Does anybody have any ideas, or knowledge, as to why these new union station to airport lines decided to go with high platforms and single level equipment? The only other new railroad style lines that I know of have all been low level platforms and multi level equipment.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Faster operation is assured by level boarding where passengers do not need to use stairs, either inside or outside the cars, to enter or leave. This usualy means low-floor cars, with all the added mantenance expense that involves, for modern streetcars and for light rail lines that have street trackage, even when that street trackage is exclusive. Metro North has converted nearly all its stations to higih platforma and contia nues to use and order single-level cars. LIRR is for the most part the same, but has some double-level cars in push-pull service.
On a per-passenger basic, double-level cars are more expensive, not less. They are valuable because fewer trains are required to move the same number of passenger, and if the tracks and/or stations are capacity-restrained, they can be essential to get the job done. The original impetus for the CB&Q gallery cars was to reduce the charges for using Union Station, figured on a per-car basis.
Note that station dwell times are longer with double-deck cars, slower loading and unloading.
High platform ("Continental style") at both ends, since time immemorial, has been the approach when 'zero floor height' is wanted -- as for example when passengers have lots of luggage to manage. This is likely to remain the standard for 'dedicated' airport lines where the stops are defined, and the construction budget is high.
Meanwhile, modern developments in ELF (extremely-low-floor) transit equipment have made much the same convenience possible for 'random-access' equipment, and with only slight and simple concrete curbing and paving this will give just the same effect as high platforms (albeit with steps or ramps inside the cars needed to pass over the areas where the trucks are located).
There is no simple way to make the two types of system compatible; this is particularly evident where large numbers of passengers must enter or exit the equipment in a short time (as with transit equipment during rush hour -- or when transferring between flights at an airport...)
There was considerable discussion about this with respect to the proposed Memphis 'airport line', which was redefined to be a glorified streetcar project serving a number of low-income neighborhoods the route traversed (as otherwise its multibillion-dollar cost would be politically unjustifiable). When a great many of the stops involve low-floor access, the primary stops must be low-floor also, and of course this saves dramatically on construction and probably on maintenance cost; it also precludes the accidents that come with people falling off platforms or trying to cross tracks and finding they can't get back up before a train comes.
One thing that has changed recently is the massive design emphasis on modern extremely-low-floor transit equipment that is also capable of high acceleration and high speed; this has provided a good choice of OTS equipment at what promises to be competitive cost. On the other hand, it's probably still going to be cheaper to use vehicles with a flat floor above trucks and underfloor equipment, like traditional subway cars (or buses), especially when the individual vehicles are comparatively short (as with traditional kinds of personal-rapid-transit design, or those using many kinds of autonomous vehicle).
My own opinion, for what little it's worth, is that airport administrations may have security concerns (or invent them) regarding access. When it is possible to define the stops at all points on a shuttle or loop, it will make sense to design the equipment for lowest cost (or compatibility with other routes, as for example in Philadelphia, or with subway equipment in New York) and use high platforms.
Rolling stock maintenance costs are considerably higher for low-floor high performance cars, because of the complexity of the truck designs and the motor-to-axle gearing, unless wheel motors are used, and they are more expensive for given power ratings. They are also much less forgiving of deteriorated track, if not as bad in that department as a 4-wheel Birney.
Denver Airport already has a subway that connects the 3 concourses with the main terminal. It is easy with pasengers and all that roller luggage. They did not have to look far to see what system works.
How about handicap accessability? You don't have to purchase and maintain expensive wheelchair elevators when the cars load and unload only at high level platforms. And with single level cars you don't have any internal stairs
I think that the Denver cars are essentially copies of Metro-North M8s, so maybe the goal was to not substantially modify equipment?
The Toronto line makes less sense, as GO trains use low level platforms.
NorthWest I think that the Denver cars are essentially copies of Metro-North M8s, so maybe the goal was to not substantially modify equipment? The Toronto line makes less sense, as GO trains use low level platforms.
the Denver cars are copies of the SEPTA new fleet. And the Toronto line makes no sense unless you are a rider towing a couple of bags. The GOTransit cars are airline passenger unfriendly. As a user of many airports services this is the right thing to do. Not enough traffic for locomotive hauled services.
