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*
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
Then the solution must be multi deck station platforms so each floor on the train can have stepless platform access.
And a whopping increase in construction costs!
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.
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.
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.
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.
That did not stop me from pretending to take it seriously.
All for the benefit of the original poster.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.