From: stephen@sprunk.org   
      
   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.   
      
   S   
      
   --   
   Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein   
   CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the   
   K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)