Platform Heights, and Superliners

[MattW]

First, this isn't just about Superliners and platforms in relation to them.

I've been doing some reading (mostly Wikipedia) about platform heights and if I understand it right, East of the Mississippi, they can be low-level to high-level, but west, they can be low-level or a "medium" level like 15 inches*.

Now, about the Superliners and other bilevel cars like Metra, VRE etc., I understand that they can't use the 48" high-level platforms because of their lower floor design. Would it be possible or even feasible in the Superliner III design to include a 48" level entrance for compatibility back east here? Like a box at one end that has stairs (or ramp) both up and down? Would it even make sense? They obviously can't run into BAL or NYP due to height clearances, but what about a combined single-level/Superliner LSL until they get around to adding clearance to the tunnels then putting SIIIs on the other NYP trains? (years and years from now of course) I'm kind of going for fleet homogenality here because generally, the simpler your fleet, the cheaper to maintain and the more flexible you can be.

Now, more about platforms specifically. Historical reasons aside, why the wide range in platform heights? 8" here, 15" there, 48" over here... It would seem that in addition to standardizing the fleet, it'd make sense to standardize the platforms at least in new constructions.

Um, there was something else I wanted to add, but can't remember it right now, but I thought It'd be neat to see what a discussion on this topic here brings

 

[goodnightjohnwayne]

First, this isn't just about Superliners and platforms in relation to them.
I've been doing some reading (mostly Wikipedia) about platform heights and if I understand it right, East of the Mississippi, they can be low-level to high-level, but west, they can be low-level or a "medium" level like 15 inches*.

Now, about the Superliners and other bilevel cars like Metra, VRE etc., I understand that they can't use the 48" high-level platforms because of their lower floor design. Would it be possible or even feasible in the Superliner III design to include a 48" level entrance for compatibility back east here? Like a box at one end that has stairs (or ramp) both up and down? Would it even make sense? They obviously can't run into BAL or NYP due to height clearances, but what about a combined single-level/Superliner LSL until they get around to adding clearance to the tunnels then putting SIIIs on the other NYP trains? (years and years from now of course) I'm kind of going for fleet homogenality here because generally, the simpler your fleet, the cheaper to maintain and the more flexible you can be.

Now, more about platforms specifically. Historical reasons aside, why the wide range in platform heights? 8" here, 15" there, 48" over here... It would seem that in addition to standardizing the fleet, it'd make sense to standardize the platforms at least in new constructions.

Um, there was something else I wanted to add, but can't remember it right now, but I thought It'd be neat to see what a discussion on this topic here brings

High level platforms, such as those found in NYP and at most NE Corridor and modern Empire Service stations simplify boarding and reduce dwell times. High level platforms are altogether superior and offer a higher level of accessibility.

Typically speaking, low level platforms are cheaper to build and don't interfere with the clearance requirements of freight equipment, meaning that they are the way to go for whistle stops on a line that only see a single long distance train in each direction every day. On corridors, they are an obvious disadvantage.

Looking back, traditional single level passenger equipment was almost always equipped for either low or high level platforms. Amtrak created a massive problem by splitting its fleet, a problem that had never existed for most predecessor railroads. I'm not going to argue the merits of bi-level equipment, although I can say that with an aging and increasingly obese population, the Superliner is a poor design. Those narrow stairs are a major liability in every sense of the word.

 

[George Harris]

There is a long list of laws, standards, present and past practices involved in this subject.

Specifically,, concerning adding doors at high platform level to superliners: Someone else will have to give a more definitive answer, but at the very least, you would lose some capacity, and there may be body shell strength issues involved, as well.

Most of the northeast areas that have high platforms do not have sufficient overhead clearance throughout to pass a superliner.

For the rest of the country: For the most part a close high level platform is not acceptalbe by both the operating railroads and the applicible clearance laws.

Don't know where the 15 inch high platforms are. For the most part, the height is 8 inches outside the northeast.

 

[Rob_C]

LIRR and NJT bi-level (or multi-level) cars do have doors for both hi and low level platforms. And it does seem to cut down on interior space.

