Turboliner, anyone?
Merritt Mullen
ROHR TURBOLINERS FOR SALE
Amtrak has available for sale seven (7) trainsets of Rohr Turboliners
(Direct Drive Gas Turbines) and associated spare parts inventory. Each
trainset consists of a combination power and coach at each end and three
intermediate coaches, one with a food service facility. Three (3)
trainsets have been overhauled and are stored in Delaware; four (4)
trainsets are in various stages of overhaul and are stored in New York.
Contact information provided below for interested parties:( B. A.
Hastings, Officer Asset Recovery, Telephone Number: 215-349-1192 E-mail:
has...@amtrak.com
//
Posted by Merritt
Jishnu Mukerji
This is the agreement between NY State DOT and Amtrak that we heard
about at the NARP Region II meeting being put into action.
Bob Scheurle
<jis...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>This is the agreement between NY State DOT and Amtrak that we heard
>about at the NARP Region II meeting being put into action.
I doubt anyone would buy them. Look for them in a local scrap yard soon.
Jishnu Mukerji
That is the plan, but they are required to offer them for sale as per
the agreement as I understand it.
Joe Versaggi
The will all join the Midwest and UA Turbos in railroad heaven (or hell).
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> ROHR TURBOLINERS FOR SALE
Could someone explain the purpose of buying turboliners in the first
place? What specific characteristics did they have that made them
superior to existing diesel-electric or straight electric equipment?
It appears that the orignal United Aircraft models for the New Haven
line and the later models for the Albany line always had poor
mechanical reliability.
Would the trainsets now for sale have any value as a shell, that is,
for the engine units to be refitted with normal engines, and the
coaches to be used as coaches? Isn't there now a coach shortage?
Candide
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:73c24176-0518-4c1d...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 19, 1:28 am, Merritt Mullen <mmullen8...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> ROHR TURBOLINERS FOR SALE
Could someone explain the purpose of buying turboliners in the first
place? What specific characteristics did they have that made them
superior to existing diesel-electric or straight electric equipment?
Purpose was to give high-speed rail without having to electrify a line,
and at speeds faster than a diesel locomotive.
Designed and built in France, Turboliners would run on diesel power at
low speeds, then switch to gas turbine engines for speeds up to 147kph.
IIRC, 41 units were built, Amtrak bought two, others were sent to Iran
and another country (forget who).
After 1973 with the price of oil going up, the costs of running
turboliners in France no longer made them feasible, and France moved to
the TGV. IIRC, Amtrak ran it's turboliners between NYC and Chicago,
with limited success, and they were withdrawn from service.
It appears that the original United Aircraft models for the New Haven
line and the later models for the Albany line always had poor
mechanical reliability.
Would the trainsets now for sale have any value as a shell, that is,
for the engine units to be refitted with normal engines, and the
coaches to be used as coaches? Isn't there now a coach shortage?
Am not sure, but think these are train sets, much like TGVs or Acelas.
IIRC, bogies are between cars making them joint units.
Merritt Mullen
<73c24176-0518-4c1d...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Apr 19, 1:28 am, Merritt Mullen <mmullen8...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > ROHR TURBOLINERS FOR SALE
>
> Could someone explain the purpose of buying turboliners in the first
> place? What specific characteristics did they have that made them
> superior to existing diesel-electric or straight electric equipment?
A gas turbine engine produces lots of power at low weight, but usually
at the cost of low fuel efficiency. If fuel cost is not a concern, they
make good powerplants for non-electric lightweight high speed trains.
> It appears that the orignal United Aircraft models for the New Haven
> line and the later models for the Albany line always had poor
> mechanical reliability.
Plus the tendency to catch fire.
> Would the trainsets now for sale have any value as a shell, that is,
> for the engine units to be refitted with normal engines, and the
> coaches to be used as coaches? Isn't there now a coach shortage?
A regular diesel-electric engine would not fit because of size and
weight considerations. Direct diesel hydraulic drive would have similar
reliability problems, plus lower power output.
I don't believe the Turboliner coaches are compatible with standard
Amtrak coaches (they may be articulated, I am not sure). In any case,
Amtrak does not currently have a coach shortage (although it will as
coaches get older and ridership increases). It does have a sleeping car
and diner shortage.
Merritt
Bob Scheurle
wrote:
>Designed and built in France, Turboliners would run on diesel power at
>low speeds, then switch to gas turbine engines for speeds up to 147kph.
No. The turbines burned diesel fuel. Perhaps you meant to say they
could also operate on electric power to access Grand Central Terminal
(and, later, NY Penn Station).
Bob Scheurle
>Could someone explain the purpose of buying turboliners in the first
>place?
In 1973, Amtrak was in desperate need for modern equipment. The
Turboliners from France were already in service over there, and something
Amtrak could get on short notice. The order for Rohr Turboliners
followed in 1974, with those trains modified for American tastes.
Joseph D. Korman
Not AMTRAK, but the LIRR experiments with turbos are in two of the
brochures on this page:
http://www.thejoekorner.com/lirrbrochures/index.html
One seems to be straight turbo power and the other turbo generation of
electric to traction motors.
I don't know how these compare with the types of turbos that AMTRAK used.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
tobias benjamin koehler
> In 1973, Amtrak was in desperate need for modern equipment. The
> Turboliners from France were already in service over there, and something
> Amtrak could get on short notice. The order for Rohr Turboliners
> followed in 1974, with those trains modified for American tastes.
The first generation of French turbotrains (ETG) had a diesel engine on
one end and a gas turbine on the other. The successor RTG had two
turbines. The trains were meant for high speed on non-electrified lines.
The TGV 001 also used gas turbines; after the high speed tests of 1955
showed the limitations of (low voltage DC) electrification, they thought
that unelectrified high speed lines with gas turbines would be a good
idea to avoid pickup problems.
The last SNCF RTG went out of service in 2004. Some may still be
operating in Iran.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> In article
> <73c24176-0518-4c1d...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> > On Apr 19, 1:28 am, Merritt Mullen <mmullen8...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > > ROHR TURBOLINERS FOR SALE
> >
> > Could someone explain the purpose of buying turboliners in the first
> > place? What specific characteristics did they have that made them
> > superior to existing diesel-electric or straight electric equipment?
>
> A gas turbine engine produces lots of power at low weight, but usually
> at the cost of low fuel efficiency. If fuel cost is not a concern, they
> make good powerplants for non-electric lightweight high speed trains.
Gas turbines can do reasonably good at their maximum efficiency point, but
the problem is that fuel consumption per unit horsepower is horrible at
anything off the maximum efficiency point. Diesel engines have a much
broader range at which they are reasonable. Turbines from the 1970s would
be horrible, as these days much has been done to improve turbine
efficiency.
> A regular diesel-electric engine would not fit because of size and
> weight considerations. Direct diesel hydraulic drive would have similar
> reliability problems, plus lower power output.
A regular diesel engine would be heavier and larger, but at the same time
the British HST continues to prove (still running after all these years!)
that given light weight passenger cars and high speed diesel engine
designs, it is possible to build light weight diesel powered trains that
operate at fairly high speeds. Make no mistake either: when the HST first
appeared on the scene in the 1970s, the 125 mph speed was pretty much just
as fast as anything else operating in any other country at the time.
Nearly 40 years later, better materials and engine design could get us an
even better high speed diesel train. Currently, however, only Talgo is
trying to market such a machine.
--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
tobias benjamin koehler
> Gas turbines can do reasonably good at their maximum efficiency point, but
> the problem is that fuel consumption per unit horsepower is horrible at
> anything off the maximum efficiency point. Diesel engines have a much
> broader range at which they are reasonable. Turbines from the 1970s would
> be horrible, as these days much has been done to improve turbine
> efficiency.
Bombardier is apparently testing a gas turbine powercar similar to the
acela power units, what's coming out of this?
> Nearly 40 years later, better materials and engine design could get us an
> even better high speed diesel train. Currently, however, only Talgo is
> trying to market such a machine.
Germany built fast tilting diesel units (class 605) but found no way of
operating them economically. After years of standing around they are now
being used between Hamburg and Köbenhavn, allowing the Danish to free
some of their IC3 units needed for inland trains (as the Ansaldobreda
IC4 is delayed).
