreiber-Platz | 09:28 | 09:34 | Bus M76 |3. |
| Friedenstr./Großbeerens | 09:51 | 09:53 | Bus 277 |4. |
| Wilhelm-von-Siemens-Str | 09:55 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Duration: 0:45; |
| runs not every day, 25., 26. Oct |
| Fares not available |
| 1.: Mäckeritzwiesen, Berlin |
| 2.: Rathaus Steglitz (S+U), Berlin |
| 3.: Lichtenrade (S), Berlin |
| 4.: Stadtrandsiedlung |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Turmstr./Lübecker Str., | | 09:18 | Bus 187 |1. |
| Turmstr. (U), Berlin | 09:20 | 09:25 | U U9 |2. |
| Walther-Schreiber-Platz | 09:38 | 09:44 | Bus M76 |3. |
| Friedenstr./Großbeerens | 10:01 | 10:08 | Bus M77 |4. |
| Wilhelm-von-Siemens-Str | 10:10 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Duration: 0:52; |
| runs not every day, 25., 26. Oct |
| Fares not available |
| 1.: Turmstr. (U), Berlin |
| 2.: Rathaus Steglitz (S+U), Berlin |
| 3.: Lichtenrade (S), Berlin |
| 4.: Waldsassener Str. |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Turmstr./Lübecker Str., | | 09:25 | Bus 187 |1. |
| Göttinger Str., Berlin | 09:58 | 10:00 | Bus M76 |2. |
| Friedenstr./Großbeerens | 10:11 | 10:13 | Bus 277 |3. |
| Wilhelm-von-Siemens-Str | 10:15 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Duration: 0:50; |
| runs not every day, 25. until 27. Oct 2007 |
| Fares not available |
| 1.: Halbauer Weg, Berlin |
| 2.: Lichtenrade (S), Berlin |
| 3.: Stadtrandsiedlung |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Turmstr./Lübecker Str., | | 09:30 | Bus 123 |1. |
| Turmstr. (U), Berlin | 09:31 | 09:35 | U U9 |2. |
| Walther-Schreiber-Platz | 09:48 | 09:54 | Bus M76 |3. |
| Friedenstr./Großbeerens | 10:11 | 10:13 | Bus 277 |4. |
| Wilhelm-von-Siemens-Str | 10:15 | | | |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
| Duration: 0:45; |
| runs not every day, 25., 26. Oct |
| Fares not available |
| 1.: Mäckeritzwiesen, Berlin |
| 2.: Rathaus Steglitz (S+U), Berlin |
| 3.: Lichtenrade (S), Berlin |
| 4.: Stadtrandsiedlung |
+-------------------------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+
BTW: While this answer comes from the Deutsche Bahn AG server, none of
the buses, and none of the U-Bahn trains involved is operated by this
company.
>> BTW: AFAIK, the PCCs weren't even able to feed back brake energy?
>
> No. For their day, the PCCs had a modern feature which was dynamic
> braking.
For their day, the PCCs were phantastic cars! We've had thousands of
PCC cars in Europe, in the 1950s and 60s.
> Trolley lines generally can't take back braking energy
> because of gaps in the wire or risk if the pole fails.
Since 15 - 20 years, practically any streetcar bought over here was able
to feed back brake energy, because nobody bought anything else but AC
drive. Streetcars save far more energy and costs than railroads with it,
because they stop more often. I think it's in the range of 25% of their
electricity bill, so nobody will forget to order the feature.
And I'm not aware of any streetcar in Germany (or France), which uses a
pole. Museum/tourist operations, sometimes, perhaps. But for real
business? Sure not, not even the smallest operators. Let's have a look:
The smallest operators should be Nordhausen (43 000 inhabitants) and
Halberstadt (39 000 inhabitants).
This is Halberstadt:
http://www.pauke.privat.t-online.de/HBS%204%20c.jpg
This is Nordhausen:
http://www.ig-hsb.de/Loks/187203-1.jpg
Where's the pole?
