An Excessive Explanation of North American Platform Heights
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ม.ค. 2024
- In honor of Tri-Rail beginning service to Brightline’s MiamiCentral Station this weekend - where yet another method of level-boarding was introduced - I thought it would be appropriate to publish a video I have been sitting on for a while.
This video is an adaptation of a Skyscraper Page post I made in 2018. I’ve wondered for years why it is so difficult to standardize around two - or perhaps just one - standard height for train platforms. We have national standards for gauge, for loading gauge, and for passenger car floor heights. Why can’t we standardize our platforms as well?
I am genuinely curious for public feedback on this topic, so don’t be shy with your opinions!
The new Tri-Rail platforms in MiamiCentral are fitted with a special lip that allows for level boarding of bi-level commuter cars that otherwise are fitted with steps for a typical 8-inch platform. This innovative solution only works on tracks exempt from freight trains, but it does allow for complete flexibility between level and stepped boarding.
/ trirail_commuter_train...
Corrections:
1) The train interior shown at 14:20 is in fact a new Night Jet car, not a Rail Jet, though the two are closely related.
Other Links:
Original SSP post:
skyscraperpage.com/forum/show...
Swaying freight cars:
• Freight Train Rocking ...
Brightline Gap Filler:
• Brightline Innovation:...
Freight at a Brightline Platform:
• Look, Listen & Live
Wheelchair Accessibility on Metrolink (CA):
• Metrolink - Portable R...
Toronto:
• 4K - Rush Hour GO & VI...
Santa Fe High Level Cars:
• The Original "Californ...
Hudson River Tunnel:
• Hudson River Tunnel We...
Superliners on the Keystone Route:
• Amtrak Keystone Corrid...
P42’s on the Northeast Corridor:
• Amtrak P42's Invade th...
Amtrak request for ADA Bilevel Cars:
accessibilityfeedback-amtrak....
UTA low floor vehicles:
• New Low Floor Event 6-...
How to ride UTA:
• How to Ride TRAX
![[FULL EP.01] LOL: Last One Laughing Thailand Thailand หัวเราะทีหลังปังกว่า | Prime Thailand](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t4KunBRKn3s/mqdefault.jpg)
Imagine my surprise when I clicked on this video (without reading the name of the channel) and saw the smiling face of my old roommate from Walt Disney World! You don't seem to have aged a bit. I see that you have gone from trying to help Walt Disney World revitalize and expand its monorail network to trying to help SLC. Way to go! I hope that you're more successful this time around. Your videos are fantastic, by the way, professional editing, cinematography, and sound design. You almost make me want to go back to live in Salt Lake City. I'm in Guadalajara now. The only train here is the Jose Cuervo Taquila Express. I would love to go on it, but it's over $100 a ticket. Oh, and by the way, I've tried to listen to the Hitchhiker series several times now since Disney and I still can't get to the "Who am I to judge" part. I guess it's not for everybody, but who am I to judge! Look forward to seeing more videos!
Mark! It's great to hear from you again! And of all the random places to cross paths again...!
I was just listening to the IllumiNations music from Epcot yesterday at work, and man it brought back so many happy memories! 2010 was such a fun year! Thankfully, Salt Lake City is not a for-profit corporation and is more receptive to suggestions than the Walt Disney company. It feels like we're making good progress, and that real, important change may be coming to Utah.
Good job listening to the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy! If you are listening to the old Radio Show (the best version of THHGTTG, IMO), you'll need to listen to the very last scene of the very last episode.... but it is worth it! :D
archive.org/details/hitchhikers-guide-to-the-galaxy-bbc-radio-4/hitchiker's+guide+to+the+galaxy+-+episode+12+-+radio.mp3
This is the sweetest thing oml 🥺♥️
I feel like the whole nation should work to move towards a uniform high platforms standard
Yes. A standard design for platforms is as important as a standard track gauge, in my opinion, and will bring similar benefits.
@@CSLenhart What about trains in Chi Na, Japan and Taiwan ❓
@@matpk Whatever standard is above Gold Standard, that is where you find the trains of Japan and Taiwan. 🙂
I disagree. The whole world should move towards a uniform standard.
Freight will absolutely not let it happen because it interferes with too much of their stuff unless you set the platform so far back it ends up being a 1ft+ gap to fill
Just wanna mention that I was kinda surprised to hear that platforms can go as high as 51 _inches_ above the rail. The highest our platforms go in Germany is 96cm, or 37 freedom units, and those are only built for some S-Bahn systems. Most platforms for regional and Intercity services are either 55cm or 76cm, 21 or 29 freedom units (the latter being the modern standard). And as you mentioned, we don't have level boarding for Intercity trains at all, except for the ICE L that's gonna be entering service soon (the L literally stands for "Low floor", that's how special that is here).
The 51 inch platform height originated from the NYC Subway and Chicago L train well over 100 years ago, as they wanted level boarding for the very busy metro trains. As commuter rail expanded in the Northeast, those systems followed the 51in platform height which eventually became a standard. That car height also allows for a fully flat car floor, further aiding accessibility. No weird stepped floors like you see on a lot of Stadler FLIRT trains, or stepped boarding like a lot of light rail.
You do have level boarding for some intercity trains:
IC2 KISS with 55 cm
IC2 TWINDEXX, though this only applies in the cab car
@@mrvwbug4423I can’t find the platform height of the chicago L, but the NYC subway has a height of around 1100-1150 mm, a good 150-200 mm less than the NEC, I believe the floor height on the NEC bas more to do with fundamentally approaching the design to not limit the wheels at all, as train wheels on intercity trains tend to be around 1 meter in diameter, add some height for suspension and structure to that and you get somwhere around 1200-1300 mm, independently of whatever the subways were doing.
@@SebastianD334 oh yeah I was gonna mention the IC2 in the context of regional trains, but I didn't want my comment to get too long, so I forgot.
The IC2 is interesting because both kinds are basically repurposed regional trains. I haven't taken either yet, so I can't say how well they've been adapted for Intercity services.
Either way, I should've mentioned them, they are the first long distance trains in Germany to have level boarding.
@SebastianD334 The Northeast Corridor was built by the Pennsylvania Railroad, and going out of their way to have the optimum car height sounds exactly like something the PRR would do. They were called “the standard railroad of the world” for a reason.
Feels worth mentioning CalTrain's new Stadler KISS's, which will have two sets of doors -- a lower set to match the existing stations, and a higher set to match platforms shared with HSR.
Ah yes, I remember reading the California High Speed Rail Compatibility Blog on just this topic when I was in college....
Edit: I found the link:
caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/09/platform-height.html
That is basically a temporary solution until CAHSR reaches the Bay Area...once that happens, the higher level platform for HSR will be the standard platform height even for CalTrain...that is why they have two levels of doors at delivery.
@@zaklex3165 they claim that but little of what the JPA says comes true, it’s run by a bunch of clueless officials. That would seriously slow down the boarding of bikes which would be a major issue as everyone carries their bikes down the stairs
There is something so cool about bi level cars. I hope they stick around. At the same time though, I've been eager for the dome car Heber got to be put into service soon for a reason lol. I want that forward view so bad!
Confession time.... I've never actually been inside a dome car, so I'm extra excited for the new car in Heber! Riding in the cupola of the caboose as a kid and being able to watch 618 and the entire train ahead of me climb up out of the Provo Canyon.... that's one of the main reasons I'm a rail fan today!
NJ TRANSIT extensively uses the mini-high and a bridge plate and the Multilevels do both high and low level boarding.
What a great video summarizing a problem I have not realized exists. You always seem to have so many great topics that feed back into the Rio Grande Plan and I cannot wait to see what the next one is! I also cannot wait to see trains arriving at the station once more.
Thanks Fred! Together we'll make it happen!
2:34 that tilt of the last car gave me severe anxiety
The whole train width/platform gap issue could be solved by just making the passenger train cars wider...It would also giver more space for passengers inside the train.
