Hoboken: why (1) idling and (2) low-level platforms?

To add to that cruiser, there are not that many extra available electrics to go around to do something like that. Yes there are a ton of ALP44s sitting idle, but they arent going to put them back to work just to save diesel fuel.

ApproachMedium wrote:To add to that cruiser, there are not that many extra available electrics to go around to do something like that. Yes there are a ton of ALP44s sitting idle, but they arent going to put them back to work just to save diesel fuel.

I was just being hyperthetical. Of course the yard in Hoboken not having wire does pose a problem. Any which way, I've said it before, that I don't see any issue with these engines idling all day. Does the fine residents of hoboken even complain of this? Probably not.

The photo link I posted was bum - it's the sixth pic down on this page: http://www.pbase.com/steve_schmollinger ... ing&page=7

The other part of the original post had to do with the lack of high-level platforms at Hoboken. They would sure speed things up and I'm sure they're feasible. I think I read the problem is not keeping the historical character of the station (Broad Street is also listed on the register of historic buildings I believe) but trying to integrate the rest of the facility -- the concourse, the food and news stands, the waiting room -- with high-level platforms.

Maybe the concourse is not wide enough to allow for the ramps that would be needed to make the change in grade?

That and the fact you'd have to kneel down to buy a coffee.

I assume this will result in more extended discussion, but:

(1) why not build diesels that don't need to idle (with better batteries, etc.)
(2) why not just electrify the whole system? It's been done bit by bit, and surely there can be "bit by bit" more.

Mr.Southern Railway the answer has already been given. Why not replace the diesel fleet and/or electrify the entire NJ Transit system?

In one word - MONEY.

You, I think, identified the underlying problem in a message in the Amtrak forum. Improvement projects without financial incentive -- especially in this economy -- are projects that not only don't get off the ground they don't even leave the jetway!

It seems several quirks have come to light here. One, having only inverter fed HEP off the prime mover is not a be all end all solution for locomotive design due to the higher per hour fuel consumption. Two, the way some places are designed prevents the modern solutions from being used, for example the red boxes/drop lines in hoboken vs wet conditions & confined space near overhead traction wires. Another is that being only set up for commuter operations NJT cannot afford specialized equipment or facilities such as a class one could. And as to the other part.... You have the "old fashioned" rolling curving hoboken division & RVL/lower coast line mixed in with the more intercity oriented grade separated northeast corridor. I mean it really is like 2 different railroads in one.

I'm no expert on rail operations or reasons behind stuff that goes on day to day, but what i've noticed is that there's politics at play as well as practicality. The reason hoboken terminal isnt high platforms is because that just isnt how the terminal was designed to work, it's from a different era with a different way of thinking. People need to be reminded i think that much of NJT's footprint in terms of tracks was all ready set a hundred years ago, before the model t before regular air travel and before ADA and with profit and long distance with commuter traffic mixed with freight in mind.

I've been on a NJT train that was pulled from a yard last minute and the HVAC turned on just before it was moved out, it wasn't pleasant till near the very end of my trip. It takes a while to warm up or cool down the interior of a structure, because till you do everything inside walls ceilings floors seats luggage racks etc are working against the HVAC.

Just my take on it.

Tommy Meehan wrote:The other part of the original post had to do with the lack of high-level platforms at Hoboken. They would sure speed things up and I'm sure they're feasible. I think I read the problem is not keeping the historical character of the station (Broad Street is also listed on the register of historic buildings I believe) but trying to integrate the rest of the facility -- the concourse, the food and news stands, the waiting room -- with high-level platforms.

Maybe the concourse is not wide enough to allow for the ramps that would be needed to make the change in grade?

That and the fact you'd have to kneel down to buy a coffee.

Why are you raising the entire platform and concourse in your theory. All you need to do is raise your track platforms and put a ramp and steps at the east end.

It would be nice to see new uniform high levels in Hoboken but I don't see it happening anytime in my career.