Paul Johnson
> > Automated computer systems simply can't 'think' like a person
> > does and consider all factors, such as when one transfer point is
> > preferable to another (as is so often the case). This is particularly
> > critical today when one route may have only an hourly headway
> > but another route 15 minute headway; the agent could discuss
> > each route the caller and recommend the best for the caller's
> > individual circumstances. A computer can't do that.
>
> Yes, it can, if its software tells it to. Computers aren't as incapable as
> people think; it's that the majority of programmers are stupid,
Give the in-house programmers working for the transit agency some
slack, odds are they're not stupid so much as trying to make due with
being provided with the wrong tools. Ignorant management overruling
the geeks in IT seems to be a constant in healthcare and government
both.
> or companies/agencies don't buy quality products when they do exist.
When it comes to intangable properties like software, it's not "you
get what you pay for" anywhere nearly as much as "you can get a worse
solution, but it costs more." Unfortuately, the people speccing the
software almost always decide that the cheap, obvious solution (hire a
programmer in house and develop what works for that particular transit
system) is usually spurned in favor of "overspend on shit that doesn't
work, then hire a team of programmers to fix what we already spent
millions on to license." See also every fleetwide change made to
TriMet busses since 1994. Those "vehicle control heads" that appear
on every single bus? TriMet spent millions on installing them, and
millions in a support contract only for the company to run with the
money and close shop. Show me a bus driver that thinks that those
were a good idea and I'll show you a bus driver that hates TriMet.
> The _only_ time I've gotten a better answer from a human is when the
> automated system comes back with a response that the address I entered isn't
> served. The human was able to look it up, compare to a system map, and find
> the nearest bus route (which was further away than the program's search
> radius). It'd be a trivial matter to correct that flaw, though probably not
> very useful.
The only time I've gotten a better answer from a human is when I've
encountered a transit system still stuck in the fucking stone age and
thus isn't listed on Google Transit yet.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
> Many systems today use pre-purchased tickets, so all doors can open
> and fare collection is not an issue in car speed. However, it does
> mean the rider must be at the carstop earlier than previously to allow
> time to purchase a ticket; he can't just rush up and board the car.
> That adds effectively five minutes per trip for the rider.
http://zierke.com/shasta_route/picpages/portland_streetcar_tvm.html
But I know that telling you about it is as good as talking to a wall -
you were told this a dozen times, but won't stop to complain about how
it's not possible.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Paul Johnson schrieb:
> When it comes to intangable properties like software, it's not "you
> get what you pay for" anywhere nearly as much as "you can get a worse
> solution, but it costs more." Unfortuately, the people speccing the
> software almost always decide that the cheap, obvious solution (hire a
> programmer in house and develop what works for that particular transit
> system)
Bruhahaha.... :-)
There are several software solutions for it, which have been developed
and improved over a timeframe of 20 years. When I first connected to
some net, in 1992, they were already there.
Today, some of the servers run with a database of several
hundredthousand trains daily, and a who-ever-knows number of bus routes,
and achieve response times of a few seconds, or less than a second.
In my book, that qualifies for a "proven setup".
Trying to match these solutions with some in-house programming ...
grin ... how many hundred man-months do you want to spend, for
reinventing the wheel?
gl4...@yahoo.com
Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote:
> Note that this is a relatively recent thing. MAX stations only had
> ticket machines on eastbound platforms only in downtown prior to about
> 2000;
They had to put new machines in when the westside MAX line opened in
1998. Before then eastbound trains terminated in fairless square, so
there wasn't any real reason to sell tickets on those platforms.
> Actually, fareless square's north boundary was moved south to Hoyt
> when Portland Streetcar opened, prior to that, it was formerly I-405
> to the north, west and south, and I-5 to the east.
I had thought that at one point Portland Streetcar only had the last 7
stops west of I-405 as the pay stops. I also know that in the 1980s
fareless square stopped at Hoyt. At one time I worked in an office right
on the border.
Paul Johnson
wrote:
> Trying to match these solutions with some in-house programming ...
> grin ... how many hundred man-months do you want to spend, for
> reinventing the wheel?
Can't be any worse than building the transit system itself, and it's
gotta beat having to fix someone else's broken wheel once they sell it
to you showing you a working wheel's picture.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Paul Johnson schrieb:
> Can't be any worse than building the transit system itself, and it's
> gotta beat having to fix someone else's broken wheel once they sell it
> to you showing you a working wheel's picture.
