First of new Metra double-deck cars shipped from Japan
David Fossett
coaches built by Nippon Sharyo in Toyokawa, Japan, will be shipped to
the USA on the 16th.
The stainless steel cars each seat approximately 140 passengers, and
have "gallery-style" corridor connections - whatever that means. The
cars will be shipped to the USA in batches of two to three, with
shipments continuing until 2005. This represents the largest foreign
export order for Nippon Sharyo.
--
Dave Fossett
Saitama, JAPAN
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jtrains/
Kenneth Lin
"David Fossett" <re...@via.newsgroup> wrote in message
news:qHCO8.117$Lw6.1...@news1.dion.ne.jp...
> I have just read news that the first of 300 Metra double-deck commuter
> coaches built by Nippon Sharyo in Toyokawa, Japan, will be shipped to
> the USA on the 16th.
> The stainless steel cars each seat approximately 140 passengers, and
> have "gallery-style" corridor connections - whatever that means. The
> cars will be shipped to the USA in batches of two to three, with
> shipments continuing until 2005. This represents the largest foreign
> export order for Nippon Sharyo.
The gallery style corridors railcars are different from the double deck
trains seen in Japan and elsewhere in the world (two full decks (example:
certain green cars on the series 100 Shinkansen trainset)).
Instead, with the gallery style railcars, the lower level is the primary
seating level and it is the level at which passengers pass from railcar to
railcar and enter the train. These cars have a very tall interior ceiling,
and feature a single row of seats over the lower level of pair of seats on
either side of the aisle. Thus, the lower level features a 2-2 seating
arrangement; the upstairs gallery features a 1-1 seating arrangement stacked
above. Of course the upstairs seats each require one narrow aisle as the
open gallery divides the upstairs deck. Some of the upstairs seats are
longitudinal to the carbody to squeeze more seats.
Many conductors like this type of railcar as they can collect tickets from
both the upstairs and downstairs passengers in one pass through the car. On
the other hand some transportation advocates consider this design to be
dated, inefficient and customer unfriendly.
Kenneth Lin
Hank Tiffany
> both the upstairs and downstairs passengers in one pass through the car. On
> the other hand some transportation advocates consider this design to be
> dated, inefficient and customer unfriendly.
Now *that* argument has been going on since 1956.
Bottom line-they like 'em in Chicago, not so much
anywhere else.
Hank
Hitler, he only had one ball/Goering, had two but they were small
Himmler, was very simmlar/But poor old Goebbels had no balls at all
Philip Nasadowski
"Kenneth Lin" <Kenne...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Many conductors like this type of railcar as they can collect tickets from
> both the upstairs and downstairs passengers in one pass through the car.
That's about the only advantage I could see. The LIRR's double deckers
must be hated by conductors.
> On the other hand some transportation advocates consider this design to be
> dated, inefficient and customer unfriendly.
Single levels still dominate in the Northeast. 3+2 seating. When the
LIRR went to double deckers on the diesel lines, they found that the DD
cars didn't hold much more than the single level cars did. passengers
generally don't care for them, they're slower loaders, and they're
cramped. I suspect the gallery cars require one to be a contortionist
to get to the upper seats, but I've never seen good interior shots.
Given an M-1 holds 125 passengers, with very easy access, I don't see
the big gains. The M-7's capacity got cut by ADA. I seriously don't
see why you need a handicapped bathroom in every other car, but the LIRR
does. *shrug*
IIRC, European style DDs have more doors than US types.
David Eerdmans
Philip Nasadowski <n...@spam.com> schreef in artikel
<no-7FD420.18...@55.in-addr.news.rcn.net>...
>
> IIRC, European style DDs have more doors than US types.
Virtually all European double deck cars have two doors on each side, both
the type with doors on the lower level:
http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pix/ch/SBB_CFF_FFS/car/ic_double_deck/Bt-Dino1.
jpg
and those with doors on a "middle" level:
http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pix/nl/car/DDM/ddar15.jpg
I believe that also most North-American double deck cars have two doors on
each side... the "GO Toronto" style double deck cars have, IIRC...?
The only cars with more than 2 boarding points are the new double deck cars
for urban service in Paris (RER):
http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pix/fr/metro/Paris/misc/Z2251510.jpg
but I don't think that it's a good idea: almost half of the car is filled
with stairs and loading platforms. It leaves little room for seats...
The gallery design sounds interesting, though I don't think it has many
advantages...
Regards,
David
randee
Gallery cars on the other roads, such as the C&NW somehow have less of a
cramped feel to me, but are quite noisy. The IC electric single level
cars cars with their 2+2 seating were quite comfortable and roomy, altho
the gear train and air compressors were noisy. No 'rattles' tho. Other
single level cars, such as those on the RI, were locomotive hauled,
roomy, and mechanically quiet, but 'rattley'. I imagine the worst for
conductors were the old 5 or 6 across seating, 2 doors per seat, IC
cars.
