In other news ... certain
third-world countries have better intercity passenger rail service than Amtrak provides.
On Mon, 06 Apr 2015 17:52:14 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
In other news ... certain third-world countries have better intercity >>passenger rail service than Amtrak provides.
That may be a legacy of the fact that in the USA, it seems most long
distance lines are owned by freight companies, and passenger transport >outside of metropolitan areas isn't seen as a priority.
In other news, there's no daily service to Cincinatti and certain
third-world countries have better intercity passenger rail service than Amtrak provides.
In other news, there's no daily service to Cincinatti and certain third-world countries have better intercity passenger rail service than Amtrak provides.
For a rather modest investment in more track and rolling stock,
Amtrak could double its ridership. The demand is there. The
political will is not.
Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Apr 2015 17:52:14 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
In other news ... certain third-world countries have better intercity >>>passenger rail service than Amtrak provides.
That may be a legacy of the fact that in the USA, it seems most long >>distance lines are owned by freight companies, and passenger transport >>outside of metropolitan areas isn't seen as a priority.
One doesn't preclude the other.
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Apr 2015 17:52:14 +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
In other news ... certain third-world countries have better intercity >>>>passenger rail service than Amtrak provides.
That may be a legacy of the fact that in the USA, it seems most long >>>distance lines are owned by freight companies, and passenger transport >>>outside of metropolitan areas isn't seen as a priority.
One doesn't preclude the other.
It does if you only maintain just enough infrastructure to meet your
freight customers' needs. To carry passengers, track has to be maintained
to higher standards, and there has to be enough of it that scheduled >passenger trains can meet their timetables without interfering with
freight traffic. . . .
Unfortunately, railroads are an incredibly capital-intensive business,
so you need a pretty significant investment in track to make _any_
difference in speed or capacity, though it should be pointed out that
the freight RRs _already_ need major track investments for their own
traffic, and a fairly small contribution by Amtrak would likely sway
them toward investing in the particular routes Amtrak uses, thus getting Amtrak a lot more bang for their buck than you'd expect.
Adding rolling stock is much simpler, at least until you need to add
more crew (or especially locos) to a particular run. But many Amtrak
trains are sold out due to being far too short, and profitability would
be increased (or losses reduced, for LD routes) by adding a few cars to
each train--or by adding a few new trainsets and consolidating the
remaining ones. However, fare revenue will never match expenses when Amtrak's trains are competing with bicycles, not cars or buses, on
speed--and that's where track improvements come in.
Unfortunately, it seems most modern railroad managements are
pre-conditioned to hate passenger trains and will have nothing to do
with it, even if reasonable negotiations could result in Amtrak picking
up much of the tab for track improvements.
It was a statement about priorities. If having adequate intercity
passenger rail was domestic policy in this country at both federal
and state level, it certainly doesn't preclude either freight service
nor un-nationalized railroads. It just requires a commitment of all
parties to using railroads for all appropriate forms of
transportation and adequate access to capital, even to the extent
that additional capital would have to come from the taxpayers.
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
Unfortunately, it seems most modern railroad managements are
pre-conditioned to hate passenger trains and will have nothing to
do with it, even if reasonable negotiations could result in Amtrak
picking up much of the tab for track improvements.
Are you insane? Congress doesn't appropriate monies for Amtrak
service for significant track improvement. Clearly this should be
done, but it's not.
Passenger trains should be slotted like UPS or intermodal service,
which are essentially scheduled freight trains. So this can be done
on modern freight railroads.
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
... it should be pointed out that the freight RRs _already_ need
major track investments for their own traffic, and a fairly small
contribution by Amtrak would likely sway them toward investing in
the particular routes Amtrak uses, thus getting Amtrak a lot more
bang for their buck than you'd expect.
Unfortunately, it seems most modern railroad managements are
pre-conditioned to hate passenger trains and will have nothing to do
with it, even if reasonable negotiations could result in Amtrak
picking up much of the tab for track improvements.
On a section of busy bi-directional double track that CSX shares with
SEPTA, CSX is spending money to build a third track dedicated for its
trains. I think this is foolish. CSX will go from a very fluid
two-track line to a single track line that will hurt, not help its
freight trains. The two-track line was busy, but not over-crowded,
and the bi-directional signalling made it flexible.
Adding rolling stock is much simpler, at least until you need to
add more crew (or especially locos) to a particular run. But many
Amtrak trains are sold out due to being far too short, and
profitability would be increased (or losses reduced, for LD routes)
by adding a few cars to each train--or by adding a few new
trainsets and consolidating the remaining ones. However, fare
revenue will never match expenses when Amtrak's trains are
competing with bicycles, not cars or buses, on speed--and that's
where track improvements come in.
Amtrak has new rolling stock on order, but the order is delayed.
One problem is the "feast or famine" nature of building passenger
cars. There isn't enough standardization and on-going orders to keep carbuilders in business and healthy. So, too many orders go to
start-ups and thre are long delays.
On 08-Apr-15 22:49, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote
Well, I'd agree that most of them hate passenger trains, with the
notable exception of BNSF.
On a section of busy bi-directional double track that CSX shares with SEPTA, CSX is spending money to build a third track dedicated for its trains. I think this is foolish. CSX will go from a very fluid
two-track line to a single track line that will hurt, not help its
freight trains. The two-track line was busy, but not over-crowded,
and the bi-directional signalling made it flexible.
I agree; that's a poor decision on CSX's part. OTOH, it may be due to SEPTA's limited funding or poor negotiation skills rather than CSX's
supposed hatred for passenger trains.
Is that order just enough to replace what has been damaged over the
years, or would it actually expand the fleet in a significant way?
That's one of the many reasons why the FRA needs to start accepting
standard UIC passenger cars.
On 08-Apr-15 23:24, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
Unfortunately, it seems most modern railroad managements are >>>pre-conditioned to hate passenger trains and will have nothing to
do with it, even if reasonable negotiations could result in Amtrak >>>picking up much of the tab for track improvements.
Are you insane? Congress doesn't appropriate monies for Amtrak
service for significant track improvement. Clearly this should be
done, but it's not.
Passenger trains should be slotted like UPS or intermodal service,
which are essentially scheduled freight trains. So this can be done
on modern freight railroads.
That may be how some freight RRs run, but not all of them. On UP, for >instance, trains leave yards/sidings whenever they're ready (which can
be several hours earlier or later than planned) and it's up to the >dispatchers to sort things out.
BNSF is closer to running on a schedule, but they still don't use fixed >slots. This becomes glaringly obvious when their trains hit TRE's
tracks, which _do_ have explicit slots for both passenger and freight
trains during the day. Depending on when freight trains arrive, they
may have to wait an hour before the next slot opens. OTOH, they do
know--to the minute--when the entry signal will clear and when they'll
exit on the other end. DGNO also uses TRE's (and DCTA's) tracks but
almost exclusively at night, when slots aren't used.
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 11:07:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Unfortunately, railroads are an incredibly capital-intensive business,
so you need a pretty significant investment in track to make _any_
difference in speed or capacity, though it should be pointed out that
the freight RRs _already_ need major track investments for their own
traffic, and a fairly small contribution by Amtrak would likely sway
them toward investing in the particular routes Amtrak uses, thus getting
Amtrak a lot more bang for their buck than you'd expect.
Unfortunately, it seems most modern railroad managements are pre-conditioned to hate passenger trains and will have nothing to do with it, even if reasonable negotiations could result in Amtrak picking up much of the tab for track improvements.
On a section of busy bi-directional double track that CSX shares with SEPTA, CSX is spending money to build a third track dedicated for its trains. I think
But this attitude is nothing new. Back in the 1950s, some railroad managers were convinced their passenger trains lost money, even when in fact they were profitable, including with overhead. (Ref "Twilight of the Psgr Train" by Fraily).