For all the major timetable programs, practical and real-world example
implementations are accessible via the Internet. Unlike transit
vehicles, you can run thorough tests before having spent a single $.
Mark Mathu
news:gl4316-2110...@69-30-10-139.pxd.easystreet.com...
>> > The Skoda cars used by Portland Streetcar are not 100% low floor cars.
>> > The areas over the trucks are still high floor, giving the car
>> > somewhere
>> > around 60% or 70% low floor.
>> >
>> > The true 100% low floor cars used in some cities in Europe get there by
>> > using some very creative design. Designs used in the USA aren't quite
>> > there yet.
>>
>>
>> Do the rules also apply to streetcars? That is the question.
>
> Since much of this equipment has to be built to APTA standards one place
> to
> start answering that question is on the APTA standards web site. If you
> rummage through their menu system you will find these:
>
> Rail Equipment:
> http://www.aptastandards.com/PublishedDocuments/PublishedStandards/PRESS/tabid/85/Default.aspx
>
> Streetcar and Heritage Trolley:
> http://www.aptastandards.com/PublishedDocuments/PublishedStandards/Rail/StreetcarHeritageTrolley/tabid/180/Default.aspx
So in your opinion -- do the rules also apply to streetcars? That is the
question.
Paul Johnson
> In article <1193274437.435959.16...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Paul
>
> Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca> wrote:
> > Note that this is a relatively recent thing. MAX stations only had
> > ticket machines on eastbound platforms only in downtown prior to about
> > 2000;
>
> They had to put new machines in when the westside MAX line opened in
> 1998. Before then eastbound trains terminated in fairless square, so
> there wasn't any real reason to sell tickets on those platforms.
I seem to recall the 1st Avenue stations didn't get westbound ticket
machines until much later, and whey they finally did, they got the new
style ticket machines that just can't handle the level of abuse
Portland throws at 'em. It's like they're trying to expect some
german indoor ticket machine to stand up to daily wear and tear in a
wet, dirty environment with how low their MTBF is in practice.
> > Actually, fareless square's north boundary was moved south to Hoyt
> > when Portland Streetcar opened, prior to that, it was formerly I-405
> > to the north, west and south, and I-5 to the east.
>
> I had thought that at one point Portland Streetcar only had the last 7
> stops west of I-405 as the pay stops. I also know that in the 1980s
> fareless square stopped at Hoyt. At one time I worked in an office right
> on the border.
I'm pretty sure in the 90s it was 405 and 5. Northwest was pretty
much entirely unserved by transit save for the bus to Sauvie Island
around that time.
Adam H. Kerman
>>I've never understood: Boston had an awful experience with them, but San
>>Francisco didn't see nearly as many problems, even took some of the
>>Boston cars later.
>San Fran had their share of problems, too, and the cars didn't last
>that long in service.
>>In Chicago, they worked reasonably well, but a CTA staffer lived in the
>>factory during production to catch problems early.
>The Boeing Chicago L cars were a completely different design. Not
>comparable to the LRVs.
I don't know what the practical differences were, aside from the obvious
ones like MU controls. The point I was making is that CTA took a
different attitude toward purchasing than Boston or San Francisco did
and got a good result from the very same company.
>>That's a social change, not technology. I'd prefer that we all specify
>>PCCs today. They sure were easy to maintain.
>Not always. According to some histories, one type of internal
>mechanism (I forget if it was GE or WH) was a pain to maintain. As
>time went on, carriers got sloppy with maintenance resulting in jerky
>acceleration and braking. Modern solid-state propulsion control
>should be easier to maintain than electro-mechanical rotors.
>While the PCC design was flexible and modular, I don't think it could
>support articulation which is very popular today. Also, I'm not sure
>how the ventilation system, which was tightly integrated with the body
>design and propulsion components, could handle air conditioning.
Not needed, not for Chicago.
Andrew Price
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>I don't think that anybody manufactures trailers these days. China or
>Russia perhaps? Czech cities still have old Tatra trams with trailers,
>though.