The British (partly tilting) class 221 and 222, both for 200 km/h, seem
to be more successful ....
Philip Nasadowski
tobias benjamin koehler <tbk....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bombardier is apparently testing a gas turbine powercar similar to the
> acela power units, what's coming out of this?
Nothing. Nobody was buying it in the US 5 years ago. Not surprisingly,
right now, there's even less interest in it, in North America....
Adam H. Kerman
>Purpose was to give high-speed rail without having to electrify a line,
>and at speeds faster than a diesel locomotive.
>Designed and built in France, Turboliners would run on diesel power at
>low speeds, then switch to gas turbine engines for speeds up to 147kph.
>IIRC, 41 units were built, Amtrak bought two, others were sent to Iran
>and another country (forget who).
>After 1973 with the price of oil going up, the costs of running
>turboliners in France no longer made them feasible, and France moved to
>the TGV. IIRC, Amtrak ran it's turboliners between NYC and Chicago,
>with limited success, and they were withdrawn from service.
I recall them only in corridor service. In Chicago, they ran only to
Milwaukee and that was only at the end of their Amtrak service. The joke
was they'd never be too far from the shop.
Jaap van Dorp
The unit is property of USDOT, not bombardier, they only got right to
market the technology, but noone is interested.
Jaap
"tobias benjamin koehler" <tbk....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d024f$480dae78$5473814c$32...@news.chello.at...
Bob Scheurle
wrote:
>
>>IIRC, Amtrak ran it's turboliners between NYC and Chicago,
>>with limited success, and they were withdrawn from service.
>
>I recall them only in corridor service. In Chicago, they ran only to
>Milwaukee and that was only at the end of their Amtrak service. The joke
>was they'd never be too far from the shop.
Amtrak also used them NYC - Buffalo and NYC - Montreal.
Candide
"Bob Scheurle" <njt...@X-verizon-X.net> wrote in message
news:o2ps0490knsavc2ue...@4ax.com...
IIRC there were two designs of the French Turboliner that ran on routes
out of Chicago to Detroit, St. Louis, and Milwaukee.
Let us not forget the other experiment Amtrak tried at the same time,
the LRC (Light, Rapid and Comfortable), trainsets, powered by "jet"
engines. Built by United Aircraft by Pullman in 1967, Amtrak ran them on
the NY-BOS route. Due to so many problems trains were retired in 1975,
and shipped to Canada.
Merritt Mullen
"Candide" <PityM...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> Let us not forget the other experiment Amtrak tried at the same time,
> the LRC (Light, Rapid and Comfortable), trainsets, powered by "jet"
> engines. Built by United Aircraft by Pullman in 1967, Amtrak ran them on
> the NY-BOS route. Due to so many problems trains were retired in 1975,
> and shipped to Canada.
You are thinking of the UAC "TurboTrain", not the LRC. The "TurboTrain"
was replaced by the French (and later Rohr) "Turboliner."
The LRC was a tilting train (except for the locomotives) developed by
Montreal Locomotive Works (later Bombardier) that went into service
about 1980 in Canada. Amtrak leased some train sets but after trying
them sent them back to Canada. The LRC locomotives were retired in the
mid '90s, but the coaches are still used in Canada, pulled by standard
locomotives. I don't think the tilting mechanism is used any longer.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
tobias benjamin koehler <tbk....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bombardier is apparently testing a gas turbine powercar similar to the
> acela power units, what's coming out of this?
Bombardier did develop and US DOT WAS testing a turbo-electric loco
similar to Acela electric power units, but as far as I know, the project
is dead. At one time, it was to be a test bed for the use of flywheel
energy storage being developed at the University of Texas, which was
thought to be a way to make the turbine more fuel efficient.
When Acela was first being developed, it was planned to build one turbo
(or possibly, diesel) powered train set for demonstration around the
U.S. in order to stir up interest in high-speed train service in
non-electrified territory. Budget issues eliminated that train set.
Merritt
Jaap van Dorp
The NY units were the Californie build Rohr Turboliner
Jaap
"Bob Scheurle" <njt...@X-verizon-X.net> wrote in message
news:o2ps0490knsavc2ue...@4ax.com...
Jaap van Dorp
I believe your confused by UA Turbo
"Candide" <PityM...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:NVtPj.7112$XY1.6671@trndny03...
gl4...@yahoo.com
Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> When Acela was first being developed, it was planned to build one turbo
> (or possibly, diesel) powered train set for demonstration around the
> U.S. in order to stir up interest in high-speed train service in
> non-electrified territory. Budget issues eliminated that train set.
There's also the little issue that Bombardier doesn't really have any true
light weight passenger cars to put behind it - at least not in the same
category as what Talgo has produced.
If they really wanted to do such a demonstration, they could have mixed
one of the demonstration Talgos with the turbine locomotive, but
politically that would not have gone over that well within Bombardier.
Merritt Mullen
gl4...@yahoo.com (gl4...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> In article <mmullen8014-3723...@netnews.mchsi.com>, Merritt
> Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > When Acela was first being developed, it was planned to build one turbo
> > (or possibly, diesel) powered train set for demonstration around the
> > U.S. in order to stir up interest in high-speed train service in
> > non-electrified territory. Budget issues eliminated that train set.
>
>
> There's also the little issue that Bombardier doesn't really have any true
> light weight passenger cars to put behind it - at least not in the same
> category as what Talgo has produced.
What they have are the Acela carriages, which I believe are a
modification of the LRC tilting carriages.
> If they really wanted to do such a demonstration, they could have mixed
> one of the demonstration Talgos with the turbine locomotive, but
> politically that would not have gone over that well within Bombardier.
The AMTRAK concept was a train set identical to Acela but with
diesel-electric or turbo-electric power.
I don't think it would have been wise to demonstrate a HS train set for
use around the country that was not FRA compliant. The U.S. Talgos have
to operate on a waiver.
A minor issue with using Acela coaches outside the NEC is that they
require high-level platforms. I suppose it is not too big a
modification to build them with steps and wheelchair lifts.
Merritt
Bob Scheurle
<GEjo...@comcast.spam.net> wrote:
>The Chicago group was RTG the french built Turboliner.
> The NY units were the Californie build Rohr Turboliner
The RTG units were also used in New York State.
tobias benjamin koehler
> If they really wanted to do such a demonstration, they could have mixed
> one of the demonstration Talgos with the turbine locomotive, but
> politically that would not have gone over that well within Bombardier.
Bombardier is cooperating with Talgo in other markets (the Talgo 350 =
AVE 102 high speed train in Spain), so why not here?
Jaap van Dorp
propulsion.
They looked like the Rohrs but still had the European buffer couplers
between the cars, the RTG had severe restrictions in GCT and later burned
out on NYP.
Jaap
"Bob Scheurle" <njt...@X-verizon-X.net> wrote in message
news:pn0u041enskdnj3up...@4ax.com...
dyonisien
>
> [...]
> The last SNCF RTG went out of service in 2004. Some may still be
> operating in Iran.
and in Egypt, between Cairo and Alexandria with intermediate carriages
and maximum speed 140/160 km/h.
Here are two pictures :http://pagesperso-orange.fr/trains_du_sud-ouest/
Images/cairo.jpg
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/trains_du_sud-ouest/Images/cairo4.jpg
Because they are called "turbini" there, most western people
(including most travel guides) write about them being "italian" and
everybody copies this error. They look and SOUND like true RTG
relatives though !
Dyonisien
James Robinson
> Let us not forget the other experiment Amtrak tried at the same time,
> the LRC (Light, Rapid and Comfortable), trainsets, powered by "jet"
> engines. Built by United Aircraft by Pullman in 1967, Amtrak ran them
> on the NY-BOS route. Due to so many problems trains were retired in
> 1975, and shipped to Canada.
As others have pointed out, you have merged two different trains in your
description.
The United Aircraft TurboTrain entered service in about 1966 in Canada
and the US, so they were before Amtrak's creation. It was designed by
the helicopter division of UAC (Sikorsky), based on passive tilting body
designs that originated with the C&O railroad. It was powered by UAC
turbines, which were mechanically connected to the driving axles in each
power car through gearboxes. (Free running turbines)
The UAC TurboTrain sets used by Amtrak were short consists, and were
therefore not very practical, other than to demonstrate the benefits of
tilting body equipment. Being a completely new design, they had a number
of teething problems, that were eventually sorted out.
