Lengthening platforms between Boston and Brunswick

The question of insufficient capacity arises occasionally when discussing the Downeaster. Two solutions usually get proposed: add more trains, or: add cars to existing trains. Both require funding yet to be identified AFAIK. What platforms would nee to be made longer in order to accomodate a longer train without making a double stop?

I think the two in Mass. are long enough to accomodate more cars. What about the others? Is there even room to do so if the idea were to become a plausible solution to insufficient capacity?

Woburn and Haverhill are both the T's standard 1200 feet, correct? So they shouldn't be an issue

Why not just tell people who are exiting at those stops with short platforms to go to one of the first few cars of the train, which will be alongside the platform?

That's how Metro-North solves this issue.

Are you talking about full length platforms like Woburn and Brunswick? That will cost many millions of $$$.
Haverhill has a mini-high platform with ramps that can be raised to accommodate hi-wide freight loads
See the third photo down in the second column here:

http://trainweb.org/usarail/haverhill.htm

On high passenger boardings and detrainings, two doors next to each other are opened with ramps.
On some occasions, I have seen doors also opened on the low level platform for detrainings.

SouthernRailway wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 7:03 pm Why not just tell people who are exiting at those stops with short platforms to go to one of the first few cars of the train, which will be alongside the platform?

That's how Metro-North solves this issue.

Yea Amtrak does this on lines where they have long platforms. It is common to see Keystones with 2 doors open when the platform allows for more.

Adding cars to existing trains, wouldn't that throw a wrench into the newly completed Maintenance facility which is already near the length of the train set currently.

Also, the T's standard is 800ft which would let you platform end doors at doubles (adjacent to another car) for consists up to 10 passenger cars cars.

SouthernRailway wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 7:03 pmWhy not just tell people who are exiting at those stops with short platforms to go to one of the first few cars of the train, which will be alongside the platform?

That's how Metro-North solves this issue.

Exactly. MN platforms 10 car trains on 7-car platforms. Amtrak platforms 8-car trains on 4-car platforms at OSB. It's not the most efficient way to do it, but it's not rocket science either.

That's also how Jersey Transit handles it, at least on the Raritan Line. By the time westbound trains get to Annandale the platforms only accommodate two cars and passengers are told to move to certain cars (usually on the rear) to exit. Of course the regular commuters know this so know what to do without prompting.

Rather than tacking on extensions every 5 years when capacity requires, do one of the following:

1) Simply build for the future. The Hartford Line's new stations have 6-7(?) car platforms minus Hartford despite the average train only having 3 cars. For example, if I were to build a lightrail line that only runs 1 double-ended LRV, I would make sure all the platforms are long enough for two.

2) Run more trains and keep them the same length. If you are exceeding your current capacity (3000 passengers per day with 10 trains) and you can lengthen the trains but not the platform for some reason, add 5 more trains.

3) Platform the train at a specific point. If you've got a 6 car train on a 4 car platform and can't close a car, platform one door on car 1 and car 5. (this assumes end doors)

Do plan for the future. It will be very easy to come up with a rendering of a very long platform. Then just build what is needed but have all the utility connections in a manhole or over head at the constructed ends. All permits for a full construction would be obtained at initial work. Then when platform extensions are needed just follow on with additional lengths. Note always build for the anticipated drainage of long platform(s), It really slows down expansion when electric, storm sewers, and other needed utilities has to be expanded and other underground utilities might interfere with simply upgrading the utilities.

SouthernRailway wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 7:03 pm Why not just tell people who are exiting at those stops with short platforms to go to one of the first few cars of the train, which will be alongside the platform?

That's basically what's being done now at most stops; there is a "mini-high" platform that accommodates one door, and passengers are told to follow a conductor to that door as the train is pulling into the station. Only at Boston and Brunswick do all the doors open; at Woburn (and Portland?) they typically open two doors.

As a passenger there is nothing that irks me more than when they open fewer doors than a platform accommodates. If a platform accommodates only 2 cars, there is obviously no way to open all doors on a five car (or longer) train and I am good with that, but I really get annoyed when I need to carry luggage through several cars just because they feel like that opening one or two doors is enough. What the hell is the point of that? On top of that filing everyone through a couple of doors certainly increases the dwell time, not that it is that big of an issue for the Downeaster, but still by the last stop it has probably added an extra 5 minutes to the trip time for which I see no good justification from customer service point of view.

While I have not travelled on all European and Asian rail systems, on none of the few that I have had the pleasure to use have I seen a similar practice of filing people through one or two doors on a 5+ car trains. Why do we think that there is something on this side of the ocean that they do not know on the other?

Usually, it boils down to conductor convenience.

charlesriverbranch wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 7:45 am

SouthernRailway wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 7:03 pm Why not just tell people who are exiting at those stops with short platforms to go to one of the first few cars of the train, which will be alongside the platform?

That's basically what's being done now at most stops; there is a "mini-high" platform that accommodates one door, and passengers are told to follow a conductor to that door as the train is pulling into the station. Only at Boston and Brunswick do all the doors open; at Woburn (and Portland?) they typically open two doors.

Generally what I have seen at Brunswick is 2 doors open, one on the cafe/business class and one on the first coach, so passengers have to walk to the front of the train to board.

It is only a question of conductor convenience because the equipment is designed to require conductor intervention (open door, open trap or place bridgeplate, sometimes place step box, etc.) at each open door. Automatic doors, with automatic folding steps or ramps as necessary for the type of platform, mean no need for a conductor so you can have all-door boarding. Eg every European train I have ridden (not a huge number, but Norway, Sweden, UK, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands), NEC at high-platform stations, Metra Electric District IIRC, South Shore Line at least at high-platform stations, FrontRunner. A conductor could reasonably argue that having a conductor open one pair of doors and then walk down to open the next pair 85 feet away and then have to close both pairs of doors would slow down the train nearly as much as boarding everyone through one pair of doors per conductor.

Is there anything about ADA that makes it more defensible to have mini-highs if all passengers are required to board from the mini-highs?