If anyone is interested, the Union-Pearson Express is running now. One whizzed by me at Eglinton and Weston road. Quiet as a streetcar and it looked to be fairly full on a Wednesday evening. It's sold as a high-end service with spiffy uniforms on the staff, designer coffee, micro-brewed beer and you can check in to your flight at Union Station.
I will not likely use it to get to Pearson as I can take the TTC for the price of a token, but I will take it going home. The UPX fare from Pearson to Dundas West where I live is lot cheaper than a Lincoln Townie. I imagine the Town Car drivers aren't happy about this.
Speaking of highly paid union staff at airports, there's a case on right now where the refuelers and de-icers are getting a new overlord who will cut their pay by about 30 % since with a new supplier, the old contract is void. They will likely be going out on strike and who can blame them?
tomikawaTT Dual level cars would run afoul of the rather low catenary height, and no dual-level car of equal length would have more capacity than the 'stuffed' single levels... Chuck (former resident of Tokyo)
Dual level cars would run afoul of the rather low catenary height, and no dual-level car of equal length would have more capacity than the 'stuffed' single levels...
Chuck (former resident of Tokyo)
Actually there are quite a few dual level cars on the Tokyo suburban system. They are used on the outer suburban routes and are always Green (First Class) cars. https://flic.kr/p/89s4ic Stumped me at first as to why always Green, till it dawned on me that there is little headroom for standees but that doesn't matter as these are semi reserved seat cars so there are no standees.
A couple more here.
Oops pictures didn't post so look here.
https://flic.kr/p/uyXdT4
https://flic.kr/p/uyvMmj
CSSHEGEWISCH NYCTA did have something similar to platform doors with the gap fillers at South Ferry. Low-speed trackage on a tight turn and the fact that this station was a terminal point mitigated any delays caused by the need to platform a train with incredible precision. Platform doors at intermediate stations on straight trackage would improve safety but service would slow down as motorman would have to take more time to platform a train much more precisely than now.
NYCTA did have something similar to platform doors with the gap fillers at South Ferry. Low-speed trackage on a tight turn and the fact that this station was a terminal point mitigated any delays caused by the need to platform a train with incredible precision. Platform doors at intermediate stations on straight trackage would improve safety but service would slow down as motorman would have to take more time to platform a train much more precisely than now.
Yes I remember the South Ferry gap fillers. Evidently NY subway doors already have a standard spacing, which would also be needed for platform doors. The Denver Airport's subway has 4 stops, all with platform doors, and is fully automated. It probably takes 2 or 3 seconds to adjust the cars to the platform doors. The platform doors could be slightly larger than the subway car doors, so stoping location could be made less exact.
Mike, I assume when you say Denver airport subway you're talking about an intra-airport system, and not the downtown Union station to airport traditional railroad line I'm posting.
All of the intra-airport trains I've seen, and on which others in this thread have commented, have platform doors that line up with the train doors.
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
Gardendance: today's news wire has article that Gary, In is getting grant to help pay for making two station's platforms high level. Sems like that is the way to go.
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/06/gary-seeks-grant-to-improve-south-shore-services
South Shore's Gary station has always had high-level platforms, at least back to the Insull era.
blue streak 1, can we please agree that there's no 1 size fits all answer? As others have pointed out, multi level cars are not good for folks with lots of luggage, which presumably are what Toronto and Denver consider to be their market for their airport lines.
They're probably also not a good idea for outfits that have clearance issues, such as the South Shore and IC electric, which have below ground running at their Chicago terminal, and relatively low overhead wire, and at least a few preexisting high level platforms.
On the other hand multi level cars and low level boarding seem to be a good idea for outfits that have few clearance problems and preexisting low level platforms, such as Toronto's GO Transit, Chicago's railroads other than South Shore and IC electric, and virtually every other commuter railroad startup since the early 1980's.
I don't believe it's appropriate to say "that's the way to go".
Illinois Central has been running gallery bi-levels since 1972 and South Shore began running them in 2008.
