From: stephen@sprunk.org
On 11-Apr-15 11:25, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk 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.
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)
|
