cplchanb
Senior Member
yup in the end its a money issue and this is one of the easy political wins for a complete station at the expense of value engineering the hell out of the construction drawings.
|
|
|
- Thread starter mdrejhon
- Start date
alexb
Active Member
Saw you're at Rutherford in the video - correct me if I'm wrong but the heated enclosures on the platforms are also built for the eventual height increase. The window directly above the door seems like its cut in 2 pieces so that when they raise the height, the bottom section of glass is removed and the door is simply raised into the new frame.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Regarding our earlier discussion of the boarding efficiency of different platform heights, I decided to do a comparison of rolling stock.
For 610mm double-decker coaches, I used our current BiLevels. I excluded the locomotive because it doesn't need to fit on the platform.
For 610mm single-level EMUs, I used the Stadler FLIRT, which is currently the only FRA-compliant single-level multiple unit with 610mm. I combined the floor height of TexRail's FLIRT DMUs with the other stats of NS's FLIRT EMUs.
For 1220mm single-level EMUs it's technically possible to have more than 2 doors per side, but I couldn't actually find any FRA-certified examples. So I used a hypothetical version of the Kawasaki M8 with 3 doors per side.
So it looks like even with GO's 610mm standard, single-level EMUs could have 25% more doors per side than GO's current trains. And considering that single-level trains would have fewer total passengers than BiLevel trains, the time to load and unload passengers at stops should be considerably lower.
It looks like low-floor single-level EMUs could nicely complement BiLevel coaches, with the EMUs operating local services on the central segments (e.g. to Bramalea, Aurora), while express services continuing further out are operated by BiLevel coaches hauled by diesel/bi-mode locomotives (e.g. to Kitchener) or electric locomotives (e.g. to Barrie).
For 610mm double-decker coaches, I used our current BiLevels. I excluded the locomotive because it doesn't need to fit on the platform.
For 610mm single-level EMUs, I used the Stadler FLIRT, which is currently the only FRA-compliant single-level multiple unit with 610mm. I combined the floor height of TexRail's FLIRT DMUs with the other stats of NS's FLIRT EMUs.
For 1220mm single-level EMUs it's technically possible to have more than 2 doors per side, but I couldn't actually find any FRA-certified examples. So I used a hypothetical version of the Kawasaki M8 with 3 doors per side.
So it looks like even with GO's 610mm standard, single-level EMUs could have 25% more doors per side than GO's current trains. And considering that single-level trains would have fewer total passengers than BiLevel trains, the time to load and unload passengers at stops should be considerably lower.
It looks like low-floor single-level EMUs could nicely complement BiLevel coaches, with the EMUs operating local services on the central segments (e.g. to Bramalea, Aurora), while express services continuing further out are operated by BiLevel coaches hauled by diesel/bi-mode locomotives (e.g. to Kitchener) or electric locomotives (e.g. to Barrie).
Last edited:
superelevation
Active Member
The Flirts or something similar seem like a natural pick, they are tested (tho not the pure electric version) in North America, can be manufactured here and are just generally really nice. For longer trips the bilevels should suffice.
MrGoose
Active Member
Just got off the new electric Stadler KISS Caltrain EMUs.
In terms of platform height and the process of migrating the system from one standard to the other, one thing that can work is retractable steps. So whole stations can be lifted individually, and the work can be staged.
In terms of platform height and the process of migrating the system from one standard to the other, one thing that can work is retractable steps. So whole stations can be lifted individually, and the work can be staged.
dowlingm
Senior Member
What would the MTBF of those steps be in a snow/salt setup as here? Climate wise Northern California would seem much more forgiving, and I doubt the Swiss carpet bomb their station exteriors in salt.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Yeah an adjustable step is pretty much the only way of transitioning from status quo to level boarding without shutting down a line for months, though I'm not sure if CalTrain's is actually capable of level boarding considering their level boarding platforms are planned to be at 50" (hence the doors on the middle level).
But I heard an unverified rumor that Alstom has determined that it isn't possible to retrofit an adjustable step to our BiLevel coaches. Which would explain why we're still stuck in the 'future-proofing' stage nearly a decade after establishing the 610mm level boarding standard - they should have been raising platforms by now. If true, it would add a complication to Alstom's original proposal to keep nearly all of the current BiLevels post-electrification. If EMUs could provide level boarding while BiLevel coaches can't, that tips the balance a bit more in favour of EMUs than they might have originally estimated.
MrGoose
Active Member
Where did you hear this rumor from?
I feel like this is not true, and might just be impossible to do and be cheaper than buying new cars.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Whereas I do understand how a step may bridge the gap to a platform which is significantly lower than the boarding height, I fail to see how it could achieve the same to a platform which is significantly higher than the boarding height…
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Who said anything about a platform higher than the floor of the train?
The situations the GO train needs to handle are:
127mm platform to 610mm train, and
610mm platform to 610mm train.
Last edited: