chefjavier wrote: What Amtrak needs is Managers/Staff from the hotel business to help run their trains in the hospitality aspect. If you take care of the customer and give them explicit service. The customer would come back and pass the information to another 50 people. This was study from done by the University of Cornell Journal of Hospitality School. >Train the staff in the basic service fundamentals;
What Amtrak needs is Managers/Staff from the hotel business to help run their trains in the hospitality aspect. If you take care of the customer and give them explicit service. The customer would come back and pass the information to another 50 people. This was study from done by the University of Cornell Journal of Hospitality School.
>Train the staff in the basic service fundamentals;
"Explicit Service." Is this a fairly new hotel/motel term? I don't know what it means. - a. s.
al-in-chgo wrote: chefjavier wrote: What Amtrak needs is Managers/Staff from the hotel business to help run their trains in the hospitality aspect. If you take care of the customer and give them explicit service. The customer would come back and pass the information to another 50 people. This was study from done by the University of Cornell Journal of Hospitality School. >Train the staff in the basic service fundamentals; "Explicit Service." Is this a fairly new hotel/motel term? I don't know what it means. - a. s. Shown in realistic detail need of the customer. For example, do you need water or see the water is fill before ask. What is the different between the Four Star and Five Star Hotel? It fall back on the details. Anticipate the guest need before he/she ask. I hope an answer your question.
Shown in realistic detail need of the customer. For example, do you need water or see the water is fill before ask. What is the different between the Four Star and Five Star Hotel? It fall back on the details. Anticipate the guest need before he/she ask. I hope an answer your question.
daveklepper wrote:Small correction: In the immediate postwar era, operated by the Florida East Coast, ACL, RF&P, and PRR, the Florida Special definitely WAS all-Pullman, no coaches. I rode it. Remember the fashion show and the bingo games. Sometime around or before the merger into the SAL the coaches were added. Always used a lot of borrowed UP, MP, SP, and other western lightwieght equipment. The lounge and dining cars were always ACL. Most of the special events continued after the coaches were addedm, and two diners were normal. Only ran in winter.
You know, I always wondered about their rolling stock. The western lines didn't need the streamlined equipment so much in winter, which of course was SAL and ACL's time of greatest need. Did renting sleepers from the western lines extend into the SCL era?
By all accounts their streamliners from New York to Florida were popular, fun and punctual. I've also heard that SCL did not try to jettison its passengers with rudeness, sidetracking or dirty equipment. Wouldn't I love to have been on one of Jackie Gleason's chartered trains to Florida!
I really think SCL and predecessors' trains are under-discussed. I know a lot about the B'way Limited, 20th Century, Super Chief, even the Crescent, but I rarely hear about the experience of riding from New York to Florida.
chefjavier wrote: This was study from done by the University of Cornell Journal of Hospitality School.
This was study from done by the University of Cornell Journal of Hospitality School.
Cornell's Hospitality School is nationally recognized as one of the best in that field. Nonetheless, I am reminded of the old saying that if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
The ACL and SAL policies differed. Once the Florida Special went lightweight (was heavyweight to around 1948 or 1949) the ACL used lots of Western borrowed lightweight equipment in the winter, with only the East Coast Champion dependably all-stainless steel. On the SAL, after the heavyweight Orange Blossom Special was discontinued. heavywight equipment continued to be used on secondary trains and occasionally showed up on the Silver Star and Silver Comet with only the Silver Meteor dependably all-stainless and all lightweight in winter. I don't recall ever seeing borrowed equipment on the SAL, only its own equipment and that of the RF&P and PRR. The use of heavyweight equipment on SAL declined but did not end totally when the FEC sold its lightweight equipment to the SAL (instead of the ACL, where it had been used.) Use of heavyweight equipment on the Star and Comet then became very rare. Even before merger, the rival ACL and SAL cooperated, including the ACL's used of the Auburndale - Miami SAL line at the start of the FEC strike and the end of FEC through passenger service.