So does Germany. Berlin and some other cities still have trams with
trailers in service.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > The best way to help prospective new passengers is to have _well-
> > trained_ _experienced_ humans promptly answer the phone at
> > information center.
>
> That's very expensive, and transit agencies are generally very strapped for
> opex money. How much in service cutbacks are you willing to tolerate so
> that there'll be friendly, helpful people on the phone?
They still have information centers with people, just not enough
people. The incremental cost of adding a few people in a large system
is not a lot. There is the benefit of gaining more riders, and more
satisfied existing riders.
> > These agents should be well experienced with the entire system
> > and its routes and the region's geography, so they can intuitively
> > provide the best route.
>
> Intuition is only relevant when the necessary facts aren't available; cold
> hard calculations win every time they can be applied.
It is impossible for all facts to be available in every situation.
Humans are better than computers for nuances.
For example, an experienced human operator might offer the caller a
choice of bus or train routes depending on the caller's preferences (a
cheaper but slower bus or faster but more expensive train). Or, the
agent might suggest driving to a station for more options.
> DART's web site will take any pair of addresses and a departure or arrival
> time and give you several options, depending on whether you want to minimize
> travel time, connections, walking, etc. It's not perfect, but it's a heck
> of a lot better than most systems I've seen. The phone customer service
> folks use the same tool, and if you ask for anything it can't handle, you
> can hear as they look up routes and schedules on the web site -- just like
> you can do for yourself.
I used to regularly use transit information in my own and distant
cities to assist me with trips, especially in distant cities where I
wasn't familiar with the system. The human operators of the old days
were superior to computerized stuff offered today, even the
sophisticated door-to-door alternatives. Some of the choices the
automated systems offer are unbelievably ludicrous. Experienced agents
know the reliability of some routes to traffic delays and for making
connections and advise accordingly.
> I never ask a host how to get somewhere because they usually give suboptimal
> directions. My GPS unit does much better (and has live traffic updates, not
> that they generally get me there faster, but they let me know within a
> minute or so how late I'll be), as do various online mapping services.
> Google Maps does transit now too, in select cities, with the next few
> departures right on the map when you hover over a rail station.
I'm glad your experiences with automated maps has worked out. Many
people I know have been directed to take less than optimal routes,
such as a bad street through a congested city rather than a bypass,
down dead-end alleys, or up one-way streets. At almost every
destination a guest has to know where to park.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> In the history of transit, we've seen plenty of defective equipment.
> Wether it's traction motors or information displays, there are exactly
> 2 solutions:
>
> 1) Repair it.
> 2) Buy better products.
In the history of transit we've seen that _evolutionary_ upgrades
usually work while _revolutionary_ upgrades usually don't. We've also
seen that trial runs of a few units is useful to get bugs out before
implementing something new system wide. For example, a wise system
will try out new fareboxes on one route to see how they work before
buying a whole new set for the entire system.
> > The best way to help prospective new passengers is to have _well-
> > trained_ _experienced_ humans promptly answer the phone at
> > information center.
>
> That's a waste of money, either the money of the user, or the money of
> the taxpayer. Since a transit agency can't employ illegal immigrants
> with their usual wages for it, something more productive than 1-on-1
> must be found. A service desk can handle only requirements outside of
> the normal, complaints, questions of novice users for information
> packages, somesuch.
It is not a waste of money, it is a necessary service for existing and
new passengers. There are productivity improvements, many passengers
can get what they need from the Internet. For example, if I am an
existing rider but using a new route, I can get the schedule from the
'net, no human needed. But if I am a new rider or venturing onto a
new mode or area, a human is best to explain it all. People like
being served by other people. We could save money by eliminating air
conditioning but we'll lose riders.
> > These agents should be well experienced with the
> > entire system and its routes and the region's geography, so they can
> > intuitively provide the best route.
> No human is able to do that.
Big city transit systems used to have people do that. They of course
used maps, charts, and schedules, but they had a good idea of the
city's geography and system.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
> It is impossible for all facts to be available in every situation.
> Humans are better than computers for nuances.