Philip Nasadowski wrote:
<<snip some>>
>
> In article <fGJO8.43016$UT.29...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Kenneth Lin" <Kenne...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Many conductors like this type of railcar as they can collect tickets from
> > both the upstairs and downstairs passengers in one pass through the car.
>
> That's about the only advantage I could see. The LIRR's double deckers
> must be hated by conductors.
>
> > On the other hand some transportation advocates consider this design to be
> > dated, inefficient and customer unfriendly.
>
> Single levels still dominate in the Northeast. 3+2 seating. When the
> LIRR went to double deckers on the diesel lines, they found that the DD
> cars didn't hold much more than the single level cars did. passengers
> generally don't care for them, they're slower loaders, and they're
> cramped. I suspect the gallery cars require one to be a contortionist
> to get to the upper seats, but I've never seen good interior shots.
>
>
--
wf.
Wayne Flowers
Randee Greenwald
ran...@zianet.com
Access Systems
> In article <fGJO8.43016$UT.29...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Kenneth Lin" <Kenne...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Many conductors like this type of railcar as they can collect tickets from
>> both the upstairs and downstairs passengers in one pass through the car.
> That's about the only advantage I could see. The LIRR's double deckers
> must be hated by conductors.
and they can be slow loaders/unloaders at terminals, and I would not want
to have to evacuate the car in an emergency
>> On the other hand some transportation advocates consider this design to be
>> dated, inefficient and customer unfriendly.
> Single levels still dominate in the Northeast. 3+2 seating. When the
well the DD is making inroads, MARC went to DD because of platform
lengths, running out of room at some stations, also space at Union Station
in DC, sometimes they are three deep on the platforms, long hike if your
train is last one out the platform.
> Given an M-1 holds 125 passengers, with very easy access, I don't see
> the big gains. The M-7's capacity got cut by ADA. I seriously don't
no it didn't get cut by ADA, it got cut by the design
> see why you need a handicapped bathroom in every other car, but the LIRR
> does. *shrug*
you need an accessible bathroom at any place you have
restrooms. especially since a Wheelchair user can hardly go to the next
car to GO!
> IIRC, European style DDs have more doors than US types.
doors vs seats, that argument has been going on for a long time
Bob
--
ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob
NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail acce...@smartnospam.net
NO MSWord docs in e-mail Access Systems, engineers
NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX powered* access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged. They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender as
soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems. Thanks
David Fossett
> Instead, with the gallery style railcars, the lower level is the
primary
> seating level and it is the level at which passengers pass from
railcar to
> railcar and enter the train. These cars have a very tall interior
ceiling,
> and feature a single row of seats over the lower level of pair of
seats on
> either side of the aisle. Thus, the lower level features a 2-2 seating
> arrangement; the upstairs gallery features a 1-1 seating arrangement
stacked
> above. Of course the upstairs seats each require one narrow aisle as
the
> open gallery divides the upstairs deck. Some of the upstairs seats are
> longitudinal to the carbody to squeeze more seats.
Interesting. It was the first time I had come across this term, so
thanks for the explanation.
Adam H. Kerman
>Many conductors like this type of railcar [gallery cars] as they can
>collect tickets from both the upstairs and downstairs passengers in one
>pass through the car. On the other hand some transportation advocates
>consider this design to be dated, inefficient and customer unfriendly.
The gallery isn't there for conductor preference. The Burlington figured out
that the design allowed a conductor to lift tickets passing more seats versus
a single-level car on a single pass through without requiring an increase in
the number of the train crew.
Customer unfriendly? Please point to any survey that indicates that this
design has had an adverse affect on ridership.
Dated? That's silly. Either a specific design meets operating requirements,
or it doesn't. Please note that Metra has not yet changed trainman staffing
nor work, so the operating environment isn't any different than it was in
the '50's.
Inefficient? Additional dwell time is required at on line stations, but
Chicago doesn't have the same kind of terminal capacity issues as are found
in New York. Metra doesn't well serve potential commutes to anywhere but the
Chicago Loop, but this car design is not what keeps Metra from exploiting
the larger market.
It's not the right design for all operating environments, no. But how many
commuter rail projects are being designed for other than a commute to the
central business district from outlying suburbs?
charles hobbs
>
> It's not the right design for all operating environments, no. But how many
> commuter rail projects are being designed for other than a commute to the
> central business district from outlying suburbs?
Metrolink Inland Empire-Orange County line (San Bernardino-Irvine)...
