Costs of building high-level platforms and electrification

[amm in ny]

However, IIRC, "low level" platforms are 8 in. (20 cm) above railhead....

Are the Talgo floors that low?

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.

....Do we really want to eliminate stairs on trains?

If you want people to get on and off your trains expeditiously and safely, without needing train crew at each loading door, you want level boarding. That means, yes, eliminate stairs, at least along the path that the majority of passengers take getting on and off the train.

From what I'm reading, this is not possible with low-level platforms, regardless of whether the cars are "low floor."

And, yes, this is IMHO a good argument against using bi-level cars for commuter and local rail systems; at least, the sort of bi-level cars I've seen.

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.

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.

Stations have a lot more space, meaning space for more generously laid-out stairs, for ramps, and for elevators. The sort of stairs you have on trains are far narrower and steeper than any building code would allow. Also, with level boarding, the train does not have to be present while passengers negotiate any stairs, elevators, ramps, etc. With non-level boarding, it does.

[electricron]

[
If you want people to get on and off your trains expeditiously and safely, without needing train crew at each loading door, you want level boarding. That means, yes, eliminate stairs, at least along the path that the majority of passengers take getting on and off the train.

From what I'm reading, this is not possible with low-level platforms, regardless of whether the cars are "low floor."

And, yes, this is IMHO a good argument against using bi-level cars for commuter and local rail systems; at least, the sort of bi-level cars I've seen.

Stations have a lot more space, meaning space for more generously laid-out stairs, for ramps, and for elevators. The sort of stairs you have on trains are far narrower and steeper than any building code would allow. Also, with level boarding, the train does not have to be present while passengers negotiate any stairs, elevators, ramps, etc. With non-level boarding, it does.

In the entire world, I have not read of one train station with platforms that allow level boarding a train on two different levels. I don't think I've read about a train having that ability either.

Yet, there are double level trains all around the world, from streetcars to HSR trains. ALL of them have stairs on the trains.

Low platforms are NOT defined as a maximum of 8 inches above top of rail. Low platforms, at least in America, are defined at less than 48 inches above top of rail. Streetcars with 18 inch low floors have level boarding from platforms 18 inches above the road surface. DMUs with 24 inch low floors have level boarding from platforms 24 inches above top of rail. So, there's plenty of low platforms and low level floor trains with level boarding in the USA.

[amm in ny]

Yet, there are double level trains all around the world, from streetcars to HSR trains. ALL of them have stairs on the trains.

Well, I can't speak to the prevalence of double level trains. I lived in Europe for a number of years, and never saw, let alone rode, a double-level train. (Which is not to say that there weren't any anywhere.) The S-Bahnen in Munich, Hamburg, and Berlin were all single-level with level boarding and no steps anywhere, and they looked like their floors were about the same height as the subways and (single-level) commuter trains in NY. The long-distance trains I saw were all single-level, where you had to step down one or two steps to get onto the platform, but nothing like the precipitous steps on Amtrak's East Coast trains.

I'm only familiar with NJ Transit's double-level trains, and my experience was that they were very poor at getting large numbers of people on and off the train quickly, compared with Metro-North. Are the double level trains elsewhere any better at this?

Low platforms are NOT defined as a maximum of 8 inches above top of rail.[ Low platforms, at least in America, are defined at less than 48 inches above top of rail. Streetcars with 18 inch low floors have level boarding from platforms 18 inches above the road surface. DMUs with 24 inch low floors have level boarding from platforms 24 inches above top of rail. So, there's plenty of low platforms and low level floor trains with level boarding in the USA.

So what exactly have the people in this thread who've been saying things like "the NEC should have had low-level platforms" been talking about? For example:

There is absolutely no reason to build a single high platform in California. ... 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.

Is he saying that the platforms in the Northeast should have been, say, 24 inches, and PRR (or PC) should have bought low-floor trains, and that would have eliminated the need for gantlet tracks or freight/passenger separation?

My understanding is that anything above 8 inches impacts freight operations. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If so, using "low level" (by your definition) platforms would have not helped things at all, because they'd still have been over 8 inches and thus would have required gantlet tracks as much as the 48-51 inch platforms do. Once the railroads in the Northeast decided to go with level boarding, there was no reason not to simply build them at the height of the standard passenger cars of the time.

Now, there may be reasons to prefer, say, 24 inch platforms and 24 inch "low floor" trains over 48 inch platforms and standard-height railway cars. But I haven't seen anybody explain what those reasons are.

[electricron]

Yet, there are double level trains all around the world, from streetcars to HSR trains. ALL of them have stairs on the trains.

Well, I can't speak to the prevalence of double level trains. I lived in Europe for a number of years, and never saw, let alone rode, a double-level train. (Which is not to say that there weren't any anywhere.) The S-Bahnen in Munich, Hamburg, and Berlin were all single-level with level boarding and no steps anywhere, and they looked like their floors were about the same height as the subways and (single-level) commuter trains in NY. The long-distance trains I saw were all single-level, where you had to step down one or two steps to get onto the platform, but nothing like the precipitous steps on Amtrak's East Coast trains.

My understanding is that anything above 8 inches impacts freight operations. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If so, using "low level" (by your definition) platforms would have not helped things at all, because they'd still have been over 8 inches and thus would have required gantlet tracks as much as the 48-51 inch platforms do. Once the railroads in the Northeast decided to go with level boarding, there was no reason not to simply build them at the height of the standard passenger cars of the time.

Now, there may be reasons to prefer, say, 24 inch platforms and 24 inch "low floor" trains over 48 inch platforms and standard-height railway cars. But I haven't seen anybody explain what those reasons are.

Have you rode trains in Holland, Switzerland, Austria, Luxembourg, Germany, and France? Even the TGV has double level trains.
Here's a few links to photos of European double level trains:
Holland http://www.bombardier.com/files/en/supp ... andsHR.jpg
Austria http://www.stadlerrail.com/media/tmp/ca ... op_q95.jpg
Switzerland http://www.stadlerrail.com/media/tmp/ca ... op_q95.jpg
Luxembourg http://www.stadlerrail.com/media/tmp/ca ... op_q95.jpg
Germany http://www.stadlerrail.com/media/tmp/ca ... op_q95.jpg
France http://www.alstom.com/Global/Transport/ ... calecanvas

It's true anything over 8 inches above top of rail has inferences with freight. Not every track in America has freight on them, there are some passenger only tracks. And where there are freight interferences, there are things that can be done to clear them without lowering the platform to less than 8 inches.

The advantage of lower floors on trains and platforms is mainly cost. Shorter ramps for wheelchair access to the ramps, slab pours vs pier and beams platforms, easier to climb off the tracks if you fall off the platform onto the tracks, and I just started listing a few reasons. I suppose others could pipe in with more reasons. But the idea that there aren't any valid reasons is completely false.

[Myrtone]

How about the embodied energy in cateneries and platforms, in particular how does it compare with what substations can output?