Railroad Forums
Moderators: lensovet, Kaback9, nick11a
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 obviously have never worked with SHPO (state historic preservation office) before. "How exactly would this have any effect on the historical character of the station?" They'll be happy to name you a couple hundred reasons most of which will be complete bullsh!t. Why the urgency to spend so much money and bring Hoboken into full ADA compliance? Things work well enough now and no one is complaining.
Jtgshu wrote: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?Maximum allowable grade to satisfy ADA requirements is 8.33% so you should have enough room to do that.
sullivan1985 wrote:Sully, if I were asked to put forward plans for how to give Hoboken Terminal ADA accessible platforms this is exactly the way I would go about doing it. Now we just need to find the money, the political capital, the will, oh and a team of over-priced consultants to do this job which could be handled just as easily using NJT personnel who are desperate for work. Isn't this company great? Maybe you and I should go into the consulting business Sully?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.
DutchRailnut wrote:top of car would be around 10 feet from top platform and wire another 4 to 5 feet.I think your measurements might need some fine-tuning. The catenary in Hoboken is rather low in order to slip under the canopy.
cruiser939 wrote:either way cruiser the catenary can't be lower than two to three feet over car roofs, since that station does fit Diesels.DutchRailnut wrote:top of car would be around 10 feet from top platform and wire another 4 to 5 feet.I think your measurements might need some fine-tuning. The catenary in Hoboken is rather low in order to slip under the canopy.
DutchRailnut wrote:The multilevels are rather close to the wires, but the closest would be the "bump" on the cab end of the PL42 i think? In any case it's probably about 14 feet from the current platform for most of the length on most of the tracks? I know some of the tracks the wire is lower, i think it was 1 and 2 based on what i've read on here. I would estimate the air gap between MLV roof and contact wire to be about a foot and a half based solely on me looking at one sitting in the station on track 8 etc.cruiser939 wrote:either way cruiser the catenary can't be lower than two to three feet over car roofs, since that station does fit Diesels.DutchRailnut wrote:top of car would be around 10 feet from top platform and wire another 4 to 5 feet.I think your measurements might need some fine-tuning. The catenary in Hoboken is rather low in order to slip under the canopy.
DutchRailnut wrote:I couldn't find my schematic, it's somewhere in the clutter of my desk. 4-5 ft. is definitely too high but you're correct about the clearance for the diesels.cruiser939 wrote:either way cruiser the catenary can't be lower than two to three feet over car roofs, since that station does fit Diesels.DutchRailnut wrote:top of car would be around 10 feet from top platform and wire another 4 to 5 feet.I think your measurements might need some fine-tuning. The catenary in Hoboken is rather low in order to slip under the canopy.
25Hz wrote:That would be useful cruiser, thank you.What are you thanking me for? I never said that I was going to bust my butt to look for the documents which have the exact figures.