PS: Whatever happened to the EJ&E beltway commuter rail project for Chicagoland?
Tim Johnson
news:3D0C8DF5...@socal.rr.com...
> "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>
> PS: Whatever happened to the EJ&E beltway commuter rail project for
Chicagoland?
>
Was never beyond long-term planning stages. Then NIMBYS
in communities on line, such as upscale Barrington, threatened
to stop political contributions, etc., putting project in back burner
limbo. I couldn't figure who would have used this service
anyway. PACE buses in the same areas run empty most of the
time.
Kenneth Lin
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
news:ugodg42...@corp.supernews.com...
> Kenneth Lin <Kenne...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Many conductors like this type of railcar [gallery cars] as they can
> >collect tickets from both the upstairs and downstairs passengers in one
> >pass through the car. On the other hand some transportation advocates
> >consider this design to be dated, inefficient and customer unfriendly.
>
> The gallery isn't there for conductor preference. The Burlington figured
out
> that the design allowed a conductor to lift tickets passing more seats
versus
> a single-level car on a single pass through without requiring an increase
in
> the number of the train crew.
>
> Customer unfriendly? Please point to any survey that indicates that this
> design has had an adverse affect on ridership.
>
> Dated? That's silly. Either a specific design meets operating
requirements,
> or it doesn't. Please note that Metra has not yet changed trainman
staffing
> nor work, so the operating environment isn't any different than it was in
> the '50's.
I never stated nor implied that the Gallery design was somehow a product of
Conductor preferences.
Somehow you confuse my comments that some Conductors like the gallery design
and that some rail advocates do not like this design as a blanket
condemnation of this type of railcar design. My posting was not meant to be,
and is not a critique nor condemnation of this type of railcar design.
__
By the way, your statement that the operating environment has not changed
since "the '50's" is not true.
The operating environment has changed, at least on the Metra Electric
service since "the '50's." Current Metra Electric service features
Automated Fare Collection, which is generally implemented elsewhere in the
world to reduce on board crew staffing. AFC where implemented in most
systems worldwide, has dispensed with the need for on board crews to check
every single ticket on a systematic basis. This makes the so-called
Automated Fare Collection system on the Metra Electric service all the more
puzzling that it is still there.
Why implement and maintain an AFC system if there is no change in on board
staffing and traditional Conductor based base collection is retained?
Kenneth Lin
Michael Kincaid
> Customer unfriendly?
Besides the fact that it necessitates less efficient use of space,
since the top galleries are 1-1 instead of 2-2 as with a true bi-level
and cannot use the entire length of the car due to the center
vestibule...
The steep entrance stairway is not very friendly to those who are
carrying bikes, carrying luggage, or have a mobility impairment. The
fact that there's only a single doorway significantly increases dwell
time. When someone in a wheelchair has to board, the use of the
wheelchair lift, a huge contraption that must lift over the entrance
stairway much like the lift on a high-floor bus, makes the dwell time
even worse, whereas with a bi-level low-floor car, wheelchairs require
only a simple ramp to board.
The low ceiling height over the lower seats, which are under the upper
galleries, and the low ceiling height of the upper aisles in the
galleries are an inconvenience for tall passengers. Due to the low
ceiling heights in both cases, the windows cannot be very tall, adding
to the claustrophobic feel created by the low ceilings.
The high floor and high center of gravity aren't very good for the
cars' ride quality, and the high ceiling over the center part of the
passenger compartment makes them noisy.
Metra and Caltrain are the only commuter railroads in the country that
still operate gallery railcars. This probably isn't a coincidence.
Merritt Mullen
ln146...@sneakemail.com (Michael Kincaid) wrote:
> Metra and Caltrain are the only commuter railroads in the country that
> still operate gallery railcars. This probably isn't a coincidence.
I predict that once the Caltrain riders find out how superior the
tri-level Bombardier "GO" cars are the gallery cars will be on their way
out. After all, with the "honor system" of ticket inspection, how the
ticket inspector has to pass through the cars becomes a non-issue.
Merritt
Dan Behr
>
> The steep entrance stairway is not very friendly to those who are
> carrying bikes, carrying luggage, or have a mobility impairment.
I don't believe I've ever witnessed passengers attempting to carry bikes to the upper level. On Caltrain,
half of the the cab control car "A" end is dedicated to passengers with bicycles. Mobility impaired
passengers (or "PNA" - passengers needing assistance) do not attempt to reach the upper level.
>
> The
> fact that there's only a single doorway significantly increases dwell
> time.
That "single doorway" is 6' 6 1/2" wide on bilevel gallery cars, which translates to three abreast
loading. Not a problem on Caltrains or Metra. Compare that to a trap door or doorway width accommodating
one at a time.