I agree, this would be ideal. There are hundreds of existing platforms that would need to be narrowed in order to accept a wider passenger car, and the transition period would have its logistical problems, but overall, it may be worthwhile.
In fact, the new Dutch intercity trains ICNG (new generation) that run on the high-speed line have the same entry at platform level. The Dutch ICNG runs on the high-speed line between Amsterdam and Brussen, which is also used by the Eurostar Paris and London. The trains are therefore wheelchair and luggage friendly. The trains are made by Alstom.
Do keep in mind that it's ProRail who owns the stations in NL. Even today when required the train staff or station staff has to come to operate a wheelchair ramp if one is required. Worst case scenario, they'll outsource this to a local taxi service or similar. Still the staff costs fall on the train operator, not the station owner.
So when regulations were updated, NS along with the other smaller railway companies lobbied hard to get level-boarding platforms nationwide, because that would shift that cost from them to ProRail. Which is what ended up happening, platform height was standardised across the nation, and the vast majority of train and station it's all level-boarding.
It's being sold off as the NS and competitors trying to be as accessible as possible, which is still BS, but the reality is that there was a considerable financial reason for them to support this.
In the USA it's very much the other way around. AMTRAK owns no rails, other railroads have to grant them passage because of the law. Often enough AMTRAK doesn't own the station or any of that infrastructure either and the companies that do, have no clear benefit to increased expenses in maintenance of passenger platforms when their core business is freight. So this will probably end up as a weird solution, where the station owners will want to pawn the cost off on AMTRAK and vice versa.
Also keep in mind that with an annual passenger volume below 20 million, AMTRAK carries about half the number of passengers NS does. But compare this to SNCF with their 1 billion passengers annually or DB with over 2 billion passengers and it really puts into perspective how relatively small of an operation AMTRAK runs. Of course one could argue that it's not fair to compare to EU commuter rail networks, but even if you were to just look at EU international high speed railways, they still carry more passengers than AMTRAK does.
ICNG trains are able to be level boarding because they have a single deck. The new DDNG (dubeldekker nieuwe generatie) which NS is ordering now will have two decks. So in order to comply with accessibility standards it will have single deck coaches at the front and rear end in which allow for level boarding.
@@fermitupoupon1754 good old 2002/735/EC at it's best (and a bit of 2008/164/EC And 2016/797).
One thing that struck me in this video was that in the USA they still have a very wide 'dynamic envelope' that hinders platform gap.
My guess mostly due to remaining backwards compatible with older equipment. Particularly Cargo.
For Europe all high speed passage rail, the maximum gap between door sill and edge of platform shall be no more then 75mm at the platform height. NL even aims for 30mm.
But that does mean if your train can't handle that, you don't get to use the platform line and have to use a bypass.
Actually, these days you hardly ever see freight train use a stations platform line. (Ok, you see it in rural area's).
And yes what he says is true, if ProRail is Following 2008/164/EC they will not have to provide boarding aids or station personnel on the station to help.
Even Infrabel (Belgium railway owner) is slowly converting over to one design to please there railway operators to have less personnel (and complaints).
Hopefully in 2028 we will have a full-disability accessible rail network in Europe. .. .. Any day now.. ..
Love the idea of reusing the existing single level coach cars for the westerly routes. That feels like a great way to increase the economy of scale.
And it would allow that totally sweet bi-level lounge car with a dome.
What I find interesting is that despite differing platform heists, the UK manages to mix high platforms with freight services. A high dynamic envelope might just be a symptom of poor permanent way - which should be addressed instead of maintaining a system that’s inaccessible and hostile to passengers with reduced mobility.
Check UK railway car widths, even the freight cars are narrow.
@@scottfw7169They might be narrow, but they're still go right up to near the platforms...just watch TH-cam videos of British trains...and see my comment above about freight train dynamic envelope.
I would agree with you higher standard of permanent way probably be best as dare say less wobble lead to less derailments with the larger loading gauge that before allowing better access for passengers services
And strictly speaking, it would only be necessary to build track that is held to precise parameters in areas of close clearances, such as platforms and in tunnels, both of which would be well served by slab track (although it might be a harsher ride in those areas).
as somebody living in europe this video was a real education. the steps placed in front of the doors, the way freight trains are a different size to passenger trains totally messing up any hope of standardization. but best of all the "gallery car" with a slot in the floor of the upper deck so you can look up from the ground floor at passengers upstairs. I almost fell of my seat when I saw what a "gallery car" was in the USA.
American gallery cars do indeed have an open space above the aisle between the two sides of the car on the upper deck, although it may not be obvious from outside.
And if you want to know why they were designed that way, the gallery cars have that opening so the conductor can ticket you from the lower level so that no one could use the bilevel design to hide from having to pay their fare by evading the conductor.
One nice thing about gallery car bike cars is you can sit upstairs and keep an eye on your bike downstairs. They removed the lower level seats in the bike cars and it fills up with a lot of bikes.
My thoughts on ADA compliance center on what happens when the wheelchair lift / elevator malfunctions?
When I lived in New York City, one of the elevator equipped stations was Atlantic Avenue (R / N / D lines, 4 tracks, 2 island platforms, one elevator on each platform). Those elevators tended to breakdown at least once a week.
If you are in need of the elevator and the one on your side was out of order, to get to the opposite platform you either had to go all the way to Coney Island or Bay Ridge 95th Street, southbound, to get to an across the platform or same track transfer to a train in the opposite direction, and northbound you had to go into midtown Manhattan, to hopefully find a station with working elevators, otherwise you were headed to Queens or The Bronx to get to somewhere you could go back to Atlantic Avenue.
TL;dr: those in wheelchairs avoided the subway due to lack of redundant elevators.
The same could happen on a fixed set of gangway cars on Amtrak if there's only one lift. Only instead of touring the city to find an elevator, the wheelchair user will be treated to the indignity of having to be manhandled down the stairs, possibly by strangers - if not by paramedics.
Whatever ADA devices are utilized in the next generation of equipment, it needs to be robust and double or triple redundant.
These lifts also need to be used by passengers with canes or walkers, too.
While my elderly mother is still able to run circles around me, her ability to climb stairs has sharply declined in recent years. Our front steps are now 12"x24" slabs two inches high. Four inches is pushing her limits, requiring manhandling her up them, and conventional 8" steps are impossible. It's been nearly 8 years since she felt comfortable trying to board a passenger train or public bus - some wheelchair lifts don't account for the headroom of a person standing with a walker or cane.
AJK
All very good thoughts. Thank you for sharing! I would hope that an on-board lift would be mechanically simpler than a full elevator, and that the train staff would have some training in basic troubleshooting/repairs for small problems. Otherwise, as you say, there would be trouble.
Your mix design is awesome for long distance service that still used by people going shorter distances. Dome cars are something I crave to try, I just need to go to Europe to try them. Swiss bi-levels through the mountains are something else.
You don't have to go all the way to Europe just to experience a true dome car. We have them in Canada, on our western routes. Most are the original 1955 Skyview and Park cars built by Budd for the CPR, refurbished by VIA Rail in 1990. The Canadian is a complete Budd streamliner with baggage, coach, dome, dining, and sleeper cars. It runs twice a week between Toronto and Vancouver, via Winnipeg, Saskatoon, and Edmonton. It connects with the Windsor-Montreal Corridor, Hudson's Bay, and Skeena.
@@dougbrowning82 I live in the UK, it'd be harder to come to the North America than Europe. That and I'm probs safer in most European countries than in any US state, can't speak for Canada tho.
@@sterlinghartley2165 You'd probably be just as safe in Canada as Europe. We don't have the gun culture of the US, with everybody running around with guns in their bags.