>
> For example, an experienced human operator might offer the caller a
> choice of bus or train routes depending on the caller's preferences (a
> cheaper but slower bus or faster but more expensive train).
I have a CD with the Germany timetable of 1995 as a collector's item,
and it's still installed on my other computer. Back in 1995, selection
of bus, tram, only local trains, intercity trains etc. pp. was already
a standard feature of the Hafas software.
DaveW
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
big snip
to maintain than electro-mechanical rotors.
>
>> While the PCC design was flexible and modular, I don't think it could
>> support articulation which is very popular today. Also, I'm not sure
>> how the ventilation system, which was tightly integrated with the body
>> design and propulsion components, could handle air conditioning.
>
> Not needed, not for Chicago.
I've ridden in a air conditioned PCC car. At the Orange Empire Railway
Museum near Riverside, Calif. IIRC, it was the last PCC car delivered to
the Los Angeles Transit Lines (may have been the first incarnation of
MTA by then).
Besides the gift shop, it was about the only comfortable place on the
whole property that day. On subsequent trips, the same car was running
without AC. I don't know the details.
Regards,
DAve
Hans-Joachim Zierke
XPost and f'up
Andrew Price schrieb:
> So does Germany. Berlin and some other cities still have trams with
> trailers in service.
You mean the Tatra T6/B6 in Berlin? They will leave service at year's
end. There was a farewell run of the T6 on October 3rd,
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/6135/digitalbilder3648jo5.jpg
operating across the whole network within 8 or 9 hours, to please all
the fans.
Berlin will also say goodbye to the Tatra KT6 bendy trams. The GDR
bought them in the 1980s, so the buyer in Ukraine or Russia or whereever
will be happy to receive rather new, reliable units at a great price.
There is no other reason to get rid of them, than the high floor.
They get replaced by Bombardier "Flexity Berlin":
http://www.bvg.de/index.php/de/Common/Document/field/file/id/3869
(German text, international drawings and data, pdf file)
4 trams plus 206 as options. Which means: They buy one unit of each
type, unidirectional short (30m, 98 feet), bidirectional short,
unidirectional long (40m, 131 feet), bidirectional long, and the other
206 units depend on good performance of the prototypes. The prototypes
will already arrive next year.
Technically, these are Bombardier Incentro trams, like those in Nantes.
But for Berlin, we won't get the rather well-designed front used in
Nantes, but instead, a rather ugly replacement by a design bureau
located in Berlin. Hey, we sure can't use the French design for the
German capital. We're ugly and proud of it!
Peter Niessen
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
>
>
>> Automated computer systems simply
>> can't 'think' like a person does and consider all factors, such as
>> when one transfer point is preferable to another (as is so often the
>> case).
>
> ??? That's a really simple thing. If you have a less comfortable
> transfer relation, you add, for example, "2 minutes walk" within the
> system, use it for the calculation and display it to the user. If you
> do not only display the "best" solution found by the computer, but also
> the secondbest etc., the user can draw his/her own solution from it.
>
> Computer trip planners have come a long way since the early 90s, when
> your cristicism was justified. The problem in the USA is not the
> programs, the problem is, that they don't exist. There is no trip
> planner for the NEC cities, even a decade after such installations were
> standard in central Europe.
This is really a big problem. Most systems here on the East Coast are
junk. NJT might have very good ticket machines, but their route
planner sucks. You have to select the stations from a pull down menu,
http://www.njtransit.com/sf/sf_servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=TripPlannerItineraryTo
Try entering Trenton as staring point and go to Princeton.
Of course, we can do worse:
http://www.dartfirststate.com/routes/
With NJT and DART (DelDOT) I usually call their number.
On the other hand, this provides some home land security by preventing
Osama and friends from easily finding the information they need for
their nefarious schemes.
If you don't know which route to take, you don't belong here.
Cheers, Peter.
(Just coming back from a week in Karlsruhe. I just got used to SEPTA
before, but now the contrast really hurts. And it seems that it's
primarily not money which is involved, but rather Gehirnschmalz.)
Peter Niessen
> On Oct 24, 9:07 pm, Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenetspam...@Zierke.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In the history of transit, we've seen plenty of defective equipment.