Autoracks and even double-stacks have to clear under the IC caternary at Kensington. Won't fit in the tunnels for either GCT or Penn in New York City, though.
gardendance blue streak 1, can we please agree that there's no 1 size fits all answer? As others have pointed out, multi level cars are not good for folks with lots of luggage, which presumably are what Toronto and Denver consider to be their market for their airport lines.
Absolutely. Not one size fits all. first know your potential users.
The Denver " A " line is expected to serve mainly airport workers and passengers. Two entirely different clientel. Our hurry up society has people wanting minimum transit time and passengers maybe somewhat slower. Both would probably want frequent service. Loads will be spread out through out the day instead of commuter type rail. Where will most of the riders come from ? Downtown ( probably connecting from other transit ) or at the 6 intermediate stops ?
The line should not be overloaded at any time so high capacity train cars do not seem to be called for. As well faster trains & level boarding stopss may reduce the number of operating trains by one.
On a high useage sysem such as NYC subways can you imagine how slow boarding would be with low level boardings ?
Why should low level boardings be any slower to low level or multilevel with low level door cars than high level to high level door cars?
I get the feeling folks on this thread seem to think again and again that I'm trying to advocate having the platform at a different level than the car door. No I'm not. All of the new commuter rail systems since the 1980's have used multi level cars with at most a single step up from the platform to the car, then steps inside the cars to get from the low level to the intermediate or top floor. I don't remember for sure, but I think some of them have no step from platform to the first floor.
Let us first define low-level cars, low-floor cars. These cars have no steps and have level boarding from low-level platforms. Most modern light rail systems that have significant street running, even with traffic-free lanes, have this type of equpment. In terms of speed of boarding and general operations, it is as good as anything. But maintenance and car construction costs are significantly higher than high-level (norrmal level) cars. The wheel wells protruce into the car body, usually handled by having them located under back-to-back seats, or on narrower cars under side seats, much equipment that is normallyl under the floor now must be on the roof, and the suspension and truck design is far more complicated, sometimes solved with separate wheel suspensnion and some form of computer controlled steering.
Then we have high-level or normal level cars with low-level boarding. Amtrak Superliners and most, but not all, Chicago Gallery cars are of this type. Boarding is slower with these cars, and if they are gallery or other double-deck type, even more so. And special arrangements must be made for the handicapped. Superliners fit this description. Conventional and historic streetcars also meet this description. Dallas Light Rail is a compromise with pure low-level sections added to high-level end sections with all having low-level boarding.
Then there is high-level or normal-level with level boading In overall efficiency, including costs, this is best. All Metro and subway lines, the LIRR and Metro North. Metra Electric does it with gallery double-deckers. The LIRR will do the same some day.
Then there are similar cars with high-level and low-level boarding. South Shore's gallery cars, NewJersey's double deckers, and all current traditional railroad cars meet this description, including Amfleet, Horizon, but not Superliners. The existing LIRR diesel-hauled coaches meet this description, including double-deckers. Steps are usually fixed, and traps provide for high-level level boarding. MUNI is one exception with motor-operated steps that can also serve as elevators for wheel-chairs.
Also note that the new commuter systems that you refer to in general used existing or modifications to existing general railroad trackage. On the other hand all new rapid transit systems, extensions to existing rapid transit systems, and extensions to LIRR, Metro North, and Metra Electric electric services all use high-level level boarding with high-level cars. Like the new Denver Airport system. New (Post WWII) Rapid Transit systems include Toronto, Vancouver, Miami, Baltimore, Montreal, Washington DC, Atlanta, Long Angeles, SF-Oakland-Berkely, Cleveland.
gardendance Mike, I assume when you say Denver airport subway you're talking about an intra-airport system, and not the downtown Union station to airport traditional railroad line I'm posting. All of the intra-airport trains I've seen, and on which others in this thread have commented, have platform doors that line up with the train doors.
Yes, I was talking about the intra-airport subway that links the terminal with the 3 concourses. All plane passengers use this, except for those that might use the high level bridgewalk between the treminal and the closest concourse. The bridgewalk is high enough to clear the jets that taxi under it.