Once I was on a northbound ACL train coming into Jacksonville, and a sleeper was bad-ordered. It was swapped out for a similar SAL sleeper in good shape, with the passengers transfered.
After the merger, on the SCL, heavywieght equipment was scrapped and all trains were lightweight, with borrowed equipment in the winter, the ACL policy ruled. Some heavily rebuilt heavywieght ACL diners were kept throughout this period. These and some head-end equipment were the exceptions. The rebuilt diners had been purple, but I think the ones that remained on the SCL were painted silver to match the stainless equipment.
All the arguments I read in here are single modal.
Think multimodal.
From my house I can walk one block to a bus stop. The bus stops 4 miles away at a light rail station. The light rail goes to the Amtrak station..... etc.
Freight can move the same way. Containerized. Truck to train to truck.
An effective public transportation system has to be just that ... a system. No one solution fits all. When you drive to the airport, how much does it cost to park your car while you are away on your trip? I know the airport here in our city, you have to take a bus from the parking lot to the terminal. I've been in cities where you had to take a bus from one terminal to another on the same airport. In NYC, sometimes you have to change airports to make your connection.
Tell me passenger rail can't compete with that.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
And driving one's car to a commuter train, rapid transit, or light rail station parking lot and riding public transit to one's work place is also multi-modal. When I worked in Downers Grove, IL, living in Westmont, all my long distance train trips also involved the use of my personal car. I learned quickly to board westbound Burlington trains at Aurora and not downtown Chicago, and Santa Fe and GM&O trains at Joliette. The Milwaukee: Glenside. But the PRR, NYC, and Grand Trunk usually had be using the Burlington commuter train with my car in the Westmont or Downders Grove lot. Rode the IC lots too, and that was the most inconvenient, of course always involving the CTA as well as the Burlington. Or sometimes a taxi too.
New York and my office in White Plains was different with excellent interconnections between different modes and very little use of a personal car.
JT22CW:
Do you think is profitable organization? Do the VIA works well with other railroads?
chefjavier wrote:What kind of lessons we could learn from VIA (Canada passenger service) that we could use in US?
VIA doesn't turn a profit, and I think the gov't up north never pretended it should. Like Amtrak, though, VIA has gone through some severe starvation-type budgets (you should see the weensy VIA Corridor timetable they sent me, not much bigger than a matchbook); but I have never encountered a VIA train, corridor or not, that had dirty coaches or appeared shabby and run-down, as do the Regionals I encountered on NEC. That's point 1).
Point 1a) would be that VIA takes exquisite care of its rolling stock. They are still hauling out the 1955 Budd sleepers during summer season. They modified some equipment that couldn't be used in England (project failed) to fit their needs, including handicapped access. The footrests work -- that's the general idea.
Point 2) is that VIA First Class more closely resembles the parlor cars of yore, at least in my experience, with bigger seats and service, whereas on Accela the highest class consists of little more than the same seat arrangement plus AC outlets + a free meal (okay, a First Class level of service if not seating). But First on Accela costs a lot extra and just as cramped!
Point 3) -- and maybe my good luck -- is that I have never encountered a VIA service person who was not available or on duty when s/he should have been; or was uninformed or too authoritarian (as opposed to authoritative). Has happened to me more than a couple of times on Amtrak!
Point 4) is that Windsor - Toronto - Montreal - Quebec City is not a particularly useful comparison to DC - Penna Station - Boston. In particular, the most-traveled parts of the corridor are Toronto-Montreal, and Wash DC to Penn Station NYC. VIA's route is significantly longer -- almost fifty percent again longer if my math worked -- and the population centers are not as thick. A more valid comparison would be to term the VIA Corridor the fastest non-electrified corridor service in North America. Comparing populations, Toronto - Montreal is more closely mirrored by a smaller American destination city, farther away -- Chicago to St. Louis or Chicago to Detroit work better. And those "corridors" are not getting anything like VIA service, which cruises at 95 mph, stops at suburban stops, and has reasonably frequent departures.