@@dougbrowning82I can vouch for Canada. I am Swiss and about 1/3rd of my family emigrated to Canada. They seem to really like it so it can‘t be that bad ;-)
The only thing I noticed is that two returned to Switzerland for some big medical procedure, not sure why, maybe wait time in Canada was higher?
I can‘t imagine there being a significant gap in quality of care.
@@PhilfreezeCH Wait times are high for things like hip replacements here.
So fascinating to see that! And it's interesting to see how the US is somehow less confused than Germany here. A station near me (Düren) has four different platform heights on different tracks, all mainline (no trams), and due to plans changing over time, you have both situations where you need to step up into trains and where you need to step down into trains. It seems like this is an unsolved issue almost everywhere.
It’s always a happy surprise to see a new video from you!
Thank you! I'm grateful for wonderful comments and great discussions!
This is a really cool explanation and neat future idea video
I see my tweet celebrating the Tri-Rail platforms has sparked a video!
Well done throughout this and those are some interesting ideas.
Thanks for sharing your pictures of Tri-Rail! It's a super interesting arrangement!
The wider loading gauge of freight trains is also the reason for the lack of full-height platforms on mainlines here in Germany (like with the ICE you showed in the beginning). They do exist on passenger rail systems with dedicated trackage like the S-Bahn systems where freight doesn't pass through.
The most popular way around that problem here seems to be the use of low-floor trains. Low-floor rolling stock is now standard on regional trains and slowly making its way to intercity trains, like with the Swiss Girunos.
I think low-floor trains are a great solution for the European network. I can't imagine the hassle of raising every existing platform...
In the USA, we have little left to lose, so we may as well dream big.
I have to add, that the european low floor (55 cm/21.7 in) would be at least medium height in the US
@@michaelneichel9543 we have stadler KISS, FLIRT running around with more likely to be bought. It likely is the best height to use because it doesn't interfere with freight trains.
@@CSLenhartwell in Europe many countries are also raising their platforms in addition to using low floor vehicles. That's because the standard heights of 55cm and 76cm aren't truly low floor, so the low legacy platforms (usually 20-38cm) have to be raised. Also retrofitting lifts and ramps to all old stations even in tiny villages is a huge task, luckily most countries are making progress
@@gdrriley420 FLIRTs have some accessibility issues in low floor applications, they have stepped floors over the trucks, and steps to get up to some of the seating. The only level floor FLIRTS I've seen are in the UK and operate at UK standard height which is lower than US but higher than most of Europe, and they still have steps to cross through the power car, but boarding and access within half the trainset is level floor and accessible (provided the station has the correct height platform, which is inconsistent in the UK).
This filled in a lot of unanswered questions I had of new platforms going in at Amtrak stops here in North Carolina and the new ones In Iowa at Mount Pleasant and Ottumwa. thanks for the informative video.
I love that North Carolina is expanding its passenger rail, and is building high level platforms at major stations! You are setting a good example for what the rest of non-NEC America should be building.
We’re fortunate that Frontrunner has its own tracks. No delays due to freight trains and high level platforms!
Wonder what commuter trains across the country would like if they didn’t have to share with freight
Some good ideas discussed. Here in Australia, we don't really have that problem as our platforms are pretty much exclusively high level. I think your theory of essentially gradual change is good. It means over time, things would become more uniform without burdening operators with the cost of replacements or upgrades all at once.
As an Australian example, in Sydney's heavy passenger rail network, where we have bi-level passenger trains (with the flippy seats) and high platforms, we have level boarding because the boarding vestibules aren't on either the top or bottom levels - they're in the middle instead. I can see why Americans might prefer to board on the lower level though, since it provides more stepless accessible area and you can't cross between carriages on Sydney Trains without going up and down stairs unless you're going between adjacent vestibules.
Also, when a gap filler is needed (e.g. for passengers using wheelchairs) either a station attendant or a train guard has to physically bring out a bridge plate, because we don't always have a consistent gap between platform and train (even on a single platform, because the platform can be curved!) So it's definitely been interesting to compare the differences between Sydney and American transit systems.
EDIT: apparently those separate ramps are called bridge plates, as mentioned at 5:33
Awesome video. I find the topic of platform heights frustrating but also interesting. Loved to hear your thoughts!
I really like the idea you have of combining high level and standard height equipment.
You miss one important factor for a lot of trackage and stations Amtrak uses; dwell times. Bilevel or other more complex car layouts, and things like gangways make trains have to spend more time in stations, which can be a problem where those trains run alongside high frequency commuter or transit rail. This is especially significant along much of the NE corridor.
I see why this should (and likely is) the case but in Switzerland more and more S-bahn are being run with bi-level trains to increase capacity. I don‘t think dwell times have really increased (at least not significantly).
@@PhilfreezeCH if you combine bilevel cars and bridge plates and King distance trains (so more luggage), it'll definitely start becoming an issue.
Happens constantly on my regular single level Arrow III consists getting stuck behind the Multilevel express Midtown directs running slower than mine for a timed connection. Those excessive dwell times is the reason we wait
to me, the freight trains aren’t the real issue here
the crux of the problem, and a serious question I often ask myself, is, what is a better platform height: above the bogies (ideally around 1200-1300mm) or between the bogies (ideally around 500mm for double deckers)
I live in switzerland, so basically all standard gauge platforms here are 550mm, and as a result we can even have trains like the IC2000 and FV-Dosto (continuous upper deck) with accessible level boarding, while 760mm platforms have slopes that are too steep for swiss law.
But in turn, single deckers, especially high speed or tilting, are more difficult.
We do have the Giruno, which is a 250 km/h trainset with mostly 760mm entry, as it is a eurocity trainset, but it also has 2 cars with 550mm entry as well, which are connected, which form a 3-car wheelchair accessible section in the middle, with a first, second, and a dining car as well as 2 accessible toilets.
Apart from that, we’ve added low floor cars to a few different train types: DPZplus, NPZ Domino, BLS NPZ (jumbo) and I’m curious whether something similar will happen to the astoros, our latest tilting trains, some of which were constructed around 10 years ago.
While I think the Superliners and original ATSF Hi-Levels are an extremely cool design I accept the cold hard reality may be that single level cars are the only logical replacement. The Superliner design certainly provides benefits to the majority of passengers which include helping to keep the main portion of the car acoustically and climatically isolated from the entrance doors. That's a major benefit when the train has to make station stops in the middle of the night.
On other hand a benefit to standardizing around single level design is increased compatibility with not just Amtrak's east coast fleet but the emerging high speed rail routes like California HSR, Brightline West and possibly Texas Central which will have single level fleets. Even if Amtrak will never share actual trackage with HSR there is a solid argument to be made for adopting a common platform height for cross platform access.
I also hope a new long distance single level car design might result in the return of dome cars to some extent. ADA requirements may not allow the return of domes with elevated seating (unless lifts can be provided) however there could always be dome cars similar to the in-house design Southern Pacific provided on the Coast Daylight where passengers remain seated at standard floor level except the cars feature a raised dome like roof with overhead glazing. Rapido Trains is currently developing a model of this car in HO-scale. For long distance routes I think Amtrak will still feel the need for a car dedicated solely to sightseeing. The tourist market may not be Amtrak's primary function or mandate but it does attract a good percentage of passengers and Amtrak would be foolish to abandon it.
Why not just increase the width of the passenger cars to match that of freight, the shinkansen is a wider standard and there are seating benefits to it as well. Would also leave additional space for stairs in bi level vehicles.
I really like your superliner design concept, I think the idea of having a transition car like that solves many issues.
In an ideal world, I think wider passenger cars would be the optimal solution. But in order to get there, a lot of existing infrastructure in the northeast would to be upgraded to make way for the wider cars (tunnels, bridges, platforms, track spacing, catenary poles, etc). It's a good standard to work towards, but we also need a solution in the meanwhile.
I love your mixed bilevel and single level trainset concept with lifts.
This is really good. Thank you!
