Rail group projects service in five years (Calgary-Edmonton)

High-level platforms allow much faster loading

For all types of railroad equipment? TGVs, Talgos, Superliners, GO Transit bilevels et all cannot load/unload at a high platform—they need low platforms. AAR Plate B freight car equipment cannot pass a high platform without destroying it—they are too wide, at 10 feet 8 inches width.

TGV stops are something like 2 minutes instead of 30 seconds precisely because of the decision to use low-level platforms

Besides the fact that such a thing if related to exit door configuration has nothing to do with the platform height, why would you want to have a 30-second dwell time at an intermediate station for an intercity train? Such things only help with commuter trains. The thinking is different when it comes to intercity high speed stuff.

High-level platforms are a good way of future-proofing yourself. What if the line gets really busy? Japan has been using high-level platforms for their bullet trains from day one. Like it or not, high level platforms are probably the universal standard these days on most new lines. A lot of that has to do with public perception of how you should board a train. People just want the doors to slide open and then you walk directly on board, without climbing stairs. Yes, low-level platforms cost less to build, but in the context of an already expensive rail line a few hundred thousand more per station is a tiny percentage of the budget. The time savings easily pays for the cost anyway.

High platforms are not the universal standard—in fact, they are the exception.

If you think getting in and out of a TGV Duplex at a high platform would be easier, think again. Do you think you have to climb steps to get inside the train? If you compare this to the Shinkansen E1 through E4 series, then remember that you have to climb down stairs to get into its lower level, whereas with the TGV Duplex, you don't climb stairs to get on—you walk through the door and are on the lower level already.

You're talking about either bilevel equipment or articulated single level equipment here. In all those cases there are no stairs the passenger climbs to board. With unarticulated single level equipment and low-level platforms there would be stairs. I remember how long it used to take Amtrak to unload at low-level platforms on the NEC precisely because of the stairs. It seemed like the train was in the station forever. There's no mention of what type of equipment the new line would use but I would hope they thought these issues through. Admittedly, high-level platforms wouldn't work too well for bilevel equipment. Even putting aside our disagreements on platform types, one downside of the low-level platforms is that you can easily go from platform to track level. This essentially "invites" children, or even stupid adults, to walk the tracks to get from one side of the station to the other. Barriers help, but even so it's not difficult to imagine people straying onto the tracks just because they can. Maybe that's another reason high-level platforms were chosen? Today's legal climate unfortunately doesn't insulate railroads from stupid behavoir on the part of their patrons.

Regarding dwell times, unless the passenger level is at platform level, you waste space for stairs with every extra door you have. It is possible to have center doors to speed loading of single level equipment at low-level platforms in theory, but I've never seen it done. I guess the reason is it would use too much space. And the stairs would still slow entry/exit down anyway. So basically then center doors to speed loading only make sense with bilevel/low platforms or single level/high platforms. I'm guessing they're planning to use single level equipment here. If not, then I agree the decision to use high-level platforms makes no sense except maybe in the liability reasons I mentioned earlier.

I forgot to mention that TGV equipment has other problems which prevent quick loading. The articulated design means you can't have doors on the ends of the single level equipment (bilevel is another story, but then you need steps to go to either level). On single level equipment the space above the trucks just won't allow enough headroom for a door. You're stuck then with one door per side. Thankfully, the coaches are about 61 foot long, not 85 feet, so you're not losing as many doors per length of train as you would with articulated 85-foot coaches. Still, due to this design decision the TGV is stuck with fairly long dwell times. I'm sure at this point they wish they could get them lower. 30 second dwell times are desireable for any service I would think even if they're not currently the norm for intercity service. If most high-speed intercity services have two stops per hour you're saving 3 minutes per hour, or 5%, by cutting the dwells from 2 minutes to 30 seconds. That's not insignificant at all. It's probably equivalent to increasing running speeds from 300 km/h to 320 km/h, which incidentally is starting to be done because the time savings of a few minutes are considered worth the extra energy costs. Shortening layovers gives you the same thing for free. Unfortunately, the TGV system in its present form can't do that. Maybe newer systems will be designed with this in mind, and hence the decision to use high-level platforms (and possibly unarticulated equipment with both end and center doors should ridership increase greatly).

Whatever misgivings you may have about the particulars, aren't you at least happy that HSR finally has a good chance of coming to North America in the near future? I know I am. It's time we finally got out of the dark ages and did what the rest of the world has been doing for the last 25 years. I just hope this proposal doesn't get watered down to lower speed diesel-powered service.

More on platform heights

1.8 feet is UIC standard in Europe and is used for the TGV network, among other things. 1.8 feet is really not low-level, but rather intermediate level. It is high enough to keep most trespassers off the tracks, but low enough to allow almost all US freight equipment to pass.

Ahh yes, the UIC platform. Yet another idea that should have been mandated 10 years ago.

With low floor equipment, it gives you nice, level boarding.

As far as Talgo? Actually, Talgo would be on my short list for a new build HSR line. Not the XXI, but one of their electric HST, which run quite well.