Also California cars have a much better stairway than any Superliner, and I would hope they would go with this arrangement for the Superliner III. I don't know how practical it would be to have some sort of lift incorporated as well for handicap access. But with those items addressed in a Superliner III, I think it makes an excellent standard for Amtrak to work towards. More capacity per car means shorter trains and more efficiency, fuel savings less expensive/expansive stations, just to name a few.

 

[DET63]

I'm not going to argue the merits of bi-level equipment, although I can say that with an aging and increasingly obese population, the Superliner is a poor design. Those narrow stairs are a major liability in every sense of the word.

But wasn't that part of the reason for having lower-level seating to begin with? AFAIK, the Santa Fe Hi-Level coaches had only upper-level seating (the toilets and baggage storage occupied the lower level), but the Superliners have both upper and lower-level seating. The narrow stairway doesn't really impede travel for those who can't go up and down the steps, since they can remain on the lower level and use the restrooms there, etc. (I don't know what arrangements can be made for passengers traveling in coach who are unable to go upstairs to go to the diner, however.)

As for heavy-set people—well, if you can't make it onto the stairway, you're too damn fat!

Seriously, though, I have ridden on the Amtrak California cars, and their stairway is more easily negotiable than the narrow one in the Superliners. I don't know how it affects seating capacity.

 

[Konrad]

I'm not going to argue the merits of bi-level equipment, although I can say that with an aging and increasingly obese population, the Superliner is a poor design. Those narrow stairs are a major liability in every sense of the word.

But wasn't that part of the reason for having lower-level seating to begin with? AFAIK, the Santa Fe Hi-Level coaches had only upper-level seating (the toilets and baggage storage occupied the lower level), but the Superliners have both upper and lower-level seating. The narrow stairway doesn't really impede travel for those who can't go up and down the steps, since they can remain on the lower level and use the restrooms there, etc. (I don't know what arrangements can be made for passengers traveling in coach who are unable to go upstairs to go to the diner, however.)

As for heavy-set people—well, if you can't make it onto the stairway, you're too damn fat!

Seriously, though, I have ridden on the Amtrak California cars, and their stairway is more easily negotiable than the narrow one in the Superliners. I don't know how it affects seating capacity.

And what about bedroom passengers? A narrow staircase precludes them from access. Larger passengers are relegated to the lower level 'H' room or the roomettes on the lower level.

And the sooner Amtrak starts to offer 'healthy alternatives' on the diner menu the better. Might help to put an end to the 'heavier' passenger and all the problems that that entails.

Anyway, the superliners are a failed concept with their coffin like upper berths and limited access to most of the train.

RACK AND STACK 'EM.

 

[AlanB]

Anyway, the superliners are a failed concept with their coffin like upper berths and limited access to most of the train.

Limited access? :unsure:

Please clarify.

 

[battalion51]

I would agree that having the high level platform access is highly impractical, if you're talking about a Superliner model. There is only one or two locations where you have the height clearance to be able to serve a station that has high level platforms, thus making it highly impractical to do what is being suggested. I will not argue that a new stair alignment should be considered if/when we see Superliner III's. However, given the advances that some agencies have made in the design/manufacturing process, namely NJT, I think the next round of eastern coaches should be designed similarly to NJT's (with regards to the shell anyway). These cars fit into New York and Baltimore, and it would greatly increase capacity and/or shorten train lengths. If you go with that design then it's absolutely critical that you have vestibules similar to the NJT Bi-Levels or MARC/MBTA's Kawasaki Coaches.

 

[the_traveler]

Except for the CL to WAS and the LSL to BOS, every LS train east of CHI and NOL goes to either (or both) NYP or BAL. That would restrict the use of Superliners on these trains anyway. And for the LSL, if it had Superliners to BOS, that would mean any passenger going to NYP would need to switch trains at ALB.

What? :huh: You said have both single level and Superliner cars? :huh: And you said "restrict"? :huh: Superliner cars passageways are ONLY on the upper level, and single level cars (obviously) are only on the lower level! So how do passengers get to the other part of the train? :huh:

 

[cpamtfan]

LIRR cars only have access to the high level platforms.

iI don't think they are rebuilding to meet higher specifications, too busy, to little, plus catenary, etc. (although Superliners have prven to fit under catenary, they can only run 100 or so down the corridor, etc.). I think the best they can do with the next Superliners is build the stairway like the Surfliner car, etc.