CN in Canada extended their sets to 9 cars, holding about 260
passengers, and they were somewhat successful until retired from service
due to high fuel cost. They rode poorly, particularly on jointed rail,
though passengers generally liked them.
The Amtrak sets were scrapped in the US.
The LRC was designed by a consortium that included Alcan Aluminum and
Montreal Locomotive Works. It entered service 10 years after the UAC
Turbo. Amtrak leased some sets that were designed to their
specification, and used them between Boston and New York City for a
while, before returning them. They didn't want to sort out the design
problems, but VIA Rail did work through them, and the cars form the basis
of their eastern corridor service to this day. The locomotives were
retired when it came time for rebuilding them, and were replaced with
GEs.
The active tilting designs from the LRC were the basis for the tilting
equipment in the Acela train sets.
Jishnu Mukerji
> The AMTRAK concept was a train set identical to Acela but with
> diesel-electric or turbo-electric power.
>
> I don't think it would have been wise to demonstrate a HS train set for
> use around the country that was not FRA compliant. The U.S. Talgos have
> to operate on a waiver.
>
> A minor issue with using Acela coaches outside the NEC is that they
> require high-level platforms. I suppose it is not too big a
> modification to build them with steps and wheelchair lifts.
My understanding is that as long as compliance with FRA Tier II
requirements are ditched it would be possible to build traps for
boarding from low level platforms. Apparently Tier II requires there to
be no break in the sill or some such making traps for boarding from low
level platforms difficult to achieve.
I am sure there are others better informed than me who would be able to
disabuse me of the errors of my understanding if there indeed is an
error on this matter.
Adam H. Kerman
But that was at the beginning of their life. They weren't purchased for
Chicago-Milwaukee, which is suburban train distance.
Adam H. Kerman
>The Chicago group was RTG the french built Turboliner.
> The NY units were the Californie build Rohr Turboliner
Thanks for the correction. I had thought the Chicago set was
previously used in New York service.
Adam H. Kerman
>Bob Scheurle <njt...@X-verizon-X.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:08:31 -0500, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>IIRC, Amtrak ran it's turboliners between NYC and Chicago,
>>>>with limited success, and they were withdrawn from service.
>>>
>>>I recall them only in corridor service. In Chicago, they ran only to
>>>Milwaukee and that was only at the end of their Amtrak service. The joke
>>>was they'd never be too far from the shop.
>>
>>Amtrak also used them NYC - Buffalo and NYC - Montreal.
>
>But that was at the beginning of their life. They weren't purchased for
>Chicago-Milwaukee, which is suburban train distance.
Comment withdrawn.
James Robinson
> The LRC locomotives were retired in the mid '90s, but the coaches are
> still used in Canada, pulled by standard locomotives. I don't think
> the tilting mechanism is used any longer.
I believe the tilting mechanisms are used to improve passenger comfort, if
they are working, but I also understand they frequently aren't working.
Merritt Mullen
Jishnu Mukerji <jis...@nospam.hp.com> wrote:
> My understanding is that as long as compliance with FRA Tier II
> requirements are ditched it would be possible to build traps for
> boarding from low level platforms. Apparently Tier II requires there to
> be no break in the sill or some such making traps for boarding from low
> level platforms difficult to achieve.
Interesting. I didn't realize that. Seems a good engineer could design
steps that did not reduce the strength of the car. But FRA does not
seem to put much store in "good" (read, innovative) engineering.
I remember when the US was the world leader in such things. Sigh...
Merritt
Bob Scheurle
<GEjo...@comcast.spam.net> wrote:
> Only one or two RTG's which were upgraded to RTL standards with electric
>propulsion.
> They looked like the Rohrs but still had the European buffer couplers
>between the cars, the RTG had severe restrictions in GCT and later burned
>out on NYP.
They didn't look like the Rohrs. They had manually-operated doors and
tiny, chickenwire overhead baggage racks. I recall that they had the
original RTG-style noses. I had the misfortune of riding one from Albany
to NY Penn Station, I believe in July 1992.
gl4...@yahoo.com
Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > If they really wanted to do such a demonstration, they could have mixed
> > one of the demonstration Talgos with the turbine locomotive, but
> > politically that would not have gone over that well within Bombardier.
>
> The AMTRAK concept was a train set identical to Acela but with
> diesel-electric or turbo-electric power.
>
> I don't think it would have been wise to demonstrate a HS train set for
> use around the country that was not FRA compliant. The U.S. Talgos have
> to operate on a waiver.
The ones in service today require a waiver, because they were completed
while the regulations were changing. On the other hand, any of the number
of European railway stock that has operated here (Flexliner, X2000, etc.)
also require a waiver to operate as a demonstration unit. That didn't
keep the Flexliner from operating many trips as the Mt. Baker before the
Talgos arrived.
The current design (but not yet built, due to Olympia's funding situation
for the next set of trains) is compliant with Tier 1:
http://www.talgousa.com/talgo_xxi.asp
True, this does limit them to 125 mph in the USA, while Acela's cars can
go up to 150 mph. I'm not convinced that is such a big deal, considering
the amount of non-electrified track in the USA that allows for operation
above 125 mph.
In the case of the demonstration Talgo, yes they would have to have a
waiver, but one would not be required should regular service start with
FRA Tier 1 stock built to today's standards. In the case of a purpose
built turbotrain demonstrator Talgo set, a Talgo XXI could be built to the
current regulations and not require a waiver as long as the speed was kept
below 125 mph.
Philip Nasadowski
gl4...@yahoo.com (gl4...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> On the other hand, any of the number
> of European railway stock that has operated here (Flexliner, X2000, etc.)
> also require a waiver to operate as a demonstration unit.
Not on any crash regulations. The waiver on the X-2000 was for mostly
minor stuff, headlights, lack of sanders, top speed, cant deficiency,
etc.
Of course, today, they wouldn't even be considered since there's no way
the FRA would allow them anyway.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> My understanding is that as long as compliance with FRA Tier II
> requirements are ditched it would be possible to build traps for
> boarding from low level platforms. Apparently Tier II requires there to
> be no break in the sill or some such making traps for boarding from low
> level platforms difficult to achieve.
I understand that the new SEPTA Silverliners due next year no longer
have the traps in the vestibule, but in mid-train, for that reason.
That is, the ends have to be tougher than in the past.
By having the doors at the car ends, one conductor can watch two
doors. I hope the loss of that design doesn't increase boarding/
alighting accidents
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Interesting. I didn't realize that. Seems a good engineer could design
> steps that did not reduce the strength of the car. But FRA does not
> seem to put much store in "good" (read, innovative) engineering.
>
> I remember when the US was the world leader in such things. Sigh...
The U.S. had two first rate carbuilders, The Budd Company and St.
Louis Car. But the feast and famine orders, inflation during the life
of the order, and other issues caused those companies to close. The
former Budd Red Lion Rd plant in Phila is now a golf course.
I was not a big fan of modern Pullman-built equipment, or aeronautics
companies switched into railcars (like Rohr, Boeing).
Jishnu Mukerji
Silverliners have to just meet the new Tier I requirements. They do not
need to meet Tier II requirements since they are not designed to travel
at more than 125mph.
Merritt Mullen
<c8165b64-854f-4263...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> By having the doors at the car ends, one conductor can watch two
> doors. I hope the loss of that design doesn't increase boarding/
> alighting accidents
Needing a conductor to watch each door (or an adjacent pair of doors) is
a indicator of inefficient operation that should be designed out.
Merritt
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Silverliners have to just meet the new Tier I requirements. They do not
> need to meet Tier II requirements since they are not designed to travel
> at more than 125mph.
What are the "new Tier I" requirements? Are they different than when
the original Silverliners were built in 1963 (800,000 lbs buffing
strength?)
I was told the steps and door were removed from the vestibule because
otherwise it could not be adequately strengthened; that is, having a
corner door was incompatible with strength construction.
tobias benjamin koehler
> Needing a conductor to watch each door (or an adjacent pair of doors) is
> a indicator of inefficient operation that should be designed out.