Not helping the situation was the ICC, forcing the railroads to carry extremely expensive trains no one rode, for years.
Adding rolling stock is much simpler, at least until you need to add
more crew (or especially locos) to a particular run. But many Amtrak
trains are sold out due to being far too short, and profitability would
be increased (or losses reduced, for LD routes) by adding a few cars to
each train--or by adding a few new trainsets and consolidating the
remaining ones. However, fare revenue will never match expenses when
Amtrak's trains are competing with bicycles, not cars or buses, on
speed--and that's where track improvements come in.
Amtrak has new rolling stock on order, but the order is delayed.
One problem is the "feast or famine" nature of building passenger cars. There
(However, I don't understand the screwup with the PATCO rebuild order, which is YEARS late, by an experienced builder. And it's a rebuild of a rapid transit car of 45 y/o technology, not even a new design, though I think they're
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
On a section of busy bi-directional double track that CSX shares
with SEPTA, CSX is spending money to build a third track dedicated
for its trains. I think this is foolish. CSX will go from a very
fluid two-track line to a single track line that will hurt, not
help its freight trains. The two-track line was busy, but not
over-crowded, and the bi-directional signalling made it flexible.
Given that SEPTA needs to upgrade to high level platforms for ADA
and performance reasons, this could make a lot of sense.
Differing speed bands and maintenance needs (50 mph heavy haul
versus 80 - 90 mph every 15 minute or half hourly passenger service)
can make separate lines the best answer.
Switches are expensive.
* Unlike current Viewliners, the [new] roomettes won't have a toilet
in each room, the passenger will have to go down the hall. Apparently
this is actually better when two people share a roomette,
but it is a step backward when there is only one person.
I think in Canada they still use sections. I wonder if they can rent
out the upper berth--in the U.S., back in the 1930s the upper berth
lost favor, which is why they came up with the roomette for single
travelers.
Given that SEPTA needs to upgrade to high level platforms for ADA and performance reasons, this could make a lot of sense.
Differing speed
bands and maintenance needs (50 mph heavy haul versus 80 - 90 mph
every 15 minute or half hourly passenger service) can make separate
lines the best answer. Switches are expensive.
It still disturbed me to have a toilet in the room I was sitting or
sleeping in, even though I was alone; I actually used the one in the
corridor anyway, just so I didn't have to think about it.
Granted, if I woke up in the middle of the night, I'd be slightly
annoyed at having to get at least minimally dressed to do that, but I'd
still prefer that over trying to get back to sleep knowing the toilet I
just used was mere inches from my bed.
What's a "section"?
On 10-Apr-15 08:54, Clark F Morris wrote:
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
On a section of busy bi-directional double track that CSX shares
with SEPTA, CSX is spending money to build a third track dedicated
for its trains. I think this is foolish. CSX will go from a very
fluid two-track line to a single track line that will hurt, not
help its freight trains. The two-track line was busy, but not >>>over-crowded, and the bi-directional signalling made it flexible.
Given that SEPTA needs to upgrade to high level platforms for ADA
and performance reasons, this could make a lot of sense.
For the high platform issue, gauntlet tracks are cheaper and take up a
lot less space than building a separate track, and the performance of >freights will be a lot better if they can still use two tracks, rather
than have to use a single track bidirectionally.
On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 1:34:59 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Granted, if I woke up in the middle of the night, I'd be slightly
annoyed at having to get at least minimally dressed to do that, but
I'd still prefer that over trying to get back to sleep knowing the
toilet I just used was mere inches from my bed.
Lots of people need to 'go' more often when they travel, especially
older people, who may need to go several times overnight. A toilet
in the roomo helps.
What's a "section"?
A "section" is the old style Pullman accomodation. It had two large
seats facing each other for two passengers. At night, the upper
berth was lowered down and the bottom seats were converted to a bed
for the lower berth. A heavy aisle curtain provided privacy. The
upper berth was the cheapest accomodation, but it was rather
claustrophobic (no windows, tight fit). By the 1930s, it became very unpopular and hard to sell, thus the roomette was born.
On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 9:54:00 AM UTC-4, Clark F Morris wrote:
Given that SEPTA needs to upgrade to high level platforms for ADA
and performance reasons, this could make a lot of sense.
SEPTA does NOT need to upgrade to high level platforms for ADA. A
small mini platform is all that is needed, which is much cheaper to
build.
High level would not significantly improve SEPTA times as the
passenger count at an individual station isn't that high.
Further, high level paltforms get out of alignment (visit Princeton
Jct) and cease being an improvement.
On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 9:54:00 AM UTC-4, Clark F Morris wrote:
Given that SEPTA needs to upgrade to high level platforms for ADA and >>performance reasons, this could make a lot of sense.
SEPTA does NOT need to upgrade to high level platforms for ADA. A small
mini platform is all that is needed, which is much cheaper to build.
A mini high block requires bridge plates if it's not going to conflict
with freight trains, and that slows boarding--and unpredictably so,
which is worse.
With a mix of platform heights, the crew still has to operate the doors
and traps, which adds time to every stop. It also increases labor costs--money that should be invested into capital improvements.
Further, high level paltforms get out of alignment (visit Princeton
Jct) and cease being an improvement.
That some operators are incompetent does not prove the idea bad.
CTA discourages passengers from changing cars once they're on board.
I agree in part and disagree in part. Platforms should be sized for
expected boarding at the station, not the longest train. Passengers
should be in the car with the doors that will open.
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
A mini high block requires bridge plates if it's not going to
conflict with freight trains, and that slows boarding--and
unpredictably so, which is worse.
Many high platform stations require bridge plate because for
wheelchairs (1) the gap between the platform and doorway is too wide
and (2) the doorway and platform are not in vertical alignment.
With a mix of platform heights, the crew still has to operate the
doors and traps, which adds time to every stop. It also increases
labor costs--money that should be invested into capital
improvements.
...
Until SEPTA has the substantial capital funds to build--and
maintain*--every station to full length high platform, it will need
bigger crews.
*Maintenance will include lighting, repair, and snow removal and
these are added costs.
FWIW, MNRR, LIRR, and NJT all have converted most of their networks
to full length high level platform, and, run much longer trains than
SEPTA (10-12 cars), yet still have large train crews. Indeed, NJT
tried cutting back crew sizes and found it didn't work out.
SEPTA may reduce railroad crew size when it introduces its new fare collection system.
Further, high level paltforms get out of alignment (visit
Princeton Jct) and cease being an improvement.
That some operators are incompetent does not prove the idea bad.
True, but are the other operators (eg NJT, LIRR, and MNRR) truly
incompetent or just working in the real world? For instance, NJT
doesn't control ballast height on the NEC, that's a function of
Amtrak. I believe it is not an issue in places like Penna Station or
Newark where the tracks are set in concrete; likewise in SEPTA's
downtwon stations.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 11-Apr-15 08:36, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
CTA discourages passengers from changing cars once they're on
board.
I agree in part and disagree in part. Platforms should be sized
for expected boarding at the station, not the longest train.
Passengers should be in the car with the doors that will open.
... but when you combine that with the above, that means passengers
are supposed to know _when they board_ what cars will allow them to
exit at the destination. That isn't an issue for daily commuters,
but how are tourists or occasional riders supposed to know this?
It's simpler and more passenger-friendly to make all your platforms
as long as the longest train that stops there.
I'm trying to reduce station construction costs on your railroad.
Doesn't apply in the Midwest, but in hilly areas, you don't always
have sufficient tangent track (without both vertical and horizontal
curves) for a full-length platform and there's no reason to attempt
to build one for a low volume stop.
I'm very much opposed to "doing without" when we've raised costs to
excessive levels or geography prevents construction because of one-size-fits-all rules that don't apply to the situation at that
location.
On Metra, they expect passengers to follow instructions. There are announcements with regard to which doors will open and which car the passengers must be in to get off the train.
DART's at-grade stations have 300ft* platforms because that was
the longest train they currently operate; however, they knew they
will eventually have 400ft long trains, so above- and below-grade
stations (which are expensive to alter) have 400ft platforms, and
the platforms at most* at-grade stations were designed to be easily
expanded.
* That's the length of a city block in downtown Dallas, where DART
currently operates in the streets. That section will be made
below grade someday, which will allow longer trains.
If it's in subway,
then why can't trains be operated more frequently? You're no longer
concerned with intersection capacity.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 10-Apr-15 23:41, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
Many high platform stations require bridge plate because for
wheelchairs (1) the gap between the platform and doorway is too wide
and (2) the doorway and platform are not in vertical alignment.
Incompetent maintenance.
No, it's not. It's nothing to do with maintenance. It has to do with horizontal curves, and weight shifting in the passenger car.
Until SEPTA has the substantial capital funds to build--and
maintain*--every station to full length high platform, it will need
bigger crews.
... and paying for those larger crews robs them of the funds they need
to improve the situation. That's why you use bonds for such things.
Actually, CSS&SB reduced train crew staffing levels a number of years
ago. Traps are in the end doors, like Metra Electric Highliners but not
like Metra Electric Nippon-Sharyo MU cars where they are in the center.
On Metra Electric, traps are for use in unusual situations as it's all floor-height platforms.
With reduced staffing, just one trap is used per car.
*Maintenance will include lighting, repair, and snow removal and
these are added costs.
The difference in cost to maintain short vs high platforms is
negligible.
I don't agree, because we don't build platforms in this country
English style, in which platforms are expected to last for centuries.
So floor-height platforms are structures, not asphalt over deep
grading for standard height platforms.
Longer platforms will cost a bit more to maintain, but not
enough to matter in the long run.
Spoken like someone who has never been through a winter with
very heavy snowfall.
FWIW, MNRR, LIRR, and NJT all have converted most of their networks
to full length high level platform, and, run much longer trains than
SEPTA (10-12 cars), yet still have large train crews. Indeed, NJT
tried cutting back crew sizes and found it didn't work out.
SEPTA may reduce railroad crew size when it introduces its new fare
collection system.
Yet many FRA systems manage to run trains just as long with crews of 2,
and the second crewmember is only "required" by FRA and union rules;
non-FRA systems often run trains with crews of just 1, and we have
existence proof (BCTA) that it can be done safely with _zero_ crew.
Eh. It depends. And then there's Lac Megantic... Your engineer has
to know how to tie up the consist if there's no conductor.
(I wish you'd speak of engine and train crews, as they are separate
crews and not the same crew.)
On 10-Apr-15 23:41, hancock4 wrote:
Until SEPTA has the substantial capital funds to build--and maintain*--every station to full length high platform, it will need
bigger crews.
... and paying for those larger crews robs them of the funds they need
to improve the situation. That's why you use bonds for such things.
*Maintenance will include lighting, repair, and snow removal and
these are added costs.
The difference in cost to maintain short vs high platforms is
negligible. Longer platforms will cost a bit more to maintain, but not enough to matter in the long run.
I guess I don't understand what hancock's complaint is here. I mean,
ballast regulators are computerized and the ballast is laid to the
height specified within a narrow tolerance that doesn't account for
changes in level, except when it's very very fresh.
On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 8:34:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
With a mix of platform heights, the crew still has to operate the doors
and traps, which adds time to every stop. It also increases labor >>costs--money that should be invested into capital improvements.
On SEPTA, the short platform lengths require manual operation by the
crew to ensure only desired doors open on long trains (e.g. a six-seven
car train at the typical four car platform). Since the crew is ready at
the doors, it does not add any dwell time.
FWIW, the SL 5 cars have powered traps for low platform use.
Until SEPTA has the substantial capital funds to build--and
maintain*--every station to full length high platform, it will need
bigger crews. *Maintenance will include lighting, repair, and snow
removal and these are added costs.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 11-Apr-15 11:25, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
Incompetent maintenance.
No, it's not. It's nothing to do with maintenance. It has to do
with horizontal curves, and weight shifting in the passenger car.
There are plenty of places in the Northeast where even empty trains
on tangent track have floors that are many inches off from the
proper horizontal _and_ vertical alignments.
_That_ is incompetent track maintenance, and that is what Hancock
is complaining about. Of course, rather than fix that
incompetency, he prefers to pay extra crew to operate traps and
bridge plates.
Sigh.
You always say things like this, Stephen. It doesn't make it true.
With reduced staffing, just one trap is used per car.
With floor-height platforms (and proper maintenance), traps (and
bridge plates) are not needed at all.
You know CSS&SB has gauntlet tracks and Metra Electric has dedicated
suburban (commuter) mains? You're ignoring tons of extra expense.
The difference in cost to maintain short vs high platforms is
negligible.
I don't agree, because we don't build platforms in this country
English style, in which platforms are expected to last for
centuries. So floor-height platforms are structures, not asphalt
over deep grading for standard height platforms.
Maybe they don't in Chicago, but they do around here.
Fine. Give me a call 100 years from now and tell me how many
original platforms survived.
Spoken like someone who has never been through a winter with very
heavy snowfall.
If you build the platforms right, it doesn't matter how high they
are; heavy snow on a high platform is the same as heavy snow on a
high one.
Right. The longer platform requires more shoveling. That's higher
operating cost right there.
(I wish you'd speak of engine and train crews, as they are
separate crews and not the same crew.)
There is an engineer, who runs the train, and a conductor, who
collects a paycheck for doing nothing, thanks to FRA/union rules.
This is totally false. Conductors aren't featherbedding like two-man
engine crews, with the second man the fireman on the diesel
locomotive.
Technically, the conductor runs the train, and if the engineer does
something wrong, the conductor can get fired too.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 11-Apr-15 11:08, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
I'm trying to reduce station construction costs on your
railroad.
Platform height/length has a negligible impact on cost, compared to
all the other (much larger) station expenses that aren't affected
at all.
Platforms are hideously expensive. Metra has had standard-height
platform replacement projects over the last several years, and they
take an amazing 13 weeks under traffic.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 11-Apr-15 12:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Platforms are hideously expensive. Metra has had standard-height
platform replacement projects over the last several years, and
they take an amazing 13 weeks under traffic.
Then someone needs to get fired. DART replaced _dozens_ of
platforms while they were in service, closing them just two
weekends each plus working nights when there were no trains. Start
to finish for each station was under a month.
Then again, you're saddled with unions, so taking three-plus times
as long (and probably ten-plus times as much money) is to be
expected. That's the price you pay for living in the Rust Belt.
We don't close freight railroads for weekends.
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 10-Apr-15 23:41, hancock4 wrote:
Until SEPTA has the substantial capital funds to build--and
maintain*--every station to full length high platform, it will
need bigger crews.
... and paying for those larger crews robs them of the funds they
need to improve the situation. That's why you use bonds for such
things.
But will the amortized cost of building and maintaining long high
platforms at every station result in a net savings of money in crew
size?
While some stations have plenty of room, some are squeezed in.
*Maintenance will include lighting, repair, and snow removal and
these are added costs.
The difference in cost to maintain short vs high platforms is
negligible. Longer platforms will cost a bit more to maintain, but
not enough to matter in the long run.
Given that many SEPTA platforms are only four cars long but some rush
hour trains are seven cars long, many platforms will be nearly
doubled in length. There is an additional cost to that.
Snow shoveling and salting ain't cheap.
I don't think the power cost for the extra lighting would be too much
(I figure an extra 600 KW per station, but multiply that over 12
hours, all the stations, and 365 days a year and it adds up).
On 11-Apr-15 08:36, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
CTA discourages passengers from changing cars once they're on board.
I agree in part and disagree in part. Platforms should be sized for >>expected boarding at the station, not the longest train. Passengers
should be in the car with the doors that will open.