 

[cpamtfan]

Anyway, the superliners are a failed concept with their coffin like upper berths and limited access to most of the train.

Limited access? :unsure:

Please clarify.

I think he means if you're handicaped or not able to get to the second level of the train, you can't go really far.

 

[cpamtfan]

Except for the CL to WAS and the LSL to BOS, every LS train east of CHI and NOL goes to either (or both) NYP or BAL. That would restrict the use of Superliners on these trains anyway. And for the LSL, if it had Superliners to BOS, that would mean any passenger going to NYP would need to switch trains at ALB.
What? :huh: You said have both single level and Superliner cars? :huh: And you said "restrict"? :huh: Superliner cars passageways are ONLY on the upper level, and single level cars (obviously) are only on the lower level! So how do passengers get to the other part of the train? :huh:

Maybe in some *futureistic time* there will be transition level coaches (not like the ATSF-Amtrak stle ones, just a straight coach).

 

[Chatter163]

As for heavy-set people—well, if you can't make it onto the stairway, you're too damn fat!

Oh, brother,,, :blink:

 

[Konrad]

Anyway, the superliners are a failed concept with their coffin like upper berths and limited access to most of the train.

Limited access? :unsure:

Please clarify.

I think he means if you're handicaped or not able to get to the second level of the train, you can't go really far.

Exactly.

 

[AlanB]

Anyway, the superliners are a failed concept with their coffin like upper berths and limited access to most of the train.

Limited access? :unsure:

Please clarify.

I think he means if you're handicaped or not able to get to the second level of the train, you can't go really far.

Exactly.

If you're handicaped, then your access is limited regardless of the car. One can't get a wheelchair down the aisle of any train car, without regard to the car being single or bi-level.

 

[Kramerica]

And the sooner Amtrak starts to offer 'healthy alternatives' on the diner menu the better. Might help to put an end to the 'heavier' passenger and all the problems that that entails.

Amtrak meals are certainly not the reason any heavier passengers are that way.

 

[Bob Dylan]

And the sooner Amtrak starts to offer 'healthy alternatives' on the diner menu the better. Might help to put an end to the 'heavier' passenger and all the problems that that entails.

Amtrak meals are certainly not the reason any heavier passengers are that way.

Southwest Airlines tried to charge extra for overweight passengers that required two (or more! :lol: )seats and they only serve peanuts!

Perhaps Amtrak could sell two seats in coach as sort of a "slumber coach lite" for those that want to have more room or are "weight challenged"

as the pc crowd calls it! Climbing the narrow stairs in the Superliners, or up the ladder like entrance ways on the Eastern trains is no fun for anyone,

especially those with luggage! Hope the new designs take this into consideration, a Superliner III would be great, so would an Amcan III!!!

 

[MattW]

I had another wacky thought about varying platform heights. For example, if Atlanta had service to JAX using Bilevel equipment, and of course still had the single-level Crescent, would a variable-height platform work? Some mechanism that raises and lowers the entire platform (or sections adding up to the entire platform) even work, or would OSHA suddenly have a collective heart attack at the thought? This way, you have level-access to Superliners, Viewliners and Amcans!

 

[the_traveler]

I don't think that would even be possible.

It's not like just 1 car would have to be spotted on the platform, but ALL 5-10 cars do. So a platform length of 5-10 cars would have to be raised or lowered! At KIN, they have a low level platform, but in the last few years built a (short) high level platform (for use of BC and handicapped passengers). They have to carefully spot the Regionals, so 2 doors of the AMI cars get on the platform!

 

[chertling]

Not entirely on topic... but I do have a question in regards to Superliners and the east coast.

I know the Superliners are too tall for the Tunnels in NYC and Baltimore. By how many inches do they exceed the maximum clearance? It would be interesting to see a Superliner III design that was slightly shorter, so that they can be used on the East Coast routes.

 

[Rob_C]

It makes more sense to chisel out the top or bottoms of the tunnels than design a whole new type of car to fit. I don't know how much it would cost, and there would be issues with having only one tunnel in use while the other one was being refitted. But that makes the most sense. IMHO.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Not entirely on topic... but I do have a question in regards to Superliners and the east coast.
I know the Superliners are too tall for the Tunnels in NYC and Baltimore. By how many inches do they exceed the maximum clearance? It would be interesting to see a Superliner III design that was slightly shorter, so that they can be used on the East Coast routes.

