Railroad Forums 

  • Costs of building high-level platforms and electrification

  • General discussion of passenger rail systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.
General discussion of passenger rail systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.

Moderators: mtuandrew, gprimr1

 #1119741  by SouthernRailway
 
Does anyone have a ballpark figure showing how much it costs to (1) electrify a mile of a rail line by building catenary and (2) build a high-level platform at a station?

Given the benefits to both, and the disadvantages of not having both, especially in areas near the Northeast Corridor, I'm curious as to why nowhere outside the NEC has both--particularly areas such as Chicago, with plenty of commuter and Amtrak trains; San Francisco (which I know is getting one electrified commuter line, plus HSR) and Washington to Richmond, which has commuter trains on some of the route and Amtrak trains from the NEC on all of it. Clearly the issue is money but how much would it take?

Thanks.
 #1119790  by kaitoku
 
I've seen figures of 1 million US$/mile of catenary ($1.5 million or more if you include substations[less with AC electrification] and other facilities). High concrete platforms are not that expensive, if you consider the total cost of a new station- anyway any additional cost over low platforms are more than repaid with better operational efficiency- namely shortened station dwell times. As far as the issue being money, in the Bay Area at least it's also one of regulations- specifically that of requiring clearance for brakemen hanging off the side of freight cars- clearly an antiquated steam era RR regulation, but there you go. Caltrain is also noted for its conservatism/myopic approach- possibly (?) they are considering low floor EMUs for their new rolling stock, when the HSR trainsets they will be sharing track with under the "blended plan" will be high level boarding.
 #1119820  by electricron
 
kaitoku wrote:I've seen figures of 1 million US$/mile of catenary ($1.5 million or more if you include substations[less with AC electrification] and other facilities). High concrete platforms are not that expensive, if you consider the total cost of a new station- anyway any additional cost over low platforms are more than repaid with better operational efficiency- namely shortened station dwell times. As far as the issue being money, in the Bay Area at least it's also one of regulations- specifically that of requiring clearance for brakemen hanging off the side of freight cars- clearly an antiquated steam era RR regulation, but there you go. Caltrain is also noted for its conservatism/myopic approach- possibly (?) they are considering low floor EMUs for their new rolling stock, when the HSR trainsets they will be sharing track with under the "blended plan" will be high level boarding.
They haven't bought any HSR trainsets yet. The high floor - low floor trains operating on the same corridor problem will not be limited to just Caltrain. All the Superliner cars Amtrak California uses are low floor cars, as are the Bombardier BiLevels used by Metrolink and Coaster trains in Southern California, and by the ACE trains in Northern California.
The oddest and funniest item about all the high and low floor conflicts, the only trains being proposed to be replaced are the only high floor intercity trains in California, the Caltrain "Galley" cars.
CHSR could save everyone tons of headaches and money if they chose a low floor HSR train sets - Talgo cars would be a perfect match.
 #1119907  by The EGE
 
A good general estimate is somewhere in the range of 10 million dollars for full highs, depending on how station access is already. The MBTA Fairmount Line stations cost around $10M each; that's with 2 800-foot platforms with shelters, signs, electronic message boards, lighting, cameras, and lengthy ramps (the line is grade separated).
 #1120009  by amtrakowitz
 
SouthernRailway wrote:Does anyone have a ballpark figure showing how much it costs to (1) electrify a mile of a rail line by building catenary and (2) build a high-level platform at a station?

Given the benefits to both, and the disadvantages of not having both, especially in areas near the Northeast Corridor, I'm curious as to why nowhere outside the NEC has both--particularly areas such as Chicago, with plenty of commuter and Amtrak trains; San Francisco (which I know is getting one electrified commuter line, plus HSR) and Washington to Richmond, which has commuter trains on some of the route and Amtrak trains from the NEC on all of it. Clearly the issue is money but how much would it take?

Thanks.
I think that one ought to be curious as to why "both" have to go together. It would have been more advantageous to have all low platforms along the Northeast and not have built a single high platform; that way, low-floor equipment could have been the norm, especially for high-speed operations (e.g. Talgo versus Acela). Even on roads electrified with third rail, low platforms were in the majority, i.e. until the Metropolitan Transportation Authority came along and ordered Budd M1s and M2s without steps and trapdoors (there were versions that had steps and trapdoors, but the only one built commercially was the Grumman Turbo M1 for the LIRR's diesel territory).

