EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
Why? The midd level on go trains is only accessible by stairs and there would be very little space for wheelchairs or anyone else with doors on both sides.
|
|
|
- Thread starter mdrejhon
- Start date
rbt
Senior Member
The main argument for this is decreasing dwell time (at union mostly) by doubling the internal passenger flow as there would be 2 paths feeding the door (stairs up and stairs down). With level exits, the single internal stairways will become the choke point.
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
I get that people want that but from what Metrolinx has put out they don't seem to be wanting to reduce the number of seats on the train to have more doors. Also the platforms aren't going to be at wheel level from what the plans seem to show. Even VIA seems to have given up on wheel height platforms as the new trains they ordered have wheelchair lifts built into them.
Voltz
Senior Member
There already are two paths feeding the doors, passengers coming from the lower lev el and those coming down the stairs, not a fully balanced number from each path, but you wouldn't double the passenger flow with mid level doors, which would have the drawback of requiring most passengers to use the stars.
rbt
Senior Member
Agreed. It seems like a future 2050+ fleet renewal problem when 30 seconds of excess dwell is a major concern to line capacity; trying to run LakeShore trains through Union at ~3 minute frequencies.
Even then, they can side-step the issue by breaking a line out of Union to a single-platform station beneath Wellington or Harbour street. Dwell doesn't matter much if trains are not waiting for platform access.
Last edited:
rbt
Senior Member
Morning union dwell time is based on the last person to exit, not the average time. Two balanced paths can lead to the train spending less time stationary at the platform even if some passengers take longer to exit than today.
Last edited:
Urban Sky
Senior Member
In my (admittedly: highly subjective and selective) observation, the main choke point is not the horizontal egress from the train, but the vertical egress from the platform to the passenger concourses…
As we’ve discussed on the VIA Rail thread a few months ago, Toronto Union is not Wien Hauptbahnhof:
rbt
Senior Member
Absolutely true today; and restructuring Union platforms is intended which they seem to think will be sufficient.
Their non-CBTC signalling system is likely another big-ticket item keeping GO trains to 5+ minute headways.
Mid-level boarding is more of a 2050 problem, when passenger demand is high enough GO needs to start hitting 3 minute headways on both local and express during rush.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Yes, that is how basically all systems which currently have 1220mm/48" level boarding handled/handle the transition period. Trapdoors can allow a single door to either open with steps downward or a flat floor for level boarding. All VIA coaches are equipped with trapdoors for this purpose.
NJ Transit Bombardier Multilevel Coach: outer doors include trapdoors to serve both high-level and low-level platforms. Inner doors only open at high-level platforms.
The only 48" systems which were built from scratch at that height are the Union Pearson Express, Portland WES, Marin County SMART, and the Denver RTD. The rest need/needed to accommodate low platforms while operating rolling stock with 48" entry. Accessibility at low-platform stations is provided either using mini high platforms (e.g. MBTA, NJ Transit), or wheelchair lifts (e.g. VIA Rail, Amtrak California San Joaquins). The transition period to 48" is definitey more awkward than the transition to 24", but the end result also provides more flexibility in rolling stock, as well as interoperability with other rail operators in Northeastern North America (e.g. VIA Rail and Amtrak).
Mini high platform at Montvale Station, New Jersey
Last edited:
tsm1072
Active Member
If dwell times are becoming a problem, couldn't GO eventually get coaches with 3 sets of doors at the current low-level (610mm level boarding). It wouldn't help much, but they may eventually not run double-decker coaches and instead use coaches with just the lower and mid levels for the most frequent routes.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Or create more mid level platforms for level boarding.
tsm1072
Active Member
I believe they are planning to eventually upgrade all platforms to be at level boarding height
44 North
Senior Member
Sometimes I think RER or whatever it's called now will be more like a series of different companies using different trains with different pricing structures. Maybe some might be high-platform level boarding, maybe some won't.
ARG1
Senior Member
As I've previously said, best hope for GO is we get EMUs sort of like Caltrain where they have room for midlevel doors, so in the future when the last bilevels retire we can rethink platform heights and raise them to high floor.The Netherlands has universally adopted the 760mm standard, and all new trains are equipped with automatic gap fillers at that height.
The platform at the end of the video which is too low has since been rebuilt at the correct height.
As with GO's 610mm standard, 760mm is too low for conventional high-floor trains because a bogie can't fit under a floor at that height. But to make matters worse, it's also too high for the lower level of double-decker trains. The current double deckers have doors on the middle level with steps up from the platform. To introduce level boarding, future double deckers will need to have a design similar to the Bombardier Regio2N where doors are located in a separate single-level coach. At least we can be glad that GO's 610mm standard doesn't create a mess like that.
Image: Bombardier Regio2N
610 mm (24") seems like it is becoming the standard for low-floor level boarding in the western and southern States. Although it's unfortunate that GO has rejected the standard height used by every system near Toronto, at least there will be some off-the-shelf 610mm DMUs and coaches available. The Stadler FLIRT trains used in Texas and California have level boarding at 610mm, and those states also run Bombardier Bilevel coaches. But the Bilevel coaches haven't been retrofitted with adjustable steps, so stations used by both types have multiple platform heights, even though the trains have the same interior floor height.
Fort Worth Central Station, raised platform segment for Stadler FLIRT trains (screenshot from this video).
View attachment 373499
San Bernardino Transit Center, raised platform segments for Stadler FLIRT trains (from Streetview)
View attachment 373497
reaperexpress
Senior Member
You think Metrolinx would spend hundreds of millions of dollars raising platforms to 1220mm after they already have level boarding at 610mm?!
I agree that 1220mm level boarding has rolling stock advantages over 610mm level boarding but there's absolutely no way those benefits would justify hundreds of millions of dollars (billions?) in station upgrades.
The single-level rolling stock with low-platform level boarding tends to use Jacobs Bogies to provide a low floor throughout the coach. The floor between the coaches is slightly higher, and connected by a ramp. Jacobs bogies don't need a central mounting point like conventional bogies, so passengers can actually pass between the wheels. Although these trains tend not to have more than 2 doors per car side, they have a shorter car length which results in more doors per train length than our current Bilevels.
Stadler FLIRT of Nederlandse Spoorwegen
Stadler FLIRT of TexRail (which includes 610mm level boarding). The wheels are located under these seats.