Depending on curves, the Pendolino or TGV/AGV would be, too. If you had curves where you could take advantage of the Pendolino's abilities, that'd push it. I wouldn't even consider the Acela design - too heavy, too slow, too hard on track, and poor performance anyway. I'd actually also rule out the Sinkansens, not because of any technical defects (there aren't any, but you expect and get that from Japan), but because it's so tailored to the Japanese market. Anything short of a total duplication of JR, wouldn't likely be that great with them. Not that duplicating JR would be a bad thing!

I'm sure the Canadian government will stick it's favorite builder into the mess, thus ensuring a sub standard end result. Seriously - their 'reference projects' are the ho hum ICE 3 (with Siemens!)...and the Acela (The high speed train for the 1970's). I hear Bombardier's snowmobiles suck too. I guess that's not a surprise, though...

And 186mph? That's so 1<b>9</b>86.

jtr1962 wrote:I remember how long it used to take Amtrak to unload at low-level platforms on the NEC precisely because of the stairs. It seemed like the train was in the station forever

Please represent the situation correctly. The train didn't load/unload slowly "because of the stairs". It was due to having to open doors manually. Commuter trains of that ilk ran, and still run, with doors open, where the equipment does not have "long doors" or automatic trapdoors. Amtrak did and does not run with doors open.

Even putting aside our disagreements on platform types, one downside of the low-level platforms is that you can easily go from platform to track level. This essentially "invites" children, or even stupid adults, to walk the tracks to get from one side of the station to the other. Barriers help, but even so it's not difficult to imagine people straying onto the tracks just because they can. Maybe that's another reason high-level platforms were chosen? Today's legal climate unfortunately doesn't insulate railroads from stupid behavoir on the part of their patrons

Legal climate? I invite you to look up LIRR's problems with gaps at their high platforms, and people falling through them or into them. Too many cases to simply "blame the passenger". (The LIRR has been all high platforms since the C3 bilevels started operation.)

Based on your preference, then all light rail must also have high platforms. That would mean the death of streetcar systems and historic trolley systems, and tons of money spent to upgrade subway-surface operations in Philadelphia, Newark and Boston, never mind the Cleveland Shaker Heights light rail.

It is possible to have center doors to speed loading of single level equipment at low-level platforms in theory, but I've never seen it done

Ever see the Rock Island 2700-series single-levels with doors at the quarter points?

Also remember that push-pull gallery cars (operated by Metra and Caltrain) have steps up to the lower passenger deck. These cars have been fitted with wheelchair lifts.

I forgot to mention that TGV equipment has other problems which prevent quick loading. The articulated design means you can't have doors on the ends of the single level equipment (bilevel is another story, but then you need steps to go to either level). On single level equipment the space above the trucks just won't allow enough headroom for a door. You're stuck then with one door per side. Thankfully, the coaches are about 61 foot long, not 85 feet, so you're not losing as many doors per length of train as you would with articulated 85-foot coaches. Still, due to this design decision the TGV is stuck with fairly long dwell times. I'm sure at this point they wish they could get them lower

I'm afraid I can't see the problem you appear to be citing. The total height of a TGV Sud-Est doesn't even reach 12 feet. Those doors would be useless at a high platform.

30 second dwell times are desireable for any service I would think even if they're not currently the norm for intercity service. If most high-speed intercity services have two stops per hour you're saving 3 minutes per hour, or 5%, by cutting the dwells from 2 minutes to 30 seconds. That's not insignificant at all. It's probably equivalent to increasing running speeds from 300 km/h to 320 km/h, which incidentally is starting to be done because the time savings of a few minutes are considered worth the extra energy costs. Shortening layovers gives you the same thing for free. Unfortunately, the TGV system in its present form can't do that. Maybe newer systems will be designed with this in mind, and hence the decision to use high-level platforms (and possibly unarticulated equipment with both end and center doors should ridership increase greatly)

Saving a few minutes every hour doesn't really affect the average speed on an intercity train. In fact, your "long" dwell time may even save electricity by not drawing as much current per hour. And remember, the more doors you put on a train, the fewer seats you can have, so is the loss of revenue worth a number of seconds? I know that after traveling for about an hour on a train, the last thing I want is to be rushed onto the platform to allow people to board and then the train hurries away without even giving me a chance to glance at it while it's standing in the station or wave to a pretty girl I might have been chatting with.

1.8 feet is UIC standard in Europe and is used for the TGV network, among other things. 1.8 feet is really not low-level, but rather intermediate level

That means Hoboken Terminal must be already UIC-compliant. A height of less than 22 inches is most definitely a low platform.

Whatever misgivings you may have about the particulars, aren't you at least happy that HSR finally has a good chance of coming to North America in the near future?

I see absolutely no guarantee of a "good chance" of that happening, with this public-private partnership setup trying to push for it. The particulars, aside from platform heights, are quite unrealistic; I pointed them out already (such as thinking they can take over the High-Level Bridge), never mind the two cities they intend to connect (why not Toronto and Montreal for example). If anything, upgrading the CP line to Old Strathcona makes more sense.