This is honestly some really cool insight, never thought about the possibility of a national single level coach fleet but it does make a lot of sense, especially if Amtrak trains get longer on average as ridership increases (hopefully)!
The thing I don't like about the SuperLiner style is that you can't go from car to car on the lower level. So anybody who uses a wheelchair is stuck on the car they boarded, because they would need to go upstairs to get to the dining car or observation car and cafe. Aside from that, the SuperLiner style is dope. I rode it a few times last year. Both level passage between cars clearly seems like what you want. One thing that dual-level gets you is trains short enough to be compatible with existing stations. For the single level, longer coach sections, I think you'd have to do sining and cafe at the ends, and have the passenger cars in teh middle so you could do all the boarding, departure from a middle section that fits the existing platform.
Being stuck on the lower level is the reason Amtrak is considering lifts in their next generation of car. Otherwise I agree, super dope!
I had not realzied that ADA would be a factor in Amtrak's new fleet selection and that it was in a state of limbo due to request to change rules. So the new long distance fleet will take a long while to materialize. Another issue with sleepers is corridor width in terms of ADA. In Canada, VIA Rail had bought trains built by Metro Cammel that were to be send to scrapyard because Nightstar wnet belly up before deliveries, and this went to the pupreme court because the wheel-chair accessible room was not in fact accessible because while the room was, the corridor to get to it wasn't :-) (these were built to narrower Britishg loading gauge). VIA was forced to modify enough cars such that 1 such woudl be in every of the overnight trains (whose frequency is now down to just couple times a week).
The Siemens "venture" have narrower seats to allow aisle to be wide enough for wheelchairs. And they come in 2 flavours: permanently coupled with wide gangways for wheelchairs, and standard AAR couplers with standard gangway. With permanent coupling, it reduces the need for the doors equipped with wheelchair lift since the wheelchair person can travel to the car that has the elevator that still works. VIA has chosen all permanently coupleed consists, but Amtrak's various orders have a mix some of which has pairs of cars permanently coupled but with AAR couplers at each end of pair.
Intreresting: the Turbo Train from the 1960s was permanently coupled and more modern than the old steel Ventures with aluminium body, jacobs bogiues and closer to a TGV than to conventional train. It had teething problems and CN Rail (who managed to fix it) ended up converting I think 5 7-car Turbis into 3 9-car trains to handle capacity. This was a permanent change which lasted till the train's retirement in early 1980s. CN which worked with MLW to design a replacement for the Turbo (the LRC) wanted normal couplers to be able to vary consists easily to meet seasons demand changes. So it is funny to see VIA repeat the mistake of Turbo by ordering fixed consist trains which, during summer will be refusing custmers because they will have to room for them since unable to add cars.
Season demand would vary greatly for long distance trains and I find puzzling they would consider fixed consists, especially for trains that aplit midway in a route.
I've heard the Airos might not only be a fixed trainset with the cars but the locomotive may be permanently fixed as well, at least in the Bi-mode Airos, since the pantograph is on the cab car and they'd need some pretty heavy duty electrical cable to feed the traction motors in the locomotive when running in electric mode. I am still firmly of the opinion the Airos should be able to swap locos since Chargers are pointless on the NEC they should just couple ACS-64s to the trainsets when running fully under the wire. But being able to add and subtract venture cars from an Airo trainset to adjust for demand is good as well, or add sleeper cars, baggage cars, etc. Also providing provision for operating multiple locomotives for longer consists.
@@mrvwbug4423I’m definitely not happy with the Airo sets being fixed, but adding an additional locomotive is one thing that wouldn’t be challenging as they at least have AAR knuckle couplers on the outside ends (and at least some were supposed to use couplers to connect the locomotives to allow for maintenance).
This is the video I've been wanting for, as this topic is somewhat passion of mine.
Awesome! Which topic is more your passion - platform heights, bilevel cars, or both?😁
@@CSLenhart I meant platform heights.
@PtrkHrnk That's my focus too, but it's hard to disentangle the two!
Interesting conversation. Good luck 🇬🇧
One advantage of the superliners is that trains often don’t require baggage cars since a lot of the superliner coaches have baggage space in the lower level. Using only single level equipment would eliminate this advantage and require additional baggage cars on the train.
Not necessarily true. You won't find a single bagage car in the entire European train network. They just don't exist.
in Switzerland we dont use baggage cars anymore because we have mixed in luggage racks in the seating layout a swell as some luggage space between compartments.
@@paulthiel5145 Americans don’t travel like Europeans though, we like our crap, and we like to bring excess amounts of crap with us wherever we go.
@@mafarnz 😀 correct, we did away with our steamer trunks after conquering the new world 😉
I would use Amtrak far more than I do if more stations had checked baggage service in proper baggage cars. Rather than expanding its availability, they have even reduced it in the last decade.
The Southern Pacific used a mixture of single passenger cars and articulated sets of up to three units that could be arranged together in different ways to maximize flexibility. The Burlington Route also stopped ordering more articulated fixed sets after the Nebraska Zephyr sets (the ‘Train of the Gods’ and ‘Train of the Goddesses’ after their Roman names, originally built for the Twin Cities Zephyr service) due to the limitations of fixed sets.
These kinds of things are NEVER talked about in Australia! Thank you so much for making this!
That's because we don't have these issues, as the vast majority of our platforms are high level.
Why would we talk about this when this situation has never arisen. Logical thinking prevailed here from the start of the railway system.
I would love the hotel cars if they would make trains more affordable. If you are travelling alone, it's pretty much more affordable to fly rather than have a roomette to yourself.
Many German trams/streetcars since the 70s have automatic steps, which are now controlled automatically depending of the platformtype. :D
Those 'Special High Blocks' at Denver acquired the nickname 'Harrington Humps' because Harrington station was the location of the first installation back in 2011. Officially referred to as 'Easy Access Area', Network Rail has conceded that the nickname is how they are referred to officially. Another small victory for the hoi polloi. Who knows, perhaps these American ones will become known as 'Denver piles'! 😀😃🤣
Thank you for this elaborate view on the complicated subject of platform heights in the US. We have similar discussions in Germany, with platform heights of 100 cm at some S-Bahn systems (39 1/4'), 76 cm (30'), 55 cm (21 3/4') and 38 cm (15') for tram-train services.Your Salt Lake ideas remind me on ours with proposals for up to three different levels at the two sides of a platform to serve as well long distannce, regional and tram-trains. Regarding the variety of platform heights in GER that will not vanish over the years I also like to give a special emphasis to the idea of entrance doors with differnt heights adjacent to the ADA and multi-purpose area in regional trains to overcome this problem without the needs to rebuild hundreds of platforms in a few years to meet accessibility needs that were already neglected for too long.
I think you are right - train cars with doors of different heights to match different platforms seems like the only way to avoid a very costly rebuilding of hundreds of platforms. And in that case, it becomes more important that we settle on a small number - hopefully 2 - of standard heights so that we won't need so many duplicate doors!
Wonderful video Christian!
Thank you! I love your trip reports and narrations!
thankyou for the lovely video
You're very welcome!
In the 1980s, prior to VIA being castrated to death in 1989, VIA looked at the Superliners. One reason was hat they were charge by the car by both CN and CP, so having double deck cars would reduce number of cars in train consists and hence cost to VIA to run the trains. One would have to look if the same applies to Amtrak on its midwest/west routes and if this would become an issue in selecting replacement cars.
Anotther big decision to make is whether Amtrak can purchase enough additional capacity to make sleeping cars more affordable of whether they keep their trains smaller to keep them full and at higher prices. Should Amtrak re-extend what is now the Vermonter to the Montrealer, it would need to be reconverted to a overnight trip and thus need sleeping cars, dining car like in the good old days. Back in 80s and early 1990s, the train used "heritage" fleet sleeping cars and lounge/dining car. It would need equipment that fit Penn Station. Would Amtrak order more Viewliners from CAF to grow its east coast fleet while choosung something else for the west?