... but when you combine that with the above, that means passengers are >supposed to know _when they board_ what cars will allow them to exit at
the destination. That isn't an issue for daily commuters, but how are >tourists or occasional riders supposed to know this? It's simpler and
more passenger-friendly to make all your platforms as long as the
longest train that stops there.
DART's at-grade stations have 300ft* platforms because that was the
longest train they currently operate; however, they knew they will
eventually have 400ft long trains, so above- and below-grade stations
(which are expensive to alter) have 400ft platforms, and the platforms
at most* at-grade stations were designed to be easily expanded.
* That's the length of a city block in downtown Dallas, where DART
currently operates in the streets. That section will be made below
grade someday, which will allow longer trains.
On 10-Apr-15 23:41, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
A mini high block requires bridge plates if it's not going to
conflict with freight trains, and that slows boarding--and
unpredictably so, which is worse.
Many high platform stations require bridge plate because for
wheelchairs (1) the gap between the platform and doorway is too wide
and (2) the doorway and platform are not in vertical alignment.
Incompetent maintenance.
With a mix of platform heights, the crew still has to operate the
doors and traps, which adds time to every stop. It also increases
labor costs--money that should be invested into capital
improvements.
...
Until SEPTA has the substantial capital funds to build--and >>maintain*--every station to full length high platform, it will need
bigger crews.
... and paying for those larger crews robs them of the funds they need
to improve the situation. That's why you use bonds for such things.
*Maintenance will include lighting, repair, and snow removal and
these are added costs.
The difference in cost to maintain short vs high platforms is
negligible.
Longer platforms will cost a bit more to maintain, but not
enough to matter in the long run.
FWIW, MNRR, LIRR, and NJT all have converted most of their networks
to full length high level platform, and, run much longer trains than
SEPTA (10-12 cars), yet still have large train crews. Indeed, NJT
tried cutting back crew sizes and found it didn't work out.
SEPTA may reduce railroad crew size when it introduces its new fare >>collection system.
Yet many FRA systems manage to run trains just as long with crews of 2,
and the second crewmember is only "required" by FRA and union rules;
non-FRA systems often run trains with crews of just 1, and we have
existence proof (BCTA) that it can be done safely with _zero_ crew.
Further, high level paltforms get out of alignment (visit
Princeton Jct) and cease being an improvement.
That some operators are incompetent does not prove the idea bad.
True, but are the other operators (eg NJT, LIRR, and MNRR) truly >>incompetent or just working in the real world? For instance, NJT
doesn't control ballast height on the NEC, that's a function of
Amtrak. I believe it is not an issue in places like Penna Station or >>Newark where the tracks are set in concrete; likewise in SEPTA's
downtwon stations.
If direct fixation is the only solution that works within your
incompetent maintenance regime, then that's what you should do.
Many operators have no problem maintaining proper platform/floor alignment.
On 11-Apr-15 11:08, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 11-Apr-15 08:36, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
CTA discourages passengers from changing cars once they're on
board.
I agree in part and disagree in part. Platforms should be sized
for expected boarding at the station, not the longest train.
Passengers should be in the car with the doors that will open.
... but when you combine that with the above, that means passengers
are supposed to know _when they board_ what cars will allow them to
exit at the destination. That isn't an issue for daily commuters,
but how are tourists or occasional riders supposed to know this?
It's simpler and more passenger-friendly to make all your platforms
as long as the longest train that stops there.
I'm trying to reduce station construction costs on your railroad.
Platform height/length has a negligible impact on cost, compared to all
the other (much larger) station expenses that aren't affected at all.
DART raised every platform on the Red and Blue lines for <$100k/ea, in
less than a year. Extending the short at-grade platforms would be a >similarly trivial exercise.
On Metra, they expect passengers to follow instructions. There are >>announcements with regard to which doors will open and which car the >>passengers must be in to get off the train.
Do they announce that at every station where you board, so that you know >which car to get on? Or do they expect you to hear the announcement on
board and change cars at an intermediate station with a long platform?
On 11-Apr-15 11:25, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 10-Apr-15 23:41, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
Many high platform stations require bridge plate because for >>>>wheelchairs (1) the gap between the platform and doorway is too wide >>>>and (2) the doorway and platform are not in vertical alignment.
Incompetent maintenance.
No, it's not. It's nothing to do with maintenance. It has to do with >>horizontal curves, and weight shifting in the passenger car.
There are plenty of places in the Northeast where even empty trains on >tangent track have floors that are many inches off from the proper
horizontal _and_ vertical alignments.
_That_ is incompetent track maintenance, and that is what Hancock is >complaining about. Of course, rather than fix that incompetency, he
prefers to pay extra crew to operate traps and bridge plates.
Until SEPTA has the substantial capital funds to build--and >>>>maintain*--every station to full length high platform, it will need >>>>bigger crews.
... and paying for those larger crews robs them of the funds they need
to improve the situation. That's why you use bonds for such things.
Actually, CSS&SB reduced train crew staffing levels a number of years
ago. Traps are in the end doors, like Metra Electric Highliners but not >>like Metra Electric Nippon-Sharyo MU cars where they are in the center.
On Metra Electric, traps are for use in unusual situations as it's all >>floor-height platforms.
With reduced staffing, just one trap is used per car.
With floor-height platforms (and proper maintenance), traps (and bridge >plates) are not needed at all.
*Maintenance will include lighting, repair, and snow removal and
these are added costs.
The difference in cost to maintain short vs high platforms is
negligible.
I don't agree, because we don't build platforms in this country
English style, in which platforms are expected to last for centuries.
So floor-height platforms are structures, not asphalt over deep
grading for standard height platforms.
Maybe they don't in Chicago, but they do around here.
Longer platforms will cost a bit more to maintain, but not
enough to matter in the long run.
Spoken like someone who has never been through a winter with
very heavy snowfall.
If you build the platforms right, it doesn't matter how high they are;
heavy snow on a high platform is the same as heavy snow on a high one.
FWIW, MNRR, LIRR, and NJT all have converted most of their networks
to full length high level platform, and, run much longer trains than >>>>SEPTA (10-12 cars), yet still have large train crews. Indeed, NJT >>>>tried cutting back crew sizes and found it didn't work out.
SEPTA may reduce railroad crew size when it introduces its new fare >>>>collection system.
Yet many FRA systems manage to run trains just as long with crews of 2, >>>and the second crewmember is only "required" by FRA and union rules; >>>non-FRA systems often run trains with crews of just 1, and we have >>>existence proof (BCTA) that it can be done safely with _zero_ crew.
Eh. It depends. And then there's Lac Megantic... Your engineer has
to know how to tie up the consist if there's no conductor.
(I wish you'd speak of engine and train crews, as they are separate
crews and not the same crew.)
There is an engineer, who runs the train, and a conductor, who collects
a paycheck for doing nothing, thanks to FRA/union rules.
There are transit cops and fare inspectors that occasionally pop in (just >like on non-FRA trains), but they're not part of the train crew at all.
On 11-Apr-15 12:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 11-Apr-15 11:08, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
I'm trying to reduce station construction costs on your
railroad.
Platform height/length has a negligible impact on cost, compared to
all the other (much larger) station expenses that aren't affected
at all.
Platforms are hideously expensive. Metra has had standard-height
platform replacement projects over the last several years, and they
take an amazing 13 weeks under traffic.
Then someone needs to get fired. DART replaced _dozens_ of platforms
while they were in service, closing them just two weekends each plus
working nights when there were no trains. Start to finish for each
station was under a month.
Then again, you're saddled with unions, so taking three-plus times as
long (and probably ten-plus times as much money) is to be expected.
That's the price you pay for living in the Rust Belt.