Generally, when it comes to electrification, it costs about as much to electrify a railroad as build an unelectrified railroad from scratch. This is why dieselization was more popular than electrification especially with railroads that could not afford extensive electrification (due to affordability and less infrastructure to maintain), save in locations where ventilation was/is limited and diesel exhaust would overcome passengers and crew.
electricron wrote:They haven't bought any HSR trainsets yet. The high floor - low floor trains operating on the same corridor problem will not be limited to just Caltrain. All the Superliner cars Amtrak California uses are low floor cars, as are the Bombardier BiLevels used by Metrolink and Coaster trains in Southern California, and by the ACE trains in Northern California.
The oddest and funniest item about all the high and low floor conflicts, the only trains being proposed to be replaced are the only high floor intercity trains in California, the Caltrain "Galley" cars.
CHSR could save everyone tons of headaches and money if they chose a low floor HSR train sets - Talgo cars would be a perfect match.
I have not heard that any CAHSR trains would be specific for high platforms. And not only Talgos are suited to low platforms, but just about every generation of TGV, especially the TGV Duplex. (If CAHSR gets built, tilt trains such as the Talgo would not be an imperative anyhow, although they would be helpful notwithstanding.)

Caltrain's Gallery cars are commuter cars rather than intercity. They are not operated beyond Gilroy, CA. Caltrain currently operates BBD low-floor Bombardier bilevels on the "Baby Bullets". For wheelchair access, the gallery cars feature wheelchair lifts, which IMHO is something that the railroads in the Northeast that have a mix of high and low platforms should have looked into instead of building mini-highs.
Last edited by amtrakowitz on Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #1120037  by MACTRAXX
 
SR: You left out Chicago's Metra Electric-the former Illinois Central electrified line that currently uses Highliner and new gallery
electric MU cars that use high level platforms and also the South Shore Line operated by NICTD to Michigan City and South Bend,IN...
That line has a mix of high and low level platforms along with single and gallery MU cars...Those routes operate on 1500 VDC catenary...
I recall that there have been thoughts to replace this voltage with a higher AC voltage but now a change like this would cost significant money...

Everyone: I am a proponent of high level platforms and electrification...Where it is PRACTICAL and NECESSARY...

To me it is one thing to build high-level platforms at a busy station to allow time to be saved on boarding/exiting for example
but I also think that lines that do not need high level platforms such as the LIRR's Greenport Line E of Ronkonkoma are another...

I do feel that the LIRR designing the C3 bilevel cars in the 90s for high-level platform use exclusively was a mistake and that steps
should have been added similar to NJT's Multilevels or the MBTA and MARC bilevel cars have...

It will be interesting to note what CalTrans decides to do...It may be worthwhile for Caltrain in the Bay Area to have high-level
platforms along with their coming electrification but as noted a new style low floor MU car may work fine for them...

MACTRAXX
 #1120178  by Patrick Boylan
 
amtrakowitz wrote: Caltrain's Gallery cars are commuter cars rather than intercity.
For what it's worth, when I rode San Diego-Los Angeles in 1990 the train had Amfleet and at least 1 gallery car. Maybe that was a commuter car temporarily pressed into intercity service because of problems.
What is it that makes a commuter car not an intercity car? It seems to me to be just amenities, for example seats usually not as comfortable. Although I can see it difficult to use an intercity car as a commuter car I don't see that it should be as difficult to use a commuter car as an intercity car. Amfleet 2 and Superliners probably won't make good commuter cars since they don't have very generous doors. But besides the San Diego example I mention above another example I saw was obviously intercity cars on NJT's North Jersey Coast Line in the early 1980's. Some of the coaches on my train had doors at only 1 end, and even the locomotive was a non-commuter GG1.
Whatever modifications one must make to change a commuter car to an intercity car are probably just a drop in the lake compared to what's involved in electrifying or high platforming one's railroad.

Also as others have noted, low level platforms might be better than high if your equipment's multilevel like gallery or Go-transit style hot dog cars which have stepless or few step low platform entrances.
 #1120252  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
The EGE wrote:A good general estimate is somewhere in the range of 10 million dollars for full highs, depending on how station access is already. The MBTA Fairmount Line stations cost around $10M each; that's with 2 800-foot platforms with shelters, signs, electronic message boards, lighting, cameras, and lengthy ramps (the line is grade separated).
Yes, although vast majority of that cost is going to be for those (impressively overbuilt) ramps and the landscaping onsite. The high-level platforms the T builds are not particularly expensive, because they generally aren't solid slabs. They tend to be rather cookie-cutter construction of concrete pilings, a prefab concrete deck on top, and hollow underside (see Hanson station on the Kingston/Plymouth Line for typical construction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hanso ... son_MA.jpg). It's a platform on stilts. And their shelters--the prefab ones at least--are just corrugated steel roofs that wear pretty well under weather. They got the Old Colony Lines right...pretty bland construction, but a very consistent look station-to-station that looks nice, clean and professional...has white/light-gray tones that stand up well to the weather and look nice with minimal maintenance...and have remained in excellent condition after 15 years. For retrofits of existing low-level platforms that's pretty cheap to do so long as there are not abutting historic station buildings where the height difference in platforms makes the interface with the front of the building a pain and requires small ramps.

