High Platforms Outside the NEC

Forgive me for asking what may be an ignorant question... but it's something I've wondered for a while.

Why arent't there more high platforms in the U.S.? I understand that freight trains are generally wider than passenger trains, which means that they can't go by a high platform unless there is a gantlet track installed. But when the platforms aren't on the main track, they're still low in every case that I've seen, even where the station doesn't see any low boarding trains at all. Is it really just a matter of money? Just how much does cost to build an elevated platform, anyway? I would think that safety and efficiency concerns would certainly warrant building them where it wouldn't interfere with freight traffic. I would also think that some stations (which are often built, owned, and maintained by local governments, not Amtrak) would want high platforms even where freight conflicts would necessitate a gantlet.

Climing up and down the steep stairs of an Amfleet coach can be a difficult, dangerous, and slow process for someone with arthritis, which makes the boarding process take longer. Level boarding would probably make it possible to shave a good couple minutes off the dwell time at each stop. On top of that, level boarding eliminates the potential for injury and lawsuits due to slipping and falling on the stairs.

So, why not? Would it really be so expensive that a city couldn't afford to pay for it?

Mr. Rulz, I believe you answered your own question. It is the 'secret ingredient", or lack thereof, $$$$$$$.

Actually, the bi-level Superliner cars used on all LD trains that do not serve the NECorridor cannot reasonably and practicably operate where hi-level platforms have been installed - even if vertical clearance is OK. As a result, there is not likely to be much expansion of such beyond the NE, Emprie Corridors and Keystone Corridors where most stations are already equipped.

"I understand that freight trains are generally wider than passenger trains, which means that they can't go by a high platform unless there is a gantlet track installed."

FWIW, freights do pass hi main line platforms without gantlets at many stations in the East.

That's right. But whenever dimensional (e.g., wider than normal) loads on a flatcar are transported an alternate route must be found when platforms, and what is on them, like end railings, interfere.

timz wrote:FWIW, freights do pass hi main line platforms without gantlets at many stations in the East

Note the kind of freights that operate on the NEC for example, none of them intermodal nor double-stack containers. Also where possible, the NEC freights operate on tracks with no platforms adjacent. Further, there are deliberate gaps between trains and platforms on the NEC for freight car clearance...

It's interesting that the New Carrolton, MD station has a gantlet track, while no other NEC stations do.

orulz wrote:
Climing up and down the steep stairs of an Amfleet coach can be a difficult, dangerous, and slow process for someone with arthritis, which makes the boarding process take longer. Level boarding would probably make it possible to shave a good couple minutes off the dwell time at each stop. On top of that, level boarding eliminates the potential for injury and lawsuits due to slipping and falling on the stairs.

That seems to be the cause of a lot of delays with trains servicing Virginia (aside from CSX's irresponsibility of course, but that's another story).

You can only exit at certain locations of the train and you have all these passengers with bags and packages that they carried on and it takes "forever" to unload those passengers. Then the reverse takes just as long if not longer. Then you have to worry about those harsh winter/rainy scenarios. It seems like it's easy to slip off of one of those steps when it's wet. Perhaps Amtrak should consider putting a rubber mat on the steps for better grip. Last I recall, I didn't notice any on there. Subconsciously I was afraid that I was actually going to slip.

The Downeaster route has high platforms in most (all?) places, including those on Guilford's main line. The platforms on Guilford's main appear to be built so that a 2-3 foot gap exists between the train and the platform. A small bridge is put down so passengers can get on and off.

orulz wrote:Forgive me for asking what may be an ignorant question... but it's something I've wondered for a while.

Why arent't there more high platforms in the U.S.?

Basically because passenger service on most lines is subservient to the freight traffic, the problem being the freight lines don't want to restrict their loading gauge for high level platforms.

True, in many cases gautlet tracks could be added, but you have to consider the extra space required for the gauntlets so they don't foul other tracks, and in most locations there isn't existing space for this, so the ROW would have to be widened, or platforms made skinnier to support this.

hsr_fan wrote:It's interesting that the New Carrolton, MD station has a gantlet track, while no other NEC stations do.

