Has anyone ever considered using the leaning/kneeling bus technology on single level rail cars? Especially ones like amfleet or comet/horizon which are also designed to work on high level platforms.
It wouldn't work since a kneeling bus involves an adjustment to the suspension system which lowers the frame and body. Lowering the frame in a passenger car for something similar would be difficult to impossible because of tension in the couplers and frame if the slack is run out or the interlocking function in tightlock couplers if the slack is bunched.
Even if you collapsed the suspension on a railcar, you'd only lower it a few inches. Not sure that really helps accomplish anything useful.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CSSHEGEWISCHIt wouldn't work since a kneeling bus involves an adjustment to the suspension system which lowers the frame and body
I think a distinction has to be made between 'conventional' equipment and inherently low-floor transit equipment.
For conventional heavy rail, the situation is largely as indicated. Keep in mind that the suspension situation is a bit different between bus and rail. The kneeling-bus system doesn't work by 'lowering the suspension' the way low-riders do it -- a failure would make the bus rapidly unsafe or put it out of service. Instead, it jacks DOWN the conventional suspension. On a railroad car, there isn't enough compliance in the primary suspension (on the trucks) to get more than a few inches' worth of drop, and the secondary suspension not much more. (Peripheral note: on a bus, the 'primary suspension' is the rubber tires, and you may note that nobody proposes kneeling the bus by deflating/inflating the tires!)
There's little point in making the 'bottom step' low-walkover if there is still so much step-up to the car floor that you need steps or long ramps. Also as indicated, you would have to 'drop' the whole train, not just one car.
On a low-floor transit car, the kneeling situation is potentially more attractive, especially if the couplers between cars can be designed to accommodate drop and twist. The question is the extent to which true zero walkover height is required. I suspect much of the same effect could be achieved with extendable powered ramps much more easily than with changes in already-expensive low-floor trucks and drive equipment.
Has the questioner ever ridden a modern streetcar or light rail system with low-floor cars? These cars have level boarding fourteen inches above railhead, which is only slightly higher than a normal sidewalk above vehicle road paving. This is a perfected reliable technolgy. Admittadly such cars are more expensive to build and maintain than equivalent high-floor cars, three feet to fifty inches above railhead and meeting equal-height high platforms, but not nearly more expensive than adding some addition up and down movement to the cars. In other words, the added investment in kneeling is unnecessary, would simply add other complications, and makes in truth as much sense as addding a steering wheel. Yeh, why not have drivers of light railcars control the direction at switches by use of a bus-type steering wheel? This question is equally nonsensical.
Or why don't buses have rudders? And gangpanks? Trains too. How about safety vests and life presevers in case a bus goes off the road or a train derails on a bridge?
Yes I have ridden of tram/light rail service but I'm not talking about light rail, I was talking about heavy rail. The height from the first step of a comet/amfleet to a lot of low level platforms is pretty significant. I was wondering if a kneeling bus like technology could help make it easier to board and leave the trains.
That's why the conductor or trainman will put out a stepbox. At any rate, the subsequent steps in the vestibule are still of a pretty good size due to space limitations.
zkr123 Yes I have ridden of tram/light rail service but I'm not talking about light rail, I was talking about heavy rail. The height from the first step of a comet/amfleet to a lot of low level platforms is pretty significant. I was wondering if a kneeling bus like technology could help make it easier to board and leave the trains.
Look at the trucks of a full size, heavy rail commuter car and you can see the engineering problems with your idea.
Some type of retractable ramp on the platform might be more feasible (though maybe not much more practical)..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Every idea that pops into one's head should be checked for some feasibiltiy before posting it. Don;t you notice that when a bus "kneels" it also moves sl;ightly sideways? And tha the front door goes down, but the rear of the bus actualloy moves up a bit? An automobile is a thing unto itself, it doesn't need to react with rails and other cars in a train.
I really say, there has never been a posting as stupid as this one. If someone can name one, please do.
To me, the OP was unaware of the details of the construction of the cars that he thought could be modified so that it would be easier for passengers to board them. My first thought upon reading the original post was, "It can't be done." I appreciate the explanations as to why it cannot be done (or would be extemely difficult to do) by men who are far more familiar with the details of construction than I am. Considering the apparent lack of knowledge of construction on the part of the OP, I would not want to say that it is a stupid idea.
Johnny
I accept that criticism that perhaps I should have been a lot more gentle in my criticism. The point though is that some check on feasibility should be performed, some thoughfulnes, and I hope we can learn.
Did you ever see a kneeling bus that could not get back up and had to discharge its passengers and wait for a repair truck? I saw one once. Anybody else see one or was on one?
And yet the amount of kneel isn't all that great. My experience is that the drivers use the feature only for handicapped and elderly.
The first day of trials of Jerusalem light rail wI was surprised by the narrow clearance between door sills and platforms, just about like an elevator. And it works without a problem.
zkr123I'm not talking about light rail, I was talking about heavy rail. The height from the first step of a comet/Amfleet to a lot of low level platforms is pretty significant. I was wondering if a kneeling bus like technology could help make it easier to board and leave the trains.
