From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   >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.   
      
   Amazing. And yet on Chicago's rapid transit, the one-man PCCs used on   
   various parts of the "L" system had individual door controls in the   
   motorman's cab. The motorman would open the door closest to him so   
   that boarding passengers would pass by his window and deposit their fares.   
      
   He might open the distant doors after dealing with passengers waiting   
   on the platform in case a passenger was getting off, but most passengers   
   figured out how to exit through the doors near the motorman.   
      
   There are other types of door controls out there. CTA has nothing like this   
   today, so all platforms must be as long as the longest train operating   
   on the route because the motorman opens all doors. Even with conductors   
   and MU'd door controls, all platform doors were opened except when the   
   conductor had to collect fares. Sometimes the conductor would pull the   
   cherry in lieu of using door controls to control where passengers boarded.   
      
   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. Floor-height platforms   
   everywhere aren't the only solution to reducing dwell time, but if   
   that's what you've built, mind the gap.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)