It's not my theory it's what I recall as Transit's explanation for why it would be difficult to do. High-level platforms in a terminal requiring stairs to get to or from the concourse doesn't seem like much of an improvement. In the AM rush the stairs would be a major bottleneck I think.

But I know what you're saying, yes I guess they could put stairless ramps in if they sacrificed a small amount of track on the east end of the platforms. I agree, it would be nice to see high-level platforms at Hoboken.

Is Hoboken ADA-compliant?

The platforms were all ready raised. They used to have a layer of what I believe is asphalt that still sits under the concrete. I'm wondering when that was done. The station. Is how it is, and the wheelchair lifts work fine. I think we've all ready lost enough of our history, we can't afford to keep chipping away.

Sully what you've suggested is what I've been thinking for years. Raise the platforms. Use a long sloped ramp at the end to meet the concourse. You might lose between a quarter and a half car length on the east end depending on how the ramp is graded. So what. You'd have high level exiting and ADA complaince. How exactly would this have any effect on the historical character of the station? Nothing would have to be done to the height of the canopy. What would be lost at the foot of the canopy support beams? Rust? Properly restore/rebuild them and put new fascia on the bottom to match the original construction. It would add usefulness and life to the station for the cost of pouring concrete.

andegold wrote:Sully what you've suggested is what I've been thinking for years. Raise the platforms. Use a long sloped ramp at the end to meet the concourse. You might lose between a quarter and a half car length on the east end depending on how the ramp is graded. So what. You'd have high level exiting and ADA complaince. How exactly would this have any effect on the historical character of the station? Nothing would have to be done to the height of the canopy. What would be lost at the foot of the canopy support beams? Rust? Properly restore/rebuild them and put new fascia on the bottom to match the original construction. It would add usefulness and life to the station for the cost of pouring concrete.

You really wouldn't "lose" that car length tho, because other than the MUs and Comet 4s, there is no equipment remaining that you can use that easternmost door next to the engineers cab anyway. So you would have approx 90-95 feet from the concourse to the back of the first car to make a ramp to get to the height of a high level platform by the time you got to the hind set of doors on the first car, where in most instances, thats the first door for folks to exit out of the train anyway. You would loose the high level center doors of the cab car however, but thats not a big deal, they aren't used now anyway.

IM not familar with ADA regulations and the slope of the ramp, but i would ASSUME that that grade would be acceptable........what, about 1 foot in 25-30 feet, assuming it would need to come up about 3 feet?

andegold wrote:Sully what you've suggested is what I've been thinking for years. Raise the platforms. Use a long sloped ramp at the end to meet the concourse. You might lose between a quarter and a half car length on the east end depending on how the ramp is graded. So what. You'd have high level exiting and ADA complaince. How exactly would this have any effect on the historical character of the station? Nothing would have to be done to the height of the canopy. What would be lost at the foot of the canopy support beams? Rust? Properly restore/rebuild them and put new fascia on the bottom to match the original construction. It would add usefulness and life to the station for the cost of pouring concrete.

Exactly. Put the ramp in the center and have a pair of steps on each side of the ramp to accommodate the 1/4 doors of the ML cars. Biggest pain become the support columns in the sheds at the far east end where the ramp would be. The rest are not an issue.

I've illustrated (poorly) in the attached image of my idea.

The canopy is high enough where you would still not have to worry about hitting your head on the roof or coming near contact with the wire. The existing platforms in Hoboken are a disaster and change their height on some tracks multiple times. It's one thing to be historic, but to look like garbage and hinder operations at the same time is not acceptable.

That's an interesting design. Why doesn't Transit do it? Just saying.

sullivan1985 wrote:The canopy is high enough where you would still not have to worry about hitting your head on the roof or coming near contact with the wire.

Remember you're not raising the tracks. They have high-level platforms at many NEC locations, nobody gives the catenary a second thought.

If they did do high levels, how close to the platform would the wire be?