The 'straight' answer is no, even for a modified Amfleet car that would have very long secondary springing on the bolsters. But the actual idea is not quite so dumb if we think outside the box about 'kneeling'.
What actually needs to 'kneel' (i.e. be depressed against a permanent spring 'suspension' by an air cylinder or gearmotor arrangement) is just the part of the vestibule where the steps are... not the whole end of the car. You can't 'drop' the whole vestibule end down because of the center sill and draft gear, but one side can easily be pulled down, say, on roller chains, so the bottom step is at 'ground level' or even well below rail level, eliminating the need for a stepbox (which was the original point, I think). This in essence gives you one more (temporary) step" at the top, between the trap and the center corridor in the vestibule (with the other side trap surface acting as a 'landing') to lengthen the stair flight to the ground.
The kind of 'roll-out' steps seen in pictures of early streamlined equipment might work, too (when deployed they might even project beyond clearance, giving additional steps at relatively low individual stepover height).
(It would also be possible to provide certain cars with the equivalent of a wheelchair lift instead of steps at one 'corner' -- similar in operation to the devices used to move wheelchairs up and down stairs. This would move the trap and safety rails outboard slightly and then down tracks arranged past the edges of the steps, with a linkage holding the platform horizontal until it is close to the ground. It might then be tipped, or a roll-out ramp extended (as on a bus) to give quick zero walkover height. There's probably too much liability involved with a device that standing passengers would be riding vertically -- but you might be able to provide something like a folding safety seat (or wheelchair) that locks into place just for the trip...
Wizlish zkr123 I'm not talking about light rail, I was talking about heavy rail. The height from the first step of a comet/Amfleet to a lot of low level platforms is pretty significant. I was wondering if a kneeling bus like technology could help make it easier to board and leave the trains. The 'straight' answer is no, even for a modified Amfleet car that would have very long secondary springing on the bolsters. But the actual idea is not quite so dumb if we think outside the box about 'kneeling'. What actually needs to 'kneel' (i.e. be depressed against a permanent spring 'suspension' by an air cylinder or gearmotor arrangement) is just the part of the vestibule where the steps are... not the whole end of the car. You can't 'drop' the whole vestibule end down because of the center sill and draft gear, but one side can easily be pulled down, say, on roller chains, so the bottom step is at 'ground level' or even well below rail level, eliminating the need for a stepbox (which was the original point, I think). This in essence gives you one more (temporary) step" at the top, between the trap and the center corridor in the vestibule (with the other side trap surface acting as a 'landing') to lengthen the stair flight to the ground. The kind of 'roll-out' steps seen in pictures of early streamlined equipment might work, too (when deployed they might even project beyond clearance, giving additional steps at relatively low individual stepover height). (It would also be possible to provide certain cars with the equivalent of a wheelchair lift instead of steps at one 'corner' -- similar in operation to the devices used to move wheelchairs up and down stairs. This would move the trap and safety rails outboard slightly and then down tracks arranged past the edges of the steps, with a linkage holding the platform horizontal until it is close to the ground. It might then be tipped, or a roll-out ramp extended (as on a bus) to give quick zero walkover height. There's probably too much liability involved with a device that standing passengers would be riding vertically -- but you might be able to provide something like a folding safety seat (or wheelchair) that locks into place just for the trip...
zkr123 I'm not talking about light rail, I was talking about heavy rail. The height from the first step of a comet/Amfleet to a lot of low level platforms is pretty significant. I was wondering if a kneeling bus like technology could help make it easier to board and leave the trains.
Don't forget US passenger equipment uses tightlock, interlocking couplers which endeavor to keep all cars in the same horizontal plane. To lower the vestibule end of one car, it would also lower the end of the adjoining car it was coupled to, this could be a problem unless cars were coupled at the vesitbule end and both cars were lowered as a unit.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDDon't forget US passenger equipment uses tightlock, interlocking couplers which endeavor to keep all cars in the same horizontal plane. To lower the vestibule end of one car, it would also lower the end of the adjoining car it was coupled to, this could be a problem unless cars were coupled at the vesitbule end and both cars were lowered as a unit
What I'm thinking is a little different. Imagine each side of the 'stairs' in the vestibule was made separate and ran on vertical rails, like a little elevator car. That is the only section that moves, and it is forcibly 'kneeled' against permanent restoring spring pressure. The center sill of the car (and the couplers and HEP and brake lines, etc.) doesn't move; doesn't need to move.
Wizlish BaltACD Don't forget US passenger equipment uses tightlock, interlocking couplers which endeavor to keep all cars in the same horizontal plane. To lower the vestibule end of one car, it would also lower the end of the adjoining car it was coupled to, this could be a problem unless cars were coupled at the vesitbule end and both cars were lowered as a unit What I'm thinking is a little different. Imagine each side of the 'stairs' in the vestibule was made separate and ran on vertical rails, like a little elevator car. That is the only section that moves, and it is forcibly 'kneeled' against permanent restoring spring pressure. The center sill of the car (and the couplers and HEP and brake lines, etc.) doesn't move; doesn't need to move.
