Amtrak Vermonter / Montrealer

How elaborate do the mini-highs have to be? I'd think that a wooden structure could be pounded together for under $10,000 per town - SEPTA has similar on their Airport Line.

Not very elaborate. They all have to be 1 car in length (i.e. both vestibules open) with a shelter. Materials and mechanics of how the platform accommodates freight can vary. Here's 3 legally acceptable examples for different applications. . .

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rutland (Ethan Allen Express):


Basic concrete job. Note that the platform edge is completely flat, instead of having a typical overhang with the yellow rumble strip like any other high or full-high. There's a small 'mind the gap' here where it's not flush with the door, so Amtrak staff assists by throwing bridge plates down from the vestibules. Way easier, quicker, and safer than assisting passengers with accessibility needs from a completely 100% low platform. Plate F freights on VRS can pass this platform without problems because it isn't flush with the passenger door.

This type of job is fine for Amtrak where the bridge plates stocked in every Amfleet's vestibules can be worked by a staffer. It's much less practical for commuter rail where there are fewer staffers aboard to scramble the bridge plates without creating dwell delays, especially on very frequent schedules where overcrowding on commuter coaches can inhibit conductors' ability to get to the bridge plates. ADA discourages the gap for commuter rail installations.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exeter, NH (Downeaster):


Concrete, the usual 1-car length + canopy. Note there's a full gapless platform edge here requiring zero staff assistance. Pan Am does run Plate F cars all up and down the Downeaster, and there are no passing tracks at many of the stations.

"Wide" freight cars are not really wide in absolute dimensions...but rather long and/or tall with suspension that allows more lateral movement. Both lateral movement of the individual car on its axles and lateral harmonics of a whole train scattered with Plate F cars. Take a 48-inch platform that's on any sort of curve, and the freights will tear out a chunk of the platform or risk derailing. But Plate F's can safely pass a 100% tangent 48-inch platform if it's going slow enough to limit its lateral movement...or if the high platform is only 1 car long and only interfacing with 1 freight car or 1 coupler between cars at a time to avoid the harmonics of the whole train.

"Technically OK" doesn't necessarily mean "wise foresight". PAR beats the living snot out of the Downeaster platform edges on a daily basis with strikes on the wood-edge platform bumpers and divots accumulating over time on both NNEPRA's platforms and their boxcars. NNEPRA and its host RR have higher-than-average maintenance costs because of the pounding those Downeaster mini-highs take, and have to do more frequent inspection and maintenance on those edge overhangs with time. Stations are only 15 years old, but we'll see a lot more of those edges needing patchwork maintenance and replacement of linear chunks starting in the next 5 years. PAR can never be accused of being forward-thinking, so the decision to allow fixed edges may prove penny-wise/pound-foolish when they start running some serious intermodal carloads up to Portland and get hit with bigger repair bills for platform damage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MBTA Wedgemere station on the Lowell Line:



Recent install with retractable platform edges. As you can see, pressure-treated wood here like a generic patio, not concrete. Wedgemere is a barebones secondary station, and they had a short budget and schedule for getting it compliant. This pair of minis only took about 6-8 weeks to erect, rolled up with a full platform resurfacing job. Concrete obviously lasts longer, but it's more expensive. And sometimes that's the difference between ADA now vs. ADA 15 years from now, so wood ends up the better value. There's no right or wrong answer, as every station's needs and every spending decision are different. Well-built wood structures can last 20 years under not-too-heavy passenger traffic if maintained correctly.

Now note the retractable edges (flipped in the up position because this pic was from before they opened for service). This is so wide-clearance Plate F freight cars can pass without dinging the platform edge like with ^Exeter^ above, but without creating a door gap like ^^Rutland^^. The platform edge is metal and on a hinge, with safety locks for both the up and down positions. Some installs do a lever so a single station/RR staffer can flip-and-lock from the platform; some require 2 MOW staffers or crewmembers in the track pit to push it up until it locks.