Freight trains (Providence & Worcester RR) are restricted to using track #7 (which has no platform at all) through Providence RI station on the NEC.

Freight railroads generally prefer not to have high-level platforms adjacent to busy freight tracks, because of clearance issues. I was at the Aldene, NJ station (constructed on the former Lehigh Valley line in 1967 when the "Aldene Plan" was implemented) and I noted both sides of the platform had been chewed up, presumably by passing freight trains.

Also, the high platforms are an obstruction for a man riding on the side of a freight car during a switching move.

It's easy enough to build a passenger car with a low-level door. The Chicago gallery cars used this design as early as the mid-1950s. Modern designs such as the Bombardier cars provide a door just a few inches off the platform, with a flat floor inside. So do Superliners and the "California cars".

Where commuter operators have used high-level platforms, they've generally had to ensure there was an available track away from the platforms. On MARC's Camden Line, this has been done by putting the commuter platforms on short sidings off the main tracks. It can, of course, also be done with gauntlets. Note that at New Carrollton, the gauntlet track gets the diverging signal (and therefore the speed restriction), while the "through move" is adjacent to the platform.

Given the nature of the North American rail network, I think low platforms will continue to be the norm.

hsr_fan wrote:It's interesting that the New Carrolton, MD station has a gantlet track, while no other NEC stations do.

Old Saybrook has a gauntlet track on the far track (#5?). The station has a high level platform on #2 track along with an island platform serving #1 and #5 track. There used to be 4 tracks through but one was sacrificed for the new platform.

Hey Jay, thanks. I forgot about Old Saybrook. And now that I think of it, New London has a freight track behind the platform on Track 2. Although this is fora lead into the yard, not because of clearances.

Now regarding Ms. Bly's posting above:

NellieBly wrote:
Freight railroads generally prefer not to have high-level platforms adjacent to busy freight tracks, because of clearance issues

.
Here in Mass, mostly all of the MBTA's commuter rail stationshave ether hig level platforms that are the entire length of the station, or at least about the length of half of a coach for wheelchair access. There are no restrictions for freight operations in regards to high levels, however if a 'plug door' is not secured all the way, it will get caught up on the high level. And the you're in big trouble

Also, the high platforms are an obstruction for a man riding on the side of a freight car during a switching move.
.

Well in this case the right thing to do for safety would be to stop before the platform, walk ahead to the other end and once beyond the close clearance, ride the shove again. All of the mini high levels have bright yellow signs on the end that state "Warning, will not clear man on side of car".

Given the nature of the North American rail network, I think low platforms will continue to be the norm

Actually I disagree with you, mainly due to the American Disability Act.

The ADA would not match Superliners, Surfliners or Talgos with high platforms. Low platforms will remain in the USA.

NellieBly wrote:I was at the Aldene, NJ station

Roselle Park station. There is no station in Aldene (which is a section, not a town); only a connecting track and ramp.

What sayeth we lay this matter to rest. I must concur with Mr. Chieftain.

However, I would like to point out with this off topic digression that the facilities at Aldene represent far more than just a stretch of track. The early sixties "Aldene Plan' as it was known represented the first public funding of a rail commuter infrastructure project in the Northeast, and for that matter, I think anywhere in the US.

This seemingly miniscule track connection enabled CNJ trains to access the LV and thence the PRR at the existing connection at Hunter. From there CNJ trains operated to Newark Penn Station where they terminated. This enabled CNJ to abandon the Jersey City terminal, the ferries, and their Liberty Street ferry terminal in Lower Manhattan. From Newark, passengers would use the H&M (PATH) to Manhattan.

As a school age "foamer' back then (yes, Mr AmFam, I was YOU a few moons ago), I followed the progress of the plan carefully each day in The New York Times.

So Aldene was "groundbreaking' in the history of public involvement with rail commuter service. Otherwise, who away from there would have ever heard of it?

But then, who might have have heard of some Federal Judge named Marbury? or a Bank Teller named McCulloch were it not for certain obscure events that became part of a much larger "picture'?.