mr. mick wrote:Maybe I don't understand what a full high level platform is; Dover has a high level platform without a passing track, as does Durham, so why couldn't Kennebunk build one similar to Dover?
"High"-platform = a platform that has level boarding for either all the cars on the train, or multiple cars on the train.
"Mini-high"-platform = a platform that has level boarding for only 1 car, with the rest of the platform being low-level. This is what Dover and Durham have.
"Wide" freights won't clear a level-boarding platform. "Wide" really isn't any wider than a standard freight or passenger car, so it's a bit of a misnomer. Wide loads are either. . .
1) "long", where the car has a wider turning radius around curves. In this case, the car won't clear a high platform if there is any curvature. Track and platform must be 100% tangent.
2) "tall"", where the car's suspension has more lateral give to accommodate the higher center of gravity. Just like a bi-level passenger coach has somewhat different shocks than a single-level (but not nearly as dramatic a difference as top-heavy freight cars). These tall cars can clip the edge of a full-high, moreso when you're dealing with the harmonics of an entire train's worth of tall cars. You would have to slow the train down to uselessly restricted speed and excruciatingly inch it through the platform to minimize that lateral sway enough to prevent scrapes.
3) combination of (1) and (2)
Now...there is not a lot of regularly scheduled "wide" freight in New England outside of the big monster intermodal routes on CSX and Pan Am Southern. Or a lot of wide-clearance routes to begin with, because Penn Central, Conrail, and bankruptcy-era Boston & Maine gave up a lot of those routes during the mass downsizing of the 70's and 80's. PAR very seldom runs wide freight on the NH Main, and only middling amounts of wide-clearance freights on the Western Route. But because they are designated clearance routes protected by a mile-high stack of interstate commerce caselaw, any and all passenger platform installations have to accommodate those freights by default. It's non-negotiable. PAR has to voluntarily sign off with the FRA on waiving its clearance exemption from MP # to MP # (including MBTA territory where they have legacy rights) to untie hands on that. They clearly didn't do that for the original Downeaster build, and have no intention of doing so for the future because it limits the traffic growth they're seeking to Portland after Pan Am Southern starts firing on all cylinders to Ayer. It would be suicidal for them--or their chances of getting bought out by another RR at top asking price--to salt that over. So it'll never happen so matter how much NNEPRA or the MBTA try to woo them with money to drop the exemption. In pure dollars and sense, it would be bad business for PAR and bad business for Northern New England's economy to limit future intermodal traffic to Portland when that's the one type of freight that's got the most explosive growth upside for Maine.
--------------------
The only ways around this are:
1) Have a freight passing track that avoids the platform entirely. This is the case at Anderson/Woburn and Lawrence, where there are MBTA-regulation 800 ft./9-car high platforms installed. At Anderson the third track is where the wide loads turn out (I don't know if PAR passes through the platform for regular-dimension freights; that would be MBTA dispatch's call). At Lawrence there's just the single side platform on a passenger-only track and all freight moves on the other two tracks. Theoretically Lawrence can have a second high platform installed on the opposite side because there would still be a center passing track, although that would make for messy traffic conflicts.
2) Install 1-car mini-high platforms with retractable edges (depicted
here at MBTA Wedgemere station on the NH Main, with the platform edge retracted in the freight clearance position). This is how all MBTA stops on the DE's route other than Anderson and Lawrence are equipped (or will be when the last non-ADA stragglers on the NH Main are settled up). A crewmember or MoW worker would flip the lever to retract the platform edge and lock it in advance of the freight train. Then reset it when the freight passes. This is how full ADA compliance is achieved when no passing tracks are available.
Obvious question (with answer): "Why can't you have a full-high with a retractable edge?" They limit the mini-highs to 1-car length because it prevents the lateral harmonics from the
entire over-wide freight consist from causing any stray platform strikes. Platform strikes can still happen because that retractable edge doesn't free up *much* extra wiggle room. The 1-car length just limits the risk to negligible and benign level by virtue of only interfacing with 1 freight car and/or 1 set of couplers at a time, instead of many cars swaying in tandem at varying rates. And then there's the more practical considerations of having to assign extra staff to retract more sections of edging, higher maint costs, chances that multiple sections of edging might jam when being interlocked back together, and so on. Mechanical failures would be rampant if you tried that on a 9-car MBTA platform in a New England climate.