It depends whether the law allows a purely technical solution ....
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Needing a conductor to watch each door (or an adjacent pair of doors) is
> a indicator of inefficient operation that should be designed out.
Well, converting some 200 stations to high platform would be nice if
there was money to do so. Many of those stations are high up or in
cuts which came about through grade crossing elimination. The
platforms are reached by staircases where there's no room for a ramp,
or ramps that are too steep to support wheelchairs. Stations also
have pedestrian tunnels or bridges reached only by steps. So, in
order to build high platforms, handicapped accessibility must be
provided as well, and cost becomes very high.
On the Paoli line sometimes passengers board from the middle tracks.
High platforms would eliminate this option and greatly reduce
operational flexibility.
On most lines there may be freight service and high platforms would
limit certain freight cars. A couple of lines have heavy trunk line
freight service where high & wide loads pass by.
In 1968 the State of New York converted many NYC area platforms to
high level. None were accessible and it was kind of rush job with
light materials, with some stations today needing to be redone as
aluminum shelters and stairwells are worn out. Back then steps were
used as there was no accessibility requirement back then. The State
of NY spent quite a bit of money on this project but it ended up with
an enormous budget deficit as a result.
Everybody agrees some SEPTA railroad routes would be better as light
rail routes, except that the tracks are shared with freight, other
commuter lines, and/or with Amtrak, and light rail can't mix. Another
critical issue is that riders LIKE having a visible conductor and the
comforts of a real train which is why they choose the train over the
subway and would not ride a subway extension if offered.
Jishnu Mukerji
Apparently each railroad gets to spin their own rules on this at least
in NJ. As a result of the accident in Belmar where someone got caught in
a door and was dragged to his death, and the rear flag was not at the
rear door observing the platform as the train left the station, the
first thing that NJT did is fired said flag-person. The second thing
that they did is removed the requirement for the rear flag to be at the
rear door from their operating regulations. Now said person can be in
any of the doors in the last few cars. So go figure.
Bob Scheurle
>
>> Needing a conductor to watch each door (or an adjacent pair of doors) is
>> a indicator of inefficient operation that should be designed out.
>
>Well, converting some 200 stations to high platform would be nice if
>there was money to do so.
Montreal operates 10-car trains with low-level platforms with 2 crew
members. All they have is an engineer and a conductor on the train.
John Albert
<< Needing a conductor to watch each door (or an adjacent
pair of doors) is a indicator of inefficient operation that
should be designed out. >>
I assure you that it will be, Merritt - immediately AFTER
they succeed in "designing out" passenger clumsiness and
stupidity!
- John
Merritt Mullen
John Albert <j.al...@snet.net> wrote:
Well, I don't recall the NY city subway passengers needing any help to
get on or off the cars. <grin>
Even we clumsy and stupid Californians manage to get on and off our
commuter trains without any help.
Come to think of it, when I was young and the LIRR commuter trains were
pulled by steam, the doors and traps were often left open between
stations and when the train had slowed sufficiently, we jumped off,
sometimes onto the ballast. I am not advocating returning to those
days, however.
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
I don't think it is a matter of law (in the U.S., that is).
Accessibility is a matter of law, but having humans to assist is not.
In fact, the ideal is that vehicles should be accessible without human
assistance.
Merritt
Adam H. Kerman
>>My understanding is that as long as compliance with FRA Tier II
>>requirements are ditched it would be possible to build traps for
>>boarding from low level platforms. Apparently Tier II requires there to
>>be no break in the sill or some such making traps for boarding from low
>>level platforms difficult to achieve.
>Interesting. I didn't realize that. Seems a good engineer could design
>steps that did not reduce the strength of the car.
Why can't it be done in the opposite manner that it's done in Chicago?
The steps are above the sill. When not in use, the lift serves as a step
well. When in use, the lift is deployed above the sill in the lifted
position and outside and below it touching the platform. So why couldn't
the steps be part of a more complicated lift mechanism that deploys
either as steps or a lift, below the sill?
>But FRA does not seem to put much store in "good" (read, innovative)
>engineering.
>I remember when the US was the world leader in such things. Sigh...
In the politics of regulation? Ba dump bump
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Montreal operates 10-car trains with low-level platforms with 2 crew
> members. All they have is an engineer and a conductor on the train.
What is their door accident rate and how does it compare to SEPTA?
Are their trains fully equipped with automatic doors and traps, or,
full length doors and no traps? Are all stations uniform? SEPTA's
traps are manual, doors may be automatic. Some stations are low
platform, some are high.
Are their platforms in good condition, that is, solid even pavement,
no sharp drop to it, etc.? SEPTA platforms are in lousy condition.
Do their passengers respect safety by not jumping off or trying to
board a moving train? SEPTA passengers act dangerously.
I don't know what the union rules are for crew members on SEPTA
trains.
I do know all SEPTA and City managements for the past 50 years
would've loved to have a situation like Montreal. But 50 years ago
unions were firmly in control. They certainly try to keep platforms
maintained, but track raising over time causes problems. It's
basically choosing to take a half a loaf over no loaf at all, that is,
keep trains running under less that optimum conditions or don't run
the trains at all. Which would you choose?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Well, I don't recall the NY city subway passengers needing any help to
> get on or off the cars. <grin>
NYC subways have flush high level platforms with automatic doors.
SEPTA railroad trains operate in a variety of conditions (see other
post).
Bob Scheurle
>
>> Montreal operates 10-car trains with low-level platforms with 2 crew
>> members. All they have is an engineer and a conductor on the train.
>
>full length doors and no traps?
Center doors are for high-level. End doors are full-length and for
low-level. No traps. See:
http://www.emdx.org/rail/DeuxMontagnes/2mntn01.jpeg
>Do their passengers respect safety by not jumping off or trying to
>board a moving train? SEPTA passengers act dangerously.
The doors are completely closed whenever the train is moving.
Merritt Mullen
<8eef6b36-7652-4b95...@w74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
Exactly what I meant when I implied one should design the system to
minimize labor costs. High-level platforms are cheap compared with
hiring enough "trainmen" to man all the doors.
Yes, I understand the problem with interference with freight trains. In
California that is addressed by using low floor (bi-level) cars that are
compatible with 8" high platforms.
Merritt
tobias benjamin koehler
>>> Montreal operates 10-car trains with low-level platforms with 2 crew
>>> members.
> Center doors are for high-level. End doors are full-length and for
> low-level. No traps. See:
> http://www.emdx.org/rail/DeuxMontagnes/2mntn01.jpeg
How do passengers know which doors to use at which station to get out of
the train? Are there labels inside so that people know where to go?
Uzbekistan has swinging-sliding doors with folding footsteps working for
both high and low platforms:
http://railfaneurope.net/pix/ne/Uzbekistan/car/08_735.jpg
http://railfaneurope.net/pix/ne/Uzbekistan/car/08_804.jpg
Bob Scheurle
wrote:
>
>> NYC subways have flush high level platforms with automatic doors.
>> SEPTA railroad trains operate in a variety of conditions (see other
>> post).
>
>Exactly what I meant when I implied one should design the system to
>minimize labor costs. High-level platforms are cheap compared with
>hiring enough "trainmen" to man all the doors.
So use equipment that works at both high and low level platforms without
needing extra trainmen. See:
http://www.emdx.org/rail/DeuxMontagnes/2mntn01.jpeg
Bob Scheurle
<tbk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Center doors are for high-level. End doors are full-length and for
>> low-level. No traps. See:
>> http://www.emdx.org/rail/DeuxMontagnes/2mntn01.jpeg
>
>How do passengers know which doors to use at which station to get out of
>the train? Are there labels inside so that people know where to go?
The snide answer is that the passengers in Montreal aren't morons.
The real answer is that only the terminal station, Central Station has
high-level platforms. All the others are low-level.
tobias benjamin koehler
> The snide answer is that the passengers in Montreal aren't morons.
"Moron" is probably an incorrect description for a person coming from
outside who is new to Montreal and doesn't know the platform
configuration of every station.
> The real answer is that only the terminal station, Central Station has
> high-level platforms. All the others are low-level.
