 |
| EMU low door configuration |
The lower doors of the EMUs will feature a deploying step at 15 inches (measured above the top of the rail), halfway between the 8-inch platform and the 22-inch train floor. The resulting step arrangement, when deployed, is similar to the existing Bombardier cars, although the floor height of the Bombardiers is 3 inches higher.
So far, so good.
A closer examination of the step mechanism (see Stadler engineering drawing, as submitted to FRA) shows that the step module retracts upward from its 15 inch deployed height, using a cam mechanism, and stows with the step tread 2.5 inches below the door sill. This makes the step unusable for an ADA-compliant level boarding interface, where it might have been configured to close the gap with a 22" platform, at the same height as the train floor. Recall that ADA regulations for unassisted level boarding require a platform gap less than 3 inches, with vertical discontinuity less than 5/8".
One faction of Caltrain staff evidently envisions level boarding using the low doors of the new EMUs, but the engineering drawing proves this is out of the question without a complete redesign and replacement of the door step mechanism. Even then, there are serious questions about the feasibility of a gradual transition to level boarding where the train fleet must serve a slowly evolving mix of 8-inch and raised level platforms.
As per usual with level boarding, the end goal is clear, but getting there is the hard part and often involves lots of hand waving.
Consultant Still Doesn't Get It
Not only is the lower level door step mechanism unsuited for future level boarding, but Caltrain's vehicle engineering consultant, LTK Engineering Services, states that low platforms will be used indefinitely. On page 1 (PDF page 5) of the recent FRA waiver application, we read:
Initially, Caltrain will utilize only the lower level doors to serve their existing 8-inch platforms. Once CHSRA service begins in the corridor, there will be a station or two that will have high level platforms and will be served by the Caltrain EMUs via the intermediate level doors. Other Caltrain stations will remain low level and will be served by the lower level doors.No! Continued use of 8-inch platforms means long dwell times and time-consuming conductor-assisted boarding for persons of reduced mobility using a manually emplaced bridge plate. This antiquated state of affairs cannot be allowed to persist. Blithely ignoring the minutes that can be saved while the train is at rest is unacceptable, especially after spending two billion dollars to save minutes while the train is in motion.
It is time to adopt a policy on level boarding, and to push Caltrain's staff and consultants to reach agreement on the technical approach to get there. Here we are in 2018 and there is still obvious disagreement about whether to implement level boarding at all (a no-brainer if you look at the big picture) and at what height, using what doors on the new EMU fleet. Stop dithering and do it!
Footnote: there are multiple waiver petitions relating to EMU design details.
FRA-2009-0124 Tier I Alternative Vehicle Technology crashworthiness (approved)
FRA-2017-0104 Position of bathroom car emergency exit window (approved)
FRA-2018-0003 Use of upper doors in lieu of emergency exit windows (denied)
FRA-2018-0067 Emergency brake handles, grab irons and steps, clearances (pending)
Posts
Honestly, what's even the point of these consultants? Are they providing anything of value?
ReplyDeleteDon't blame the consultant as they are just following orders.
DeleteNote that the SSF station is being completely rebuilt (at a cost of $60+ million) -- with a planned opening date that coincides with completion of the "modernization" project. Building the new station with level-platform boarding is a complete no-brainer....and yet it is being done with 8" platforms. If they can't even get their new stations done right, then the situation is utterly hopeless.
The PR department talks about the SSF station having maximum ADA improvements. I emailed them asking how they make such a claim when the station will still require wheelchair lifts. The staff who responded to my email query had no idea what I was even talking about.
I may misunderstand the engineering drawing, but to me, it looks like a modification of the standard retractable step design. Normally the retractable step is simply pushed outward until maximum extension or it touches the platform. In this design, it gets pushed out, and then moves downward to the lower position. This is accomplished by the two holding elements on each side of the step.
ReplyDeleteWhen that lower step is no longer needed, "all that has to be done" is to remove those two holding elements, and fix the step to the two bars being pushed out (or replace the mechanism with the standard mechanism, whatever is easier to accomplish). As a guesstimate, this back-conversion is the matter of at most half a day in the workshop per car, maybe even half a day for the whole train.