On 11-Apr-15 14:28, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 11-Apr-15 12:56, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Platforms are hideously expensive. Metra has had standard-height >>>>platform replacement projects over the last several years, and
they take an amazing 13 weeks under traffic.
Then someone needs to get fired. DART replaced _dozens_ of
platforms while they were in service, closing them just two
weekends each plus working nights when there were no trains. Start
to finish for each station was under a month.
Then again, you're saddled with unions, so taking three-plus times
as long (and probably ten-plus times as much money) is to be
expected. That's the price you pay for living in the Rust Belt.
We don't close freight railroads for weekends.
Neither do we; that'd be silly.
It was just the stations that were closed, to give the crews longer
periods for heavy work on the platforms. Trains still ran through every
few minutes, and there were shuttle buses to/from the next stations in
both directions so folks could still get where they needed to go.
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
I guess I don't understand what hancock's complaint is here. I
mean, ballast regulators are computerized and the ballast is laid
to the height specified within a narrow tolerance that doesn't
account for changes in level, except when it's very very fresh.
At Princeton Jct, where the high platforms are about 20 years old,
the platform is now about 6" below the level of the train car. At
other stations on _several carriers_, they had to put in step boxes
to aid passengers in boarding. FWIW, Engineers have told me that
is due to increased ballast height added over the years.
So that's deliberate.
On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 12:25:30 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
I guess I don't understand what hancock's complaint is here. I mean, >>ballast regulators are computerized and the ballast is laid to the
height specified within a narrow tolerance that doesn't account for
changes in level, except when it's very very fresh.
At Princeton Jct, where the high platforms are about 20 years old, the >platform is now about 6" below the level of the train car. At other
stations on _several carriers_, they had to put in step boxes to aid >passengers in boarding. FWIW, Engineers have told me that is due to >increased ballast height added over the years.
On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 11:29:41 AM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Longer platforms will cost a bit more to maintain, but not enough to
matter in the long run.
I don't think the power cost for the extra lighting would be too much
(I figure an extra 600 KW per station, but multiply that over 12
hours, all the stations, and 365 days a year and it adds up).
Yeah, but with 600 kW of *extra* lighting, those 3-strip Technicolor
railfan films will look *great*! :)
(In other words, I think perhaps the "kilo" is not needed here.)
I traveled overnight from Paris to Amsterdam in a couchette, and I
really liked that concept. There was absolutely no privacy (5 other strangers in the same room), but it was a _lot_ cheaper than having a
room to myself and more comfortable than a coach seat; I probably
wouldn't have made the trip at all if that option weren't available
A mini high block requires bridge plates if it's not going to conflict
with freight trains, and that slows boarding--and unpredictably so,
which is worse.
Yet many FRA systems manage to run trains just as long with crews of 2,
and the second crewmember is only "required" by FRA and union rules;
Also, are there any railroads that use low platforms and traps, and don'thave an employee stationed at every boarding door?
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Yet many FRA systems manage to run trains just as long with crews
of 2, and the second crewmember is only "required" by FRA and union
rules;
Which railroads?
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
A mini high block requires bridge plates if it's not going to
conflict with freight trains, and that slows boarding--and
unpredictably so, which is worse.
If the vast majority of trains are passenger trains (or freight
trains that clear high platforms), and a wide freight is a rarity,
they can leave the flip-down high platform edges deployed most of the
time, and only retract them before a freight comes through.
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I traveled overnight from Paris to Amsterdam in a couchette, and I
really liked that concept. There was absolutely no privacy (5
other strangers in the same room), but it was a _lot_ cheaper than
having a room to myself and more comfortable than a coach seat; I
probably wouldn't have made the trip at all if that option weren't
available
The Thalys makes that trip in 3:18. Why do you need an overnight
train?
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 12-Apr-15 22:14, jimmygeldburg@gmail.com wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Yet many FRA systems manage to run trains just as long with
crews of 2, and the second crewmember is only "required" by FRA
and union rules;
Which railroads?
Nearly all of them outside the Rust Belt, at least 14.
Amtrak LD is the main exception; they don't have traps on trains
with low floors, but they still have a crewman to place a step box
at every door (even where not needed), so it's roughly the same
problem.
Since when does Amtrak open every door, except at a terminal?
The step boxes seem to be helpful, might be nice for some passengers
not to stretch for the first step even on commuter rail.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
BBD bilevel cars (i.e. nearly all commuter trains outside the Rust
Belt) have a built-in, full-width step below the door at half the
height difference; no step boxes are required. Why Amtrak LD
trains don't have such (which would remove the need for those step
boxes--and a dozen or so crew members per train) is mystifying.
This was an innovation from streetcars. The reason folding stepwells
are impractical is what you just wrote: Rust. You could have them in California.
Now, I'd just put up with the maintenance tasks,
but you know that maintenance is anathema to passenger service.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 11-Apr-15 14:28, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
We don't close freight railroads for weekends.
Neither do we; that'd be silly.
It was just the stations that were closed, to give the crews
longer periods for heavy work on the platforms. Trains still ran
through every few minutes, and there were shuttle buses to/from the
next stations in both directions so folks could still get where
they needed to go.
They didn't rebuild platforms as passengers were standing on them.
They replaced half of one side at a time; took an absurdly long
time.
On 12-Apr-15 22:14, jimmygeldburg@gmail.com wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Yet many FRA systems manage to run trains just as long with crews
of 2, and the second crewmember is only "required" by FRA and union >>>rules;
Which railroads?
Nearly all of them outside the Rust Belt, at least 14.
Amtrak LD is the main exception; they don't have traps on trains with
low floors, but they still have a crewman to place a step box at every
door (even where not needed), so it's roughly the same problem.
Amtrak doesn't seem to have any trouble keeping their rolling stock in
good condition; it's new equipment, overhauls and collision repair that
they have problems with due to lack of capital funding.
jimmygeldburg@gmail.com used his keyboard to write :
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I traveled overnight from Paris to Amsterdam in a couchette, and
I really liked that concept. There was absolutely no privacy (5
other strangers in the same room), but it was a _lot_ cheaper
than having a room to myself and more comfortable than a coach
seat; I probably wouldn't have made the trip at all if that
option weren't available
The Thalys makes that trip in 3:18. Why do you need an overnight
train?
As far as I remember, the Thalys and the overnight train never
coexisted. As usual with SNCF, when TGVs came in, all other trains
on the same journey disappeared. So Stephen did not have the choice.
There were daytime trains that took approximately 6 hours for that
journey.
On 13-Apr-15 13:23, Marc Van Dyck wrote:
jimmygeldburg@gmail.com used his keyboard to write :
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I traveled overnight from Paris to Amsterdam in a couchette,
and I really liked that concept. There was absolutely no
privacy (5 other strangers in the same room), but it was a
_lot_ cheaper than having a room to myself and more comfortable
than a coach seat; I probably wouldn't have made the trip at
all if that option weren't available
The Thalys makes that trip in 3:18. Why do you need an
overnight train?
As far as I remember, the Thalys and the overnight train never
coexisted. As usual with SNCF, when TGVs came in, all other trains
on the same journey disappeared. So Stephen did not have the
choice. There were daytime trains that took approximately 6 hours
for that journey.
At the time, there were both CoRail night trains and Thalys day
trains on that route; perhaps the former hadn't been discontinued yet
because SNCF itself didn't (and AFAICT still doesn't) operate TGVs
there.
BBD bilevel cars (i.e. nearly all commuter trains outside the Rust Belt)
have a built-in, full-width step below the door at half the height >difference; no step boxes are required. Why Amtrak LD trains don't have
such (which would remove the need for those step boxes--and a dozen or
so crew members per train) is mystifying.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 11-Apr-15 15:19, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
It was just the stations that were closed, to give the crews
longer periods for heavy work on the platforms. Trains still
ran through every few minutes, and there were shuttle buses
to/from the next stations in both directions so folks could
still get where they needed to go.