All right .... I guess it's then posted somewhere?
Sadly, too many public transport systems are only tailored for regular
users who know their way, leaving first time users (all travellers from
other places who haven't been to that city before) confused. While
trains are usually quite clear, buses can be a complete mess if they
only display the line number and end station, and intermediate stops
aren't announced, or their name isn't posted clearly at the stop. (Looks
like a conspiracy of taxi drivers: Make buses so complicated that all
travellers from outside rather use taxis to get to their hotel ....)
Bob Scheurle
<tbk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The snide answer is that the passengers in Montreal aren't morons.
>
>"Moron" is probably an incorrect description for a person coming from
>outside who is new to Montreal and doesn't know the platform
>configuration of every station.
>
>> The real answer is that only the terminal station, Central Station has
>> high-level platforms. All the others are low-level.
>
>All right .... I guess it's then posted somewhere?
I think there are signs, but they're only in French.
>Sadly, too many public transport systems are only tailored for regular
>users who know their way, leaving first time users (all travellers from
>other places who haven't been to that city before) confused.
In this case, it's designed to confuse anyone who doesn't speak French.
The web site is only in French and the printed timetables on display are
only in French. They keep the English timetables out of view behind the
info desk at Central Station, where you have to ask for them. All this
for a line that serves the English-speaking part of Montreal Island.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
> Are their platforms in good condition, that is, solid even pavement,
> no sharp drop to it, etc.? SEPTA platforms are in lousy condition.
Repairing platforms is certainly cheaper than employing lots of train
staff.
> Do their passengers respect safety by not jumping off or trying to
> board a moving train? SEPTA passengers act dangerously.
Does the rolling stock still allow such stunts? I'll admit I did it
myself, 30 years ago, but the rolling stock allowing it disappeared a
decade ago.
> They certainly try to keep platforms
> maintained, but track raising over time causes problems.
Translation: They are either too dumb or not equipped for maintenance.
> It's
> basically choosing to take a half a loaf over no loaf at all, that is,
> keep trains running under less that optimum conditions or don't run
> the trains at all. Which would you choose?
So if you don't have enough money, the solution is: Running trains as
expensively as possible.
Now that's great economics.
Hans-Joachim
--
Real men in Canada!
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/6/6/5/1665.1199462400.jpg
Merritt Mullen
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
>
>
> > Are their platforms in good condition, that is, solid even pavement,
> > no sharp drop to it, etc.? SEPTA platforms are in lousy condition.
>
> Repairing platforms is certainly cheaper than employing lots of train
> staff.
>
>
> > Do their passengers respect safety by not jumping off or trying to
> > board a moving train? SEPTA passengers act dangerously.
>
> Does the rolling stock still allow such stunts? I'll admit I did it
> myself, 30 years ago, but the rolling stock allowing it disappeared a
> decade ago.
Rolling stock in California would not allow that. The train must be
stopped for the doors to open.
>
>
> > They certainly try to keep platforms
> > maintained, but track raising over time causes problems.
>
> Translation: They are either too dumb or not equipped for maintenance.
Track raising occurred when freight RRs, who do not operate passenger
trains, would re-ballast the tracks adjacent to a passenger platform,
with out regard for passenger usage. At some Amtrak stops (where Amtrak
does not own the station facilities) the platform would actually be
below the rail head.
In California, at least, all of the station served by California
regional or commuter trains have new platforms 8" above the rail,
serving low floor cars.
Merritt
gl4...@yahoo.com
Mullen <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Track raising occurred when freight RRs, who do not operate passenger
> trains, would re-ballast the tracks adjacent to a passenger platform,
> with out regard for passenger usage. At some Amtrak stops (where Amtrak
> does not own the station facilities) the platform would actually be
> below the rail head.
Freight railroads are a little less tolerant of track raising than they
used to be, since that makes problems for double stack cars under tight
bridges. That doesn't mean they pay close attention outside those trouble
spots though.
--
-Glennl
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Joe Versaggi
Gauntlet track is not the perfect solution either. Facing point
turbnouts are a risk factor for freight derailments.
Freight trains do hit 45MPH on the LIRR and can belt the sides of
platforms, but "modern" freight cars (i.e. stacks, van trains,
autoracks) do not go to Long Island.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Merritt Mullen schrieb:
> Track raising occurred when freight RRs, who do not operate passenger
> trains, would re-ballast the tracks adjacent to a passenger platform,
> with out regard for passenger usage.
That's fully logical. But do these SEPTA trains operate on a freight
railroad?
Clark F Morris
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>Merritt Mullen schrieb:
>
>
>> Track raising occurred when freight RRs, who do not operate passenger
>> trains, would re-ballast the tracks adjacent to a passenger platform,
>> with out regard for passenger usage.
>
>
>That's fully logical. But do these SEPTA trains operate on a freight
>railroad?
The West Trenton and Fox Chase lines are all or partly on the CSX
mainline, The line to Norristown probably has a fair amount of
freight. The Paoli and Trenton lines are on Amtrak with at least some
freight. The Chesnut Hill lines probably see little if any freight.
The Media and Warminster lines probably have some freight.
>
>
>Hans-Joachim
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Clark F Morris schrieb:
> The West Trenton and Fox Chase lines are all or partly on the CSX
> mainline,
So for this, it could be an argument.
> The line to Norristown probably has a fair amount of
> freight.
Owned and maintained by a freight railroad?
> The Paoli and Trenton lines are on Amtrak with at least some
> freight.
Hopefully, Amtrak will be able to follow maintenance procedures
compatible with passenger train operation.
> The Chesnut Hill lines probably see little if any freight.
> The Media and Warminster lines probably have some freight.
Owned and maintained by a freight railroad?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Center doors are for high-level. End doors are full-length and for
> low-level. No traps. See:http://www.emdx.org/rail/DeuxMontagnes/2mntn01.jpeg
Well unfortunately SEPTA does not have center doors, only end doors.
Since it has a mixture of high/low platforms, the traps must be raised
and lowered manually. Also, the older cars have manual doors. I
don't know how the cars on order are designed.
In any event, for SEPTA to have a system like Montreal it would have
to 1) modify all cars to remove traps from end doors and put in a full
length door, put in center doors, and 2) install interlockings so that
trains have make a platform stop instead of occassionally on the
center tracks over boards, 3) fix up all platforms to bring them up to
track height*, 4) improve procedures andd train-line controls so where
the train is longer than the platform (in many cases) only cars
platformed will have the doors open.
We can take a check . . . .
* Over time, it seems tracks get higher in relation to the platform,
creating a step problem. I've seen many railroads install a wooden
step to assist. I understand that ballst work over time increases the
height as they don't remove old ballast.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Exactly what I meant when I implied one should design the system to
> minimize labor costs. High-level platforms are cheap compared with
> hiring enough "trainmen" to man all the doors.
The system was designed 150 years ago. I don't know if labor costs
were an issue back then. It's been running at big deficits for the
last 50 years.
The Reading Company side was 100% low platform including Reading
Terminal. SEPTA has been slowly converting stations when they are
reconstructed. But I believe the vast majority remain low platform.
A few PRR side platforms were high in addition to the terminals. As
on the Reading side, more have been added.
High platforms are not that easy because 1) 'high 'n wide' freights
have trouble with them and need special tracks; 2) they don't work on
curves, 3) they don't work on cross track boarding which occurs at a
few stations, 4) some locations will require stairs due to steepness
which means expensive 'accessible' elevators are required, 5) many
locations have underground crossing tunnels reached by steps, they
will need 'accessible' elevators after reconstruction, 6) during
construction trains are delayed and passengers at that station are
inconvenieced, 7) parking spots may be lost and parking is scarce.
I know New York State converted its system in 1967. But NYS passed a
big bond issue and had tons of money to throw at the railroads.
Turned out NYS later ran out of money due to its profligate spending.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The real answer is that only the terminal station, Central Station has
> high-level platforms. All the others are low-level.
The SEPTA system is mixed.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> Does the rolling stock still allow such stunts? I'll admit I did it
> myself, 30 years ago, but the rolling stock allowing it disappeared a
> decade ago.
Yes.
> So if you don't have enough money, the solution is: Running trains as
> expensively as possible.