I'd have to look at the standard set up; which I think I can within the next few days.
If the distance between floor and retractable step is too high, it looks to me to be feasible to lift the back end of the step when it is in its most outward position, thus creating a short ramp, which would make it compliant.
Sounds good, but how do you operate when only half the stations have had their platforms raised?
DeleteNote: this is the correct place in the thread where this reply is supposed to be.
DeleteSome quick and dirty idea would be to expand the rail on which the roller for the step moves. A sensor, or a location-aware control software (or simply an action by the driver*) would push out that rail if there is a higher level platform, and not, if it is lower level. It would, however require another set of actuators, and add additional complication.
The current version has the big advantage that it is fully mechanic, without any "smart" components, which makes it very reliable.
However, height-adjustable steps are and have been used for decades in light rail vehicles (such as in Bonn, Frankfurt, but also San Francisco)
*) When there is real mixed operation, using both levels of doors, this question (what is operated) must be answered anyway. I could imagine that the door operating panel would have three instead of two buttons: high-level, mid-level, low-level, which then operate the according doors. Although from what I have seen elsewhere in the US, it may be that only a section of the platform would be at a higher level; in this case, it would have to be to the individual door to set the level.
The far simpler solution is to use the high doors for level boarding, i.e. not just "a station or two" with high level platforms, but eventually all of them.
DeleteThis has the merit of operational simplicity through an extended construction period, using the trains exactly as they were configured.
The real challenge is to get them to think beyond "a station or two".
I fully agree on that. Using the doors on the intermediate level of the cars would be the most efficient way to deal with passengers for the upper and lower deck. Actually, it would be even more efficient if the doors were triple-wide instead of double-wide, but it is way too late for that.
DeleteTraveling around the NYC Area, you routinely see temporary high level platforms that the MTA, an agency not known for its speed or responsiveness, has slapped together out of wood and angle bars. What's to stop Caltrain from doing the same thing until a more permanent platform can be built?
ReplyDeleteExactly. I've used temporary wooden platforms in Germany, too. Including at the super-busy Rathaus Steglitz S-Bahn station in Berlin.
DeleteFYI:
ReplyDeleteBART has announced another slip in the schedule to start service to San Jose. Some networking equipment presently installed doesn't meet the contract specs.
[also: a comment by former BART board member, Robert S. Allen]
http://www.vta.org/News-and-Media/Connect-with-VTA/VTAs-BART-Berryessa-Extension-Update#.W5hOMOhKg2z
Please do not confuse BART and VTA's finest!
DeleteBreaking News: http://www.sfexaminer.com/downtown-rail-extension-route-salesforce-transit-center-wins-approval/
ReplyDeleteWell, it is better than choosing an incompatible height with CAHSR. I think Caltrain is just waiting for CAHSR construction to start on SF-Gilroy to make the decision easier, and finally shut-the-mouth of the "make CAHSR choose low platform instead of Caltrain choose high platform" faction.
ReplyDeleteBREAKING NEWS (we NEVER saw that one coming)...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/FRA-Nine-railroads-at-risk-of-not-qualifying-for-PTC-extension--55623
Nine railroads — all passenger — have been determined to be "most at risk" of failing to qualify for an extension of the Dec. 31 deadline to implement positive train control (PTC): New Mexico Rail Runner Express, Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New Jersey Transit, Altamont Corridor Express, Maryland Area Regional Commuter, Trinity Railway Express, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SunRail), Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) and Central Florida Rail Corridor (SunRail).
DeleteThe FRA is authorized to assess fines against railroads that fail to implement PTC by the Dec. 31 deadline or that fail to qualify for an extension.
Qualifying for the alternative schedule would provide those railroads with up to another two years to complete the process.