This setup is the legally recommended ADA fallback position for Plate F clearance routes with frequent service who can't build full-highs with passing tracks. Rutland-style bridge plates don't work at high commuter rail frequencies and staffing (nor does the ADA like those), and a CR agency like the T has too many platforms to maintain across its system to put up with constant patch jobs of platform strikes like those Downeaster intermediates. Slightly more expensive to build because of the flip mechanism, but the platform absorbs far fewer strikes. Flip edges and hinges wear out in time and need replacement, but they're prefab-replaceable and only require concrete touches if the hinge mounts are cracked. A commuter rail agency will typically have parts in-stock or on-order if any of their retractable minis have a problem.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


So it's an ironclad requirement of:
-- 1-car/2-vestibule length
-- ADA-accessible ramp
-- ADA-spec canopy

. . .and then materials and type of platform edging you use are build-to-suit for the situation and traffic levels. You can see a general hierarchy based on schedule frequencies. The edgeless Rutland style works for a 2-3 Amtrak round trips per day, but starts to get cumbersome to pull out the bridge plates every time at Downeaster-level 5-6 rounds trips per day. And you can see the pros/cons of the Downeaster fixed edges: good for the higher schedules and decent value when there's not a high number of stops like that to maintain, bad when the freight carloads are on a long-term upswing because maint costs increase with time. And then commuter rail frequencies and staffing can't deal with any door gaps whatsoever, and have a scale problem if too many platform edges are taking constant freight strikes...so they need the flippable edges for full accessibility at controlled maint costs.

Thanks for the examples, F-Line. Very helpful! My Railroad Engineering and Mass Transit courses in college didn't really touch on mini-highs - it was before the current ADA-informed FRA regulations about level boarding. We were also in Superliner-land, so level boarding was a bridge plate-ramp, a lift, or occasionally a low level-boarding platform.

Also interesting about the platform strikes by PAR. I wonder if a better track structure at the stations would lead to lower instances of strikes and a less-expensive platform in general.

For the next-gen regional cars, has there been any thought of including car-mounted retractable bridge plates?

mtuandrew wrote:Thanks for the examples, F-Line. Very helpful! My Railroad Engineering and Mass Transit courses in college didn't really touch on mini-highs - it was before the current ADA-informed FRA regulations about level boarding. We were also in Superliner-land, so level boarding was a bridge plate-ramp, a lift, or occasionally a low level-boarding platform.

Also interesting about the platform strikes by PAR. I wonder if a better track structure at the stations would lead to lower instances of strikes and a less-expensive platform in general.

For the next-gen regional cars, has there been any thought of including car-mounted retractable bridge plates?

I don't know about the next-gen cars. It is certainly going to be listed somewhere in the 400 pages of PRIAA specs because that's standard equipment. To some degree it's never going to be fully automated like a low-floor bus or railcar spitting out a wheelchair bridge plate to a curb or 8-inch platform with push of a button. All east-region coaches have presence of those low-platform door traps. The fully manual Amfleet bridge plates are just hung on the vestibule wall for conductors to manually lift and slide out on top of the closed door trap set in the high-platform position. If there's improved automation to be had for maneuvering the plates, design presence of the door traps is still going to make it so that they need some sort of staff assistance...even if it's less manual than it is today. Can't exactly get rid of the traps because all the other coaches in the consist that aren't facing the mini are boarding up the stairs from the low platform. And if for some structural-impact reason the mini-high isn't in the same position on every single consecutive stop it could sometimes be the rear instead of front car that is the designated ADA egress, meaning the traps have to be flipped between stops.


I wouldn't read much into the Downeaster platform design except "PAR being PAR". They lazily waved the requirement for anything else in '01 because they just didn't think about freight traffic ever increasing and thought a "swear jar" of few bucks of maint reimbursement to NNEPRA for strikes was all they needed to cover the need. Oops!...now the agreement with Norfolk Southern's happened and is flinging increased loads out of Ayer to Portland, filling up that reimbursement swear jar a bit faster than expected. And...oops!...now they've got legitimate IM growth prospects to Portland that are going to beat up the platforms so bad the swear jar was a costly brain fart they now regret. But that's our lovable little New England FAILroad doing what it does best.

Chances are it'll be in NNEPRA's best interest when those beat-to-piss platform edges need replacement to just jackhammer them clean off and install retractable-edge replacements to get rid of that whole maint annoyance. PAR's next owners will probably beg for it and be willing to chuck in some funding for the new edge installs just to get rid of the swear jar for good. I can't see NECR, VRS, or Norfolk Southern ever allowing DE-style fixed edges in Vermont, simply because they're not as stupid as Guilford/PAR was in '01.