> Now that's great economics.
No, it's called making do with the hands you're dealt with.
Every psgr organization and every new management who comes in wants to
improve the system. That requires capital funds. Funds that aren't
available. Going to a state legislature who doesn't believe in the
system at all.
Also, in order to get the labor efficiencies you're speaking of, you
nust do 100% of the network. As described in another post, that's not
cheap to do.
In addition, as described, passengers _like_ the presence of on-board
crews; that is very important on some routes. Suburbanites do not
want to ride anonymous subways through tough neighborhoods.
NJT cut back on crews on some trains then realized it was it went too
far and increased crew size.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> In article <slrng1767l.f47.Usenetspam...@Odysseus.Zierke.com>,
> Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenetspam...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
>
> > > Are their platforms in good condition, that is, solid even pavement,
> > > no sharp drop to it, etc.? SEPTA platforms are in lousy condition.
>
> > Repairing platforms is certainly cheaper than employing lots of train
> > staff.
>
> > > Do their passengers respect safety by not jumping off or trying to
> > > board a moving train? SEPTA passengers act dangerously.
>
> > Does the rolling stock still allow such stunts? I'll admit I did it
> > myself, 30 years ago, but the rolling stock allowing it disappeared a
> > decade ago.
>
> Rolling stock in California would not allow that. The train must be
> stopped for the doors to open.
>
>
>
> > > They certainly try to keep platforms
> > > maintained, but track raising over time causes problems.
>
> > Translation: They are either too dumb or not equipped for maintenance.
>
> Track raising occurred when freight RRs, who do not operate passenger
> trains, would re-ballast the tracks adjacent to a passenger platform,
> with out regard for passenger usage. At some Amtrak stops (where Amtrak
> does not own the station facilities) the platform would actually be
> below the rail head.
Heck, on Amk NEC routes, Amk has done that past commuter stations.
Wooden steps had to be added. At stations on curves, the banking is
very high.
At Princeton Jct, NJ, the 20 year old high platform is not flush with
the train anymore, it's now about 7 inches below it. One must be
careful boarding the train. For wheelchair users (very rare), the
train crew has to unlock a "bridge plate".
Old terminal stations that had high platforms didn't have ballast, the
tracks were embedded in concrete, subway style.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Freight trains do hit 45MPH on the LIRR and can belt the sides of
> platforms, but "modern" freight cars (i.e. stacks, van trains,
> autoracks) do not go to Long Island.
Several SEPTA routes carry 'through' heavy freight trains which have
stacks and other large loads. Several stations were rebuilt in that
territory continued with low platforms. Most other SEPTA routes have
local freights on them, although the biggest cars may not be permitted.
Bob Scheurle
>In any event, for SEPTA to have a system like Montreal it would have
>to 1) modify all cars to remove traps from end doors and put in a full
>length door, put in center doors,
You continue to think inside the box.
They could use the doors at one end of each car for high-level platforms
and the doors at the other end for low-level platforms. No traps. So
the conductor/trainman/trainwoman would simply push a button for high
doors or low doors and the appropriate set would open automatically.
Bob Scheurle
So what?
Hans-Joachim Zierke
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
> In addition, as described, passengers _like_ the presence of on-board
> crews; that is very important on some routes. Suburbanites do not
> want to ride anonymous subways through tough neighborhoods.
Oh, that's the same in Germany: Poll the passengers, and they want
onboard crew.
In contrast, as soon as they vote with their wallets, no such preference
can be noticed. Trains with onboard crew haven't significantly more
passengers, and passengers will complain at once, if you want to raise
fares for paying additional crew.
So the options are:
1) Spending the money on onboard crew, with no or close to no result in
traffic figures.
2) Spending the money on additional trains, usually with a nice growth
in traffic, if done within a logical timetable.
Hans-Joachim
--
> Was mich allerdings überraschte, war eine Ansage kürzlich im ICE: Es habe
> bereits mehrfach ein Rauchmelder auf der Toilette ausgelöst.
Idee gut, Umsetzung mangelhaft. Es fehlt offensichtlich die an den Rauchmelder
gekoppelte Sprinkleranlage. Martin Friese in debm
Hans-Joachim Zierke
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
> Heck, on Amk NEC routes, Amk has done that past commuter stations.
> Wooden steps had to be added.
> At Princeton Jct, NJ, the 20 year old high platform is not flush with
> the train anymore, it's now about 7 inches below it.
And who at Amtrak got fired for such results?
Greg Gritton
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
>
>> Heck, on Amk NEC routes, Amk has done that past commuter stations.
>> Wooden steps had to be added.
>>
>> At Princeton Jct, NJ, the 20 year old high platform is not flush with
>> the train anymore, it's now about 7 inches below it.
>>
> And who at Amtrak got fired for such results?
>
You mean promoted, don't you?
The only ones who get fired are the ones who improve the system.
Greg Gritton
Richard Mlynarik
The correct solution -- and one not very far "outside the box" at all
-- is to remove the high-level platforms at the one (count it, ONE)
station in Montréal which causes the problem.
Multiple sets of doors for multiple levels of platforms is simply
insane and completely unsustainable operationally and financially.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
> High platforms are not that easy because 1) 'high 'n wide' freights
> have trouble with them and need special tracks;
...while in Europe, high 'n wide passes above 55 cm platforms. For
"really high", you are certainly correct here.
> 2) they don't work on
> curves,
Best demonstrated by the new main station of Berlin:
http://www.berlinonline.de/.img/foto/luftaufnahmen_berlin/luftaufnahmen_berlin-003.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/2/5/6/7256.1185728400.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/9/6/8/3968.1162144800.jpg
> 3) they don't work on cross track boarding which occurs at a
> few stations,
What's "cross track boarding"?
> 4) some locations will require stairs due to steepness
> which means expensive 'accessible' elevators are required,
This might be required, but certainly not for having a slightly higher
platform. That's just a few feet of ramp.
> 5) many
> locations have underground crossing tunnels reached by steps, they
> will need 'accessible' elevators after reconstruction,
That's a problem indeed, yes. Same here.
> 7) parking spots may be lost and parking is scarce.
???
Jishnu Mukerji
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
>
>
>> High platforms are not that easy because 1) 'high 'n wide' freights
>> have trouble with them and need special tracks;
>
> ...while in Europe, high 'n wide passes above 55 cm platforms. For
> "really high", you are certainly correct here.
In the US ideally something like 55 to 75cm high platform with steps
deployed within/from the cars to make up the difference would be the
best compromise solution, but as is usual in the US compromises are hard
to come by with a majority of folks apparently frozen in their specific
positions.
>> 2) they don't work on
>> curves,
>
> Best demonstrated by the new main station of Berlin:
> http://www.berlinonline.de/.img/foto/luftaufnahmen_berlin/luftaufnahmen_berlin-003.jpg
> http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/2/5/6/7256.1185728400.jpg
> http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/9/6/8/3968.1162144800.
I think Hancock is talking about full high platform as found in the NY
area by tracks that are banked for an 80mph curve as for example at
Metropark in NJ. That definitely does not work.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nec-metropark.jpg
>> 3) they don't work on cross track boarding which occurs at a
>> few stations,
>
> What's "cross track boarding"?
This is when the track adjacent to the platform is out of operation for
some reason and the next track (which has no high level platform by it)
is used for boarding. Hancock overstates this position in the sense that
railroads in the NEC do use bridges across the shutdown track when the
outage is for a significant amount of time. For shorter outages at most
stations there is a short segment of low platform at the end of the
station from where one can cross the out of service track to board on
the next track. Usually suitable path across the track is in place for
such occasional usage.
>> 4) some locations will require stairs due to steepness
>> which means expensive 'accessible' elevators are required,
>
> This might be required, but certainly not for having a slightly higher
> platform. That's just a few feet of ramp.
Yes, I donlt think this is a huge issue. Typically though when stations
get new high platform, that opportunity is taken to put in other better
facilities for the disable persons to get to the platform. So often it
is the case that a station at which the disabled couldn't make it to the
platform at all previously can make it to the platform after the
improvements, e.g. Newark Broad Street station in NJ, which is getting
elevators in conjunction with conversion to high level platform.