August 1st 2013
DeleteAUTHORIZE AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP TO RESTRUCTURE OPTION 2 TO CREATE NEW PHASES 3 AND 4 AND TO EXERCISE OPTION 2, NEW PHASE 3 FOR A COMMUNICATIONS-BASED OVERLAY SIGNAL SYSTEM/POSITIVE
TRAIN CONTROL (CBOSS/PTC) IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $53.7 MILLION
Ms. Harrington said at the June Board meeting she presented an overview and status of this project. This contract was awarded in phases to Parsons Transportation Group. She said staff is splitting this option into a Phase 3 and Phase 4 because there are some possible funding opportunities. This is to start the construction of the project. The project is on schedule and budget. Ms. Harrington said there is a letter from Roland Lebrun with a series of questions and staff will respond to him in writing, but staff has no information that supports his statement that the project is not going to make the deadline. She said she wants to thank Mr. Lebrun for identifying a typo on the bottom of page two; it should say May instead of March.
Public Comment
Roland Lebrun, San Jose, said the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the National Transit Safety Board (NTSB) have known for over six months that Caltrain cannot possibly meet the 2015 PTC implementation deadline. He said this was confirmed during the testimony to the Senate Transportation Committee on June 19.
Mr. Lebrun said since we now know the deadline cannot be meet (sic) there is an opportunity to hit the pause button. He said this would give time to hire an independent entity that can be trusted to provide the Board with unbiased advice, including how complete re-signaling could substantially improve the capacity of the line. He said this would have no impact on the budget because the Board has already approved $90 million in unspecified oversight activities. Mr. LeBrun said the other option is to approve the staff recommendation, but how can the Board rely on the advice of people who either don’t know what is going on or are not telling the truth.”
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Board+of+Directors/Minutes/2013/8-1-13+JPB+Minutes.pdf (page 4).
The FRA docket for Caltrain PTC is FRA-2010-0051 and the latest letter from the FRA is here. The concern from FRA isn't just that Caltrain won't meet the December 31st, 2018 statutory deadline (that ship sailed long ago), but also that they do not seem to be on the proper glide path to meet the requirements for an extension.
DeleteAren't Caltrain's units already fitted with UP PTC for runs between SJ and Gilroy?
DeleteNope. There was a funding grant to equip a Gilroy sub-fleet of seven trains with I-ETMS (a.k.a. "UP PTC") after they realized they couldn't inter-operate and before CBOSS was finally flushed down the toilet, but that work is now being done on the entire fleet. To spice things up, program management on the Wabtec side is having some turnover. Meanwhile, CBOSS litigation drags on. I'm fairly certain we're not done with the PTC fireworks.
DeleteLooking on the bright side...having the FRA shut down Caltrain would speed up electrification work.
DeleteA complete Caltrain shutdown is closer than you think. See FRA 9/17 letter to the Governor:
Deletehttps://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=FRA-2010-0051-0072&attachmentNumber=1&contentType=pdf
How about asking them to take over "HSR"? We can only dream...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vvdailypress.com/news/20180918/brightline-is-taking-over-high-speed-rail-between-victorville-las-vegas
Update on the Caltrain "Business" "Plan":
ReplyDeletehttp://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/CAC/Presentations/2018/2018-09-19+JPB+CAC+presentation+toolbox.pdf
What could possibly go wrong?
California bullet train picks its path between Burbank and Palmdale
ReplyDeletehttp://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-high-speed-rail-palmdale-burbank-20180919-story.html
Additionally, Xpresswest was purchased by Brightline (itself owned by Florida East Coast RR):
Deletehttp://www.xpresswest.com/news.html
IIRC they want to build to Victorville, which is adjacent Palmdale.
85 km adjacent, yeah.
DeleteI think things are getting rejiggered to try to provide more short term benefit to Southern California before HSR goes SF to LA.
Agreed. Last time I checked, SF was in the opposite direction, so it looks like they have switched their attention to the Las Vegas branch?
DeleteInteresting that they chose the SR-14 route. I thought they would settle on the Max Tunnel option E1. I guess one of the advantages is that the SR-14 route crosses the Metrolink alignment just east of Santa Clarita and before the longest (13-mile?) tunnel. Seems like the route from Palmdale to here could be built first to take ~20mins off the Metrolink time from Palmdale.
DeleteYes. And every little green section on this map is a potential Electrolink station.
DeleteProp 1A limits the total number of stations for the full build out to 24.
DeleteThat’s quite irrelevant. Prop 1A is silent on the allowable number of regional rail stations (not served by HSR). For example, the SF to Gilroy section has more than 24 stations already.
