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

  • Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.
Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.

Moderators: lensovet, Kaback9, nick11a

  by 25Hz
 
I think I've made my points about canopy height being an issue.. No one has to agree with my personal opinions. No one has to like my posts or reply to them either. Do you see me going out of my way to make someone feel negatively? Do you see me breaking rules? I stick to what I know, and what I don't know, I ask about. Sorry if asking lots of detailed or broad questions ruffle feathers. I simply want to be correctly informed.

As for your point on car doorways & canopies, you're forgetting that train sheds are designed to clear the top of equipment stored under such. Shelter canopies however are regularly much closer to the platform and would need modification to work with full height platforms if the station was designed as a low level structure. At Newark broad the new canopy is higher than the old one. At jenkintown the low level and corresponding low canopy would not work with a high level reconstruction unless it was done far off to the west side where there's a road bridge overhead and no canopy. Actually being places helps you see what's possible and what's not. Hoboken would need to obviously stage the platform modifications as to not impede day to day operations. You could probably raise the canopy over the track 16/17 platform. This would put 17 and 16 out of service for obvious reasons. As far as the wire under the trainshed proper, if it became a problem you could either raise it as well a small bit, or end it at the west end of the canopy away from where passengers should be.

You'd also need steps for authorized folks to access the yard or the station from the yard. I think with these improvements new and moveable security cameras down the length of the platform.

This would be a large undertaking. Maybe you'd still be able to use the terminal during minor flooding of the track bed on the east end?

See I can put positive and pro-rebuild ideas and obs in as well as the anti-rebuild.

I personally am not super comfortable with traction lines very close to the platform. Market east for example, not a fan!

My final point... I do care about these things; station design, ergonomic stations and rolling stock as well as things that make the most sense, though of course what I've idealized may not be at all practical. Please don't confuse my passion for the "pie in the sky" with ignorance of reality & practicality. :)
  by andegold
 
Where is that? (A) It doesn't look like it's over the current platform to begin with. So while it might get in the way of a raised platform you never mentioned that it's an adjacent structure. (B) It does not look like it's part of the historic structure so tear it down and rebuild it. How big (how many tracks does it cover) is it?
  by ACeInTheHole
 
Im just going to pop some popcorn in anticipation of cruiser getting a load of that post, this should be a good one.
  by 25Hz
 
andegold wrote:Where is that? (A) It doesn't look like it's over the current platform to begin with. So while it might get in the way of a raised platform you never mentioned that it's an adjacent structure. (B) It does not look like it's part of the historic structure so tear it down and rebuild it. How big (how many tracks does it cover) is it?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansdale_(SEPTA_station)

I took the photo from inside the train earlier today. It is indeed over the current platform there.
  by waldwickrailfan
 
25Hz wrote:
andegold wrote:Where is that? (A) It doesn't look like it's over the current platform to begin with. So while it might get in the way of a raised platform you never mentioned that it's an adjacent structure. (B) It does not look like it's part of the historic structure so tear it down and rebuild it. How big (how many tracks does it cover) is it?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansdale_(SEPTA_station)

I took the photo from inside the train earlier today. It is indeed over the current platform there.
the link does not show anything, just a deleted page.
  by M&Eman
 
I think a better example of where a canopy would be a problem in raising a platform would be the inbound platform at Maplewood, where the platform "canopy" is actually an extension of the [historically protected] station roof. Hoboken should be fine.
  by 25Hz
 
tgolanos wrote:
25Hz wrote:http://i899.photobucket.com/albums/ac19 ... 8160f1.jpg

Try raising that platform 4 feet. Hope my point is made....
Build a new canopy on the (hypothetically) new HLP...?

Like I said, you really need to be there to se that high platforms just don't work some places. Hoboken 1-15 should be fine , yea, but not 16-17.
  by waldwickrailfan
 
25Hz wrote:
tgolanos wrote:
25Hz wrote:http://i899.photobucket.com/albums/ac19 ... 8160f1.jpg

Try raising that platform 4 feet. Hope my point is made....
Build a new canopy on the (hypothetically) new HLP...?

Like I said, you really need to be there to se that high platforms just don't work some places. Hoboken 1-15 should be fine , yea, but not 16-17.
how would 16 and 17 not work? if you can build a high level platform in between 1 and 15, it would be easier to build on 16-17 since they have less canopy above the tracks.
  by andegold
 
Why would I click a link to a picture of a Septa station in Lansdale when we're discussing Hoboken??????????????????
  by ACeInTheHole
 
andegold wrote:Why would I click a link to a picture of a Septa station in Lansdale when we're discussing Hoboken??????????????????
Hahahahahahaha
  by tgolanos
 
andegold wrote:Why would I click a link to a picture of a Septa station in Lansdale when we're discussing Hoboken??????????????????
Hoboken, Lansdale, same thing. (/sarcasm)
  by Kaback9
 
Alright, I'm locking this one up. Reason, this thread just continues to get more and more ridiculous by the day..
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7