> When someone in a wheelchair has to board, the use of the
> wheelchair lift, a huge contraption that must lift over the entrance
> stairway much like the lift on a high-floor bus, makes the dwell time
> even worse, whereas with a bi-level low-floor car, wheelchairs require
> only a simple ramp to board.
>
What percentage of passengers require this device? Likely quite small. I timed this very operation in
California a few weeks ago: 3 1/2 to 4 minutes, depending on the location of the hand-crank lift along
the station platform. In Chicago, it's less, due to a built-in lift built by Ricon. In any case, the
dwell time impact is minimal, due to padding built into the schedule.
>
> The low ceiling height over the lower seats, which are under the upper
> galleries,
True, but veteran riders (defined as after one week) become accustomed quickly.
> and the low ceiling height of the upper aisles in the
> galleries are an inconvenience for tall passengers.
Not really bad at all. I'm 6' 3" and have no problem. Besides, it beats standing.
> Due to the low
> ceiling heights in both cases, the windows cannot be very tall, adding
> to the claustrophobic feel created by the low ceilings.
>
So what. Most people are reading or sleeping anyway.
>
> The high floor and high center of gravity aren't very good for the
> cars' ride quality, and the high ceiling over the center part of the
> passenger compartment makes them noisy.
>
Not true. The center of gravity on a bilevel gallery car is as low or actually lower than standard cars.
I'd spoken to an engineer for ENSCO, a consulting firm working with Booz-Allen on these topics last week
at the APTA conference and this topic came up during a discussion of the "lean test". These cars do just
fine.
>
> Metra and Caltrain are the only commuter railroads in the country that
> still operate gallery railcars. This probably isn't a coincidence.
Also not so. Montreal operates the 900 series cars, which are bilevel gallery car design. The trucks are
identical to the 7700, 7800 and 8700 series ex-CNW cars in operation on Metra. Also, Virginia Railway
Express has placed 5 ex-CNW bilevels into service, with another 10 - 15 to be delivered later this year.
And, some of these cars are in operation in the Madison, WI area, as well.
Dan Behr
Steve Hoskins wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 18:33:09 -0500, Dan Behr <db...@ais.net> wrote :
>
> >> > Customer unfriendly?
> >>
> >> The steep entrance stairway is not very friendly to those who are
> >> carrying bikes, carrying luggage, or have a mobility impairment.
> >
> >I don't believe I've ever witnessed passengers attempting to carry bikes to the upper level. On Caltrain,
> >half of the the cab control car "A" end is dedicated to passengers with bicycles. Mobility impaired
> >passengers (or "PNA" - passengers needing assistance) do not attempt to reach the upper level.
>
> Dan, he's NOT talking about bikes going to the upper level. That
> stairway into the floor level of the car on the galleries IS rather
> steep.
Oops... yes, I realized that after I re-read the post. However, on Caltrains, I've seen bicyclists mount the
stairs with no difficulty. After all, the cyclists are in good shape and bikes today are quite light.
>
>
David Nebenzahl
Speaking as one who used to take their bike regularly on Caltrain, I can
attest that carrying a bike into the gallery cars is a pain in the ass--even
for those who are "in good shape".
--
The mighty only appear mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!
- Graffiti seen in West Oakland, June 2002
Merritt Mullen
David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> Dan Behr wrote:
>
> > Oops... yes, I realized that after I re-read the post. However, on
> > Caltrains, I've seen bicyclists mount the
> > stairs with no difficulty. After all, the cyclists are in good shape and
> > bikes today are quite light.
>
> Speaking as one who used to take their bike regularly on Caltrain, I can
> attest that carrying a bike into the gallery cars is a pain in the ass--even
> for those who are "in good shape".
Aren't bikes required to be fastened down in special racks? That the way
it is on Metrolink. Why would someone want to take their bike to their
seat with them? Wouldn't it bother the other passengers to have bikes in
the aisles?
Merritt
David Nebenzahl
What on earth are you talking about? I think this illustrates the folly of
"outsiders" commenting on a non-local (LA vs. S.F. Bay Area) issue, which
seems to be fairly rampant in this newsgroup (ba.transportation). Yes, I
know this is crossposted ...
At any rate, what we're talking about here is the difficulty of getting the
damn bikes up the entry stairs into the railcar. Yes, on Caltrain they're
fastened down in "special racks" (in reality, shop-made jerry-rigged metal
contraptions retrofitted into the gallery cars where seats were removed).
Nobody takes their bike to their seat. (That's more the style on BART, where
you'll often find bikes in the aisles. For the most part, this actually
works pretty well, though I'm sure Scott Mace will disagree with that.)
don't use this address outside HP
[[ Michael Kinkaid wrote: ]]
>> The
>> fact that there's only a single doorway significantly increases dwell
>> time.