DeleteI disagree. The Caltrain stations are and have been in place. Here we would have new tracks, paid for by Prop 1A bond revenues and quite clearly (at least to me), adding more stations along this new route is not allowed.
DeleteIn any case, who cares. They will never get the needed (over $50 Billion) to build south of Bakersfield.
It's even more irrelevant because once the Prop 1A funds are spent, there is no limitation on number of stations. I know you disagree on that, Morris, but I've never seen any law to the contrary.
DeleteAnd won't most of the most vociferous sour-grapes HSR harassers be hopelessly senile or dead by that time anyway?
DeleteA reminder that Morris is welcome to post here and that ageist comments are uncalled for.
DeleteWho said anything about Morris?
DeleteWhether "called for" or not, Is it not a simple statement of fact that most of the most vociferous sour-grapes HSR harassers are old? And if so, isn't it also true that (actuarially, anyway) that by the time SoCal tunneling occurs most will be hopelessly senile or dead? (Implication being that HSR opposition, and particularly doggedly persnickety nitpicking over precisely what Prop 1A said or didn't say, will wane over time ... and at the present rate, we're looking at a lot of time before SoCal tunneling occurs!)
@ Reality Check: who writes:
Delete" Is it not a simple statement of fact that most of the most vociferous sour-grapes HSR harassers are old?"
Why age should matter is beyond me, but your statement of fact is wrong. Just let me point out, as an example, that the opposition group CARRD female leaders hardly fit into your categorical classification.
I wasn't aware that CARRD was an "opposition group". They've positioned themselves more as a watchdog. They may be using their watchdog status to undermine the project, but whatever.
DeleteAge doesn't capture the "supporter" vs. "opponent" cutoff either. I've met young people ideologically opposed to HSR, and older people in favor. Also, implying that old people shouldn't have a say is simply undemocratic. Should John McCain not have had a say in the Senate just because he was 82?
I know in the world of NIMBY vs. YIMBY battles over housing and urban design, etc., there is this notion that those more closely approaching their sell-by dates (often retired and sometimes with nothing but tons of discretionary time on their hands) ideally shouldn't have the outsized determinate role in those mostly political decision-making processes when it really is the legions of less involved, busy younger people and their children that will be (stuck) with living out their lives with the results of the development and policy decisions being made now.
DeleteIt's an interesting observation, but obviously our elected leaders, SCOTUS justices, etc., tend to be older white guys ... so there's that. There was actually some great research that recently came out about the outsized role of older, richer, grumpy white guys having an outsized role in the public participation sphere.
But is anyone saying old people should have no say? Not that I've seen.
With all due respect most of the HSR opponents I meet in real life tend to be twentysomething tech people who are way into self-driving cars or (god forbid) the occasional tinfoiler who thinks HSR is a Chinese Plot To Hack America's Based And Redpilled Freight Railroads.
DeleteAnyway, on topic: one wonders if Mr.Cox is elected and he decides to "fix" CHSRA by doing LA first instead of second, or trying to do Palmdale tunnels as a P3 with XPW/FEC. Given FEC's success in getting infrastructure loans out of HSR opponent Rick Scott, I doubt CAHSR could be killed outright at this point.
You can save your respect, I don't need any. You make a fair point. I have the die-hard HSR foes that are doing more than just spouting off. Talk is cheap. You know, the ones that actually organize, show up, testify, engage, sue (repeatedly ... or underwrite or entreat others to do so), etc.
DeleteMost of the most — not all of the most.
ReplyDeleteA thought occurred to me: Republicans tend to dislike catenary-based transit while the state's emissions goals disincentives combustion. Units with battery/h2 cell tenders would satisfy both, especially with all the recent interest in liquid batteries/power transfer the Dept. of Energy is doing. Dunsmuir 2036 could be just like it was in 1936!
ReplyDeleteDon't be ignorant while also looking foolish with a comment like that.
DeleteA number of people seem to think the new Valley Link system is going to go battery-electric instead of diesel-electric for the reasons I've described. Additionally, the Tri Valley San Joaquin Valley RRA were themselves shown battery-electric MUs in a presentation by Siemens.