They didn't rebuild platforms as passengers were standing on
them.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
So why close the station?
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
The steps are fixed, and none of the ones I've seen exhibit any
signs of rust; the coloring makes them look anodized (virtually
rust-proof), and there are plenty of alloys that don't rust
anyway--such the the one used for the _bodies_ of those same cars.
I don't know what the dimensions are for how for something can hang
down from below the car above the platform.
On 13-Apr-15 10:07, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
BBD bilevel cars (i.e. nearly all commuter trains outside the Rust
Belt) have a built-in, full-width step below the door at half the
height difference; no step boxes are required. Why Amtrak LD
trains don't have such (which would remove the need for those step >>>boxes--and a dozen or so crew members per train) is mystifying.
This was an innovation from streetcars. The reason folding stepwells
are impractical is what you just wrote: Rust. You could have them in >>California.
The steps are fixed, and none of the ones I've seen exhibit any signs of >rust; the coloring makes them look anodized (virtually rust-proof), and
there are plenty of alloys that don't rust anyway--such the the one used
for the _bodies_ of those same cars.
On 11-Apr-15 15:19, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 11-Apr-15 14:28, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
We don't close freight railroads for weekends.
Neither do we; that'd be silly.
It was just the stations that were closed, to give the crews
longer periods for heavy work on the platforms. Trains still ran
through every few minutes, and there were shuttle buses to/from the
next stations in both directions so folks could still get where
they needed to go.
They didn't rebuild platforms as passengers were standing on them.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
They replaced half of one side at a time; took an absurdly long time.
But ... why?
DART used a week of nights to prepare, then a weekend to demolish the
old platform and build a temporary wooden one, then a week of nights for
more prep work, then a weekend to remove the wooden platform and build a
new concrete and tile/brick one, and then a week of nights to clean up.
Then the gang moved on to the next station and repeated the process; it
took most of a year in total, but each station went _very_ quickly.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 13-Apr-15 14:28, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
I don't know what the dimensions are for how for something can
hang down from below the car above the platform.
The BBD BiLevel is narrower than a Superliner, so even with the
steps sticking out a few inches, there's no horizontal clearance
issues on any tracks where a Superliner fits--and even the
Superliner doesn't fill the full size allowed with Plate F (but
it's bigger than Plate B/C/E), so you could probably add them to a
Superliner as well.
The below floor level dimensions are all the same on all Plate
sizes, aren't they?
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I traveled overnight from Paris to Amsterdam in a couchette, and I
really liked that concept. There was absolutely no privacy (5 other
strangers in the same room), but it was a _lot_ cheaper than having a
room to myself and more comfortable than a coach seat; I probably
wouldn't have made the trip at all if that option weren't available
The Thalys makes that trip in 3:18. Why do you need an overnight train?
Jimmy
On 13-Apr-15 13:23, Marc Van Dyck wrote:
jimmygeldburg@gmail.com used his keyboard to write :
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I traveled overnight from Paris to Amsterdam in a couchette, and
I really liked that concept. There was absolutely no privacy (5
other strangers in the same room), but it was a _lot_ cheaper
than having a room to myself and more comfortable than a coach
seat; I probably wouldn't have made the trip at all if that
option weren't available
The Thalys makes that trip in 3:18. Why do you need an overnight
train?
As far as I remember, the Thalys and the overnight train never
coexisted. As usual with SNCF, when TGVs came in, all other trains
on the same journey disappeared. So Stephen did not have the choice.
There were daytime trains that took approximately 6 hours for that
journey.
At the time, there were both CoRail night trains and Thalys day trains
on that route; perhaps the former hadn't been discontinued yet because
SNCF itself didn't (and AFAICT still doesn't) operate TGVs there.
S
FWIW, that should have been in late 1999; I remember the millennium
countdown clock on the Eiffel Tower. None of my (film) pictures from Amsterdam have dates, and my passport doesn't have any Belgian or Dutch stamps--I assume due to Schengen, so I can't be more exact.
S
On 13-Apr-15 14:28, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
The steps are fixed, and none of the ones I've seen exhibit any
signs of rust; the coloring makes them look anodized (virtually >>>rust-proof), and there are plenty of alloys that don't rust
anyway--such the the one used for the _bodies_ of those same cars.
I don't know what the dimensions are for how for something can hang
down from below the car above the platform.
The BBD BiLevel is narrower than a Superliner, so even with the steps >sticking out a few inches, there's no horizontal clearance issues on any >tracks where a Superliner fits--and even the Superliner doesn't fill the
full size allowed with Plate F (but it's bigger than Plate B/C/E), so
you could probably add them to a Superliner as well.
Worst case, you could make the steps retractable; that'd drive up the maintenance cost a bit, but it'd still be cheaper than paying
round-the-clock wages for step box operators on every car.
jimmygeldburg@gmail.com wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Yet many FRA systems manage to run trains just as long with crews
of 2, and the second crewmember is only "required" by FRA and union
rules;
Which railroads?
Nearly all of them outside the Rust Belt, at least 14.
jimmygeldburg@gmail.com wrote:
If the vast majority of trains are passenger trains (or freight
trains that clear high platforms), and a wide freight is a rarity,
they can leave the flip-down high platform edges deployed most of the
time, and only retract them before a freight comes through.
A bridge plate needs support at both ends; it doesn't just hang out in
space by itself. What you're describing is more like a retractable gap filler, which would extend on arrival and retract before departure; you wouldn't want to leave it extended between passenger trains and count on
it being retracting remotely before the next freight passed through.
Now that the old South Ferry is closed, I'm not sure there are any
remaining examples of such gap fillers in the US.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
BBD bilevel cars (i.e. nearly all commuter trains outside the Rust Belt) >have a built-in, full-width step below the door at half the height >difference; no step boxes are required. Why Amtrak LD trains don't have >such (which would remove the need for those step boxes--and a dozen or
so crew members per train) is mystifying.
This was an innovation from streetcars. The reason folding stepwells are impractical is what you just wrote: Rust. You could have them in California.
I'm sure the union has invented other "duties" to justify their
existence, as with any featherbed job, but it's clear from watching that Amtrak LD is grossly overstaffed, which undoubtedly contributes to them losing so much money.
You clearly need staff for the snack bar/dining car, but they don't
operate step boxes; they're serving customers even during stops (which
can last an hour or more each, thanks to schedule padding).
You clearly need attendants for the sleepers, but a maximum of one per
car, and probably less than that.
You clearly need at least one person to collect tickets in the coaches,
but less than one per car, and they can do other things after that task
is completed following each stop.
What else do you need? Why is there at least one crewman standing at
_every_ door, in addition to the dozen inside--for a six-car train?
(And that's just the staff on duty, i.e. not counting those sacked out
in the dorm car.)
On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 6:54:32 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Worst case, you could make the steps retractable; that'd drive up
the maintenance cost a bit, but it'd still be cheaper than paying
round-the-clock wages for step box operators on every car.
You do realize that your so-called "step box operators" have many
other duties; indeed, placing a step-box is probably the least of
them.
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I'm sure the union has invented other "duties" to justify their
existence, as with any featherbed job, but it's clear from watching
that Amtrak LD is grossly overstaffed, which undoubtedly
contributes to them losing so much money.
Would you provide specifics on the union-invented other duties?
You clearly need staff for the snack bar/dining car, but they
don't operate step boxes; they're serving customers even during
stops (which can last an hour or more each, thanks to schedule
padding).
My own experience is that people do not board a snack or dining car
unless it is the type that does have revenue seats, and some do.
You clearly need at least one person to collect tickets in the
coaches, but less than one per car, and they can do other things
after that task is completed following each stop. What else do you
need? Why is there at least one crewman standing at _every_ door,
in addition to the dozen inside--for a six-car train? (And that's
just the staff on duty, i.e. not counting those sacked out in the
dorm car.)