BaltACD Don't forget US passenger equipment uses tightlock, interlocking couplers which endeavor to keep all cars in the same horizontal plane. To lower the vestibule end of one car, it would also lower the end of the adjoining car it was coupled to, this could be a problem unless cars were coupled at the vesitbule end and both cars were lowered as a unit
And what about the structural integraty of the typical single-level car monocoque car construction? The day of coaches and sleepes being consructed as a house on a flatcar has long past. These days the entire floor is part of the strength of the structure.
I wish you would really try and learn a bit more about the topics you wish to discuss before making your suggestions, and then they will be constructive.
When I make suggestions, they also may appear unworkable because of the politics or corporate policies involved, but at least they make technical sense. I assure you, a kneeling passenger train car does not make any sense whatsoever, and if it did, it would be an outlandishly expensive solution to a problem solvable by far more economical measures.
A one-car "rail-bus" might use the idea. A one car-rail bus to restore passenger service on a branch line where the road crossings are used as the passenger boarding and discharge points instead of station platforms.
daveklepper A one-car "rail-bus" might use the idea. A one car-rail bus to restore passenger service on a branch line where the road crossings are used as the passenger boarding and discharge points instead of station platforms.
Wasn't 'rail-bus' the concept of the Aerotrain? And as a railcar it rode worse.
BaltACD daveklepper A one-car "rail-bus" might use the idea. A one car-rail bus to restore passenger service on a branch line where the road crossings are used as the passenger boarding and discharge points instead of station platforms. Wasn't 'rail-bus' the concept of the Aerotrain? And as a railcar it rode worse.
More like the New Haven Mack railbus or the UK's Pacers (Leyland National buses).
IMO a high level platform with a gauntlet track so freight can pass would be a cheaper option instead of building a one off kneeling car.
blue streak 1 IMO a high level platform with a gauntlet track so freight can pass would be a cheaper option instead of building a one off kneeling car.
NICTD has already done this with several stations on the South Shore Line.
Many Metra cars are equipped for wheelchair access. They use a folding, hydraulic ramp in the center vestibule. Why reinvent the wheel when a decent system is already used?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Toronto buses have gangplanks that fold out for the use of wheelchair-bound passengers. People call them that. So far, not one driver has been heard saying "ARRR!" except maybe on "talk like a pirate day."
The bus drivers may be aware that civilized people use gangplanks for boarding and exiting ships and boats?
In the U.S. Navy it was called "the brow" for some reason. Never did figure out why.
Observation of a kneeling bus had a 0:01:30 ( 90 second cycle time.) not counting boardings and deboardings. Imagine that a kneling rail car might take 3 minutes to cycle. So a 20 stop run would add an hour to the schedule.
Longer travel times decrease passenger appeal, increase crew costs, prevent equipment from being used for another trip which increases need for more equipment that is more expensive. Anyone think this is a good idea ?
Almost goes along with the thread about Denver's commuter rail going with single level high platform trains.
rode the FDC on a fan trip. Told the experiment was ended when the brotherhoods refused one-man operation of the limited capacity vehicle.
SF's MUNI had Boeings, has Bredas, and will some new LRV's that are high-floor in the subway designed for heavy rapid transit and stepped-boarding on the streets outside the subway. Each three-trucked two-section car has four doors on each side. Each door has a motorized "trap." Both panels are at the normal 42" high-floor level in the subway. Street operaton sees the outer panel as a step at 14" about rail height and the inner panel at 28."
For wheel-chair and babycarriage loading in street operaton, both panels drop to 14" and together raise the load to the 42" level of the car floor. Works, but requires maintenance. Neded because the subway was not designed for the purpose for which it is used.
I was impressed by Sacramento, CA's light rail systems handicap access system. It was a very simple one where they had a small ramp and platform at the end of the platform where the motorman could spot the front door of the car (which was adjacent to his cab) and the car contained a metal gap filling plate which he could position to provide a level passage from the boarding area to the car. No hydralics, no machinery to fail. A real KISS solution. Saw it used by individual motorized wheel chairs and while it took about a minute for the motorman to exit the cab , position the plate, assist the passenger, and then stow the plate, it seemed very efficient.
Salt Lake City TRAXX has the same system.
Deggesty Salt Lake City TRAXX has the same system.
As does Denver
Did not Dallas have the same system until adding a middle-cente low-floor section matching the low platforms exactly and eliminating the need for the use of steps for thos boarding and exiting at the center platform. I think some European systems have done the same. Stuttgart is a real exception, and one sees long high platfomrs right in the middle of some streets, sort of like the IC South Chicago Branch. Pardon me, showing my age, METRA-Electric, of course.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.