I just got a good feeling patronizing VIA while Amtrak often leaves me scratching my head at things that are so easily fixed -- I can't begrudge them their own starvation budget, but I do sense a loss of caring. - a. s.
al-in-chgo wrote: chefjavier wrote:What kind of lessons we could learn from VIA (Canada passenger service) that we could use in US? VIA doesn't turn a profit, and I think the gov't up north never pretended it should. Like Amtrak, though, VIA has gone through some severe starvation-type budgets (you should see the weensy VIA Corridor timetable they sent me, not much bigger than a matchbook); but I have never encountered a VIA train, corridor or not, that had dirty coaches or appeared shabby and run-down, as do the Regionals I encountered on NEC. That's point 1). Point 1a) would be that VIA takes exquisite care of its rolling stock. They are still hauling out the 1955 Budd sleepers during summer season. They modified some equipment that couldn't be used in England (project failed) to fit their needs, including handicapped access. The footrests work -- that's the general idea. Point 2) is that VIA First Class more closely resembles the parlor cars of yore, at least in my experience, with bigger seats and service, whereas on Accela the highest class consists of little more than the same seat arrangement plus AC outlets + a free meal (okay, a First Class level of service if not seating). But First on Accela costs a lot extra and just as cramped! Point 3) -- and maybe my good luck -- is that I have never encountered a VIA service person who was not available or on duty when s/he should have been; or was uninformed or too authoritarian (as opposed to authoritative). Has happened to me more than a couple of times on Amtrak! Point 4) is that Windsor - Toronto - Montreal - Quebec City is not a particularly useful comparison to DC - Penna Station - Boston. In particular, the most-traveled parts of the corridor are Toronto-Montreal, and Wash DC to Penn Station NYC. VIA's route is significantly longer -- almost fifty percent again longer if my math worked -- and the population centers are not as thick. A more valid comparison would be to term the VIA Corridor the fastest non-electrified corridor service in North America. Comparing populations, Toronto - Montreal is more closely mirrored by a smaller American destination city, farther away -- Chicago to St. Louis or Chicago to Detroit work better. And those "corridors" are not getting anything like VIA service, which cruises at 95 mph, stops at suburban stops, and has reasonably frequent departures. I just got a good feeling patronizing VIA while Amtrak often leaves me scratching my head at things that are so easily fixed -- I can't begrudge them their own starvation budget, but I do sense a loss of caring. - a. s.
Al-in-chgo:
Thanks for the information. I wish Amtrak could pull out their deep hole and troubles. I sometimes can understand how European's have a better passerger railroads than US?
Al, your observatons about VIA are interesting. I've never had the opportunity to spend enough time in Canada to have valid opinions about them, nor to experience VIA.
Your comments indicate VIA obtains more satisfactory results with VIA than we do with Amtrak. I'm prepared to accept that. The question remains, however, by what mechanism do the Canadians do that? What are they doing that we should consider emulating?
al-in-chgo wrote:They (VIA) modified some equipment that couldn't be used in England (project failed)
Last word on the Renaissance cars (the name of the Alstom cars under VIA) is that they were experiencing plumbing problems due to Canada's winter weather; toilets and sinks were freezing up, among other problems.