It toook me a while to reply, as I am just catching up from my trip to last week's NRHS convention in Rutland, VT.
[quote user="daveklepper"]
I didn't know they had through trains Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. Going to Ottawa is quite a detour for Toronto-Montreal business, so they must carry a fair amount of local passengers.
IMO it is a matter of perception.
1. It is not important what us rail fans perceive.
2. Passengers who ride bi-level trains might not like the idea of boarding a low level car, stowing their bags on the lower level and then having to climb to the upper level to open seats leaving their bags unattended.
3. At any stop it will take longer for someone on the upper level to alight.
4. Single level cars at high platforms allow for much quicker stops for persons to roll off bags or just themselves. Last stop does not really count.
5. Riders on single level trains will note that trains make quicker intermediate stops giving the perception that the train is operating faster than a bi-level.
6. Perception that a train only stops for ~ the same amount of time your cars stops for a red traffic light may be important ?
I just rode the Union-Pearson Express from the airport to Dundas West station which is a short streetcar ride to my home. It's nice! $22.00 one way, less than half the price and a whole lot faster than a Town Car which is $50.00 plus tip. I'll likely keep taking the TTC to the airport as I normally have lots of time to get there, but when I get home and am jet-lagged, the last thing I want to do is drag my crap onto a bus then a subway then a streetcar. A Town Car was convenient, but this is better.
Glad to know it works for you. How was ridershp?
There might have been 20 people on board. It is underutilised as it is. For say, 3 people to go to the airport from downtown it's far cheaper to take a Town Car. They are going to have to lower the fares if they want ridership to increase. Some people want it to be part of the GO system or the TTC but it was never intended for that but I think that should change.
StaynerBob Another bone headed project by the Liberal 'tree huggers.' What airline traveller other than the few commuters would ever consider taking a train to an airport? This is nothing other than an expensive taxpayer subsidised sop to unionised airport employees.
Another bone headed project by the Liberal 'tree huggers.' What airline traveller other than the few commuters would ever consider taking a train to an airport? This is nothing other than an expensive taxpayer subsidised sop to unionised airport employees.
They do not have high-platform level-boarding rapid-transit style? I thought that was the design. Toronto's does have level boarding. Not having level boarding is a terrible mistake for an airport line.
daveklepper They do not have high-platform level-boarding rapid-transit style? I thought that was the design. Toronto's does have level boarding. Not having level boarding is a terrible mistake for an airport line.
The line he was talking about SE from downtown Denver is a light rail line that also does street running. (Not the new airport line that has high level boarding.)
Ahah, I thought their latest equipment was low-floor. Perhaps he just happened to board one of their original light rail cars.
daveklepper Ahah, I thought their latest equipment was low-floor. Perhaps he just happened to board one of their original light rail cars.
the fleet is 100 % SD160 high floor cars including the the latest order for 29 Cars bringing the toral to over 200.
Are the lifts for the handicapped within the cars?
daveklepper Are the lifts for the handicapped within the cars?
ramps at the forward end of the platform, bridge plates in the cars, positioned by the operator nothing powered, no lifts. Odd about the 29 just ordered 160s as they are no longer in the catalog.
I haven't closely looked at Denver light rail photos, but that sounds like Baltimore's arrangement. I had wondered why Baltimore needed the bridge plates. My brother explained to me, and I should have realized myself, that the light rail line also had freight trains, so there's quite a gap between the handicapped ramps and the cars.
gardendance I haven't closely looked at Denver light rail photos, but that sounds like Baltimore's arrangement. I had wondered why Baltimore needed the bridge plates. My brother explained to me, and I should have realized myself, that the light rail line also had freight trains, so there's quite a gap between the handicapped ramps and the cars.
Of course there are no freights to clear in Denver, the bridge plates are to cover the step well at that door (I know this is done automaticly on all cars on the Muni Metro but there is no need in Denver because it is only used at the door behind the operators cab on the lead car). Since placing the bridge plate is necessary only when needed and is folded up when the train is in motion it has demnisions outside the car to minimize the gap with the ramp.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.