> That "single doorway" is 6' 6 1/2" wide on bilevel gallery
> cars, which translates to three abreast
> loading. Not a problem on Caltrains or Metra. Compare that
Maybe it's not a problem, but the dwell time is significantly longer
than it could be with multiple doors and no stairs. Consider the
following example train car on a commuter line in Japan (go to
Shibuya station and examine the Toyoko line trains to check my
counting if you're so inclined):
Example car has seats for about 100 and room for another 100
standees (with straps). 3 or 4 doors open onto the platform,
each door being about 4 or 5 feet wide. No stairs, i.e.,
a wheelchair could be wheeled from platform directly onto
the train. Boarding passengers stand on either side of where
the door will appear (i.e., they don't block path of passengers
getting off). This is facilitated by marks on the platform, and
when the train stops, the doors line up to within about a foot
of the markings (the driver is fired if he misses by more than
about 30cm). Passengers walk straight off the train (the way IS
clear before them) and THEN the boarding passengers then walk on.
A single door (even one over 6' wide), unpredictable stopping points
for the train, boarding passengers milling around the door, stairs
to negotiate (and our senior citizens DO take considerably longer
with those stairs than they would if the platform were level with
the floor of a stair-less passenger car), etc., do contribute to
a longer dwell time than would be tolerated by Tokyu, JR, Keio, etc.
#DRIFT on
There's something else about the trains there vs here that has
impressed me ever since I first saw it. There's a guy in the back
of the last car on the train, and as the train pulls out of the
station, he has his head out the window (on the platform side)
and his finger on the EMERGENCY STOP button. Only after the
train is completely clear of the platform does he remove his hand
from the button and shut the door. This is one reason why injury
accidents on the platform are so rare in Japan.
--
Neither I nor my future ex-employer will accept any liability for any
problems or consequential loss caused by relying on this information.
Collin Park Not a statement of my employer.
"Are you gonna be pessimistic like this all week?" - BF, 2002-06-17
randee
times I have ridden the various Chicago commuter lines, as well as NJT,
I have never seen anybody try to bring a bike aboard the train. I have
seen people take bikes a couple times on the subway in NYC, but that's
about it. Now I have seen bike racks at the occasional station for
people riding a bike to the station from home, but I don't recall ever
seeing more than one or two bikes in those even.
David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>
>
> What on earth are you talking about? I think this illustrates the folly of
> "outsiders" commenting on a non-local (LA vs. S.F. Bay Area) issue, which
> seems to be fairly rampant in this newsgroup (ba.transportation). Yes, I
> know this is crossposted ...
>
> At any rate, what we're talking about here is the difficulty of getting the
> damn bikes up the entry stairs into the railcar. Yes, on Caltrain they're
> fastened down in "special racks" (in reality, shop-made jerry-rigged metal
> contraptions retrofitted into the gallery cars where seats were removed).
--
David Nebenzahl
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 05:22:43 GMT, Merritt Mullen
> <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote :
>
> >Aren't bikes required to be fastened down in special racks? That the way
> >it is on Metrolink. Why would someone want to take their bike to their
> >seat with them? Wouldn't it bother the other passengers to have bikes in
> >the aisles?
>
> cars on Caltrain. Bicycles are then fasted to the wall, five or six
> deep, on a special holder. They ARE secure during travel.
More misinformation from Southern California. (Close, but no cigar).
- Half, not most, of the seats were removed from the "forward" (cab-wise)
section of the cab cars which function as "bike cars".
- The "special holders" (previously described in my message: jerry-rigged
welded metal fixtures in actuality) hold 4 bikes each. 6 holders, for a
total of 24 bikes[1]. The bikes are secured to the "special holders" with
bungee cords. And yes, they are secure during travel--unless someone hasn't
propped up their bike very well, in which case they have been known to bump
into passengers.
Maybe I should start making random speculative comments on
la.transportation.
[1] It is true that, depending on the conductor on duty, more than 24 bikes
may be carried at a time. But 24 is the official limit.
--
"I actually have a great deal of sympathy for Arthur Andersen;
I think they're a great company."
- Larry Ellison, Chairman Oracle Corp.
Merritt Mullen
Steve Hoskins <sjhho...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 05:22:43 GMT, Merritt Mullen
> <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote :
>
>
> >Aren't bikes required to be fastened down in special racks? That the way
> >it is on Metrolink. Why would someone want to take their bike to their
> >seat with them? Wouldn't it bother the other passengers to have bikes in
> >the aisles?
