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".
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
South Shore's Gary station has always had high-level platforms, at least back to the Insull era.
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
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.
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.
A couple more here.
Oops pictures didn't post so look here.
https://flic.kr/p/uyXdT4
https://flic.kr/p/uyvMmj
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.
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?
I was being sarcastic. Yes I agree it is a great safety feature. I remember (I believe from a Trains article) that I was shocked at how many people fall onto NY subway tracks. It would seem a good safety investment for them to start to move toward platform doors. If you ever heard a subway come roaring into a station, you might agree that it also would help save people's hearing.
Based on my own experience with the people movers at DFW and Miami, this arrangement helps with crowd control and safety. It also helps speed up unloading and loading since the platform spots are predictable.
Buslist Platform doors are quite common on many new transit systems throughout the world, an example is the subway portion of the of the recent London Underground extensions. There was also a plan to put platform doors on some parts of the Tokyo commuter system, not sure if that has started yet.
Platform doors are quite common on many new transit systems throughout the world, an example is the subway portion of the of the recent London Underground extensions.
There was also a plan to put platform doors on some parts of the Tokyo commuter system, not sure if that has started yet.
Every airport tram that I have seen uses this system. I guess they fear some airport users would not know how to act around a train otherwise.
That did not stop me from pretending to take it seriously.
All for the benefit of the original poster.
I didn't think I'd need a smiley to let such an educamated crowd as this know my double decker station was a joke.
MidlandMike gardendance Then the solution must be multi deck station platforms so each floor on the train can have stepless platform access. It's bad enough falling off a high level platform. A double decker platform would require the upper level platform to have a glass partition with appropriatly spaced slidding doors along the platform edge, and the train would have to stop exactly where the car doors match the platform doors.
gardendance Then the solution must be multi deck station platforms so each floor on the train can have stepless platform access.
Then the solution must be multi deck station platforms so each floor on the train can have stepless platform access.
It's bad enough falling off a high level platform. A double decker platform would require the upper level platform to have a glass partition with appropriatly spaced slidding doors along the platform edge, and the train would have to stop exactly where the car doors match the platform doors.
And a whopping increase in construction costs!
And when platform length is not a problem, and the possibility of a downtown subway extension, like Philly did to connect the Reading and PRR lines into one system, then single-level will save great tunnel construction costs and make for speedier service by quicker boarding and exiting.
Buslist 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. Sorry but those of us in the real world take trains to the airport as often as is convienent, which is most of the time! I traveled all over the world, what's your experience?
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.
Sorry but those of us in the real world take trains to the airport as often as is convienent, which is most of the time! I traveled all over the world, what's your experience?
Precisely! Most modern airports have (are planning) rail service of some type; best if it is part of the national network rather than just local transit. In most cases, it is heavily patronized by all types of airport patrons. Double deck cars allow greater passenger loads given platform lengths. Clearance is not a problem with modern catenary, as in most rail systems overseas.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Jerusalem has low-floor LRV, Alstom Citadas 302s, and low-floor platforms with only a half-to-5/8th inch gap between the hard rubber door sill, that extends another half-inch from the actual car side. Good for wheelchairs and babycarriages. Of course all stations have only straight track to make this possible. The decision for low-floor was intelligent because often, downtown, even usually, downtown, the platform is the entire sidewalk, and there is no room for ramps or high-level platforms.
I do not believe this is true for the in-design and building Tel Aviv system, which in any case has lots of subway and elevated milleage, missing at present in Jerusalem. I have strongly recommended several times that Tel Aviv use high platforms and high level rolling stock, with end doors, more like rapid transit cars.
All wheels are powered on Jerusalem's Citadas 302s. in defference to hills. This is not true in Dublin where the 302's have the end trucks powered and the center trucks unpowered.
I'm weighing in from Pittsburgh, where the light rail vehicles and stations have both high- and low-level doors and platforms. (That's also the case on San Francisco's MUNI.) Day after day, it's easy to see how much faster and more efficient loading and unloading is at the high-level stops, compared to low-level, especially, as someone mentioned, for users with bags. Re the comment about handicapped accessibility and the need for expensive wheelchair elevators, this problem is easily overcome by designing street-level stations with both ramp and stair access to the platforms. Underground and elevated stations have elevators and escalators anyway, of necessity.
StaynerBob, I've seen many folks with luggage frequently when I've ridden Philly's airport line, and when I've watched it go by at Philly's center city stations. I also saw them on JFK's and Newark's air trains.
In fact when I rode SEPTA's inaugural airport trip in 1985 there were people with luggage in both directions.
I know other folks, and I'm one of them, who have used Philly's airport line for vacation trips.
On the flip side, once there was some problem with airport taxicabs, a group of outside consultants at my company, whose office is at 19th and Market, 2 blocks from the train station, and presumably the consultants' hotel was nearby, complained that they couldn't find taxis to get from Philly airport to hotel and had to take the train. I'm not trying to say they're typical commuters, and perhaps employers might be a bit stricter on approving expense accounts, but maybe when somebody else is paying, and when commuters can share taxicabs, some may prefer taxi to train.
Gallery and other double-deck cars are used to solve specific problems. 1. Per-czr chareges in jointly-owned and/or union stations. 2. Inadequate station track capacaty. 3. Inability to lengthen station platforms to accomodate longer trains.
Low-floor cars are used to solve specific problems: 1. Many existing station platforms that cannot easily or economically be raised to be high-floor platforms. 2. Compatibility with buses in the same lane and loading at the same platforms. 3. Integration of station platforms with sidewalks and paths and streets in general. 4. Avoidance of what might be considered an eyesore in a typical street scened.
If none of the above problems exist, then single-level high-floor cars with high platforms are definitely the most efficient and cost effective design for a commuter railroad or rapid-transit system.
Looking across a rather wide ocean to a place with unholy traffic density, Japan's heavy traffic passenger routes (EMU and DMU) are all high (car floor level +-10mm) platforms. Cars on commuter routes have FOUR double door sets and seating like that of the larger NY subway cars. Cars on less traveled routes with stations farther apart usually have either wide single or double doors at the 20% and 80% points of car length. During rush hours, SRO is the norm and some Tokyo stations employ 'pushers' to stuff additional bodies into the trains.
IfDenver ever has an underground subvway system, with the commuter trains serving more donwtown areas than just Union Station, the use of single-level cdars will save a lot of money on tunneling costs.
And high platforms are the preferred way to go for any new comletely grade-separated system. Lower first cost than low-floor cars, considerably lower maintenance costs, and the quickest possible boarding and exiting. Can you name a postwar North American RAPID TRASIT HEAVY RAIL line that was not single-level, high-platform?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.