From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >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.   
      
   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. This is   
   avoided with leveling systems in railcars, but this is expensive.   
      
   CTA's 5000 series "L" cars are self leveling, but it's hardly a   
   perfect system and I don't know that it was worth the extra expense.   
      
   >>>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.   
      
   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. The conductor is   
   positioned at the end of one car, opens the trap, then opens the   
   trap on the adjacent car's end door.   
      
   In the 1970s, for the floor-height platforms in the Muni Metro subway,   
   there was an automatic step system to avoid traps; didn't always work.   
      
   >>*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. Any horizontal support element on a structure will fail   
   in time due to exposure to rain.   
      
   >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.)   
      
   >>>>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.   
      
   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.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)