Thanks, I should have checked before posting. They are very similar to the Silverliner Vs.
daveklepper Faster operation is assured by level boarding where passengers do not need to use stairs, either inside or outside the cars, to enter or leave.
Faster operation is assured by level boarding where passengers do not need to use stairs, either inside or outside the cars, to enter or leave.
One doesn't need stairs to enter or leave. It's entirely possible to have the platform and railcar floor on the same level. Maybe not cost effective when freight and passenger trains share station tracks, not an issue with these 2 passenger dedicated lines. I've long wondered why places like Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington DC have low level platforms that are one step below every railcar's floor or 1st step.
daveklepper This usualy means low-floor cars, with all the added mantenance expense that involves, for modern streetcars and for light rail lines that have street trackage, even when that street trackage is exclusive.
This usualy means low-floor cars, with all the added mantenance expense that involves, for modern streetcars and for light rail lines that have street trackage, even when that street trackage is exclusive.
You're letting streetcars creep into a grade separated dedicated railroad discussion.
daveklepper Metro North has converted nearly all its stations to higih platforma and contia nues to use and order single-level cars. LIRR is for the most part the same, but has some double-level cars in push-pull service.
Metro North has converted nearly all its stations to higih platforma and contia nues to use and order single-level cars. LIRR is for the most part the same, but has some double-level cars in push-pull service.
These are legacy systems that have lots of clearance issues that make it difficult to squeeze high cars. Do you know of insurmountable clearance issues with the Denver or Toronto airport lines?
daveklepper Note that station dwell times are longer with double-deck cars, slower loading and unloading.
Although I concede that's true of the multi levels we see in the northeast US that doesn't have to be. I'd love to see statistics that show multi levels such as Toronto's, Miami's, Los Angeles's, etc... with their 2 sets of generously wide double doors per car and gigantic flat vestibules, if one can call those areas around the doors vestibules, since they're not at the ends, are slower at stations than conventional single level cars, especially at low level platforms.
daveklepper Rolling stock maintenance costs are considerably higher for low-floor high performance cars, because of the complexity of the truck designs and the motor-to-axle gearing, unless wheel motors are used, and they are more expensive for given power ratings. They are also much less forgiving of deteriorated track, if not as bad in that department as a 4-wheel Birney.
are you talking about railroads or streetcars? I challenge anyone to claim they're a bigger trolly lover than me, but I'd like to keep this discussion devoted to railroads.
DS4-4-1000 How about handicap accessability? You don't have to purchase and maintain expensive wheelchair elevators when the cars load and unload only at high level platforms. And with single level cars you don't have any internal stairs
I don't see why you have to have wheelchair elevators if the platform and the railcar entrance are the same height. Other than when mixed with freight cars I don't see why we have so many stations whose low level platforms are a step lower than every passenger railcar.
gardendance DS4-4-1000 How about handicap accessability? You don't have to purchase and maintain expensive wheelchair elevators when the cars load and unload only at high level platforms. And with single level cars you don't have any internal stairs I don't see why you have to have wheelchair elevators if the platform and the railcar entrance are the same height. Other than when mixed with freight cars I don't see why we have so many stations whose low level platforms are a step lower than every passenger railcar.
Downtown Denver to the airport is a scheduled 35 minutes. 5 intermediate stops using low level platforms would add 5 additional minutes and if each stop had an ADA passenger the required stops would have added 10 minutes. That would severly repulse repeat riders.
I don't see a problem with constructing a patform on a level with the lower floor of a double deck car. Of course there is still the stairs to the upper floor. Much of the lower floor would be reserved for handicap/senior, and the rest would be quickly taken up by airline passengers with luggage and airport workers. This leaves the rest of the passengers to struggle up stairs with luggage and maybe kids in tow. Double deckers may be fine for commuters, but they are a disaster for airport travelers with luggage.
Using high level platforms probably allows for one less train set to cover the schedule. + one or 2 less crews per day. That is significant.
Toronto's GO trains are configured for high-volume, multiple-stop commuter service, running primarily during rush hours. Many of these trains run 10-12 cars long and are still packed. The vestibule areas are OK for strollers, bikes, and luggage, but the assumption is that most passengers will be carrying little more than a purse, briefcase, or backpack.