>> 5) many
>> locations have underground crossing tunnels reached by steps, they
>> will need 'accessible' elevators after reconstruction,
>
> That's a problem indeed, yes. Same here.
But I don't see what this has to do with high level platforms. Even if
no high level platform was built in order to make it possible for
diabled persons to use said underground passage one would need to
install elevators.
>> 7) parking spots may be lost and parking is scarce.
>
> ???
I don't understand this either.
Joseph D. Korman
> Hans-Joachim Zierke wrote:
>
>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
>>
>
>>> 3) they don't work on cross track boarding which occurs at a
>>> few stations,
>>
>>
>> What's "cross track boarding"?
>
>
> This is when the track adjacent to the platform is out of operation for
> some reason and the next track (which has no high level platform by it)
> is used for boarding. Hancock overstates this position in the sense that
> railroads in the NEC do use bridges across the shutdown track when the
> outage is for a significant amount of time. For shorter outages at most
> stations there is a short segment of low platform at the end of the
> station from where one can cross the out of service track to board on
> the next track. Usually suitable path across the track is in place for
> such occasional usage.
>
Here's an example from last year on the New Haven Line of Metro-North:
http://www.thejoekorner.com/scripted-photo-display.shtm?http://www.thejoekorner.com/photos/mncrr-nh/7731074.jpg^MNCR-NH%20Line-Rowayton
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
Stephen Sprunk
"Hans-Joachim Zierke" <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote in message
news:slrng1d7s9.lb5...@Odysseus.Zierke.com...
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
>> High platforms are not that easy because 1) 'high 'n wide' freights
>> have trouble with them and need special tracks;
>
> ...while in Europe, high 'n wide passes above 55 cm platforms. For
> "really high", you are certainly correct here.
When a Merkin refers to "high" platforms without giving a specific height,
they mean the 51in (130cm) platforms found in the NE US.
Those are clearly incompatible with freight. 55cm platforms would not be,
as you've pointed out several times, but those same people absolutely refuse
to accept 55cm platforms when 51in platforms and floors work "just fine"
(despite their complaints in the next breath that they don't work).
>> 2) they don't work on curves,
>
> Best demonstrated by the new main station of Berlin:
> http://www.berlinonline.de/.img/foto/luftaufnahmen_berlin/luftaufnahmen_berlin-003.jpg
> http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/2/5/6/7256.1185728400.jpg
> http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/9/6/8/3968.1162144800.jpg
Indeed.
>> 3) they don't work on cross track boarding which occurs at a
>> few stations,
>
> What's "cross track boarding"?
Due to insufficient number of interlockings or poorly scheduled track work,
some stations in the NE US board from the center tracks, which do not have
their own platforms. The result is that passengers are forced to board from
wooden planks set at 0in ATOR on an adjacent track or, worse, from the
ballast or ground.
Of course, proper design and operating practices would not have that as a
requirement, but remember you're dealing with US RRs here.
>> 4) some locations will require stairs due to steepness
>> which means expensive 'accessible' elevators are required,
>
> This might be required, but certainly not for having a slightly higher
> platform. That's just a few feet of ramp.
Indeed. I wish I had some pictures handy of how we deal with that at our
"high blocks" on our LRT line; the platforms are mostly at 8in (20cm), but
there are facilities for level boarding of wheelchairs to the 51in (130cm)
floor cars with a bridge plate.
>> 5) many locations have underground crossing tunnels reached
>> by steps, they will need 'accessible' elevators after reconstruction,
>
> That's a problem indeed, yes. Same here.
Question for Merkins: When does the law require a currently non-accessible
station to be upgraded, other than for lawsuit avoidance? Would raising the
platform height from 8in to 55cm require full elevators, or would it just
need to be no less inaccessible than it is today?
>> 7) parking spots may be lost and parking is scarce.
>
> ???
He is assuming that raising the platform a little over a foot is going to
require massive amounts of land for ramps and elevators, which presumably
would reduce the land available for parking. Unless it's a matter of the
change forcing new ADA compliance for existing facilities, it's a red
herring. The space needed _just for the platforms to be raised_ is
negligible.
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
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> They could use the doors at one end of each car for high-level platforms
> and the doors at the other end for low-level platforms. No traps. So
> the conductor/trainman/trainwoman would simply push a button for high
> doors or low doors and the appropriate set would open automatically.
You just doubled dwell time, since you eliminated 50% of the egress
space. Not acceptable.
(Not to mention the confusion of passengers on which direction of the
car to exit.)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> >The SEPTA system is mixed.
>
> So what?
So, it's not gonna work, that's what, at least without expensive
capital modifications, for which the money from the rest of the state
will NOT be forthcoming.
The only time capital funds are available is after a car burns up from
old age. For instance, the Broad Street Subway's cars were 50 years
old and in miserable condition. Too bad. When the cars started
burning up with people inside of them (old electrical insulation has
this annoying tendency to wear out after 50 years or so), and people
got shredded on the plain window glass (safety glass wasn't available
in 1928); they finally got money for new cars. The cars lasted for 55
years.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
>
> > Heck, on Amk NEC routes, Amk has done that past commuter stations.
> > Wooden steps had to be added.
> > At Princeton Jct, NJ, the 20 year old high platform is not flush with
> > the train anymore, it's now about 7 inches below it.
>
> And who at Amtrak got fired for such results?
Why should anyone have gotten fired? The powers that be saw that
Amtrak and commuter trains had an adversial relationship, not a
cooperative one. Amtrak looks out for itself, and commuter trains are
not Amtrak's interest nor problem (and vice versa).
In some ways service was actually better when it was all Penn
Central. At least it was uniform (perhaps uniformly bad).
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> > 3) they don't work on cross track boarding which occurs at a
> > few stations,
>
> What's "cross track boarding"?
It's where passengers stand in the bed of one track to board a train
standing on the next track.
> > 4) some locations will require stairs due to steepness
> > which means expensive 'accessible' elevators are required,
>
> This might be required, but certainly not for having a slightly higher
> platform. That's just a few feet of ramp.
You don't understand the big problem. ANY change to a station
requires it to be made "accessible", which means there must be an
elevator or set of ramps to all platforms and crossings.
Adding a few steps here or there is not a big deal if the old
staircases could be left alone. But they would need elevators to the
street, and possibly elevators to the underground tunnel as well.
Many stations are hemmed in a narrow cut where there is no room for a
ramp.
> > 7) parking spots may be lost and parking is scarce.
>
> ???
Most stations do not have enough parking to meet demand and there is
no free space to expand it. In stations that are tight fits, the only
way to add elevators and/or reamps would be to go into the parking
spaces. So we're reducing attractiveness in order to save it.
Stupid!
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> In the US ideally something like 55 to 75cm high platform with steps
> deployed within/from the cars to make up the difference would be the
> best compromise solution, but as is usual in the US compromises are hard
> to come by with a majority of folks apparently frozen in their specific
> positions.
It's not the people who are frozen, but their existing fleets of
hundreds (or thousands) of vehicles that would need modification. I
strongly doubt the high 51" floor of a Silverliner could be reduced to
fit 55 centimeter platform flush, at least not without extensive
structural modfication.
Then there's the problem of stations that are shared with Amtrak and
NJT trains. If SEPTA goes to 55 cm, will the other carriers do so as
well? Or will we get into the ludricrous situation of separate
platforms for separate trains, and all the switching mess,
inflexibility, and DELAY that will cause? For example, at Trenton NJ,
an Amtrak, SEPTA, or NJT train can and DO load/unload on ANY of the
four station tracks as operating conditions demand.
> I think Hancock is talking about full high platform as found in the NY
> area by tracks that are banked for an 80mph curve as for example at
> Metropark in NJ. That definitely does not work.
There are equally bad places on SEPTA tracks shared with NEC, as well
as on its own tracks.
> This is when the track adjacent to the platform is out of operation for
> some reason and the next track (which has no high level platform by it)
> is used for boarding. Hancock overstates this position in the sense that
> railroads in the NEC do use bridges across the shutdown track when the
> outage is for a significant amount of time.
No, I am NOT talking about an outage, but rather standard operation.
See Langhorne. Occassionally Bryn Mawr.