>
> Most of the seats were removed from the lower front section of the cab
> cars on Caltrain. Bicycles are then fasted to the wall, five or six
> deep, on a special holder. They ARE secure during travel.
I understand, but I think someone was explaining how passengers carry
their bikes to the upper gallery level (in Chicago, I guess).
Merritt
David Nebenzahl
> Umm, yes this must indeed be a local Cal. thing, as in all the years and
> times I have ridden the various Chicago commuter lines, as well as NJT,
> I have never seen anybody try to bring a bike aboard the train. I have
> seen people take bikes a couple times on the subway in NYC, but that's
> about it. Now I have seen bike racks at the occasional station for
> people riding a bike to the station from home, but I don't recall ever
> seeing more than one or two bikes in those even.
You seem to be missing a major point here, which is that Caltrain, unlike
Metra or NJT, is intentionally set up for bicyclists with on-board storage
racks (24 bikes per "bike car"). We're not talking about people randomly
bringing bikes aboard. (This came about as a result of massive and sustained
pressure from bike advocates, not from Caltrain itself.)
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > What on earth are you talking about? I think this illustrates the folly of
> > "outsiders" commenting on a non-local (LA vs. S.F. Bay Area) issue, which
> > seems to be fairly rampant in this newsgroup (ba.transportation). Yes, I
> > know this is crossposted ...
> >
> > At any rate, what we're talking about here is the difficulty of getting the
> > damn bikes up the entry stairs into the railcar. Yes, on Caltrain they're
> > fastened down in "special racks" (in reality, shop-made jerry-rigged metal
> > contraptions retrofitted into the gallery cars where seats were removed).
--
Merritt Mullen
David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> What on earth are you talking about? I think this illustrates the folly of
> "outsiders" commenting on a non-local (LA vs. S.F. Bay Area) issue, which
> seems to be fairly rampant in this newsgroup (ba.transportation). Yes, I
> know this is crossposted ...
Crossposting is indeed part of the confusion here.
> At any rate, what we're talking about here is the difficulty of getting the
> damn bikes up the entry stairs into the railcar.
That explains it. In my mind, I thought the gallery cars had low-level
boarding, so that the car floor was approximately at the level of the
platform (that is the situation with the Bombardier "GO" cars). When
stairs were mentioned, I assumed it was the stairs to the upper level. On
the Bombardier cars, there are no "entry stairs", just a slight step up to
enter the cars. Each car (on Metrolink, anyway) has provisions to tie
down your bike just inside the doors.
Merritt
Philip Nasadowski
wrote:
> Umm, yes this must indeed be a local Cal. thing, as in all the years and
> times I have ridden the various Chicago commuter lines, as well as NJT,
> I have never seen anybody try to bring a bike aboard the train*.
I rarely see it on the LIRR. Or handicapped commuters. In fact, I've
never seen a wheelchair bound person use a wheelchair bathroom on a
train, ever..
I'd love to take my bike on the train, but regulations prohibit any bike
with a motor comming abord ;)
> I have seen people take bikes a couple times on the subway in NYC,
> but that's about it.
I've seen xmas trees on the subway. I once nearly lugged home a console
radio on the subway, and I've carried old Tek 500 series oscilloscopes
on the LIRR (50+lb, big box).
*An interesting aside - when I went to visit a freind at Weslyian (sp)
in Middletown, CT, I couldn't find a parking spot for my bike (big
Harley). The public safety guy I asked gave me a baffled look, then
directed me to the logical spot - the bicycle rack by the side of the
building. I wish I had a camera - the sight of a big, custom painted,
very chromed Harley-Davidson next to a bunch of Treks and Schwinna was
quite ammusing, to say the least.
But then, it's a bike, you park it in a bike rack, I guess....
Merritt Mullen
David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> Steve Hoskins wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 05:22:43 GMT, Merritt Mullen
> > <mmull...@mchsi.com> wrote :
> >
> > >Aren't bikes required to be fastened down in special racks? That the way
> > >it is on Metrolink. Why would someone want to take their bike to their
> > >seat with them? Wouldn't it bother the other passengers to have bikes in
> > >the aisles?
> >
> > Most of the seats were removed from the lower front section of the cab
> > cars on Caltrain. Bicycles are then fasted to the wall, five or six
> > deep, on a special holder. They ARE secure during travel.
>
> More misinformation from Southern California. (Close, but no cigar).
Merritt Mullen is indeed from Southern California, but Merritt Mullen did
not make that posting. I know absolutely nothing about how bicycles are
handled on Caltrain cars and would not provide an opinion on it. I
thought the message came from some one up north (Steve Hoskins?).