(Surprised that nobody cited Canada's low average population density of 9.3 people per square mile yet? These HSR haters are slow this year.)

RVRR 15 wrote:Please represent the situation correctly. The train didn't load/unload slowly "because of the stairs". It was due to having to open doors manually. Commuter trains of that ilk ran, and still run, with doors open, where the equipment does not have "long doors" or automatic trapdoors.

Opening the traps and doors added maybe a big 15 seconds to the dwell times, if that. No, the problem is that it takes people way longer to go on or off a train if they need to go down steps as opposed to level boarding. This is particularly true with narrow steps such as exist on the Amfleets, and if the people are likely to be carrying luggage. I saw this with my own two eyes. And when I say long dwell times, I'm talking about 3 or 4 minutes to deal with fewer people than the Arrows could at high platforms in under one minute.

Legal climate? I invite you to look up LIRR's problems with gaps at their high platforms, and people falling through them or into them. Too many cases to simply "blame the passenger". (The LIRR has been all high platforms since the C3 bilevels started operation.)

I'm aware of that problem. Remember that this is the MTA we're talking about. They take incompetence to an art form. Somebody probably left out a decimal place somewhere and that's where the gaps come from. It doesn't seem like it would take rocket science to fix it. Either extend the platforms, or move the tracks, or add a retractable gap filler as is used on some European equipment.

Based on your preference, then all light rail must also have high platforms. That would mean the death of streetcar systems and historic trolley systems, and tons of money spent to upgrade subway-surface operations in Philadelphia, Newark and Boston, never mind the Cleveland Shaker Heights light rail.

Not at all. Streetcar systems run at low speeds. The operators expect obstacles and operate according. This is a completely different environment than HSR where a train might be bypassing a station at 300 km/hr, or entering a station to stop in excess of 80 km/hr.

I'm afraid I can't see the problem you appear to be citing. The total height of a TGV Sud-Est doesn't even reach 12 feet. Those doors would be useless at a high platform.

I was referring to putting a door at the each end of the coaches as is done with most 85-foot conventional equipment in order to operate with high platforms. I said it can't be done because there isn't enough room over the articulated truck to do so. Your picture shows that clearly. The TGV Sud-Est is designed for 1.8' platforms. You probably couldn't go much higher than that given the overall height.

Saving a few minutes every hour doesn't really affect the average speed on an intercity train. In fact, your "long" dwell time may even save electricity by not drawing as much current per hour.

Let's look at a real world example. HSR speed is being increased from 300 to 320 km/hr on many lines in the next few years. At best this is going to bring average travel speed up perhaps 5%, but at the expense of somewhat more power usage. Evidently it's considered worth it to cut a few minutes per hour since they plan to do it. Saving a few minutes per hour by cutting dwell times instead gives you the exact same thing with no extra power usage and somewhat reduced track/equipment wear. Whether the tradeoff of a few seats for extra doors is worthwhile or not is something I'm not sure has been studied with regards to intercity travel. And while you may not want to be hurried off the train, I'll bet if you weren't getting off you would appreciate the train getting underway 90 seconds or more sooner. To me anyway 2-3 minutes at a station seems like an eternity. A HST is simply an appliance to get people from point A to point B as rapidly and safely as possible. Unless rapid loading compromises safety, which it wouldn't in a well-designed system, it should be considered a design goal.

I guess a lot of my thought here is that an HSR system can be more economically viable if it has more stations but still offers high average speeds. The only way that can be accomplished is via quick loading and rapid acceleration/deceleration (let's say 2.5 to 3 mph/sec). France's TGV is a great system, but by its design the stations must be fairly widely spaced to achieve decent average speeds. I tend to think any new HSR line will encourage settlement near the ROW, and political pressure to add stops. The design features I espouse are a way of future-proofing the design. Maybe the line in question will always be low population density and these issues will never come up. However, an HSR line built from NYC to Albany, or Boston, or Washington, will have such issues from day one.

That means Hoboken Terminal must be already UIC-compliant. A height of less than 22 inches is most definitely a low platform.

In the context of our discussion I thought by low platform you meant something which is street level, and hence required stairs going up into the passenger compartment. Any platform type which allows level boarding is fine by me. I really wish you would have been clearer by what you meant from the beginning. When most people hear the words "low platform" they automatically think traps and steps. And for all we know, maybe whoever wrote the website considers any type of level-boarding to be "high-level" even if the platform height is only 22".

(Surprised that nobody cited Canada's low average population density of 9.3 people per square mile yet? These HSR haters are slow this year.)

The population density of the inhabited part of Canada is way higher than that. The mostly unihabited but huge northern part really brings the number down. I don't know enough to say whether or not this line was ill-planned or not. You apparently know a lot more of the particulars in this case. Agreed that Toronto to Montreal would have made way more sense. Heck, I could even see eventual connections from such a line to Albany and NYC. Toronto-Montreal-Albany-NYC would be a very viable HSR line. Well, it remains to be seen if this proposal gets built. No point speculating any more. I really hope something high-speed gets built in North America soon. If not this line, then another.