Does 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.
Faster operation is assured by level boarding where passengers do not need to use stairs, either inside or outside the cars, to enter or leave. This usualy means low-floor cars, with all the added mantenance expense that involves, for modern streetcars and for light rail lines that have street trackage, even when that street trackage is exclusive. Metro North has converted nearly all its stations to higih platforma and contia nues to use and order single-level cars. LIRR is for the most part the same, but has some double-level cars in push-pull service.
On a per-passenger basic, double-level cars are more expensive, not less. They are valuable because fewer trains are required to move the same number of passenger, and if the tracks and/or stations are capacity-restrained, they can be essential to get the job done. The original impetus for the CB&Q gallery cars was to reduce the charges for using Union Station, figured on a per-car basis.
Note that station dwell times are longer with double-deck cars, slower loading and unloading.
High platform (“Continental style”) at both ends, since time immemorial, has been the approach when ‘zero floor height’ is wanted – as for example when passengers have lots of luggage to manage. This is likely to remain the standard for ‘dedicated’ airport lines where the stops are defined, and the construction budget is high.
Meanwhile, modern developments in ELF (extremely-low-floor) transit equipment have made much the same convenience possible for ‘random-access’ equipment, and with only slight and simple concrete curbing and paving this will give just the same effect as high platforms (albeit with steps or ramps inside the cars needed to pass over the areas where the trucks are located).
There is no simple way to make the two types of system compatible; this is particularly evident where large numbers of passengers must enter or exit the equipment in a short time (as with transit equipment during rush hour – or when transferring between flights at an airport…)
There was considerable discussion about this with respect to the proposed Memphis ‘airport line’, which was redefined to be a glorified streetcar project serving a number of low-income neighborhoods the route traversed (as otherwise its multibillion-dollar cost would be politically unjustifiable). When a great many of the stops involve low-floor access, the primary stops must be low-floor also, and of course this saves dramatically on construction and probably on maintenance cost; it also precludes the accidents that come with people falling off platforms or trying to cross tracks and finding they can’t get back up before a train comes.
One thing that has changed recently is the massive design emphasis on modern extremely-low-floor transit equipment that is also capable of high acceleration and high speed; this has provided a good choice of OTS equipment at what promises to be competitive cost. On the other hand, it’s probably still go
Rolling stock maintenance costs are considerably higher for low-floor high performance cars, because of the complexity of the truck designs and the motor-to-axle gearing, unless wheel motors are used, and they are more expensive for given power ratings. They are also much less forgiving of deteriorated track, if not as bad in that department as a 4-wheel Birney.
Denver Airport already has a subway that connects the 3 concourses with the main terminal. It is easy with pasengers and all that roller luggage. They did not have to look far to see what system works.
How about handicap accessability? You don’t have to purchase and maintain expensive wheelchair elevators when the cars load and unload only at high level platforms. And with single level cars you don’t have any internal stairs
I think that the Denver cars are essentially copies of Metro-North M8s, so maybe the goal was to not substantially modify equipment?
The Toronto line makes less sense, as GO trains use low level platforms.
the Denver cars are copies of the SEPTA new fleet. And the Toronto line makes no sense unless you are a rider towing a couple of bags. The GOTransit cars are airline passenger unfriendly. As a user of many airports services this is the right thing to do. Not enough traffic for locomotive hauled services.
Thanks, I should have checked before posting. They are very similar to the Silverliner Vs.
One doesn’t need stairs to enter or leave. It’s entirely possible to have the platform and railcar floor on the same level. Maybe not cost effective when freight and passenger trains share station tracks, not an issue with these 2 passenger dedicated lines. I’ve long wondered why places like Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington DC have low level platforms that are one step below every railcar’s floor or 1st step.
You’re letting streetcars creep into a grade separated dedicated railroad discussion.
These are legacy systems that have lots of clearance issues that make it difficult to squeeze high cars. Do you know of insurmountable clearance issues with the Denver or Toronto airport lines?
Although I concede that’s true of the multi levels we see in the northeast US that doesn’t have to be. I’d love to see statistics that show multi levels such as Toronto’s, Miami’s, Los Angeles’s, etc… with their 2 sets of generously wide double doors per car and gigantic flat vestibules, if one can
I don’t see why you have to have wheelchair elevators if the platform and the railcar entrance are the same height. Other than when mixed with freight cars I don’t see why we have so many stations whose low level platforms are a step lower than every passenger railcar.