They experimented with Superliners between Winnipeg and Vancouver. The cars were too tall to run safely through the Winnipeg train sheds, which had already been raised in 1964, when CN added Pullman-Standard Superdomes to their fleet. At the time, they were considering reviving the Winnipeg to St. Paul-Minneapolis service.
When they moved The Canadian (the real one) from Windsor Station (RIP) to Central Station in early 1980s, they lowered the track on a couple of platforms so the dome cars would fit. At Dorval, the train woudl stop at the CN station, then back onto a connecting siding/spur onto CP tracks to proceed to Ottawa on the M&O all the way via Rigaud, Vankleek Hill. Eventually rerouted to stay on CN to Coteau and Alexandria sub. And then via Toronto. The last year had the return of service via Ottawa to Sudbury before the final end of The Canadian in end of 1989/ jan 1990. @@dougbrowning82
I have no interest in trains whatsoever, but damn you made this interesting to watch. Good work !
The sign of a great teacher.
The UK has high platforms matching the level of the train doors both on local and long-distance trains. Germany is about to get the first ICE trains with level boarding.
In Canada (ideally in the US too), where cargo and passenger share tracks should stick to a standard of adding a bypass rail at train stations to alow level boarding for passenger trains.
This means two rails at left- or right-sided single platform stations
And three rails at single and dual cross-platforms that allow the cargo trains to use a middle or side rail for bypass stations only.
"Since you will be hard-pressed to find any European intercity passenger trains with level boarding"
At least in Switzerland I wouldn't say this is true. Non-level boarding trains are the French TGV, German ICE and the Italian EC trains (thou SBB to my knowledge owns some of those as well) driving in Switzerland (one could even argue those are not strictly "IC" trains) and SBB's old single-decker IC trains. The double-decker IC trains which are nowadays almost exclusively used for our IC services are level boarding (obviously only at be lower level). As good as all S-Bahn trains (city trains) have level boarding.
I think that it should be considered to bring all US platforms to 51in with gapfillers. Not all immediately, but keeping in mind platform heightening when stock needs to be replaced.
And the EU isn't perfect on the platform heights by far, but it's generally speaking 28cm, 55cm or 75cm (28 is basically 5cm or so above the rail)
55cm is the most common followed by 76cm other highs are country specific older hights
Loved Front Runner when I lived in Lehi. I hope the I-15 Corridor ID program gets approved bringing back the desert wind line.
GO is actually for the most part, in the same boat as Frontrunner, as they run on their own tracks that run parallel to freight trains from Pickering to Oshawa, and their tracks from Pickering into downtown Toronto, they bought from the freight railroads, so only GO and VIA Intercity trains actually go through downtown Toronto
And in Mo's other cases outside the city, the stations are often on their own track offset from the mainline like a bus pulling over to the curb, so it would likely be more economic to install gap fillers on the platforms of the few stations that will require them, rather than fit them to even car in GO's fleet, which is currently numbered in the 900s...
Budd did build a transition car for the high level cars that they had, also the "Sightseer" Superliner 2 lounge cars have the curved windows as part of the roof.
Great video! A couple of thoughts…
You mentioned the ability to pass from car to car on both levels. To my knowledge, there are currently four cars with that capability in the US, all in Alaska. They are private cars owned by Princess Cruises and were rebuilt out of old SP Gallery commuter cars.
As far as the new Rio Grande Depot goes, the obvious solution to me is to build an island platform that is 51” high with a track on either side of it. It may not be necessary now, but if the cost and time of constructing such a station is to be invested, it makes sense to build infrastructure that would useful in the future, rather than requiring remodeling or expansion later.
Oh, interesting! I'll have to read up on the Princess Cruises cars. And for the island platform at the Rio Grande Depot, I agree! Building for the future is the right way to go!
In Europe majority of passenger train traffic is not Inter-city, but rather regional express or equivalent, including doubledeckers - but they all have to operate from same platform heights, and regional trains in that regard have floor on the level of the platform - good for majority of daily commuters.
So unless we specifically look at medium and short range commute trains, applying European examples will be not right as it's very different environment and priorities, I am yet to see or hear a doubledecker inter-city train
Over here in sweden we have a mishmash of platform hights, everything from a 10cm up to 100cm (i think that is the maximum alowed, other vice there have to be platform doors)
Quite a lot of our train have two level doors, typicalay att something like 40-45cm and one set at around 80-90 cm. Also with gap filler that extends upp then fall down can fill a gap of about +-15cm, covering most platform hights
Amtrak built a new train station in Catlettsburg KY in1975 to replace the C&O station in Ashland KY. It was closed in 1998 when a new transportation center opened again in Ashland. There was a wheelchair lift at the Amtrak station in Catlettsburg. In 23 years, it was used once.
This is a great example of why building accessible design into your architecture is preferable to creating special accommodation for disabled patrons. I’m willing to bet that many thousands of cyclists and parents with baby carriages used the station over its 23 years. Ramps and level boarding make boarding easier for everyone, including people using a wheelchair, a walker or crutches.
SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY, and BUILD THEM! lol I love your redesign!!!!!!!! 😍😍😍🥰😍❣❤💯 I want that forward facing dome car! and I love the second bunk window! I also do like the idea of the Capsule hotel like in the Austrian nightjets. There should be cheaper options for taking a train across country with a bed. Since our country is so big, even at an Ideal 110mph for the long distance routes it'll still take time to get places and we should have night train options, or service every 12hours on long distance routes.
I don't think we should be promoting 8" as a new accessible standard. It is already a standard, and it can technically be accessible, but I don't think it's universally applicable enough to encourage railroads to use it. The issue is that the long ramp down from 15" cars to 8" platforms take forever to deploy, which makes that solution an unviable standard for commuter railroads. Given that most of the passenger trains in the western US are commuter trains, it is essential that any new national accesible platform height standard be practical for commuter trains.
If we want to create a new standard for accessibility for low-floor trains (e.g. the lower level of BiLevel coaches, or low-floor trains like the Stadler FLIRT) the platform should be at the same height as the train floor, so about 24". Frontrunner uses that height with fixed plates, but several other systems use automated gap fillers, such as TexRail, DART (Silver Line) and Metrolink (Arrow line).
So RTD in Denver has a solution for this on their trains. The light rail has a low height door, but uses stairs to board the train, the doors right behind the cabs on each car pair have a level boarding ramp that can be quickly extended and every platform has a wheelchair ramp that the light rail trains always line up with when they stop so the engineer can always pop out the ramp very quickly as needed, and they can see wheelchair passengers waiting on the ramp since they do accessible boarding from the front of the train. Their new heavy commuter trains just use 51in platform level boarding, so much better from an accessibility standpoint, since RTD opted for fully electrified commuter rail with EMUs instead of bi-level cars. RTD is a 100% accessible rail system.
This problem is similar to our problem here, in Indonesia. Where there is difference in platform height. Fortunately, the big station in every major city has a standardized platform height ±1400mm above the rail since 1980s. But smaller stations in small sized city or in a town, the platform height is different than the standard one. From 250mm, 300mm, 500mm, 700mm, up to 1000mm. The solution is that placing movable steps in every platform so it could be moved when not needed. In case of the disable people, there is a slope for that.
We didn't have any Bi-Level in operation, but we had one prototype of a Bi-Level car in 1980s which is a modification from a 1960s East German passenger car. But due to the restrictive loading gauge and because it judders a lot, it just let rot somewhere in our maintenance facility.
That's a lot of different heights to deal with!
Great video
If the trains become stacked, it's not for fun! With the number of passengers increasing and platforms not having an infinite length, this is the only solution. There is obviously also a question of profitability. We've had this in France for decades and it doesn't cause any problems.
48 inches platform height is used for LIRR, MNR and some NJT lines.