Unfortunately all the T's station retrofits so far have been very, very expensive jobs primarily centered on parking lot expansion, eye candy, and architectural fluff. But I could easily see them plow through all the non-ADA lows on the system with access from nearby grade crossings very easily. The entire Reading Line from Wyoming Hill to North Wilmington, for instance. Chelsea on the Eastern Route. Several of the Rockport Line stops. Norfolk on the Franklin Line (Endicott-Windor Gardens are the only portions on that line on a freight clearance route). Etc., etc. Fund it under similar properties as the I-93 "Fast 14" bridge replacement project that worked so well, go with entirely prefab construction (even prefab pilings they can just sink and anchor into the ground to make it pour-free), and finish...say...the entire Reading Line in one summer blitz. Divert Haverhill Trains temporarily to the NH Main, run single-track ops short-turning at Reading or North Wilmington, and do total closures on one side's platforms first before moving to the other side. That's an excellent way of taking care of those easy ones quickly and without the mission creep the T is infamous for. That would be an excellent way to clear the non-ADA station backlog, replace a lot of ones that are looking worse for wear (like the stations out to Reading), and put a significant dent in the system's level boarding upgrades. Certainly the ones requiring more extensive mods--Worcester Line inside Framingham where significant ADA walkway construction is required, the NEC stations that would be getting passing tracks, the remaining non-clearance route Fitchburg stations east of South Acton that all have historic station buildings or other on-property structures. But it's high value for money on the ones suitable for prefab jobs and sitting on grade crossings. They've just got to get out of this habit of treating parking, eye candy, and platforms as megaproject monoliths.
 #1120378  by amtrakowitz
 
MACTRAXX wrote:SR: You left out Chicago's Metra Electric-the former Illinois Central electrified line that currently uses Highliner and new gallery electric MU cars that use high level platforms and also the South Shore Line operated by NICTD to Michigan City and South Bend,IN...That line has a mix of high and low level platforms along with single and gallery MU cars...Those routes operate on 1500 VDC catenary...I recall that there have been thoughts to replace this voltage with a higher AC voltage but now a change like this would cost significant money...
Was it not the case that the South Shore line during its beginning was at a higher voltage, and AC? 6.6kV single-phase AC, IIRC.
MACTRAXX wrote:Everyone: I am a proponent of high level platforms and electrification...Where it is PRACTICAL and NECESSARY...

To me it is one thing to build high-level platforms at a busy station to allow time to be saved on boarding/exiting for example but I also think that lines that do not need high level platforms such as the LIRR's Greenport Line E of Ronkonkoma are another...

I do feel that the LIRR designing the C3 bilevel cars in the 90s for high-level platform use exclusively was a mistake and that steps should have been added similar to NJT's Multilevels or the MBTA and MARC bilevel cars have...

It will be interesting to note what CalTrans decides to do...It may be worthwhile for Caltrain in the Bay Area to have high-level platforms along with their coming electrification but as noted a new style low floor MU car may work fine for them...

MACTRAXX
There is absolutely no reason to build a single high platform in California. Not for the high-speed rail project, not for any of the commuter railroads even if they convert to EMU (for which low-floor versions already exist or can be designed, as noted), not anywhere. Had there been no high platforms in the Northeast, aberrations such as the Lehigh Line's gantlet tracks in New Jersey would never have been needed.

And BTW, Caltrain is not in the hands of CalTrans, but instead the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board.
 #1120813  by amm in ny
 
My only experience with "low floor" cars is with the New Jersey Transit bilevel cars, and loading and unloading is extremely awkward on them, not to mention hazardous, because passengers have to go up and down stairs during the loading and unloading process. It seems to take about 5 minutes to get people on or off at any halfway popular station. Even if they put doors in the lower level, passengers in the upper level or at the ends of the car would have to go downstairs to unload.

By contrast, on Metro-North, loading and unloading is fast and easy, because the platform and the entire train's floor are all at the same level.