VIA First Class more closely resembles the parlor cars of yore, at least in my experience, with bigger seats and service, whereas on Acela the highest class consists of little more than the same seat arrangement plus AC outlets + a free meal (okay, a First Class level of service if not seating). But First on Acela costs a lot extra and just as cramped
Windsor - Toronto - Montreal - Quebec City is not a particularly useful comparison to DC - Penna Station - Boston. In particular, the most-traveled parts of the corridor are Toronto-Montreal, and Wash DC to Penn Station NYC. VIA's route is significantly longer -- almost fifty percent again longer if my math worked -- and the population centers are not as thick. A more valid comparison would be to term the VIA Corridor the fastest non-electrified corridor service in North America
Comparing populations, Toronto - Montreal is more closely mirrored by a smaller American destination city, farther away -- Chicago to St. Louis or Chicago to Detroit work better
JT22CW wrote: al-in-chgo wrote:They (VIA) modified some equipment that couldn't be used in England (project failed)The Nightstar project was abandoned; "fail(ure)" implies that it was attempted and not enough people rode it. There were several different types of cars intended for use on that service besides the Alstom cars that VIA bought, including modified British Rail Mark IV cars. The Alstom cars were experiencing HEP problems during testing, apparently.Last word on the Renaissance cars (the name of the Alstom cars under VIA) is that they were experiencing plumbing problems due to Canada's winter weather; toilets and sinks were freezing up, among other problems.VIA First Class more closely resembles the parlor cars of yore, at least in my experience, with bigger seats and service, whereas on Acela the highest class consists of little more than the same seat arrangement plus AC outlets + a free meal (okay, a First Class level of service if not seating). But First on Acela costs a lot extra and just as crampedAcela first class cramped? Same seating as in regular business class?Acela's first class has 2-1 seating versus the 2-2 in business class; the first-class cars have a mere 44 seats, whereas business class cars have 65 seats each. Comparing apples to apples, LRC cars have more seats and their 1 Class has 2-2 seating (resulting in a rather narrow aisle width).Windsor - Toronto - Montreal - Quebec City is not a particularly useful comparison to DC - Penna Station - Boston. In particular, the most-traveled parts of the corridor are Toronto-Montreal, and Wash DC to Penn Station NYC. VIA's route is significantly longer -- almost fifty percent again longer if my math worked -- and the population centers are not as thick. A more valid comparison would be to term the VIA Corridor the fastest non-electrified corridor service in North AmericaWhen (not if) Amtrak gets the segment of the Chicago-Detroit corridor under their ownership (between Porter IN and Kalamazoo MI) up to 110 mph operation, that will certainly change.Comparing populations, Toronto - Montreal is more closely mirrored by a smaller American destination city, farther away -- Chicago to St. Louis or Chicago to Detroit work betterTwo rail routes do not have to be perfectly identical in terms of population in order to make a valid comparison.Oh yeah; another contrast between VIA and Amtrak is cuts in service. VIA's system used to be about 140 percent larger than today. When Amtrak started, they had about 19,000 route-miles, which stands at about 21,000 today.
You don't have to wait for a 100+ mph non-electrified corridor. There's been one in the US for 30 years:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=212690
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=8020
110 mph from CP169, west of Schenectady to Poughkeepsie (about 90 miles of RR), 90 mph south of Poughkeepsie to NY.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
chefjavier wrote:What Amtrak needs is a true proven record as California. State-subsidized Amtrak service between Sacramento and Bay Area. The Capitol Corridor continues to climb ridership 1.3 million in 2005, nearly triple the 460,000 passergers. With no federal funding to call upon, the Capitol Corridor was built and runs solely with state and local funds. That's what Amtrak needs to entire system. If the state and locals put a little money you would have an awesome train or better than Europe could provide
Mind you, it would be nice to see the Pacific Surfliners stretch their legs in earnest. I recall an old "Arrive" magazine depicting the Surfliners, and the caption explicitly stating that they were capable of 125-mph operation.
Amtrak operates the Capital Corridor (San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento-Auburn), 170 miles, under contract to the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA), not Caltrans (the California Department of Transportation). Caltrans is a funding source for CCJPA. CCJPA, which is owned by six transit agencies serving eight counties, has sole authority over service, schedules, contracts, capital expenditures, and operations, not Caltrans. That might be one reason why the service is not called CADOT. Service consists in large part of overlapping commuter districts but about 25% of the passenger load is corridor traffic (irregular) and the distances are unusually long, both of which make it an imperfect fit to put the Capital Corridor into the category "commuter."