>> Wether it's traction motors or information displays, there are exactly
>> 2 solutions:
>>
>> 1) Repair it.
>> 2) Buy better products.
>
> In the history of transit we've seen that _evolutionary_ upgrades
> usually work while _revolutionary_ upgrades usually don't. We've also
> seen that trial runs of a few units is useful to get bugs out before
> implementing something new system wide. For example, a wise system
> will try out new fareboxes on one route to see how they work before
> buying a whole new set for the entire system.
Come on, nothing what HJZ described is truly revolutionary. One could
almost come to think you're working on the board of some transit
agency :-)
>
>
>
>> > The best way to help prospective new passengers is to have _well-
>> > trained_ _experienced_ humans promptly answer the phone at
>> > information center.
>>
>> That's a waste of money, either the money of the user, or the money of
>> the taxpayer. Since a transit agency can't employ illegal immigrants
>> with their usual wages for it, something more productive than 1-on-1
>> must be found. A service desk can handle only requirements outside of
>> the normal, complaints, questions of novice users for information
>> packages, somesuch.
>
> It is not a waste of money, it is a necessary service for existing and
> new passengers. There are productivity improvements, many passengers
> can get what they need from the Internet. For example, if I am an
> existing rider but using a new route, I can get the schedule from the
> 'net, no human needed. But if I am a new rider or venturing onto a
> new mode or area, a human is best to explain it all. People like
> being served by other people. We could save money by eliminating air
> conditioning but we'll lose riders.
Well, usually you'll end up in the loop when calling (Your call is
very important to us. All our agents are currently helping other
customers. Your call will be answered in the order received. Your
approximate waiting time is 8 minutes.)
An experience I made recently in a former capital city along the US
East Coast: After failing to buy a hard drive downtown, I decided to
go to the yellow-blue electric appliance shop close to a swedish
furniture shop in the vicinity of a out-of-service ocean liner. At an
eastern regional rail station, I asked what the best way to get there
is. I asked whether I should go to Oregon and take the 7 or go to
Snyder and take the 56 (or whatever). The lady at the information
counter was not exactly familiar with the area. Now, had she had a
terminal with internet access, she could have given me the next best
itinerary. This goes to tell that having humans is no guarantee for
satisfied customers.
The same is of course true for database systems, but there at least
you can have a good overview over the value and performance of the
product.
Cheers, Peter.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
> In the history of transit we've seen that _evolutionary_ upgrades
> usually work while _revolutionary_ upgrades usually don't.
Are the revolutionary upgrades of 15 years ago evolutionary today?
15 years might not be enough - I remember systems running on CRTs, in
Lyon, in the middle 80s.
And BTW, there is a simple example to the contrary: The installation
of the first unified tariff system with single ticket rides for all
modes - railroads, ferries, buses. This happened in Hamburg on
December 1st, 1966, and is now used by all cities with usable transit
around the globe. A revolution, which attracted more riders than
anything else in the history of transit.
> For example, a wise system
> will try out new fareboxes on one route to see how they work before
> buying a whole new set for the entire system.
Yes.
> It is not a waste of money, it is a necessary service for existing and
> new passengers.
Some people in the USA assume, that the main difference between European
and USA transit systems is the availability of money. While that's a
factor, it isn't the main difference. The main difference is
productivity. US systems usually feature 1/2 or 1/3 the labour
productivity of systems in central Europe.
In order to get there, it is important, to find the dividing line
between "must" and "nice to have". As long as a system does not offer
an attractive memory schedule from early morning to late evening, hiring
people for the bureau instead of drivers is simply absurd.
gl4...@yahoo.com
<ma...@mathu.com> wrote:
> So in your opinion -- do the rules also apply to streetcars? That is the
> question.
At the time they were purchased, there were articles on how they had to
test the Skoda streetcars before they arrived in Portland in order to
prove they met US safety standards. So, they have to be meeting someone's
standards.
Adam H. Kerman
>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
>>In the history of transit we've seen that _evolutionary_ upgrades
>>usually work while _revolutionary_ upgrades usually don't.
>Are the revolutionary upgrades of 15 years ago evolutionary today?