The new Union Pearson Express airport train service is designed for fast, frequent, point-to-point service over a relatively short distance (relative to the GO trains). Fares are much higher than GO, and they are obviously not expecting as many passengers per train, as a trainset I recently saw was only three cars long. It's not a commuter train, nor is it a transit option for the neighborhoods it passes through as I don't think it will stop (or maybe make one stop?). They are targeting only the people who are currently using taxis, limos, or their personal vehicles to connect between the airport and downtown core. Speed and luggage-friendliness have clearly trumped passenger volume per train as design considerations.
Yep, that sounds like what must have happened, in both Denver and Toronto they must have decided that these lines will be to the airport only, emphasizing making them as attractive as possible to air travelers with luggage.
The downsides as I see it are that
It's less attractive to airport workers
Also less attractive to commuters in general to any of the other stops on those lines besides the airport. I assume they also intend to market those stops primarilly to luggage bearing passengers.
It makes the lines less amenable to expansion or infill. For example Philadelphia's airport line, which I've heard carries a fair number of airport worker commuters, added a stop just before the airport, which is not one of the lowest performing stops on the system, and I assume doesn't handle many luggage bearing folks.
What's it like in Europe? Don't they have at least a few regular railroad lines for which the airport is just another stop on an inter-city run? How have those lines handled the balance between maximum passengers and maximum luggage?
When the South Shore Railroad updated to high level platforms at my Hegewisch station, it was the greatest improvements ever. Now, one man can open all the doors. When the stairs were needed, only every other pair of doors were available due to personnel being needed to open the floor hatch, often sweep snow off the icy steps, and close up upon leaving. the dwell time was lengthy due to the narrow steps, especially with older folks and people with disabilities.
gardendanceWhat's it like in Europe? Don't they have at least a few regular railroad lines for which the airport is just another stop on an inter-city run? How have those lines handled the balance between maximum passengers and maximum luggage?
Most of the intercity passengers have luggage, too. The cars are thus designed with luggage space in mind, and so are not designed to stuff in as many people as possible like in commuter cars. High level platforms are standard in Europe.
boilerbob7 When the South Shore Railroad updated to high level platforms at my Hegewisch station, it was the greatest improvements ever. Now, one man can open all the doors. When the stairs were needed, only every other pair of doors were available due to personnel being needed to open the floor hatch, often sweep snow off the icy steps, and close up upon leaving. the dwell time was lengthy due to the narrow steps, especially with older folks and people with disabilities.
Like other folks who've responded to this thread, you don't mention the other part of the subject: single level equipment. I think the dwell times might be a bit shorter if South Shore and IC electric had gone for the galley equipment otherwise standard in Chicago or the hotdog style multi level equipment like Toronto and many other more recent operations and platforms just high enough to allow no step access.
NorthWest Most of the intercity passengers have luggage, too. The cars are thus designed with luggage space in mind, and so are not designed to stuff in as many people as possible like in commuter cars. High level platforms are standard in Europe.
Yes, although one step is required on some single level cars. This is built in to the cars, though, and the platforms are above railhead level by a couple of feet.
The Illinois Central electric lines have operated bi-level gallery coaches since they were re-equipped in the early 1970's. The new equipment currently being delivered is also a bi-level gallery design. IC has used high-level platforms at least since the lines were electrified in 1926.
South Shore has a mixed fleet of single-level coaches and bi-level gallery coaches.
gardendanceNorthWest Most of the intercity passengers have luggage, too. The cars are thus designed with luggage space in mind, and so are not designed to stuff in as many people as possible like in commuter cars. High level platforms are standard in Europe. I'm surprised that high level platforms are standard in Europe. Are you sure you don't mean platforms just high enough to allow no step access? The pictures in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_Duplex don't show what I'm used to for a North American high level platform.
European Union standards for platform height offer 2 options: 550mm (21.7") and 760mm (29.9").
Historically, platform heights have varied from rail height to truly high level at 38" and anything in between, with higher platforms being common in rapid transit systems and major long distance stations. UK has a tradition of high platforms on most stations.
gardendance Yep, that sounds like what must have happened, in both Denver and Toronto they must have decided that these lines will be to the airport only, emphasizing making them as attractive as possible to air travelers with luggage. The downsides as I see it are that It's less attractive to airport workers Also less attractive to commuters in general to any of the other stops on those lines besides the airport. I assume they also intend to market those stops primarilly to luggage bearing passengers. ...
...