> Yes, I donlt think this is a huge issue. Typically though when stations
> get new high platform, that opportunity is taken to put in other better
> facilities for the disable persons to get to the platform. So often it
> is the case that a station at which the disabled couldn't make it to the
> platform at all previously can make it to the platform after the
> improvements, e.g. Newark Broad Street station in NJ, which is getting
> elevators in conjunction with conversion to high level platform.
Elevators are expensive to install, operate, and maintain.
> But I don't see what this has to do with high level platforms. Even if
> no high level platform was built in order to make it possible for
> diabled persons to use said underground passage one would need to
> install elevators.
If nothing is being done the station does NOT have to be modified for
the handicapped accessibility. But since you're putting in high
platforms, you have to go all the way and put in elevators as well.
A local school board is faced with this quandry. They have a 50 year
old building that needs rehab work. But now they have to add in all
sorts of accessibility they didn't have before, so it's cheaper to
tear the bldg down and rebuild. Either way it's very expensive, much
more so than just rennovating the old stuff that needs fixing. The
citizens are furious.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Here's an example from last year on the New Haven Line of Metro-North:
>
What happens when the train comes on the track that is bridged, as it
does in SEPTA territory?
Joseph D. Korman
The track is out of service for an extended time. I presume that the
interlocking has markers on the switch controls to prevent accidental
routing and the track has temporary stop signals before each station.
I've seen similar bridges next to stations along the NJ part of the
Northeast Corridor too:
http://www.thejoekorner.com/scripted-photo-display.shtm?http://www.thejoekorner.com/photos/nec-2002/6d18054.jpg^NJT-Edison-2006
There are other stations where provision is made for short term cross
track exiting. I think this is what you mean for SEPTA:
http://www.thejoekorner.com/scripted-photo-display.shtm?http://www.thejoekorner.com/photos/nec-2002/7728007.jpg^NEC-Metropark-2007
and
http://www.thejoekorner.com/scripted-photo-display.shtm?http://www.thejoekorner.com/photos/nec-2002/7728008.jpg^NEC-Metropark-2007
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Those are clearly incompatible with freight. 55cm platforms would not be,
> as you've pointed out several times, but those same people absolutely refuse
> to accept 55cm platforms when 51in platforms and floors work "just fine"
> (despite their complaints in the next breath that they don't work).
Which specific people "refuse to accept 55cm" platforms? The River
Line has them.
The problem is not the people, but rather fleet of hundreds of cars
that simply wouldn't work without very expensive structural
modification.
You cannot take a 51" floor Silverliner and convert it into a 55 cm
floor. At least not economically.
> Of course, proper design and operating practices would not have that as a
> requirement, but remember you're dealing with US RRs here.
Or taking one railroad and splitting it up into multiple carriers
sharing the same set of tracks.
Actually, the Upper Harlem line worked that way at many of its
stations until it was electrified. When there is light traffic it
works out ok.
> Question for Merkins: When does the law require a currently non-accessible
> station to be upgraded, other than for lawsuit avoidance? Would raising the
> platform height from 8in to 55cm require full elevators, or would it just
> need to be no less inaccessible than it is today?
I'm not a lawyer, but handicapped groups are very aggressive to sue
for their rights. If a station was modified, they'd expect full
accessibility as a result and would litigate if not received.
What the law defines as required I don't know. But it seems any time
a station is rebuilt it becomes fully accessible.
>
> >> 7) parking spots may be lost and parking is scarce.
>
> > ???
>
> He is assuming that raising the platform a little over a foot is going to
> require massive amounts of land for ramps and elevators, which presumably
> would reduce the land available for parking. Unless it's a matter of the
> change forcing new ADA compliance for existing facilities, it's a red
> herring. The space needed _just for the platforms to be raised_ is
> negligible.
I've seen the mass of ramps and the like added to stations and it DOES
take up room. Princeton Jct, for example, uses a network of ramps on
both sides to cover three stories: the tunnel, street level, and
platform level. Handicapped ramps must be gentle so they need room
for switchbacks.
Many SEPTA stations are tightly hemmed in a cut or their neighborhood,
with no room for these additions.
With all due respect to other posters, it's not so easy to apply
textbook solutions to real world problems, especially where there's no
money and politics involved. I take exception to the statements
"managers are frozen; don't think"; these are obviously by people who
never actually worked as a managers and had to make use of very
limited resources to get major returns. As stated, every SEPTA
manager going back years wanted to change the system to make it more
efficient, but was blocked by politics and other factors from doing
so. (For example one current and two prior US Senators and one prior
city mayor saw that no changes were made to the Chestnut Hill line).
Further, it appears some had errorenous assumptions about the
geography of the SEPTA system, not realizing the curves and tightness
of many of its stations. They were built 150 years ago, and
modernized 75 years ago against the efficiency standards of their
era. Geez, it was only a few years ago that they replaced hand-crank
wayside telephones.
Bob Scheurle
>
>> They could use the doors at one end of each car for high-level platforms
>> and the doors at the other end for low-level platforms. No traps. So
>> the conductor/trainman/trainwoman would simply push a button for high
>> doors or low doors and the appropriate set would open automatically.
>
>You just doubled dwell time, since you eliminated 50% of the egress
>space. Not acceptable.
That depends on the design of the doors. And without having to fiddle
with traps, dwell time could be reduced.
>(Not to mention the confusion of passengers on which direction of the
>car to exit.)
Again, you lack vision. The low doors of one car would be next to the
high doors of the next car. So each vestibule would have access to both
high and low platforms (except at the ends of the train, of course).
With you, it is always that it can't be done. You should be working for
NJ Transit.
Bob Scheurle
wrote:
>The correct solution -- and one not very far "outside the box" at all
>-- is to remove the high-level platforms at the one (count it, ONE)
>station in Montréal which causes the problem.
There isn't a problem in Montreal. We're talking about SEPTA and how to
reduce their labor costs.
>Multiple sets of doors for multiple levels of platforms is simply
>insane and completely unsustainable operationally and financially.
Well, it's being done and it works.
Bob Scheurle
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>> In addition, as described, passengers _like_ the presence of on-board
>> crews; that is very important on some routes. Suburbanites do not
>> want to ride anonymous subways through tough neighborhoods.
>
>
>Oh, that's the same in Germany: Poll the passengers, and they want
>onboard crew.
>
>In contrast, as soon as they vote with their wallets, no such preference
>can be noticed. Trains with onboard crew haven't significantly more
>passengers, and passengers will complain at once, if you want to raise
>fares for paying additional crew.
There are better (read: cheaper) ways to provide security than putting a
bunch of highly-paid conductors and trainmen on every train.
Bob Scheurle
<jis...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>I think Hancock is talking about full high platform as found in the NY
>area by tracks that are banked for an 80mph curve as for example at
>Metropark in NJ. That definitely does not work.
I never had a problem boarding trains there. Maybe it's because I'm not
a klutz?
Bob Scheurle
>ANY change to a station requires it to be made "accessible",
I believe you are wrong.
Bob Scheurle
>
>> >The SEPTA system is mixed.
>>
>> So what?
>
>So, it's not gonna work, that's what, at least without expensive
>capital modifications, for which the money from the rest of the state
>will NOT be forthcoming.
What's not going to work? (For you, everything is impossible.)
Jishnu Mukerji
> On Apr 28, 8:10 pm, Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenetspam...@Zierke.com>
> wrote:
>
>>hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
>>
>>
>>>Heck, on Amk NEC routes, Amk has done that past commuter stations.
>>>Wooden steps had to be added.
>>>At Princeton Jct, NJ, the 20 year old high platform is not flush with
>>>the train anymore, it's now about 7 inches below it.
>>
>>And who at Amtrak got fired for such results?
>
>
> Why should anyone have gotten fired? The powers that be saw that
> Amtrak and commuter trains had an adversial relationship, not a
> cooperative one. Amtrak looks out for itself, and commuter trains are
> not Amtrak's interest nor problem (and vice versa).
So how is Amtrak trains stopping at PJC on the same track with the same
non-level boarding not an Amtrak problem? Or are you suggesting that
Amtrak is now into cutting its own nose to spite its face too?
Joseph D. Korman
Yes, but only half the number of passengers and board/exit at each location.