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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.