Really interesting video. Only correction: the new Austrian sleeper trains with the mini-cabins for one person are called "Nightjet", not "Railjet" (they only operate day services).
Thanks for the correction! I'll update the video Description with a list of things I got wrong.
no matter if single level or double decker trains, you can design the double decker trains to have the doors on the very same level like all the other single level trains, and then also use one standard for the platform height
In Sydney, NSW, Australia, we have double decker trains with high platforms and level boarding; although that's because the boarding vestibules are on a mezzanine level between the two seating levels (and therefore you need to go up or down stairs if you want a seat facing the direction of travel).
Fascinating review! Sadly, you're losing capacity if you do split-train with single & double-levels. In some places I'd bet it isn't easy to extend platforms. Nevertheless, standardization would be incredibly helpful and while I worry about the mechanical reliability and ease of escaping those high-platform trains in emergencies, it'd be worth it for better interoperability.
All that said, I love the idea of taking advantage of the full 18ft and I'd even argue the capital expenses of modifying the tunnels might be worthwhile given we plan on running trains well into the future.
Keep sharing, please.
How do Wheelchair users evacuate in the event of a crash on bi-level designs where the only upstairs access is a wheelchair lift?
That is a really good question. Since there are already cars with lifts, this question has already been answered to some extent - at least in Canada. I suspect that regulators are relying on car attendants to be able to get their cars evacuated, similar to flight attendants on an airplane - but that's just a guess.
@@CSLenhart The main thing I'm curious about is that (in buildings) people are advised to avoid lifts in the case of an emergency, and certainly in the building I used to work in, if we'd had anybody in a wheelchair, they would have had to work on the ground floor despite the Prescence of a lift since the lift may not be operable in a fire or some other emergency.
Thanks Christian this was extremely informative. I did have a thought about the freight train dynamic envelope issue. I'm not sure this would be possible everywhere given the state of decay freight railroads like to keep some track in, but would it not be possible to mostly solve this issue with speed restricting freight trains around passenger stations?
An interesting idea. Physically it may work in most cases, but I have my doubts that the freight companies would accept permanent speed restrictions without unless there was some kind of compensation.
The issue of freight train dynamic envelope is less of a problem than you think it is...stand on a platform when a freight train goes through at 60 and you'll see for yourself...anyone that would be affected by such an envelope is just a Darwin award winner waiting to happen.
Side note to your thoughts on seating options; not sure if it’s been mentioned yet.
While mostly seen on older heavyweight cars but also on “newer” vintage VIA Rail equipment, some passenger accommodations are offered as sections.
Essentially it can be described as an open roomette; two chairs/seats that face each other during the day. At night they turn into a bunk bed situation with curtains for privacy.
Yeah, those mostly started disappearing because you almost got no privacy, and the old railroads had the nasty habit of trying to cram four people into them. The pods are probably the closest you'll get to them without getting people freaking about privacy.
I don't think anyone involved in the global rail industry looks to the US for innovation, remotely.
Sadly the site (Berlinerwerke) is long gone, but i had a design for a mixed level train featured on it. The images were sadly not preserved on the wayback machine as far as i know.
The Adirondack train had a dome car added at Albany Rensselaer while going north to Montreal, it could not go south of Albany do to bridge tunnel limits.
"had" is a keyword (and only during fall). Apparently Amtrak sold those dome cars to private railways. At one oit, it used a VIA Buss (ex CP Rail from 1950s) but VIA has been canibalizing its fleet recently. (I took it this fall and there was no dome car alas, especially as the Amfleet II car windows were all fogged up between panes).
Those ADA ramps are time-consuming as well. The engineer has to spot the train just right so the door is on the ramp, and as a sick joke, the ramp is usually only as wide as one door. Trains don't stop like cars though, and if you miss the ramp, well you hope you can pull another door up to it or you have to shove the train back. After that, the conductor has to be at that door, work the ramp, help whoever needs it, and then put the ramp away and continue with their station work. All of that defeats the whole point of a commuter stop which is supposed to be in and out in as short a time as possible. With the train having to come in slower to spot the ramp*, and the time the conductor needs to assist the person using the ramp, can set an on-time train back 5 minutes in one stop. High platforms are the way to go.
*You can hit the platform hot and spot the ramp if you want to show off and look cool but it's easier to miss the faster you're going.
As a former Disney World Monorail Pilot, I can only imagine the difficulty of spotting a full sized diesel train exactly against a high block. The little electric monorails were hard enough to line up with the gates and we had all kinds of guides and stopping aids to help us. And even then, backing up an over-shot train was a seemingly an hourly occurrence...
@@CSLenhart lol Yeah, it's fairly common at the commuter railroads as well. At least where those raised ramps are in place. Some platforms would have a sign that you'd put in your side window to make the ramp. But many others didn't, and you would learn to use random markers, or the conductor would count you down. I remember relieving a guy who had a train with two extra cars. I asked him what the spots were, and he literally said for one platform "There is a pile of trash half a car length from the end of the platform, that'll be your 8-car spot" SMH
And a standard stop marker on the platform isn't going to work because the accessible cars may not always be in the same position on the consist. Even on brand new rolling stock in the UK they have this problem. I watched a video about a month ago of a wheelchair bound man (who happens to be a disability rights activist), trying to board a train at Kings Cross in London, the train had pulled into the station the wrong way around so the one accessible door was not in an accessible platform position. It took them like 15 minutes of arguing with the train manager to get them to allow the train to be moved a few meters so the accessible door could be used with the wheelchair ramp (the train driver was willing to do it, the train manager was just being a jerk about it).
How do commuter trains manage it at stations with platform doors? Those require perfect alignment, too.
@@dougbrowning82 We dont have many of those type of platforms thank God. In fact, I can't think of there being any example of those platforms being used anywhere in the US, at least when it comes to loco hauled commuter service.
High level makes sense in the North East, and your idea for the national fleet makes sense. Now if they would just put in High level platforms for Via Rail at Union station in Toronto...
What's even more frustrating is that Via is rebuilding the platforms at London station as we speak (the 5th busiest Via Station) and they are not not raising them to provide level boarding. This despite the fact that the platforms are located on a siding only used by passenger trains.
I agree that there is space for a return of the Slumber Coach, single person rooms. Only see those in rail museums anymore.
11:05 Having the gangway on the lower level of bilevel cars seems less height-efficient because it still has to be higher than the wheel trucks.
Having travelled in Japan on various train lines which are all high level boarding, I can't believe the US and Europe still require passengers to clamber up and down stairs to board a train in many locations. It seems so primitive (are we still in the 19th century?) to say nothing about how unfriendly it is to anyone with mobility issues or disabilities.
What about a slightly narrower standard for freight, and taller clearances in the North East? Train money is flowing, so that's not as impossible as it once was. That leaves actually making and enforcing national standards, which has happened before.
you mentioned cars with end doors on both levels, this sort of exists with amtraks transition sleepers. one end is first floor height, the other is second floor height.
I would caution against semipermanently coupling cars, because a fault in one car can lead to a whole trainset being out of service. where I work now we have cars semipermanently coupled in pairs, and because of that half the cars in our shop are perfectly fine, theyre just taking up space and not out making money. automatic couplers are great for maintenance because you can swap out a single defective car. I do wish amtrak would begin adding electronic couplers, back when I would have to go out in the freezing cold and crawl under the train hooking up hoses, it was a really bad time.
I got to connect air hoses in the heat of a Utah summer (for job training which I ultimately declined),and I was surprised by how difficult it was. My hat's off to you for doing it during the winter!
I'm not certain, but it seems like there are degrees of semipermananent couplings. I based my expectations on Brightline's Siemens trainsets, which have gangways wide enough for ADA requirements, but also seem to be reconfigurable (based on how often we saw Brightline running 5 car trains prior to the Orlando extension opening).
The worst outcome is, as you said, a whole trainset rendered inoperable because of a defect on one car. We should definitely avoid anything that leads to that.