3) Install a single full-high side platform on a double-track line. Basically, Option #1 except the second track becomes the de facto freight passing track and the passenger RR is prohibited from installing a matching full-high in the opposite direction. They can install a mini-high for the opposite platform, but that can be a little controversial for ADA because the platforms wouldn't be co-equals on accessibility. Needs a pretty airtight legal case that the stop has its best possible accessibility in that configuration by virtue of running on both tracks (e.g. two tracks supports greater schedule frequencies than could be run through a single platform, and thus provides aggregately
greater accessibility through increased frequencies).
Brunswick is a full-high because north-of-Portland service levels are unlikely to ever hit a density where a second platform will be needed there, or where a single platform serving all traffic (including future extensions or return of Rockland Branch excursion service) will ever become a major schedule constraint. Therefore, Track 2 is always going to remain a passing track. Pan Am does not want to allow this on the Western Route--and would be very ill-advised to do so--because both the DE and freight service levels are projected to increase enough where it would be a problem to mash everything onto a single side full-high platform. They need the future flex of double-track platforms, which means they're stuck with mini-highs unless the stations can be tri-tracked.
4) Do what Amtrak does and have station attendants and portable wheelchair lifts for basic ADA compliance at full-low platforms on clearance routes. Nearly all the legacy Vermonter stops north of the MA/VT state line are still full-low because of limited funding for mini-highs or passing tracks on the NECR clearance route. Obviously this only works with very limited schedules like a one-a-day and would never be an option anywhere on the Downeaster for adding cheap infill flag stops because the schedule is too dense to make it work. And the ADA frowns on this bigtime. It is, however, being deployed in new installations on the Ethan Allen Express extension where they are temporarily trialing new infill stops not originally planned for the extension...then playing catch-up later and either installing permanent platforms or dropping those stops if they don't produce viable ridership. That was worthy enough in terms of better "aggregate accessibility" in having the extra flag stops vs. not having them at all.
It also is an outright necessity on AMTK routes that outright cross between level boarding East Coast territory and the 8-inch low-boarding ADA platforms in the Midwest. For example, the Virginia NE Regionals can't have high platforms installed south of D.C. because VRE is a low-boarding commuter rail operation...and that isn't fixable without breaking VRE's ADA compliance unless you fund a complete and total platform raising blitz across their entire system and buy them entirely new rolling stock. A number of LD trains also have to cross into 8-inch territory. The Lake Shore Limited west of Buffalo, for example, will never have full-highs and has to make do with station attendants and porta-lifts for ADA compliance. That ends up being OK because there's no other practical way to do it.
-------------------------
For the record, the only Amtrak routes in Northeastern high-platform territory affected by freight clearance exemptions are:
-- Downeaster (end-to-end exemption on PAR)
-- Vermonter (north of Springfield on PAS and NECR; PAS signed off on single side full-highs, and NECR may be amenable to same if 2nd track installed)
-- Ethan Allen Express (north of Schenectady on both CP and VRS; VRS may be amenable to single side full-highs if 2nd track installed, CP very unlikely)
-- Adirondack (north of Schenectady on CP)
The Empire Corridor west of Schenectady on CSX, Inland Route/Boston Lake Shore Limited on CSX, and the Keystones on the small portions that overlap the converging/diverging freight mains are all clearance routes where every station has options (pre-existing or future) or outright plans for full-highs w/passing tracks. No need to live with mini-highs on any of those routes. Pennsylvanian west of Harrisburg *may* also be OK depending on how Norfolk Southern feels about passing track installs or single side full-high platforms in constrained areas, but that's so far down the priority pile nobody's inquired yet.
So we're not talking a large number of affected routes. Mini-highs and other restrictions are mainly a consideration well outside the heart of the East Coast megalopolis on routes with smallish schedules. Comparatively speaking, the Downeaster is the densest schedule Amtrak runs in territory that is stuck with the mini-highs forever. And that's really not too shabby, since the DE still never projects to run a crush-load enough schedule where dwell times at a mini-high station are ever going to become a problem.
