gardendanceDoes 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.
If Toronto's Airport line is being run as part of the GO Transit system, it will be a low-level platform, but with GO-type multi-level equipment. Why Denver chose a high-platform-only system, I can't say. They probably saved engineering and planning costs by using what may be best expressed as "Silverliner V.1, namely the Silverliner V fleet ordered by SEPTA, except that these cars are only used with high-platform stations. Chicago does have examples of high-platform/gallery car, in use by Metra Electric and by NICTD...the NICTD examples can run from both low and high-level platforms.
gardendance MidlandMike I could see a future station at Tower Rd, where about a dozen hotels have been built. That's a lot of hotels for one intersection. Where else do we have that many hotels within walking distance of each other? Las Vegas, or New York...? Are these dozen hotels close enough to a possible train station that we might expect their residents to use the train? This is a case where I bet it's hard to find any one size fits all situation. Single level equipment, as others have said, is good for travelers with luggage, and those airport-hotel residents will arrive and depart with their luggage, but presumably once they've checked in will they also be likely non-luggage passengers to get from hotel to downtown?
MidlandMike I could see a future station at Tower Rd, where about a dozen hotels have been built.
I could see a future station at Tower Rd, where about a dozen hotels have been built.
That's a lot of hotels for one intersection.
Where else do we have that many hotels within walking distance of each other? Las Vegas, or New York...?
Are these dozen hotels close enough to a possible train station that we might expect their residents to use the train?
This is a case where I bet it's hard to find any one size fits all situation. Single level equipment, as others have said, is good for travelers with luggage, and those airport-hotel residents will arrive and depart with their luggage, but presumably once they've checked in will they also be likely non-luggage passengers to get from hotel to downtown?
Tower Rd is the first local road exit from the Airport. I counted 14 hotels/motels on Google Earth. They have all been built in the last 20 years since the new Denver airport opened. The nearest is a quarter mile from the tracks, and the farthest is over a half mile. We were there last month when the airline put us up after we missed a connection. There was only a breakfast room at our inn, so we walked across Tower Rd to a restaurant for dinner. They did not shovel the snow off the sidewalks, and the divided boulevard had rock gardens where you would expect crosswalks --not pedestrian friendly. I suspect that the hotel courtesy vans/busses will continue to be the main transport to/from the airport. I suppose some people staying at one of these hotels (to catch a plain the next day) might venture out to use the train for dinner/shopping in Denver. As mentioned, hotel employees would be another source of passengers, as well as a couple of office buildings. Possibly a commercial low-priced airport parking lot would be another source.
The video showing the airport station indicates it would be something of a slog to the airport trminal. You would have to walk thru the new hotel (the bow-tie shaped building) and then thru much of the terminal, to get to the baggage/check-in counters, whereas the auto/shuttle drop-off is just thru some glass doors to the counters. Although, if you previously printed out your boarding pass, and had just carry-on luggage, the TSA securty entry should be close to where the train station enters the terminal.
Skis bring up fact that rental cars are much less expensive downtown. Found airport charges were 30 -40 % higher with all the airport charges several years ago.
Hotel to airport traffic is likely to be handled mainly via courtesy shuttles. Why pay for a two-seat ride involving extra level changes? (Yes, there might be advantages for the hotels to make shorter turnaround/more trips/better perceived service by having their vans 'meet all the trains')
Is there enough potential for hotel employees or contracted service staff (e.g., maids) to use transit to the proposed stop?
Downtown ... and beyond, perhaps ... makes better sense as a train destination for hotel patrons. The equivalent of 'luggage' might be ski gear, and there may be enough people going skiing, but not dealing with cars or cabs, to justify staying with exclusively single-level cars when the other proposed Denver line is finished.
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
Arguments are over. first powered run to DEN airport with two EMU cars. Really great conditions for a first test - Rain snow day. Doors are at 1/3 and 2/3 locations which will speed on and offs faster than end doors..i Minimum distance and time to / from seats.
http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/ec_64
The 5 intermediate stations on the Denver Airport line are within the first half of the distance (from downtown) and are about 2 miles apart. The second half of the line out to the airport is somewhat open prairie, but getting more developed all the time. I could see a future station at Tower Rd, where about a dozen hotels have been built.
It used to be so much easier when they put the milemarkers in the schedules.
If I had to pick a best example it'd be the ex-Reading's Chestnut Hill, now SEPTA's Chestnut Hill East line, followed by the ex-Pennsylvania's Chestnut Hill, now SEPTA's Chestnut Hill West line. I can remember an out of town railfan at the end of Chestnut Hill East's platform asking if that was another station he saw in the distance.
The Paoli line also has some extremely closely spaced stops, although I don't think one can see 2 stations at a time, but I bet if it were straighter one could.
per mapquest, and ones marked * in my opinion are about half as far by rail than mapquest gives by road.
13 N Valley Rd, paoli, pa to 178 Glenn Ave, Berwyn, PA 19312-1241 Dayleford station 1.31 miles
654 E. Lancaster Ave Berwyn station 1.12 miles
1 N. Devon Blvd Devon 1.14 miles
97 Old Eagle School Rd Strafford 1.2 miles
145 N. Wayne Ave 1.22 miles*
53 Chamounix Rd St Davids .84 mile
291 King of Prussia Rd Radnor 1.2 miles*
308 N. Spring Mill Rd Villanova 1.5 miles*
43 Airdale Rd Rosemont 1.44 miles
54 N. Bryn Mawr Ave .98 mile
43 Haverford Station Rd 1.22 miles
39 Station Rd Ardmore .8 mile
67 East Wynnewood Rd 1.15 mile. My dad said, exaggerating a bit, when they expanded the parking lot that the end of the lot was a closer walk to the Narberth station than to the Wynnewood station.
211 Elmwood Ave Narberth .72 mile
293 Idris Rd Merion 1.39 miles*
2195 N. 63rd St Overbrook .96*
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...
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.
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.
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.
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 ... 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.
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.
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. ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks, I should have checked before posting. They are very similar to the Silverliner Vs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.