@@CSLenhart I think the other issue that is not always discussed with the LD routes, is that the LD trains oftentimes stray much farther away from maintenance yards than the corridor routes. Semi permanent coupling isn't as big an issue on corridors because they are almost always somewhat close to a maintenance yard of some kind, and hence an easy replacement. The LD trains can sometimes be hundreds of miles away from the nearest maintenance depot, hence why there is more concern for what to do if there is a fault. It is much more easily fixed at the terminal end points, but would be an operational nightmare if it happened on route (something I saw second hand on the Chief before when the eastbound chief dropped off a BO car in Albuquerque that I saw from the westbound train)
I believe the Amtrak concept is to have a semi-permanently coupled "core" trainset, then a bunch of conventionally-coupled cars off the side. It's unfortunately not really avoidable, because Amtrak's whole pitch for an ADA exemption is "all the important stuff can be reached, so there's no reason to require it on the rest." Lose that, and you probably lose the exemption too.
@TheBleggh I worked on their new venture cars, some of which are married pairs, the width of the gangway seemed comparable between the married pairs gangway and the standard cars gangway. Just no doors to need to push a button to open.
Unless the requirement is not having to push a button to open a door, which is often considered an accommodation off the train, I'm not sure what difference it would make.
@@TheBleggh true true, tho in any case the proposal is probably loads better than what we would have otherwise given the status quo, and the operational needs of the long distance services. TBH a few semi permanently coupled trainsets could improve the LD experience since we wouldn't see a 3 car set like we have on the Capitol Limited recently and it would mean sectioned trains either run separately adding an additional headway or combined to provide double the amenities and capacity
How about adjustable height platforms? Basically, between trains, a mechanism would raise or lower a metal platform and slide it in or out toward the rail. People would not wait on the platform and it would be gated while adjusting.
Basically, you'll take a normal platform and widen it by about 6 feet for a dual-track platform or 3 feet for a single track platform. The height would be about 8 inches above the top of the track. This will now be referred to as the "sub-platform". On the sub-platform, you set a movable platform which runs the length of the sub-platform. This platform has a railing on it which prevents people from stepping on. At about 30 foot intervals, there are entry ramps which run parallel to the platform. These will be fixed to the platform, but have rollers on the end toward the sub-platform. (As the platform raises or lowers, the grade on the ramp changes. At the highest grade, the ramp would still need to be ADA compliant.)
The platform itself will be raised and lowered using a ball-screw scissor jack mechanism but will also be spring or counterweight assisted. If you allow adjustment over a 5 minute period, you could probably get away with using a 1/4 horsepower electric motor for each 30 foot section.
Yes, there'd be a cost to build and maintain this, but I'll argue that the cost of standardizing the existing railstock and stations is a lot higher over a 30 year period.
That sounds workable for busy stations with lots of traffic (to justify the costs). I'm less certain it is as viable in the small cities along the long-distance routes that see only 2 trains a day. I suppose it depends on how simple and robust the system is.
@@CSLenhart Yeah, no doubt. This would be for situations where there's like eight different lines servicing a particular platform and also sharing the track with freight.
Okay… mixed level trains has been in use in Europe for a while before Nightjet came into service. This was a system called City Nightline. I used it between Zurich and Vienna. Very good. This train had a mixture of single and double deck cars … the sleeping cars WLAB and WLA were double deck and the WLB were single deck along with the service car. The WLAB and WLA could easily use the Northeast Corridor. But again platform height is always going to be an issue. The idea of the capsule sleepers is perfect! I miss the old Slumber Coaches. Now if I want to travel overnight on Amtrak the minimum I have to purchase is a roomette for two people and pay accommodations for two people plus rail fare , not cheap at all where the slumber coaches had single and double rooms which were more reasonable albeit they didn’t have the food services included. Honestly I have travelled on sleeping cars around the world and the best and the most impressive, for me will always be the Amtrak Superliner.. nothing can compare to them. As far as ADA .. add a lift inside the lounge car or one of the coaches and be done with it. That way the disabled folks can have access to most of the train.
A single Car with ADA accessible is the way to go, don't waste time trying to make everything work, or the very few who will use it. Maybe have motorized lift/ramp at stations with ground level platforms that can help disabled/wheelchair people get aboard without having to modify the station or train.
@@ThePTBRULES lift systems on low level platforms are already at Amtrak stations to comply with ADA… on the small stations not sure if they are motorized or hand cranked… maybe someone can chime in on that.
At some point either robotics, prosthetics or outright medical science is one day going to render physical disabilities a virtual non-isse for mobility; I wonder how people in that time will look back on us and all the issues we have with providing accessibility.
Not every 80 year old will want to get a prosthetic.
Yes, there will be barely any people who are outright unable to walk, but you will still have people who need (only) a cane or stroller in order to be able to walk, and people who prefer sitting down in a spider/ walker wheelchair (which would technically be a legchair, then?).
The cane option limits where you can use steps, and the legchairs will have similar aisle width and turn radius requirements as today's wheelchairs. Even if we get to the point where no single person is limited by BOTH maneuvering room AND steps, there will still be people who have difficulty with either one of these points.
@@Pystro You won't need a chair at all if you were wearing a mobility assistive exoskeleton. You would be human sized, plus a backpack for the power source.
And that's to say nothing on the possibly of bionic implants to restore limb function or stem cell treatments that can repair damage and potentially reverse age released deterioration.
Assuming we don't go extinct first, one day physical disability will be something that does become extinct .
You should post to your concepts for The bi-level replacements to the Amtrak subreddit. Those folks would have a lot of thoughts on the subject
That's a good suggestion. Take the idea straight to the experts - or at least, the very passionate! 😅
The semipermanently coupled bilevels would spell the end of splitting the Empire Builder in Spokane into the Seattle and Portland sectons. You could add another baggage car easy enough but duplicating sleepers and lounge doesn't make sense. If they do bring back the North Coast Hiawatha it could cover one or the other but most proposals have it running the third route through Ellensburg.
So is the boarding requirement the factor that precludes 14f 6in bi-levels from being used on intercity services?
I also acknowledge that the lower height would reduce the Roomettes from two beds to one probably which may have some negative impacts on economics of the service.
That's an interesting point. I wonder if it would be possible to create a superliner-like design for passage between cars on the upper level of the cars, while still staying below 14.5 feet. At worst, that would create yet another standard floor height. I'll have to give this more thought!
@@CSLenhart the 14.5 feet is a copy and paste of NJ transits bi-levels. So if one car was low level and the other high level….?
I have no technical expertise on this so just asking.
10:51 - I actually made a concept of Amtrak bilevel coaches using this design. I took the Stadler blueprints and adapted them to Amtrak Coach, Sleeper, Diner and Lounge configurations, but yeah - they could only be used on the trains that currently use bilevel equipment, and with the places you describe (the several tunnels in the Rocky Mountains and Chicago Union Station), they would have to do some massive track rebuilding which would involve depressing the tracks 2 feet below their current height. It could be done, but Amtrak would have to pay for that. These cars would have even more capacity than the Superliners though and could mean increased revenue, so it would be an investment
Actually it wouldn't require massive track rebuilding, they would do it the same way they raised the heights in tunnels to accommodate double stack containers, which was a combination of lowering the track and notching the tunnel roof. Amtrak shouldn't have to pay for it because anything like that would benefit the freight railroad as well(giving them outlets/additional routing capabilities to handle double stack containers. This is actually a problem with all the Amtrak authorization bills that Congress puts forth, and it stems from a failure of the Amtrak leadership to enter into proper negotiations for track usage with the freight carriers. Any upgrades to freight tracks that accommodate Amtrak inherently benefit the underlying freight carrier, yet they always complain about Amtrak hindering their ability to carry freight. Hogwash.