My own experience on Amtrak LD trains is that there are much less
crew than you suggest.
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
jimmygeldburg@gmail.com wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Yet many FRA systems manage to run trains just as long with crews
of 2, and the second crewmember is only "required" by FRA and union
rules;
Which railroads?
Nearly all of them outside the Rust Belt, at least 14.
Could you name a few, so I can look up pictures of their boarding
operation?
Do they not have traps? Or are there automatic traps that can be
centrally controlled?
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
That's one of the many reasons why the FRA needs to start accepting
standard UIC passenger cars. Not only would it give our operators
access to stable suppliers, but it would also reduce the cost of
equipment due to economy of scale. And it might even help get some
US manufacturers back in the business, once they could compete on
an even playing field with foreign makers.
Amen to that. I've always suspected the FRA's requirements are
driven by an anti-passenger rail agenda.
Notably, the sorts of improvements necessary to make passenger service
viable are the same as what the railroads _already_ need to keep up with
the existing demand for freight service. And helping them with the
latter would cost taxpayers _less_ than expanding and repairing highways >every year for trucks. It's only the anti-rail bigots in Congress (and,
to be fair, the Teamsters' lobbyists lining their pockets) that prevent
this win-win-win scenario from happening.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
Notably, the sorts of improvements necessary to make passenger service >>viable are the same as what the railroads _already_ need to keep up with >>the existing demand for freight service. And helping them with the
latter would cost taxpayers _less_ than expanding and repairing highways >>every year for trucks. It's only the anti-rail bigots in Congress (and,
to be fair, the Teamsters' lobbyists lining their pockets) that prevent >>this win-win-win scenario from happening.
Don't locomotive engineers and conductors belong to the Teamsters these
days?
That's one of the many reasons why the FRA needs to start accepting
standard UIC passenger cars. Not only would it give our operators
access to stable suppliers, but it would also reduce the cost of
equipment due to economy of scale. And it might even help get some US >manufacturers back in the business, once they could compete on an even >playing field with foreign makers.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
That's one of the many reasons why the FRA needs to start accepting >>standard UIC passenger cars. Not only would it give our operators
access to stable suppliers, but it would also reduce the cost of
equipment due to economy of scale. And it might even help get some US >>manufacturers back in the business, once they could compete on an even >>playing field with foreign makers.
Amen to that. I've always suspected the FRA's requirements are driven by
an anti-passenger rail agenda.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 15-Apr-15 08:30, 866013149e wrote:
Amen to that. I've always suspected the FRA's requirements are
driven by an anti-passenger rail agenda.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained
by stupidity." --Hanlon's Razor
Ok, you can't keep repeating that.
Anyway, stupidity isn't the explanation. If I had to go with a
one-word simplistic explanation, I'd say cowardice: Fear of
Washington in fighting and criticism if a signal death occurs that
wouldn't have if FRA had stuck with American buff-strength standards
instead of implementing European standards.
Still, it's wrong to point the finger at FRA (and ICC before that).
It's never really the administration's fault. It's Congress.
On 15-Apr-15 08:30, 866013149e wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
That's one of the many reasons why the FRA needs to start accepting >>>standard UIC passenger cars. Not only would it give our operators
access to stable suppliers, but it would also reduce the cost of >>>equipment due to economy of scale. And it might even help get some
US manufacturers back in the business, once they could compete on
an even playing field with foreign makers.
Amen to that. I've always suspected the FRA's requirements are
driven by an anti-passenger rail agenda.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by >stupidity." --Hanlon's Razor
On 15-Apr-15 11:18, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 15-Apr-15 08:30, 866013149e wrote:
Amen to that. I've always suspected the FRA's requirements are
driven by an anti-passenger rail agenda.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained
by stupidity." --Hanlon's Razor
Ok, you can't keep repeating that.
Repetition doesn't make it untrue.
Anyway, stupidity isn't the explanation. If I had to go with a
one-word simplistic explanation, I'd say cowardice: Fear of
Washington in fighting and criticism if a signal death occurs that
wouldn't have if FRA had stuck with American buff-strength standards >>instead of implementing European standards.
Still, it's wrong to point the finger at FRA (and ICC before that).
It's never really the administration's fault. It's Congress.
I'd point the stupidity label at Congress; they're the ones that set up
the regulatory framework to consider each mode separately, and they're
the ones taking bribes^W"campaign contributions" from the freight
railroads and airlines in return for killing off passenger rail.
Ok, you can't keep repeating that. Anyway, stupidity isn't the explanation. If I had to go with a one-word simplistic explanation, I'd say cowardice: Fear of Washington in fighting and criticism if a signal death occurs
that wouldn't have if FRA had stuck with American buff-strength standards instead of implementing European standards.
Still, it's wrong to point the finger at FRA (and ICC before that).
It's never really the administration's fault. It's Congress. The law authorizing the federal railroad safety regime fails to order that
economics and safety with respect to transportation as a whole and not
just on railroads to be considered. That's why the standards will
always be counterproductive.
FRA and ICC before that are doing what Congress demands.
If I had to go with a one-word simplistic explanation, I'd say cowardice:
IIRC, Amfleet cars have an automatic retractable bottom step.
IIRC, Amfleet cars have an automatic retractable bottom step.
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 11:07:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:to hate passenger trains and will have nothing to do with it, even if reasonable negotiations could result in Amtrak picking up much of the tab for track improvements.
Unfortunately, railroads are an incredibly capital-intensive business,
so you need a pretty significant investment in track to make _any_
difference in speed or capacity, though it should be pointed out that
the freight RRs _already_ need major track investments for their own
traffic, and a fairly small contribution by Amtrak would likely sway
them toward investing in the particular routes Amtrak uses, thus getting
Amtrak a lot more bang for their buck than you'd expect.
Unfortunately, it seems most modern railroad managements are pre-conditioned
On a section of busy bi-directional double track that CSX shares with SEPTA,CSX is spending money to build a third track dedicated for its trains. I think
But this attitude is nothing new. Back in the 1950s, some railroad managerswere convinced their passenger trains lost money, even when in fact they were profitable, including with overhead. (Ref "Twilight of the Psgr Train" by Fraily).
Not helping the situation was the ICC, forcing the railroads to carryextremely expensive trains no one rode, for years.
There isn't enough standardization and on-going orders to keep carbuilders in business and healthy. So, too many orders go to start-ups and thre are long delays.Adding rolling stock is much simpler, at least until you need to add
more crew (or especially locos) to a particular run. But many Amtrak
trains are sold out due to being far too short, and profitability would
be increased (or losses reduced, for LD routes) by adding a few cars to
each train--or by adding a few new trainsets and consolidating the
remaining ones. However, fare revenue will never match expenses when
Amtrak's trains are competing with bicycles, not cars or buses, on
speed--and that's where track improvements come in.
Amtrak has new rolling stock on order, but the order is delayed.
One problem is the "feast or famine" nature of building passenger cars.
(However, I don't understand the screwup with the PATCO rebuild order, whichis YEARS late, by an experienced builder. And it's a rebuild of a rapid transit car of 45 y/o technology, not even a new design, though I think they're
One of the issues here is that SEPTA chose a PTC system that is
incompatible with the one CSX will be using. I am still shaking my head
over that. Interoperability was supposed to be one of the key features
of operating a national system.
On 4/8/2015 11:49 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 11:07:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Unfortunately, railroads are an incredibly capital-intensive business,
so you need a pretty significant investment in track to make _any_
difference in speed or capacity, though it should be pointed out that
the freight RRs _already_ need major track investments for their own
traffic, and a fairly small contribution by Amtrak would likely sway
them toward investing in the particular routes Amtrak uses, thus getting >>> Amtrak a lot more bang for their buck than you'd expect.