Merritt
David Nebenzahl
More confusion: did I say you made that posting? I was replying to a post by
Steve Hoskins, who's from SoCal too, I believe, and is another down-south
kibitzer here who likes to make speculative postings about stuff up here. (I
think he drives for a bus company down there.)
Richard Mlynarik
> >What percentage of passengers require this device? Likely quite small. I timed this
> >very operation in California a few weeks ago: 3 1/2 to 4 minutes, depending on the
> >location of the hand-crank lift along the station platform.
7 to 8 minutes on and off and pretty soon you're talking _real_ time.
And let's not forget that outside the third world of US rail transportation,
you're LATE after "just" one 3 1/2 minute delay, and moreover you're likely
to cause follow-on schedule problems throughout the network.
Even on Caltrain, with its sparse schedule and sloppy operation, a minute
of two delay will compound as station meets fall foul of the "station hold-out
rule" (no, I'm not going to explain this; it's too appalling.)
It also doesn't matter what "percentage of passengers" use/need (not the same thing!)
the lifts, it's what percentage of trains (or passengers) are affected by the use
of the lifts. 0.2% of the passengers can cause 95% of the delays.
> In Chicago, it's less, due to a built-in lift built by Ricon. In any case, the
> dwell time impact is minimal, due to padding built into the schedule.
Nonsense. The built-in lifts (when they work) are the same at Caltrain, are now
present on every train in service, and are not significantly faster.
I've timed it. And I've been on many, many, many late Caltrain services.
> There's no padding in Caltrain's schedules.....you lose two minutes
> somewhere, you live with it the rest of the trip. (Too many close
> stops....)
Nonsense. Caltrain services take 11 minutes to travel between Santa Clara
and San Jose (timekeeping statistics point) stations southbound, but 5 minutes
northbound. Likewise 10 minutes (12 on weekends!) betweeen 22nd Street and
Fourth and Townsend (timekeeping statistics point) stations northbound, but
5 minutes southbound.
http://www.transitinfo.org/Sched/CT/_/A/
Caltrain end-to-end schedules were also padded out by about 10 minutes a little
over over a year ago in order to improve managerial "on time" reports while allowing
service to continue to degrade. There's a LOT of slack in a schedule which allows
96 minutes for a 47.5 mile (76km) trip, even with 22 intermediate stops (which is
NOT a lot by normal, first world suburban rail operations standards.)
Richard Mlynarik
>
[...]
> You seem to be missing a major point here, which is that Caltrain, unlike
> Metra or NJT, is intentionally set up for bicyclists with on-board storage
> racks (24 bikes per "bike car").
Now 32.
A map of the San Francisco Peninsula (narrow, with a train line running along
it), combined with knowledge of the geography (mostly flat along the train line,
covered with a suburban hell of parking lot dominated office parks and low density
housing), the climate (mediterranean), and the connecting public transportation services
(abysmal, due to the aforementioned land use patterns) explains why bike+train+bike is a
very popular (and frequently oversubscribed) transportation choice.
Hank Fung
Steve Hoskins <sjhho...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>There's no padding in Caltrain's schedules.....you lose two minutes
>somewhere, you live with it the rest of the trip. (Too many close
>stops....)
They have the normal Amtrak-style definition of "on time" as at the end
of the route, and so padding is built into the last time. Of course
trains will be late on the line, but on paper, as long as it arrives
at the end on time, it's on time.
--
Hank Fung fun...@ocf.berkeley.edu
Go Bears! http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~fungus
randee
don't think bike storage is necessary, why on earth would Caltrain waste
passenger space on bike storage? Why would anybody want to ride a
bicycle in S.F.?? You lost me on that one.
David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>
>
> You seem to be missing a major point here, which is that Caltrain, unlike
> Metra or NJT, is intentionally set up for bicyclists with on-board storage
> racks (24 bikes per "bike car"). We're not talking about people randomly
> bringing bikes aboard. (This came about as a result of massive and sustained
> pressure from bike advocates, not from Caltrain itself.)
>
> >
Mike Kincaid
wrote:
> I predict that once the Caltrain riders find out how superior the
> tri-level Bombardier "GO" cars are the gallery cars will be on their
> way out.
Not likely, given that they just spent countless millions buying 20 new
"antique-replica" gallery cars, much like Metra did, and then
refurbishing all 73 of the old ones.
Access Systems
g> In article <3D0F740E...@zianet.com>, randee <ran...@zianet.com>
>> Umm, yes this must indeed be a local Cal. thing, as in all the years and
>> times I have ridden the various Chicago commuter lines, as well as NJT,
>> I have never seen anybody try to bring a bike aboard the train*.
> I rarely see it on the LIRR. Or handicapped commuters. In fact, I've
> never seen a wheelchair bound person use a wheelchair bathroom on a
> train, ever..
hmmmm, almost all the time when I ride someone in a wheelchair uses the
can. and the train that I usually ride gets 2-3 People in Wheelchairs
every day....
