Despite the fact that the new Denver Airport transit line does not come within 30 miles of the University of Colorado, UC paid $5 million for naming rights. So if you want to go to the airport, don't look for the airport train, look for the University of Colorado A Line train.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28663257/cu-wins-rtd-branding-agreement-dia-train
Also, while the trains will have level boarding convenient for travellers with luggage, pictures of the trains on RTD's website shows 3-2 seating with narrow isles, which should make it fairly difficult to drag your luggage thru the train.
Here's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but still apt, I think. These two downtown-airport lines are limited stop, heavy rail, but Pittsburgh's light rail system (which doesn't serve the airport) can shed light on your question. Its double-ended LRVs have high level floors, with three high and one low level doors per side. Major stops in the downtown subway and elsewhere are high level, but some of the street level stops can also be quite busy at times. When that's the case, the superiority of high level over low for loading/unloading efficiency is painfully obvious, especially when office workers or shoppers have bags and packages. This is true even when comparing use of the single low level door with use of a single high level one. (At high level stops without fare booth attendants, only a single high level door opens.)
I see no reason that high level would make these new services any less attractive to airport workers. High level doors and platforms with ramps, escalators or stairs make the going faster and easier for all.
The video did show the 3-position steps, but only two steps.
Quote:
Dave, I think the 3 position step you describe must be the one at the operator's position. I remember the other doors had steps like what's in this video, and when I rode in the early 1990's they didn't yet have wheelchair ramps. In fact the Boeing Vertol LRV's http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=472030 at the time had the end doors on an angle that left too big a gap between high level platform and car, so that they used ONLY the mid-body doors at high level platforms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFGRyMF5TyU
this video, which includes newer cars, shows that they have an end angle like their Boeing predecessors, but the doors are aft of the angle, so I bet they can use all doors at high level platforms.
I have long been amazed at how San Francisco manages to transition their light rail cars between steps for street level boarding and flat for high platform boarding in service, with standees who somehow manage not to trip or get their feet lodged in the escalator like treads. Does anybody know any statistics for San Francisco light rail step injury claims?
Philadelphia's rebuilt PCC's have their wheelchair lifts at the center doors, I assumed San Francisco's rebuilt PCC's do too, but the video at 7:10 clearly shows no center door wheelchair lift, but at 7:55 I can see a street platform with a wheelchair ramp.
[/quote]
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
From what I remember, SF's MUNI has an entirely different arrangement, so cars can operate like normal high-floor siubway cars in the high-platform subway and like streetcars elsewhere. The two or three steps are individual elevators within the car. Three positions, as a flat panel for all three at low-platform level, as steps, and as a flat panel, all tlhree, at car-floor high-platform level. A wheel chair or handicapped person steps on the low-platform level panle, the operator raises all three simultaneously to the high-floor level. In the subway the three steps are normally at the high-floor level, outside as steps. That is what I remember. There may be only two steps and not three, however.
I didn't describe Baltimore's arrangement as well as I think I should have. If I remember correctly the door at the operator's end has at least 2 parts: a cantilevered piece that swings down parallel to the door to fill in the step, then when the door's open another piece that's more like what I consider a bridge plate that the operator flips over to meet the platform's handicapped ramp.
From your description it sounds like what Denver uses has only 1 moving part which the operator lowers after opening the door which then covers the steps and helps bridge the gap between car and platform. Is my description accurate? Wouldn't it be nice if we could find some photos?
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.
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.
daveklepper Are the lifts for the handicapped within the cars?
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.
daveklepper Ahah, I thought their latest equipment was low-floor. Perhaps he just happened to board one of their original light rail cars.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Glad to know it works for you. How was ridershp?
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.
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 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.
[quote user="daveklepper"]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
Illinois Central has been running gallery bi-levels since 1972 and South Shore began running them in 2008.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.