Unfortunately, it seems most modern railroad managements are pre-conditioned
On a section of busy bi-directional double track that CSX shares with SEPTA,
But this attitude is nothing new. Back in the 1950s, some railroad managers
Not helping the situation was the ICC, forcing the railroads to carry extremely expensive trains no one rode, for years.
Adding rolling stock is much simpler, at least until you need to add
more crew (or especially locos) to a particular run. But many Amtrak
trains are sold out due to being far too short, and profitability would
be increased (or losses reduced, for LD routes) by adding a few cars to
each train--or by adding a few new trainsets and consolidating the
remaining ones. However, fare revenue will never match expenses when
Amtrak's trains are competing with bicycles, not cars or buses, on
speed--and that's where track improvements come in.
Amtrak has new rolling stock on order, but the order is delayed.
One problem is the "feast or famine" nature of building passenger cars. There isn't enough standardization and on-going orders to keep carbuilders in business and healthy. So, too many orders go to start-ups and thre are long delays.
(However, I don't understand the screwup with the PATCO rebuild order, which
One of the issues here is that SEPTA chose a PTC system that is
incompatible with the one CSX will be using. I am still shaking my head
over that. Interoperability was supposed to be one of the key features
of operating a national system.
At least separating the freights onto their own single track railroad
will benefit the passenger operation.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
At least separating the freights onto their own single track railroad
will benefit the passenger operation.
On 4/17/2015 10:02 PM, Michael Finfer wrote:
One of the issues here is that SEPTA chose a PTC system that is
incompatible with the one CSX will be using. I am still shaking my head
over that. Interoperability was supposed to be one of the key features
of operating a national system.
The PTC technology chosen by the freight railroads is incompatible with
high speed operations by their own admission. SEPTA, which operates >significant service on the NEC and the Main Line had no choice on the
matter of whether they will use Amtrak's ACSES or not, unless they
wanted to fund the parallel installation of freight PTC system on the
entire length of the NEC, all four tracks through PA, which did not make
much sense.
Amtrak simply installs multiple PTC systems in the locomotives that have
to operate on multiple system equipped tracks, as do Europeans, with
their plethora of legacy train control systems.
CSAO is having such parallel installation put in place between Baltimore >(Bayview) and Newark DE for through freaights coming down through
Perryville to get to the two yards that they access.
In any case, expect all high speed passenger operations to use a PTC
system that is more compatible with the European ERTMS than with the
freight PTC. The PTC being installed in the US is a case of NIH which is
at the end of the day somewhat less expensive, and not as precise in
most installations as ERTMS level 2.
The PTC system is probably the one that Amtrak uses so SEPTA didn't
have much choice. Also SEPTA long term probably will go high level
platform which is incompatible with wide freight.
Clark Morris
One of the issues here is that SEPTA chose a PTC system that is
incompatible with the one CSX will be using. I am still shaking my
head over that. Interoperability was supposed to be one of the key
features of operating a national system.
On 17-Apr-15 21:02, Michael Finfer wrote:
One of the issues here is that SEPTA chose a PTC system that is
incompatible with the one CSX will be using. I am still shaking my
head over that. Interoperability was supposed to be one of the key
features of operating a national system.
There is no "national" PTC system; every railroad is developing their
own, and while at least some of them are supposed to be interoperable,
in practice that never turns out as well as promised. We also won't get
the benefits of economy of scale that way.
S
What the hell does economy of scale have to do with anything? There are huge, expensive problems to overcome, like lack of radio spectrume
capacity particularly in Chicago and that FCC is way way behind on
issuing licenses for all the new transmitters and relay stations,
and the complete idiocy of the design that the entire railroad infrastructur
plan must be downloaded into the locomotive each and every time the
fucking consist changes direction because, you know, somebody installed
a brand-new turnout in the last hour.
It's one massively stupid fuckup. Economy of scale is mostly irrelevant.
--- Synchronet 3.15b-Win32 NewsLink 1.92
On 17-Apr-15 21:02, Michael Finfer wrote:
One of the issues here is that SEPTA chose a PTC system that is >>incompatible with the one CSX will be using. I am still shaking my
head over that. Interoperability was supposed to be one of the key >>features of operating a national system.
There is no "national" PTC system; every railroad is developing their
own, and while at least some of them are supposed to be interoperable,
in practice that never turns out as well as promised. We also won't get
the benefits of economy of scale that way.
W dniu 2015-04-14 o 20:34, jimmygeldburg@gmail.com pisze:
IIRC, Amfleet cars have an automatic retractable bottom step.
I don't think so.
http://tinyurl.com/ld49ov8
down as part of the trap mechanism?IIRC, Amfleet cars have an automatic retractable bottom step.
But where are the steps on the Coachclass car in that picture? Do they fold
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 17-Apr-15 21:02, Michael Finfer wrote:
One of the issues here is that SEPTA chose a PTC system that is
incompatible with the one CSX will be using. I am still shaking
my head over that. Interoperability was supposed to be one of
the key features of operating a national system.
There is no "national" PTC system; every railroad is developing
their own, and while at least some of them are supposed to be
interoperable, in practice that never turns out as well as
promised. We also won't get the benefits of economy of scale that
way.
What the hell does economy of scale have to do with anything?
There are huge, expensive problems to overcome, like lack of radio
spectrum capacity particularly in Chicago
and that FCC is way way behind on issuing licenses for all the new transmitters and relay stations,
and the complete idiocy of the design that the entire railroad
infrastructure plan must be downloaded into the locomotive
each and every time the fucking consist changes direction because,
you know, somebody installed a brand-new turnout in the last hour.
It's one massively stupid fuckup. Economy of scale is mostly
irrelevant.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
It's just like the stupidity of our CDMA/TDMA/iDEN war while the world
standardized on GSM. Despite its flaws, GSM is far superior to all of
the US-developed systems _and_ costs less due to economy of scale, which
is why all US carriers are finally moving that way.
Oh, c'mon, GSM came later.
I have no idea why you would state it's superior. As it happens, I'm a T-Mobile subscriber (using an AT&T cell phone), but sound quality isn't
all that brilliant and I lose coverage plenty of times when indoors.
It's just like the stupidity of our CDMA/TDMA/iDEN war while the world >standardized on GSM. Despite its flaws, GSM is far superior to all of
the US-developed systems _and_ costs less due to economy of scale, which
is why all US carriers are finally moving that way.
On 22-Apr-15 07:53, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
It's just like the stupidity of our CDMA/TDMA/iDEN war while the world >>>standardized on GSM. Despite its flaws, GSM is far superior to all of >>>the US-developed systems _and_ costs less due to economy of scale, which >>>is why all US carriers are finally moving that way.
Oh, c'mon, GSM came later.
GSM development started in 1982, the standard was published in 1987, and
the first network went live in 1991.
iDEN development started in 1991, and the first handsets weren't
available until 1994--after GSM.
cdmaOne (IS-95) was published and first deployed in 1995--after GSM.
D-AMPS aka TDMA (IS-54) was first deployed in 1990--only a year before
GSM. I can't find a date for when the spec was published.
I have no idea why you would state it's superior. As it happens, I'm a >>T-Mobile subscriber (using an AT&T cell phone), but sound quality isn't
all that brilliant and I lose coverage plenty of times when indoors.
That's mostly a coverage issue, not a technology one.
However, because carriers use different technologies, phones can't roam >between networks to fill in dead spots. Using the same technology
doesn't guarantee roaming agreements will exist, of course, but using >different technologies completely precludes them.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
However, because carriers use different technologies, phones can't
roam between networks to fill in dead spots. Using the same
technology doesn't guarantee roaming agreements will exist, of
course, but using different technologies completely precludes
them.
My previous GSM phone could work within four frequency bands,
so I think it would have worked on any GSM carrier in the world
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 910 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 243:09:05 |
| Calls: | 12,117 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,505 |
| Messages: | 2,227,371 |