I'm not sure if CCJPA is "no different from any other commuter rail service ... under contract to a state department of transportation."
RWM
Generally, the Capitol Corridor is commuter rail, though (taking that 75 percent into consideration). If you consider Sacramento as the center of the system, it's definitely commuter rail.
Back to the Amtrak/VIA comparison: Another plus on VIA's side is their retention of the RDC; I've always felt that Amtrak's retirement of those vehicles was rash (at best). The cars themselves were (and are) quite sound, and the potential for rebuilding remains high (or "remained" while the DMUs were still in operation/existence). Amtrak had at least 26 of them that I can count offhand, including the Roger Williams version.
JT22CW wrote:Generally, the Capitol Corridor is commuter rail, though (taking that 75 percent into consideration). If you consider Sacramento as the center of the system, it's definitely commuter rail.
Sacramento the center of the system? Not Oakland? How so?
Maybe one should start another thread, but what is the general take on the RDC? I never rode on one and read in Trains that 1st-gen RDC's sounded inside like a bus but later versions had better noise isolation.
I once brought up the idea of RDC's as an alternative to TurboTrains and the like for corridor service and in light of Colorado Railcars's DMU, and I was told that "RDC's were a failure" and that "even CRC's market for commuter runs hasn't materialized because as soon as a commuter run is a going concern, they are going to need the train lengths that require locomotives and bi-level or gallery cars."
The kind of acceleration and overall light weight of the CRC DMU by eliminating the weight of the locomotive would make it seem like something to be considered for corridors. What do people think about the grade crossing safety (to the train crews and passengers) of DMUs? There is a move afoot to outlaw push-pull cab cars after the Glendale accident -- would this permanently end DMUs from consideration, even if they had Roger Williams noses on them?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
RDCs -- did (and still do) some jobs quite well. Much nicer than a bus and in the right locations, e.g., Trinity Rail, a very cost-effective solution.
I don't know who said RDCs or DMUs are a failure. For some applications they're ideal. (Let's not confuse the concept with a specific manufacturer's product; they're two different things. If a manufacturer's product is not thought of positively that doesn't reflect on the suitability of the concept.)
What move is afoot to outlaw push-pull? That's a new one on me. I wasn't aware that either the FRA or NTSB had any such idea. Can you elaborate, please.
As for grade-crossing safety, there are hundreds of grade-crossings used by light-rail vehicles moving at speeds in the plus-40 mph range (see Denver, Portland). If there's a serious regulatory initiative here, I'm not aware of it.
I do think that the advantages of the DMU in the U.S. are somewhat oversold. It's a very expensive (both initial cost and O&M) vehicle of limited capacity. Superiority of acceleration and flexibility can be demonstrated in theory but in practice are often not consequential. There's very little experience with the durability and reliability of the new DMU vehicles entering service, and unhappiness may follow. Vehicle width and platform height is incompatible with freight equipment, so dedicated tracks for the DMUs may be required at stations, and it's at stations where real estate is often at a critical premium; there may not be any room for gantlet tracks or platform tracks. Making a DMU FRA buff-force compliant results in a very heavy vehicle; the alternative is temporal separation which significantly restricts the number of lines where a non-compliant DMU can be used, the alternative is dedicated track which is extremely expensive to build.
Twenty years from now I think many people are going to wish we had built heavy-rail instead of light-rail, and push-pull commuter trains instead of DMU or EMU.
There was that Glendale, CA accident where a man with emotional problems parked a car on the tracks to end his life, but he thought the better of it and saved himself but was unable to move his car hung up on the tracks, and it just happened to placed where two commuter trains were having a "meet" (passing in opposite directions on neighboring tracks) and where a freight happened to be in a siding, and there was loss of life on a train in "push" mode that sideswiped the freight. The issue of cab cars in push-pulls came up, but I don't know if any regs resulted from it.
I read that the Pacific Cascades Talgos have an FRA waiver on buff strength, and part of the waiver is that they have to have a locomotive or a ballasted locomotive-derived cab car on each end to protect that train in the event of grade crossing or other kinds of collisions.