On the MBTA run to Middleboro at The Gathering, I observed that the luggage rack on the MBTA's bilevel car had enough space that I could have put my coat there, but not my backpack. On a long distance train where many passengers will actually have luggage, such tight clearance is not terribly practical.

I have wondered if we will ever see bilevel platforms where the upper level of the platform is even with the upper level of the train car. It seems like that might speed boarding. On the other hand, it would introduce new issues with making sure someone doesn't fall off the edge of the platform or out of the upper door of a train car.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

It makes more sense to chisel out the top or bottoms of the tunnels than design a whole new type of car to fit. I don't know how much it would cost, and there would be issues with having only one tunnel in use while the other one was being refitted. But that makes the most sense. IMHO.

The PRR tunnels into Manhattan are basically just huge pipes. Since chiseling out the pipe will destroy it and then you'll have to build a new tunnel from scratch, you might as well just build new tunnels and stop using the old ones. NJT is in the process of building two new tracks into Manhattan, but they seem to think that continuing to use the old tunnels after that is more desirable limiting themselves to the number of trains per hour that will fit through the new tunnel.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

However, given the advances that some agencies have made in the design/manufacturing process, namely NJT, I think the next round of eastern coaches should be designed similarly to NJT's (with regards to the shell anyway). These cars fit into New York and Baltimore, and it would greatly increase capacity and/or shorten train lengths. If you go with that design then it's absolutely critical that you have vestibules similar to the NJT Bi-Levels or MARC/MBTA's Kawasaki Coaches.

I'm glad you live in Florida, because I can chalk this up to ignorance. The Bombardier Multi-level and Kawasaki Bi-level work for commuter trains- and commuter trains only. Otherwise, you make the entire train almost unnavigable. If I get on a train in, say, Long Branch, I will sit in my seat and remain there. An hour and a half (at most) later, I will get up and walk to the platform of NYP. If I want to walk from the back of the train to the front of the train, 10 cars long? I have to walk up or down 10 full (as in home floor height) sets of stairs- 20 half sets. It is unlivable on an Amtrak train where people move to and from the Cafe cars.

Furthermore, the NJT multilevels, which are the only ones that can manage the North River tunnels (the Kawasakis don't meet clearance at A interlocking), are extremely cramped, especially with the chamfered sides required to make said clearance at A interlocking. They are not spacious, you will hit your head on the luggage rack, I assure you. And that "luggage rack" can fit a thin briefcase. And I do mean thin. Moreover, there is NO room for additional metal. The cars scrape the sides on occasion as it is.

In the application they are used in at NJ Transit, they are, at best, a compromised design that does what it needs to do, but at many expenses. Amtrak has no use for such a car. It is not viable for Inter-city rail. In their one application for inter-city service, on the ACES, that design requires the placement of food service kiosks in every car in the set.

Not entirely on topic... but I do have a question in regards to Superliners and the east coast.
I know the Superliners are too tall for the Tunnels in NYC and Baltimore. By how many inches do they exceed the maximum clearance? It would be interesting to see a Superliner III design that was slightly shorter, so that they can be used on the East Coast routes.

The North River tunnels have a height clearance, nominally, of 14' 6", and then only if the unit in question has chamfered upper sections. So realistically, about 14' 2" is what a standard rail car shape could be. The Superliners, at 16' 2", miss that mark by two whole feet.

 

[jis]

The PRR tunnels into Manhattan are basically just huge pipes. Since chiseling out the pipe will destroy it and then you'll have to build a new tunnel from scratch, you might as well just build new tunnels and stop using the old ones. NJT is in the process of building two new tracks into Manhattan, but they seem to think that continuing to use the old tunnels after that is more desirable limiting themselves to the number of trains per hour that will fit through the new tunnel.

?? The problem is that the new tunnels do not connect to the old station. The problem is not that they are capacity constrained. In either case NJT would have to continue to use the old tunnels too in order to get their desired throughput of 48 trains or so per hour.