Delete(though I am being facetious with the tender part, but I wouldn't be surprised if pops up as a serious suggestion in the next few years).
The battery-electric MUs presentation to the Tri Valley RRA was by Stadler, not Siemens.
ReplyDeleteThe bimode MUs being discussed by the Tri Valley people are DIESEL battery electric. The energy source is still fossil fuel. Here is the Stadler presentation with lots of technical details.
DeleteThis is incorrect. Slide 20 shows a power module with 1 x v8 diesel, 3 x battery power packs and a pantograph used to recharge the batteries at the termini. The diesel generator is a backup (not a permanent power source) designed to kick in only if the batteries need recharging mid-trip (hopefully never).
DeleteOn a related note, this presentation highlights Stadler's main failing: inefficient use of interior space for passenger accommodation. Bombardier absolutely nailed this over 10 years ago starting with the AGC by mounting all traction power equipment either underfloor or on the roof:
https://library.e.abb.com/public/8d3799193d391d53c12571d900425e1f/49-51%203M651B_ENG72dpi.pdf
The pantograph appears to be used in EMU operation. It makes zero sense to lug around a transformer if all you’re doing is charging up a (relatively) low voltage battery at the terminus.
DeleteThe battery capacity seems a bit on the light side to climb a pass like Altamont with a vehicle of that weight. I get that you can recover energy on the downhill, but only if you make it to the top in the first place...
As ingenious the AGC is (particularly when compared to what Alstom offered at that time, and considering what was asked for (replacement of the "autorails", light DMUs)), there is no comparison between the AGC and the FLIRT. The FLIRT's installed power (electric) is twice that of the AGC in comparable configuration.
DeleteYou may also note that the transformers in the FLIRTs are roof-mounted (and, if I am not totally wrong, also provided by ABB).
Also note when comparing seating capacity, the AGC has 2+3 seating, wheras the FLIRT has 2+2 (remember, AGC stands for "Autorail à Grance Capacité"
The graphic on page 20 of the Stadler presentation shows the location of the power components, but not an actual configuration (at least, I am not aware of one). Concentrating the power equipment over the driving bogies also contributes to the tractive force available.
If terminal charging via pantograph is intended, a transformer would not be needed, as an appropriate DC voltage could be directly fed to the pantograph (which, not being used for operation, can be of a very simple design.
What are the key data of the Altamont pass line (length and level of grade)?
A bit off-topic (if the Administrator thinks it is too much so, feel free to delete the message): A little bit in the context of FLIRTs, in particular the version for the Aosta valley mentioned in the Stadler presentation, I would like to point to some railporn by the very gifted Swiss rail photographer Georg Trüb. He is very active on railpictures.net (go to the main page of that site, then search for the Photographer). He is quite often near the Stadler factory, and gets to photograph pretty much every new thing coming out of that factory…
DeleteMost recent highlights: the bi-modal variant of the FLIRT3 for Abellio Greater Anglia (PhotoID 671982), the the already mentioned bi-modal variant of the FLIRT3 for the Aosta valley (PhotoID 761628), and finally one of the most elegant looking FLIRT3, the new VoralpenExpress for the Swiss Südostbahn (which will soonish also operate over the old Gotthard line) (PhotoID 671979 and 671980).
You have been warned… don't blame me if you forget time looking at Georg's pictures…
FYI. China expanded its HSR system over the weekend with the opening of the West Kowloon station in Hong Kong, connecting HK with the mainland.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cnn.com/style/article/hong-kong-high-speed-rail-west-kowloon-station-intl/index.html
https://www.sfgate.com/chris-mcginnis/article/Hong-kong-high-speed-rail-13254501.php
Caltrain news: to work on electrification, service to San Francisco is going to be temporarily suspended on weekends.
ReplyDeletehttps://sf.curbed.com/2018/9/25/17901432/caltrain-weeked-sf-service-cancelled-rereoute-closure
(Literally) Breaking News: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-Transbay-Transit-Center-crack-What-you-need-13258044.php
ReplyDeleteAll train service to Transbay is suspended until further no... wait. Never mind.
DeleteHouston, we have a problem:
Deletehttps://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/09/26/transbay-transit-center-crack-found-in-second-beam.html
What's the "problem"?