Amtrak once ran cab cars on corridor trains (de-powered original Metroliner MU's I thought on the old San Diegans?). I raised the issue of the energy consumption of towing the "cabbage car" back in forth on Amtrak push-pulls, both from the standpoint of significant extra weight along with the tall profile of the F40 relative to the lower Horizon cars and the resulting aero drag. I brought this up with a passenger advocacy compatriot in a group I participate in, and I got a scolding that I wanted to risk the lives of train crew by not giving them the protection of a cab in a locomotive over an RDC-like cab.
I understand from Don Oltmann that the F40PH Cabbage Car was a low-cost expedient to get cab cars and that the energy usage hasn't been an issue until recent high fuel prices. But since Amtrak is running corridor trains with these battering rams at each end of a push-pull, I am wondering if introducing Colorado Railcar DMUs in this service would create concerns from FRA or train crews.
I mean here we are with 3-dollar #2 Diesel at retail ($3.50 with road tax), and someone hasn't measured the fuel pumped into the locomotives on the Hiawatha run to get an energy use reading on a corridor train in actual service, or someone hasn't arranged to run the CRC DMU demonstrator with a trailing coach perhaps over that run and measured the fuel use for comparison?
With gas at these prices, I write down all my fuel purchases and note whether it was highway or city driving, and keep track of the MPG to see if something is not going out-of-wack on the engine if I see a drop in MPG or if it was the cold weather and headwinds which did it. And no one can tell me what the fuel burn is with specific consists and Amtrak routes, or if they do know, they are not talking. What is going on here?
I did a search on "miles per gallon railroad." There is loads of information on rather old data, which roughly indicate that buses get far more (2X to 3X) passenger miles per gallon than automobiles, trains, or aircraft. There is also discussion on pollution.
I, too, find it strange that it seems we are not collecting modern data, even though energy consumption and pollution are front-burner topics today.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:There is a move afoot to outlaw push-pull cab cars after the Glendale accident
Railway Man wrote:I do think that the advantages of the DMU in the U.S. are somewhat oversold. It's a very expensive (both initial cost and O&M) vehicle of limited capacity. Superiority of acceleration and flexibility can be demonstrated in theory but in practice are often not consequential. There's very little experience with the durability and reliability of the new DMU vehicles entering service, and unhappiness may follow. Vehicle width and platform height is incompatible with freight equipment, so dedicated tracks for the DMUs may be required at stations, and it's at stations where real estate is often at a critical premium; there may not be any room for gantlet tracks or platform tracks. Making a DMU FRA buff-force compliant results in a very heavy vehicle; the alternative is temporal separation which significantly restricts the number of lines where a non-compliant DMU can be used, the alternative is dedicated track which is extremely expensive to build
Twenty years from now I think many people are going to wish we had built heavy-rail instead of light-rail, and push-pull commuter trains instead of DMU or EMU
JT22CW wrote: Only place you'd need gantlet tracks would be at high platforms, which are rare outside the Northeast (e.g. Metra Electric/South Shore Line); NJ Transit's Raritan Valley Line has gantlet tracks on the Conrail Lehigh Line, with push-pull trains operating there.
Only place you'd need gantlet tracks would be at high platforms, which are rare outside the Northeast (e.g. Metra Electric/South Shore Line); NJ Transit's Raritan Valley Line has gantlet tracks on the Conrail Lehigh Line, with push-pull trains operating there.
Um, no disrespect intended, but you're looking in the rearview mirror. Better check what ADA is doing to new designs for passenger platforms, both height and gap width. Redesigns are looming for existing platforms, too. TriMet is currently installing gantlet tracks for the new West Corridor, which uses Colorado Railcar DMUs, because the platforms otherwise won't even clear a Plate B boxcar.