Bob
--
ASCII Ribbon Campaign accessBob
NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail acce...@smartnospam.net
NO MSWord docs in e-mail Access Systems, engineers
NO attachments in e-mail, *LINUX powered* access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged. They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender as
soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems. Thanks
randee
combination baggage/coach car that could hold a bike if one had a way to
get it aboard. Ah yes, I've used those scopes (somehow the model number
545 sticks, but dunno).
Philip Nasadowski wrote:
>
>
> I'd love to take my bike on the train, but regulations prohibit any bike
> with a motor comming abord ;)
>
> > I have seen people take bikes a couple times on the subway in NYC,
> > but that's about it.
>
> I've seen xmas trees on the subway. I once nearly lugged home a console
> radio on the subway, and I've carried old Tek 500 series oscilloscopes
> on the LIRR (50+lb, big box).
>
>
Philip Nasadowski
wrote:
> Ah yes, I've used those scopes (somehow the model number
> 545 sticks, but dunno).
I've got both a 545 and a 545A. With the famously drifty CA plug in,
though it's not bad after 30 minutes of warm up, and the very nice 1A1,
and an L-20 (spectrum analyzer, sort of).
The 1A1 in the 545A is good for 30+ mhz, and honest, too. I'm currently
using it to restore a '50 Admiral TV set. It's nice to be able to see
all the waveforms. The delay sweep is a great feature, too, as is
single shot.
I like 'em cause they're built like tanks, stay in calibration a long
time (my 545A is nearly spot on, despite last being calibrated 20 yeaers
ago), and are built to be repaired and run forever - all the internal
wiring is laid out neatly, all the hardware is screwed in, everything's
labeled, and it's all nice grade stuff, not paper wax shit.
I'd but a digital if Tek would make onethat had the nice solid feel and
indestructability on the 500's, but the current stuff just isn't close.
The 450 somethings are supposed to be real nice too. As a bench scope
for TV repair, my 545A is really a nice thing.
And being tube, an accidental 500+V AC wack won't kill it :)
I have a scope cam, but need to get more film (polaroid!), great for
diagnosing those hard TV problems - post them up on the web and let
others comment :)
I need to get a new CRT for the 545, though. I'd like a longer
persistence one for slow speed and single shot captures. Or just a
funky color (purple! :)
Michael Kincaid
> - The "special holders" (previously described in my message: jerry-rigged
> welded metal fixtures in actuality) hold 4 bikes each. 6 holders, for a
> total of 24 bikes[1].
Since late last year, 8 holders, for a total of 32 bikes.
> [1] It is true that, depending on the conductor on duty, more than 24 bikes
> may be carried at a time. But 24 is the official limit.
There are 40 bungee cords (5 per holder) but I doubt 40 bikes could
actually fit in that space, and 32 is the official maximum.
Michael Kincaid
> I understand, but I think someone was explaining how passengers carry
> their bikes to the upper gallery level (in Chicago, I guess).
I was talking about people carrying their bikes *onto the train* up
the steep entrance stairway. The gallery cars have high floors,
unlike the Bombardier cars, which is a major advantage to the
Bombardier cars.
Ulf Kutzner
> "David Fossett" <re...@via.newsgroup> wrote in message
> news:qHCO8.117$Lw6.1...@news1.dion.ne.jp...
> > I have just read news that the first of 300 Metra double-deck commuter
> > coaches built by Nippon Sharyo in Toyokawa, Japan, will be shipped to
> > the USA on the 16th.
> > The stainless steel cars each seat approximately 140 passengers, and
> > have "gallery-style" corridor connections - whatever that means. The
> > cars will be shipped to the USA in batches of two to three, with
> > shipments continuing until 2005. This represents the largest foreign
> > export order for Nippon Sharyo.
> The gallery style corridors railcars are different from the double deck
> trains seen in Japan and elsewhere in the world (two full decks (example:
> certain green cars on the series 100 Shinkansen trainset)).
I was a bit surprised to see there can be 3+3 seating in the
upper deck after guys on uk.railway confirmed there isn't
anywhere in the world (well, they made a joke out of 3+3):
https://memim.com/e1-series-shinkansen.html
Well, for metro style double deckers, one would have to think about
two level boarding (like on A-380), which isn't what I see for a near
futer as it has to be provided in all stations.
For underground, same problem with all stations, and tunnels
would be significantly more expensive. Most systems are
3rd rail instead of overhead wire to allow cheaper tunnels.
BTW, what about double deckers in India? They should have the
loading gauge for that.
Regards, ULF