>15 years might not be enough - I remember systems running on CRTs, in
>Lyon, in the middle 80s.
>And BTW, there is a simple example to the contrary: The installation
>of the first unified tariff system with single ticket rides for all
>modes - railroads, ferries, buses. This happened in Hamburg on
>December 1st, 1966, and is now used by all cities with usable transit
>around the globe. A revolution, which attracted more riders than
>anything else in the history of transit.
While I think integrated fares would be absolutely wonderful and should
be available in every metropolitan area, you are grossly overestimating
the number of cities they are available in.
Melbourne used to have such a system and I've been told that they no
longer offer it.
>>It is not a waste of money, it is a necessary service for existing and
>>new passengers.
>Some people in the USA assume, that the main difference between European
>and USA transit systems is the availability of money. While that's a
>factor, it isn't the main difference. The main difference is
>productivity. US systems usually feature 1/2 or 1/3 the labour
>productivity of systems in central Europe.
Is this true on bus as well?
I'd love to know how I could demonstrate that.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
>>and is now used by all cities with usable transit
>>around the globe. A revolution, which attracted more riders than
>>anything else in the history of transit.
>
> While I think integrated fares would be absolutely wonderful and should
> be available in every metropolitan area, you are grossly overestimating
> the number of cities they are available in.
Major cities with a modal share < 25% obviously don't feature usable
transit, by judgement of their own citizens.
And it's not just available in cities. This here is the area, where I
live, temporarily.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/4/48/Schnathorst_Luftbild.JPG
You are looking at the population centers of Hüllhorst-Schnathorst,
Hüllhorst-Holsen, Hüllhorst-Ahlsen, and Hüllhorst-Oberbauerschaft.
No city in sight. Nonetheless, I will of course use all buses (of
a dozen different operators) and trains (of 3 operators) in the area
with a single ticket, valid everywhere.
In Switzerland, the whole country has an integrated ticket system, and
more and more countries are coming close to 100% coverage.
But okay, I'll admit that formal integration and a single ticket is not
enough. Factual integration
https://www.ssl-id.net/fotoauslese.de/images/verkehr/bahn/bahn_16/d200000388.jpg
must be there as well.
>>US systems usually feature 1/2 or 1/3 the labour
>>productivity of systems in central Europe.
>
> Is this true on bus as well?
I don't think so. At least, I can't imagine, though I never checked.
When it comes to railroads, the differences jump into the eye at every
opportunity, but buses? No chance for judgement without really good
data.
Yes, yes, my wording wasn't precise, you got me... ;-) There is
also the problem, that US transit agencies report a wealth of data, with
one exception: Number of employees. But for all light rail and commuter
rail operations, where I got the data by this or that incident, I always
found at least 100% overstaffing.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman schrieb:
>>HJZ wrote:
>>>US systems usually feature 1/2 or 1/3 the labour
>>>productivity of systems in central Europe.
>>Is this true on bus as well?
>I don't think so. At least, I can't imagine, though I never checked.
>When it comes to railroads, the differences jump into the eye at every
>opportunity, but buses? No chance for judgement without really good
>data.
>Yes, yes, my wording wasn't precise, you got me... ;-)
I assumed you meant rail; that's why I asked the bus question.
What about productivity of capital? Does Europe avoid the nonsense of
American transit by not replacing existing rail stations but keeping
them maintained?
I don't doubt it. I think we're Number One in Chicago with the largest
train crews for commuter rail. Hurray for us.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> >>US systems usually feature 1/2 or 1/3 the labour
> >>productivity of systems in central Europe.
> >
> > Is this true on bus as well?
>
> Yes, yes, my wording wasn't precise, you got me... ;-) There is
> also the problem, that US transit agencies report a wealth of data, with
> one exception: Number of employees. But for all light rail and commuter
> rail operations, where I got the data by this or that incident, I always
> found at least 100% overstaffing.
I'm not sure that even the official numbers would give an adequate
indication of what is going on here labor wise. For example, if you write
a letter to certain transit agencies, you get a response from the agency
with the agency's logo on it, but the signature of the person who
responded indicates that they are actually working for some subcontractor
or other.