Everyone's entitled to their opinions about the relative merits of push-pull, DMU, and EMU, to say nothing of light-rail, heavy-rail, and BRT. I've stated mine and you've stated yours. People at transit agencies often don't listen to me either, but so long as they continue to pay my invoices, c'est la vie.
(By the way, JT22CWs are one of my favorite locomotives -- they ride real nice and great view from the cab. Some of the best locomotives we had on a road I used to work for.)
Better check what ADA is doing to new designs for passenger platforms, both height and gap width. Redesigns are looming for existing platforms, too. TriMet is currently installing gantlet tracks for the new West Corridor, which uses Colorado Railcar DMUs, because the platforms otherwise won't even clear a Plate B boxcar
JT22CW wrote:Like I said, that's endemic to high platforms primarily. If this computer graphic is correct, TriMet's Washington County commuter rail line will be using high platforms along with CRC single-level DMUs. Gantlet tracks would be necessary if they were to use locomotive-hauled trains, per my mentioned example on NJ Transit (two stations, Union and Roselle Park); since Plate B-clearance cars are 10' 8" at 40 inches above railhead, passenger cars are 10' 6" wide, and high platforms are generally 51 inches tall, there's your clearance problem. If SEPTA were to build high platforms at West Trenton NJ and Yardley PA, they'd need to put in gantlet tracks as well (or restore the former quadruple-tracking that West Trenton used to have).CRC, per their website, provide the option of installing wheelchair lifts on their DMUs, which would satisfy ADA requirements at low-platform stations. TriMet seems to have concluded that building the high platforms was the better option for them.
I'm glad you asked, because you're entering one of my personal vales of tears. The TriMet West Line line is using gantlet tracks and high platforms. The track is being laid right now -- I was out trudging through the muck last week (mudchicken doesn't have a monopoly on the mud thing).
Why gantlets and high platforms? Because ADA is being interpreted that low platforms with lifts are not acceptable, gaps filled with hydraulic platform extensions are not acceptable, and the law already said that horizontal gaps of greater than 3.0" are not acceptable. Also, please look at 49 CFR 37 and Federal Register, Rules and Regulations, Vol. 56, No. 173, September 6, 1991, pp. 45521-45524, and Docket OST-2006-23985.
Here's the numbers:
CRC DMU width over side sheets, 10'0"; Budd RDC over side sheets 10'0"; Plate B boxcar over grabirons 10'8"; Bombardier bi-level car 9'10"; F59FHI standard 10'6"; Plate H double-stack car 10'8"; California Service F59PHI over snowplow 10'10"; Add 3.75" lateral motion tolerance -- guess what, no more platforms on main tracks unless you want to put in gantlet tracks or platform tracks. If there's not room for that, well, tough luck, no station.
Here's a remarkably cogent article that appeared today in Long Island Newsday:
http://www.newsday.com/news/specials/nyg-liprob0119,0,7852846.story?coll=ny_news_local_xpromo
The debacle of ADA is rippling through passenger rail the U.S., worse because there is no consistency on car floor height or width. Cars currently in service in Northern California have three different floor heights! If you want to take on the attorneys challenging the transit agencies and Amtrak over platform height and gap, a challenge that is grinding to halt passenger rail expansion of service, maintenance of service, and new construction from Alaska to Los Angeles to Florida, Godspeed to you.
If I were planning a new rail commuter line, electric or diesel, and was certain my new equipment would be dedicated to that line and not required by law to be available to Amtrak or other operators in an emergency, and planned high platforms, I would simply have extension sills at each door opening so the effective floor width at door openings would be just short of eleven feet, say 10'-10", and thus be able to dispense with either gap-filler moving grates on the platform edges (like some old IRT stations in NYC) or guantlet track.
On most New York area commuter lines, the gap between the car floor and the high platform is as much as four inches, and guantlet track is not used. Car widths are an even ten feet and ten feet eight inches is used between platform faces, where platforms are on both sides of tracks. Possibly there are few exceptions, but nearly all platforms are on straight track.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.