What that probably means for the Vermonter and EAE is that as long as the schedules are limited they can probably build Rutland-style edgeless platforms when it's time to ADA these stations. On limited schedules with Amtrak-level staff assistance working the bridge plates it's more cost-effective. They would just need to make sure the design of the minis supports later installation of a real platform edge so they're future-proofed for increased traffic. If the station's on a turnout where tweak to a signalized interlocking and/or some very minor track work can make a de facto passer, stops like Claremont and White River Junction could feasibly get the freights' blessing for installing fixed edges if public money pays for the interlocking work and the freight carriers feel it does no harm. Maybe Rutland too if VRS's other tracks got reconfiged for superior layout. These carriers do, after all, have vested interest in playing nice with VTrans for all the freight upgrades the Vermonter and EAE have thrown their way...so barters are on the table.

In dark territory where any switches are hand-throw it'll definitely have to be retractable edges or future-proofing therein. And single-track constrained places like Castleton and Brattleboro (barring major reconfig on the driveway and sidewalks on either side for a passer track) are going to have to future-proof for retractables. It doesn't really matter, though, so long as you have the foresight to design a mini that can go any which way with the edges. The base build is going to be the same regardless--1 car, ramp, canopy, and situational choice of build materials--so you do the same amount of planning and spending regardless of current or future decisions on the edging. You can be fully indecisive when designing and building the thing, and make the edging decision last-minute. Or defer it for years if the frequencies are low enough for AMTK bridge plates to cover the need. Just make sure the platform's initially built to accept an add-on fixed or retractable edge later on, and every possibility is covered.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:I don't know about the next-gen cars. It is certainly going to be listed somewhere in the 400 pages of PRIAA specs because that's standard equipment. To some degree it's never going to be fully automated like a low-floor bus or railcar spitting out a wheelchair bridge plate to a curb or 8-inch platform with push of a button.

I ain't got time to look through there Guessing it isn't, though it really is simple for buses today. If Gillig, New Flyer, etc. can work it in with a touch of a button, I don't see why Siemens, Alstom, CAF, or Bombardier couldn't either.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Can't exactly get rid of the traps because all the other coaches in the consist that aren't facing the mini are boarding up the stairs from the low platform.

Yep, not an option, ever. Unfortunately.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:I wouldn't read much into the Downeaster platform design except "PAR being PAR". ... Chances are it'll be in NNEPRA's best interest when those beat-to-piss platform edges need replacement to just jackhammer them clean off and install retractable-edge replacements to get rid of that whole maint annoyance.

At least a concrete saw should make short work of those "beat-to-piss" edges and give installers a blank slate.

I think that instead of retractable edges, the platforms could use a practical resilient-edge material that's hard enough for passengers to walk on safely, soft enough to absorb the impact of a loaded Plate F centerbeam without tearing, flexible enough not to shatter at -20, and reasonably cheap... how about Patricia Quinn, Tim Mellon, and the Finks go collect discarded semi tread from I-95 to build new platform edges?

mtuandrew wrote:I think that instead of retractable edges, the platforms could use a practical resilient-edge material that's hard enough for passengers to walk on safely, soft enough to absorb the impact of a loaded Plate F centerbeam without tearing, flexible enough not to shatter at -20, and reasonably cheap... how about Patricia Quinn, Tim Mellon, and the Finks go collect discarded semi tread from I-95 to build new platform edges?

Problem with that is you still get frequent strikes scraping off paint jobs and taking divots, and still have that inconvenient "swear jar" driving up maint costs and frequency. When railars get circulated between all corners of 3 NAFTA countries and any given RR therein, there's always going to be cars with wobbly suspension that the freight carrier operating the train past these platforms can't feasibly isolate. PAR's boxcar fleet may be an utter state-of-repair joke, but if it's Union Pacific's or BC Rail's cars that tear splinters off the wood bumper post at Exeter there's nothing PAR's shops can do about that. It's going to happen. The reason retractables are preferred on clearance routes is because it takes one hell of a swing at full speed to land a strike. It sometimes happens...PAS intermodal trains full of craptacular-condition native Pan Am cars hit the North Leominster retractible on the MBTA Fitchburg Line with some regularity. But it's certainly easier to maintain a swear jar for maximum-profit Class I, 60+-car intermodal monsters that land relatively infrequent passing blows than it is for a medium-length Class II road freight making strikes all the damn time on a Downeaster fixed edge. Space-age edging materials don't control the strike count; traffic does. The goal is lowering the strike count so the swear jar can go away, not trimming the swear-jar payouts from a $20 bill to a $10. With enough traffic increases the swear jar gets just as full just as quickly.