DeleteThere was an "architectural" "competition" which was rigged so firstly nearly every competent practice passed or was excluded, and which was "won" by the worst, most expensive, most insane, most tranportation-hostile team of AMERICA'S FINEST.
Train service was immediately thrown under the metaphorical bus. (Give us another six billion to complete the job! Unless you're not TRANSIT FIRST, and we know you love transit, right?)
Besides which sturctural columns -- supporting a 100% superfluous and harmful greenwash bullshit park in the sky, a 100% superfluous and harmful above-ground mezzanine level, a 100% superfluous and harmful underground mezzanine level -- were sketched on thge back of a paper napkin in an array by some intern-level shithead at ARUP North America and then never even slightly altered by the "winners" of the "architectural" "competition". Oh, the columns are placed *EXACTLY WHERE* train tracks *NEED* to go and where escalators and elevators *NEED* to go to to get trains and people in and out of the sjitty dark hole underneath the park, mezzanine, street, mezzanine. But what do you expect for over $100 million (OVER A HUNDRED MILLION UNITED STATES EARTH DOLLARS!) of "architectural design services" from America's Finest?
And yeah, so the "train station" can never work for rail transportation.
So yeah, there are three entirely unnesssary and actively harmful levels on what neeeded to be a two level (buses up, trains down) *transportation* facility in downtown SF.
So yeah, any hypothetical trains that every hypothetically get into the shithole underground will be stuck in tunnels waiting for other trains to work their way around the intern's structural columns on numerous choke-points.
So yeah, any bus that does enter or leave this hpothetical "transportation" facility needs to make a full stop because some asshole made the inbound and outbound bus lanes cross over at grade, even though they're coming from a grade-separated bridge on two separate levels. (Death really is too kind a fate.)
So yeah, maybe the steel (which the TJPA criminals involved are at pains to point out uis Proudly Made in the USA, and of course Proudly Designed in the USA, and Proudly Erected in the USA) is breaking, but, you know, so what?
The system's working!
It's working perfectly.
The fucking insane "design" cost three times what anybody with a single functioning brain cell would have paid.
Lots of people made off with BILLIONS of dollars. That's thousands of millions. Gone.
Somebody's going to make a lot of money fixing the unexpected design flaw that somebody made hundreds of millions to come up with.
And there's still going to be a fucking useless park in the sky, with lowest-common-denominator greenwashing and "public art" (oh God, fucking Ned Kahn again?), there's still going to be a Great Hall that serves no purpose other than divert transit passengers and make buses and trains even slower than driving, there are still going to be two insanely expensive and harmful and unnecessary mezzanine levels, and there's still NOT GOING TO BE TRAIN SERVICE.
But give us another six billion, and maybe we'll think about it. Suckers.
I see no problem here. And neither does Houston.
Thanks to winning one-third ($164.5m) of its state Transit Intercity Capital Rail Program (TIRCP) grant request, it appears Caltrain is planning to exercise an option for 37 additional powered Stadler KISS EMUs (@ $4.95m each) by Dec. 31 of this year, allowing for 19 7-car (instead of the currently-funded 6-car or hoped-for 8-car) EMU trainsets.
ReplyDeleteNote this is contingent on Prop 6 failing in November, which it probably will if polls are accurate. Base order is 16 x 6, this makes it 19 x 7. The bikes on board people are going to be pissed because the ratio goes from 7.9 seats/bike to 9.3 seats/bike, versus board "policy" aiming for 8.
DeleteYes, if today's polls are not only accurate, but also if they're predictive of the final count after election day.
DeleteAt least the bike ratio will have gone down due to the pie getting bigger and not losing any pie.
On the HSR front -- huge opposition in So. Calif.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-bullet-train-20180930-story.html
California high-speed rail: A train to nowhere without a conductor
It's super easy for a very small group of people to hijack this sort of meeting. Doesn't mean that they speak for the community or that they will actually achieve anything. In other words, this is not "huge opposition".
DeleteVery ambitious and very expensive future plans for Caltrain
ReplyDeletehttps://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/caltrain-expansion-in-works/article_9d498d84-c859-11e8-8b28-7bbb89aca84f.html