If you are talking about the platform being the same level as the seating in the railcar then it is a high level platform whether the railcar is a standard floor car or a low floor car. If not, you are only eliminating the step from the platform to the car and will still need an elevator to lift the wheelchair from the lowest step on the railcar to the seating level.
You do not need to have low platforms when freight is mixed with passenger operations on the same tracks. Just install gauntlets as was done on the Lehigh Valley to permit the Valley’s freight to clear the platforms which were installed to accomodate the rerouted CNJ commuter trains.
Downtown Denver to the airport is a scheduled 35 minutes. 5 intermediate stops using low level platforms would add 5 additional minutes and if each stop had an ADA passenger the required stops would have added 10 minutes. That would severly repulse repeat riders.
I don’t see a problem with constructing a patform on a level with the lower floor of a double deck car. Of course there is still the stairs to the upper floor. Much of the lower floor would be reserved for handicap/senior, and the rest would be quickly taken up by airline passengers with luggage and airport workers. This leaves the rest of the passengers to struggle up stairs with luggage and maybe kids in tow. Double deckers may be fine for commuters, but they are a disaster for airport travelers with luggage.
Using high level platforms probably allows for one less train set to cover the schedule. + one or 2 less crews per day. That is significant.
Toronto’s GO trains are configured for high-volume, multiple-stop commuter service, running primarily during rush hours. Many of these trains run 10-12 cars long and are still packed. The vestibule areas are OK for strollers, bikes, and luggage, but the assumption is that most passengers will be carrying little more than a purse, briefcase, or backpack.
The new Union Pearson Express airport train service is designed for fast, frequent, point-to-point service over a relatively short distance (relative to the GO trains). Fares are much higher than GO, and they are obviously not expecting as many passengers per train, as a trainset I recently saw was only three cars long. It’s not a commuter train, nor is it a transit option for the neighborhoods it passes through as I don’t think it will stop (or maybe make one stop?). They are targeting only the people who are currently using taxis, limos, or their personal vehicles to connect between the airport and downtown core. Speed and luggage-friendliness have clearly trumped passenger volume per train as design considerations.
Yep, that sounds like what must have happened, in both Denver and Toronto they must have decided that these lines will be to the airport only, emphasizing making them as attractive as possible to air travelers with luggage.
The downsides as I see it are that
It’s less attractive to airport workers
Also less attractive to commuters in general to any of the other stops on those lines besides the airport. I assume they also intend to market those stops primarilly to luggage bearing passengers.
It makes the lines less amenable to expansion or infill. For example Philadelphia’s airport line, which I’ve heard carries a fair number of airport worker commuters, added a stop just before the airport, which is not one of the lowest performing stops on the system, and I assume doesn’t handle many luggage bearing folks.
What’s it like in Europe? Don’t they have at least a few regular railroad lines for which the airport is just another stop on an inter-city run? How have those lines handled the balance between maximum passengers and maximum luggage?
When the South Shore Railroad updated to high level platforms at my Hegewisch station, it was the greatest improvements ever. Now, one man can open all the doors. When the stairs were needed, only every other pair of doors were available due to personnel being needed to open the floor hatch, often sweep snow off the icy steps, and close up upon leaving. the dwell time was lengthy due to the narrow steps, especially with older folks and people with disabilities.
Most of the intercity passengers have luggage, too. The cars are thus designed with luggage space in mind, and so are not designed to stuff in as many people as possible like in commuter cars. High level platforms are standard in Europe.
Like other folks who’ve responded to this thread, you don’t mention the other part of the subject: single level equipment. I think the dwell times might be a bit shorter if South Shore and IC electric had gone for the galley equipment otherwise standard in Chicago or the hotdog style multi level equipment like Toronto and many other more recent operations and platforms just high enough to allow no step access.
I’m surprised that high level platforms are standard in Europe. Are you sure you don’t mean platforms just high enough to allow no step access? The pictures in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_Duplex don’t show what I’m used to for a North American high level platform.