So I don't think innovations in platform edge construction are going to focus on fixed edges. It'll be lower-cost, longer-lasting, easier to manipulate retractibles that end up the most beneficial R&D.

AAF ( Brightline cars are proposed to have retractable extensions mounted on the cars themselves. Might be the best way in the future for V-2 coaches ?

That is good news, esp since Siemens looks to be a prime bidder once the Amtrak regional and long-distance coach orders go out (hopefully within the next four years.) Also, I hope Amtrak doesn't delete the option

Definitely. I'd be interested to see how they integrate it with the traps. Still will likely have to be staff-assisted at the doors even if it's push-button or hand-crank, but that's a big solve for dwell times to take the manual labor out of the bridge plates. Commuter rail and frequent corridor routes like the DE are still going to need edges flush with the door because law is law for those very frequent tiers of service, but it would be ideal for the two VT routes and the Adirondack to be able to do Rutland-style gapped minis that don't need station attendants for the flip or angst from the freights about scrapes and cost of scrapes. Doubly so in dark territory where any station passing tracks or station turnouts are unusable on-the-fly from need to hand-throw all switches.

Dark territory does not mean there could not be some kind of dial up switches that automatically restore to the freight track.

east point: indeed. I'd think the conductor could even use a securely-coded garage door opener to raise & lower platforms.

F-line: Trains says the Brightline cars' bridge plates will be able to reach across a 12" gap. Even Guilford can't hit that, usually

I rode the Vermonter from Washington to Brattleboro on Friday, Sep. 23. (I rode a predawn VRE train to get from Fredericksburg to Washington Union Station.) A few notes from the trip:

The recorded boarding announcement in Union Station mentioned Amherst as a stop but not Holyoke, Greenfield, or Northampton.

Trains were stacked up outside 30th Street because of a signal problem. We lost half an hour.

The train was full about as far as New Haven and still had a lot of passengers on board when I got off at Brattleboro, where we arrived about 50 minutes late.

In Connecticut and Massachusetts we were frequently crawling along, owing to construction, I guess, but still passing the traffic on I-91.

One young lady got on in Connecticut and sat near enough for me to overhear her conversation. She called her grandmother to let her know that she was on her way. She said something like this: "Hi, Grandma. I'm on the Vermonter. I feel like I'm home." Talking to some Vermonters (people) later, I got the impression that some people have a personal attachment to this train, which I thought was nice.

(I returned by rail from Boston after visiting my brother and his family.)

The recorded boarding announcement in Union Station mentioned Amherst as a stop but not Holyoke, Greenfield, or Northampton.

This thread names Amherst as well. Since the old Mass Central line between Northampton and Amherst has become the Norwottuck Rail Trail, the dream of train service between the foregoing towns will probably never come true—at least not in my lifetime. However, with UMass and Amherst College providing a considerable source of potential ridership, would it make sense to link AMM with NHT via Amtrak bus?

Local bus coverage is excellent between Amherst and Northampton. Pioneer Valley Transit Authority's 43 local bus runs on 20-minute headways most of the day, and the Minuteman Express supplements it just for the colleges. $1.15 fare, but PVTA hasn't yet migrated to the MBTA CharlieCard for passes like most of the Regional Transit Authorities in MA have so you have to buy PVTA-specific monthly passes. It's definitely one of the better outer bus districts in the state in terms of overall route coverage and frequencies.

If/when the Inland Route proposal puts an intermediate stop in Palmer between Worcester and Springfield, PVTA has a route to that stop too from Amherst to cover all future east-west Amtrak schedules.

Local bus coverage is excellent between Amherst and Northampton.

Because the nearest local bus stop is in front of the Post Office, lugging heavy bags—especially amid inclement weather—can be quite burdensome. Even if PVTA stopped at Union Station, the bus is often crowded and, more to the point, hasn't a baggage compartment. In addition to facilitating transfers, Amtrak bus service to Amherst would allow a person to purchase a rail ticket through to AMM.