Are there "low floor" cars which do not require any passengers to go up or down stairs?
 #1120820  by electricron
 
amm in ny wrote:My only experience with "low floor" cars is with the New Jersey Transit bilevel cars, and loading and unloading is extremely awkward on them, not to mention hazardous, because passengers have to go up and down stairs during the loading and unloading process. It seems to take about 5 minutes to get people on or off at any halfway popular station. Even if they put doors in the lower level, passengers in the upper level or at the ends of the car would have to go downstairs to unload.

By contrast, on Metro-North, loading and unloading is fast and easy, because the platform and the entire train's floor are all at the same level.

Are there "low floor" cars which do not require any passengers to go up or down stairs?
Talgo!
Additionally - all two decks/levels/floors cars have stairs.
 #1121274  by amm in ny
 
electricron wrote:
amm in ny wrote:Are there "low floor" cars which do not require any passengers to go up or down stairs?
Talgo!
I looked in Wikipedia and on the Talgo (America) website, but couldn't find anything about floor heights.

However, IIRC, "low level" platforms are 8 in. (20 cm) above railhead. From what I could see on various websites, that's also the maximum platform height allowed for tracks with mixed freight and passenger.

Are the Talgo floors that low?
electricron wrote:Additionally - all two decks/levels/floors cars have stairs.
I agree that if you have 2 levels (and only one platform level!), somebody is going to have to negotiate stairs. But:
  • if one (seating) level and set of exits is at platform height, at least half of your passengers can board and deboard without using stairs (and without help of a trainman.) By choosing an exit level which matches neither platform height at most stations nor a substantial fraction of the seating, NJ Transit insures that boarding and deboarding involves most passengers having to get up or down two sets of stairs at most stations.
  • Nobody seems to be considering the possibility of two-level platforms, to match the two-level cars. Yes, it seems far-fetched, but to my mind, it's no more far-fetched than some of the other things people are throwing around.
  • I submit that this is an argument against bi-level cars, rather than an argument for treating stairs as inevitable. Stairs of any kind, but especially the steep kind I see on trains, are hazardous and drastically slow passenger flow. There's also a staffing issue, if you need a member of the train crew to man each step exit.
 #1121302  by electricron
 
amm in ny wrote: However, IIRC, "low level" platforms are 8 in. (20 cm) above railhead. From what I could see on various websites, that's also the maximum platform height allowed for tracks with mixed freight and passenger.

Are the Talgo floors that low?

I agree that if you have 2 levels (and only one platform level!), somebody is going to have to negotiate stairs.
Nobody seems to be considering the possibility of two-level platforms, to match the two-level cars. Yes, it seems far-fetched, but to my mind, it's no more far-fetched than some of the other things people are throwing around.
Talgo floors aren't that low, they're around 18 to 24 inches above top of rail. I don't know of any trains that have floors 8 inches above top of rail.

If you had two platform heights, 6, 7, or 8 feet apart so you'll have level boarding onto both levels of a train, you'll still have stairs to negotiate at the stations. Do we really want to eliminate stairs on trains? Will there be restrooms on both levels of the trains? If not, how will passengers on the wrong level relieve themselves? Will there be two vestibules between the cars? If not, how will passengers on the wrong level move between cars?

The ADA doesn't require more than one seat per train, much less per car, to be wheelchair accessible. Therefore, level boarding is only required for a single level at most, and at the least a lift is required, which if used level boarding is not required.

Most passengers are going to want freedom of movement on the trains, so if the train has two levels, stairs will be needed.
Last edited by electricron on Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #1121543  by SouthernRailway
 
Wouldn't low-level floors make a rough(er) ride than higher floors? My one Talgo ride on the Cascades was years ago, but I seem to recall being able to feel the tracks a lot more than on regular equipment, and the 2nd floor of NJT's bi-levels makes a much smoother ride than downstairs or on single-level equipment.
 #1121589  by electricron
 
SouthernRailway wrote:Wouldn't low-level floors make a rough(er) ride than higher floors? My one Talgo ride on the Cascades was years ago, but I seem to recall being able to feel the tracks a lot more than on regular equipment, and the 2nd floor of NJT's bi-levels makes a much smoother ride than downstairs or on single-level equipment.
:( Huh? :(
I could agree with you if the two floors of each railcar were floating on different shocks, bladders, pillows, and springs; whatever ride damping device is being used; but they aren't. The two floors of each railcar are welded together that are using the exact same equipment and therefore have exactly the same ride.
Ride differences between two different identical cars can be different because each car is different.