Why is a high platform single level car less attractive to commuters? I believe Metro North (NY) is all high platform single level.
Thanks for that excellent question. I should have been clearer. I didn't mean the car only, I meant the operation entire operation, particularly the price and how many stations besides just downtown to the airport. I'm not sure what Denver's price is, but Toronto's pricing looks pretty steep to me.
http://www.upexpress.com/en/docs/Union_Pearson_Express_Fare_Fact_Sheet_EN.pdf
You made me look, now I see Toronto mentions qualified airport employee discounted $10 fares.
Denver has 5 intermediate stops on a 22 mile route. Those darn Canadians say their route's 25km, and 2 intermediate stops.
In Philadelphia, my home town, it's not much of an exaggeration to say we have some railroad lines with so many closely spaced stops that you can see the next station from another station's platform.
gardendance ... Toronto's pricing looks pretty steep to me. http://www.upexpress.com/en/docs/Union_Pearson_Express_Fare_Fact_Sheet_EN.pdf You made me look, now I see Toronto mentions qualified airport employee discounted $10 fares.
And that is $10 each way -- or you can buy a monthly pass for $300.
I think this is an example of one government department taking advantage of another to make the finances look good, although I also think this could have been discussed in the 'fact sheet' in a more straightforward way. I find it hard to believe that Metrolinx does not KNOW whether their steeply-priced card is a tax-deductible expense for typical airport employees.
The problem for the airport workers is predominantly cash flow. The Metrolinx people may think the workers will be 'made whole' for the steeper out-of-pocket transport expense months later, at tax payment or refund time, but in the meantime they will have substantially less effective take-home pay.
Ignoring whether the rail line gives other advantages such as travel time, safety, ability to sleep during the ride, comfort, aren't you assuming $10 each way is more expensive than what it now costs Toronto airport employees to get to work?
I too found the "we believe ... is eligible for a ... federal tax credit" wording was weird, I agree that they should know if it's eligible or not, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt since it's not their tax credit program they might be worried that the feds could change the rules any time. Also I'm not familiar with Canada's rules, maybe not every employee is eligible for the credit, for example maybe it has income limits, and I wouldn't expect the railroad to be responsible for telling users every detail of the tax program.
I don't see where they list fares between Union and either of the intermediate stops. That hints that they're really marketing this as just an airport line.
Denver seems to hint that they intend to carry intermediate commuters, http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/ec_40
8. How much will riding the East Rail Line cost? The East Rail Line will follow the current RTD zone based fare structure that is used on buses and light rail. Trips that stay in one zone, or go from one zone to another will be charged a local fare, where trips that travel over three zones will be charged an express fair. As Denver International Airport is a marquee location, trips to DIA will cost the same as a Level II fare on the SkyRide bus service to DIA.
8. How much will riding the East Rail Line cost?
The East Rail Line will follow the current RTD zone based fare structure that is used on buses and light rail. Trips that stay in one zone, or go from one zone to another will be charged a local fare, where trips that travel over three zones will be charged an express fair. As Denver International Airport is a marquee location, trips to DIA will cost the same as a Level II fare on the SkyRide bus service to DIA.
gardendance In Philadelphia, my home town, it's not much of an exaggeration to say we have some railroad lines with so many closely spaced stops that you can see the next station from another station's platform.
That isn't that big of a deal. That situation exists on the IC electric north of 115th Street and on most of the L in Chicago.
One pretty much expects it on a non-railroad line, but not on what I consider traditional railroad such as the US's FRA compliant lines, which I believe Denver's airport line to be.
gardendanceOne pretty much expects it on a non-railroad line, but not on what I consider traditional railroad such as the US's FRA compliant lines, which I believe Denver's airport line to be.
Both points are true -- it's unusual to see 'mainline' stations that close, and Denver is heavy rail. Moreover, I believe most, if not all, of the ex-PRR and Reading commuter lines in the Philadelphia area were FRA compliant, and the Red Arrow line was built to steam-railroad standards.
Which Philadelphia lines in particular have station spacing so close you can almost see one stop from another? There are certainly some that would seem to qualify; Cynwyd to Bala to Wynnefield represents two stops in three minutes, for example.What are the 'best' examples?
The NJT Montclair Connector is short enough to qualify but I don't think there is a clear sightline from any station to another...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.