@@zaklex3165 large intermodal stack trains can’t use the Moffat Tunnel route because of how steep the climb is between Denver and the MT, so heightening the clearance wouldn’t really enable those trains to use that route, and if any money was invested to heighten the clearance on those tunnels, the max could be 19’ or 18.5’ specifically to accommodate taller Amtrak coaches - most stack trains are even higher.
@@coleallen3895 A double stack is 20' above the top of the rails at it's highest point, the Moffat Tunnel grade should not be an issue as double stacks can go over Donner Summit, and I'm pretty sure the maximum grade on Donner is more than the maximum 2% between Denver and the tunnel...but that Tunnel is owned by the State of Colorado(and I highly doubt they'd spend taxpayer money on it to support a for profit corporation[UP]), so it's a rather moot point for that route.
@@zaklex3165 they and the federal government should use taxpayer money to enable taller 18’ high passenger cars if Amtrak signs an order for a design of the cars I suggested
My reading on the tunnel heights on the Front Range in Colorado suggested that the Moffat Tunnel itself is capable of double-stack cars, since it was built extra tall with the intention of being electrified one day (similar to the Great Northern or the Milwaukee Road). However, the multiple tunnels leading up to the summit, built by the original Denver & Salt Lake, are all height restricted to 17'.
1:15 I am not sure if this applies to all of Europe but thinking about it, I think Switzerland may have standardized on one level boarding height for the new trains as well.
I know that SBB and BLS have been building out platforms and the height seems to have changed there. Additionally, all newer trains I can think of have level boarding.
I might be missing one but it seems like this may be a problem that is being solved right now.
Older trains definitely don‘t have level boarding though, I agree with that.
I agree totally, the gapfillers should be carried on the train. Problems arise when the weather gets cold, as hydraulic or pneumatic systems get sluggish. It gets worse by the snow swirling around and becoming packed in those small areas, and then becoming solidified, making deployment of said equipment, difficult, if not impossible.
The designers and builders are going to need to figure out how to use compressed air, which there is readily available from the train line, to periodically blast, to try to loosen, dislodge, blown clean, the entire compartment, while in motion, and have buttons near the ops stations so that boarding staff can also manually blow down before the complete stop in stations. Heat may also be a neccessity, as running in wet weather, then transitioning into colder weather, can also bring complications.
GO Transit, merely a commuter network, has set themselves up that car five (from the loco) is the accessibility coach. One door, will be met with a sub-platform, that will easily accomodate the chairs, walkers, and otherwise not-so-agile-on-their-feet passengers, and yes, a footbridge is used. This requires the train to always be oriented the same way, which is locomotive on the East end of the train. For those trains that run more North-South, they base it off having the loco on the East end when it`s at Union Station. Any train can run any route at any time, so long as the loco is on the East end of the train.
The gauntlet track, and the hydraulic drawbridges, are both cute, and practical.
I sometimes wonder what American rail travel would look like if for some reason the jet engine had been a non viable invention. As I feel like piston planes would be seen as deadly rattle traps while high speed electric trains with a nationwide standard from the FRA for train and platform heights whisked people along safely.
Jet planes aren't the only competition. There's also cars and intercity buses, which can go anywhere there is road.
In Estonia, we have implemented a standardized platform and train door height, which eliminates the need for steps or retractable floors. The trains are specially manufactured for our country by Swiss and, in the future, Czech companies due to the gauge that is unique to our region. As for freight trains, we have opted for American-built GE freight trains. Therefore, it appears that standardization should not pose any significant issues in us only if not the cost.
1:13 level boarding is standard in the UK and many other places.
I wonder if Amtrak could implement like those TGV Duplex with double decker coaches, more capacity. I think Duplex coaches are 14ft which is enough to be in the New York tunnels or the Bombardier Multi-Level coaches which are 14ft 1” but rates up to 110mph only, which are also has level boarding.
Accessibility seems to have been a sticking point, since ADA passengers wouldn't be able to access the entire train. That may be changing with new rulings and in-car lifts, depending on the upcoming FRA rulings, so we'll stay tuned!
If I recall the NJT multi-level cars have level boarding, but wheelchair passengers can only access the mezzanine level of the car. Those cars are barely over 10 years old, so had to have passed ADA requirements circa 2010. Given those trains are commuter trains and not inter-city and the restrooms are at the accessible level, I suspect that is why they pass muster.
The class 745 and the class 755 train in the uk both feature level boarding
Switzerland has mostly achieved level board ( at least i think) throught its stations and trains due to a law that mandates the swiss railways but also other infrastructure to offer full accessibility by wheelchair.
At least i think they have to by 2025
Incredible video that captured my attention the whole time. I would love for there to be sleeper pods on Amtrak trains, the cost of anything not coach is too expensive but the sleeper pods could be priced cheaper.
I agree, there is a huge gap in cost between coach and sleeper cars. And where there is a gap, there is an opportunity for growth!
That's exactly what ÖBB, the national railways operator of Austria has done with their new Nightjets. The pics at 13:57 and 14:09 are from these Nightjets (not the Railjets as in the video). Also these new carriages are not taller than traditional intercity trains in Europe.
The new Nightjet pod cars have 40 beds (28 private), comparable with the theoretical max for a Superliner. That's very good for a single level car.
But China has a new sleeper car (CRH2E second gen) that manages 60 private beds on a single level car. That's getting close to coach car levels (Amfleet is 60-72).
Up the speed and reliability to reasonable levels, and you could do NY-Chicago in 12-14 hours overnight in a private bed for coach prices.
@@flohub06 Thanks for the correction, I'll add a note in the description.
Have you had a chance to ride a night jet service?
@@morat242 So imagine how many you could fit in a bi-level car. I'm sure that Chinese 60 berth sleeper car is a bit tight on space for anyone not used to Chinese accommodations.
I really, really hate the idea of low level platforms with single level cars because Amtrak can't ever seem to open more than one or two traps on the whole train. This leads to absurd station dwell. Considering the time and effort that's gone into running 110 mph on some lines, having station dwell > 5 minutes to board a handful of people is absurd.
The arrow service run by Metrolink (Southern California) also has level boarding but lower floors(the platforms are 23.5" above the rail I think).
That sounds about right for Stadler FLIRTs. I don't believe that line hosts any other freight or passenger service - in which case I don't mind an agency choosing a unique standard. Do whatever is most convenient for the riders!
@@CSLenhart There is freight on that line (There's a spur that has tanker cars near the tippecanoe station). It also hosts the mainline Metrolink service that uses the standard bilevel cars that metrolink runs on the rest of it's lines. They had to build extra (lower) platforms so that the bilevel cars could stop in Redlands. The two passenger services cant use the same platforms (which is just another example of the issue that you highlight in this video).
@MartinHoeckerMartinez Ah, I see that spur on Google Maps. It looks like anything beyond (east of) the Tippecanoe station would be blocked, but anything west is still accessible by freight trains, since they can pass through Downtown San Bernardino on the Metrolink tracks.
Pretty clever. 👍
@@CSLenhart TexRail and the DART Silver line also use FLIRTs with 24" level boarding using automated gap fillers to enable freight service. The reason that BiLevel trains can't use the same platform as FLIRTs (despite both trains having the same floor height) is that Bombardier/Alstom has stated that it is impossible to retrofit an automated gap filler to their BiLevel coaches. This was discovered when we tried to adopt a 24" platform height standard in Ontario to match the floor height of Bombardier Bilevel coaches (since there's a thousand of them in service).
Don't forget carriage ceiling heights were set in the 1860s, when adult males were in the 5'6"-9" area. They're now 6'-6'3". That doesn't make much difference in well drops, or platform heights, but does impact tunnel sizes.
What type of carriage is that at 15:36? It looks like a more modern version of U.P.’s business car.
You're exactly right! That's Union Pacific’s officer's train, and as you can see, it doesn't line up very well with the special amtrak-sized platform.