[EnviroTO]

I'm hoping that over time they will find a way to migrate to high platforms and the multi-level coach AMT and NJ Transit uses provides a way to do it. It is safe to assume that VIA and Amtrak will never be low-floor, nor will any future high-speed rail, and likely the AirRail link will not be low-floor either.

 

[kettal]

I never understand why via stations don't have high platforms.

 

[EnviroTO]

Because the width acceptable for freight is wider than the width acceptable for passenger cars. They should be making passenger cars wider.

 

[RedRocket191]

These are the standard clearance envelopes for freight cars in North America:

http://www.trainweb.org/utahrails/drgw/plate.html

In theory freight cars are only a few inches wider than an Amfleet passenger car, but those clearance plates would only apply to cars on dead straight track. You would have to increase the gap if you wanted to build a platform on even the slightest curve, and with low platforms you wouldn't have to.

There is no question that there would be a benefit to changing it, but would rebuilding every platform in the country be less expensive than commissioning a company to design a new railcar?

With every low-floor railroad as a potential customer I suspect that the economies of scale will eventually bring the unit cost well below the rebuild cost, especially if they design it to have both an EMU and DMU option.

 

[EnviroTO]

There is no question that there would be a benefit to changing it, but would rebuilding every platform in the country be less expensive than commissioning a company to design a new railcar?

The problem is that a full sized rail wheel means a low floor passenger car cannot be level throughout the vehicle which is in turn less accessible and causes problems with rolling service carts through the train. The whole reason the regular floor is at its current height is to clear the bogies. A smaller wheel diameter would cause the wheel to rotate faster, wear down faster, create more resistance, and probably wouldn't ride the rail as well. All trains which have low floors have accessibility issues. Only a platform higher than the rail bogie can eliminate the problem.

 

[EnviroTO]

Probably the easiest thing to do is to have tracks which can be used by frieght to pass platforms and platform tracks which are only used by passenger trains. The other alternative is high platforms outside the clearance envelope and have the door open much like regional aircraft minus the stairs with a bridge and railing. If the extra setback of the accessible sections of the GO platform are the limit of the envelop the space to traverse isn't that great. They use various gap reduction techniques around the world including a platform that pushes out to the train and train deployed bridges.

 

[kettal]

Wouldn't it be easier to ake the platforms wide enough to accomodate all freight to pass through, and then have extended platforms coming out of the passenger train at the doors, so it reaches?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Wouldn't it be easier to ake the platforms wide enough to accomodate all freight to pass through, and then have extended platforms coming out of the passenger train at the doors, so it reaches?

like a drawbridge? that's what they use for the accessible car on GO trains (only i can't remember now if it folds out like on wheeltrans or they have to put it in place by hand).

 

[RedRocket191]

The bridge is placed there by hand between the acessible car and the raised mini-platform.

All other cars have two steps up from the platform into the coach. I'm interested in your take on this, prometheus. Assuming there is room for a wheelchair in the coach how do you feel about having to wait for the train in a specific area only rather than anywhere along the platform?

 

[ShonTron]

Question to stimulate discussion:

The North American-spec EMUs are not accessible to the low floor platform. Since it's unlikely that every platform will be rebuilt to high floor, what would a GO EMU look like?

Like the Bombardier EMUs in Montreal (which, if I recall correctly, is in North America) on the Deux-Montagnes Line? They serve both high and low platforms.

 

[drum118]

O-Train has the platform extension out of the platform during operation hour. After operation time, they are retracted to allow freight trains to pass. Folded down.

This can be done on any type of platform, but can cause operation problems for the RR if they fail to retract when running both types of service at the same time on the same track.

To get around this issue, all platforms must be on one side of the corridor leaving 2 tracks free for freight on the other side. Platform-track-platform-track-track-track.

This will allow all platforms to be at what every height to all 100% access without steps or ramp been needed.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Just verifying, the reason high-floor doesn't work is because freight trains have to have a leeway, correct? Am I correct to assume that passenger trains don't require this leeway, even when bypassing stops like VIA does to go stops?

If that's the problem, they could just use EMUs that serve both high and low platforms (I'm trying to figure out how that works,) like ShonTron said. On lines that won't have freight trains running on it (such as large portions of the lakeshore line) or where such a leeway would exist (separate freight tracks on the Georgetown Line,) why don't we build stations with high platforms? Eventually (hopefully,) basically all of Go's stations will be high platform as they acquire more of their own trackage. Then, they can start using conventional EMUs that are high-level only (which I assume has it's benefits.)

EDIT: Isn't the O-Train trackage not allowed to have freight trains running on it? I could swear I heard somewhere that Talents aren't allowed to run on shared trackage with freight trains.

They could also do a Platform-track-track-track-track-Platform layout, couldn't they? It would make the connections between both sides a bit trickier, but if the system becomes more of a regional rail/metro-like system, I see some advantages of having direct access to at least one platform from each side.
I bet they could even have Platform-track-track-track-Platform on routes that have less freight traffic. Just install passing track where needed, and you save a lot.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

The bridge is placed there by hand between the acessible car and the raised mini-platform.

All other cars have two steps up from the platform into the coach. I'm interested in your take on this, prometheus. Assuming there is room for a wheelchair in the coach how do you feel about having to wait for the train in a specific area only rather than anywhere along the platform?

it's better than nothing, that's for sure, but then again, i don't use the trains on a regular basis. someone who uses the go trains extensively would notice any problems. i'm guessing crowding could be a problem since only one coach per train is wheelchair accessible. i'm not sure exactly how much room or spots there are for wheelchairs in the coach. also, there is the issue of not all platforms/stations being accessible at all.

it would be nice to choose the coach you go in. reasons for this could be because you just wanna get in the closest one, maybe you want to be in the last coach so you can have a nice view looking directly out the back or for any other reason. i was just reading GO's accessibility plan and it says you can move between coaches. that's a hell of a trek though from the end coach back to the 5th on a moving train. are there even designated spots/fold away chairs for wheelchairs on the other coaches?

p.s, one thing i'm gonna miss when they electrify is the sound of the locomotive pulling away from the station.

 

[RedRocket191]

Like the Bombardier EMUs in Montreal (which, if I recall correctly, is in North America) on the Deux-Montagnes Line? They serve both high and low platforms.

These are not accessible at the low floor stations, with the exception of 2 cases. At one station there is a portable lift that requires a reservation - something that prevents everyone but daily commuters from using. At the other station there is a ramp, but it's different than the type GO uses - I don't think it would be wise to have two different acessible waiting areas. I'm not saying it can't be done, but if we're going to use high floor cars then we need to only use high floor cars for the sake of reducing passenger confusing about where to wait.

In theory, freight trains do not need a huge gap/drawbridge. The only reason Ottawa has them is because the equipment is European spec and narrower by design. If they were north american spec trains they would probably be as wide as the freight car and you wouldn't need drawbridges.

Again, I really think it boils down to this:

What's cheaper? Rebuilding every single train station or commissioning the design of a new vehicle that has the potential to be used anywhere in north america? I think the latter will be cheaper and better in the long run.

 

[DavidJamesTO]

EDIT: Isn't the O-Train trackage not allowed to have freight trains running on it? I could swear I heard somewhere that Talents aren't allowed to run on shared trackage with freight trains.

There are separate scheduling blocks; the Talents run during the day and CP freights at night.