A complication in Caltrain's coming transition to level boarding is found in the train's bathroom, an amenity that requires equal access for passengers with reduced mobility under ADA regulations. During the procurement and design phase of the EMUs, the original plan was to fit in-vehicle wheelchair lifts to enable passengers with reduced mobility to move between the lower level and mid-level, for level boarding compatibility with future high-speed rail platforms (48" above rail, 73" from track center) and to enable bathroom access regardless of boarding level.
This plan fell apart because of practical considerations of cost and vehicle packaging: the bulky 800-pound capacity lifts would have impeded passenger flows in the lower-level vestibules, without providing any value until some distant future where Caltrain would need to dock at high-level platforms in stations shared with high-speed rail. Even then, the lifts would have been required indefinitely, to provide equal access to the bathroom on the lower level. The idea was so unappetizing that it was scrapped, and Caltrain has since focused its nebulous level-boarding strategy around European-like 550 mm platforms.
The EMUs are nevertheless designed for future conversion to high platforms. A different solution is available that would facilitate a transition to 48" platforms: a new single-level, high-floor bathroom car that would take the eighth slot in the consist. The EMUs were always planned to be eight cars long, as their numbering attests by skipping from 1, 2, 3 to 5, 6. Missing car number 4 could have this configuration, as modified from a Stadler drawing:
The new high-floor bathroom car would triple bathroom capacity of the trainset from one to three bathrooms, provide 60 seats with up to six wheelchair spaces, and enable a gradual transition to 48" level boarding using car-borne wheelchair lifts (such as the FRA and ADA compliant PowerLift by Rincon) to board passengers with reduced mobility from legacy 8" platforms, without the need for precise positioning of train doors relative to mini-high platforms. Once the transition to level boarding is completed, these lifts could be removed.
With the bridge plates already engineered for the EMUs (shown in photo at right but not fitted to the fleet as delivered) passengers with reduced mobility could board step-free without any crew assistance, greatly improving the predictability of dwell times and thereby increasing train speeds and corridor capacity.
The transition to high platforms would then entail the following steps:
- Extend all platforms and yards to support eight-car trains
- Incorporate new single-level bathroom cars to all trains
- Commission high level doors and install bridge plates
- Build new 48" platforms!
High platforms have the advantage of compatibility with high-speed rail, enabling any train to dock at any platform as needed and making optimal use of future corridor and station capacity. They allow high-speed trains to make stops at important places like Redwood City or Palo Alto with zero additional infrastructure. They allow Caltrain to operate like BART, with brief and predictable station dwell times, something that remains out of reach today even as our swift and modern EMUs must wait for extended periods at low platforms, in the manner of a Ferrari driven on a rutted dirt road.
The transition to high platforms bullet points fail to include when to add the new high-door/floor 2-bathroom cars to trains and how boarding for both types of riders (wheelchair-using & not) at those cars works in each step of the construction transition time from today’s all-low, to some-high, and finally to all-high station platforms.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible you missed the 2nd bullet point. At 8 inch platforms, the doors open only when a crew member helps to board or alight a passenger with reduced mobility, using the vehicle-borne lift. At 48 inch platforms, the doors always open.
DeleteDidn‘t miss 2nd bullet, but was wondering how the ambulatory riders board & alight from the high-floor/door-only car at not-yet-raised platforms during conversion.
DeleteOK, I was just wondering if your answer for those waiting on the platform (or aboard) was any better than the one I thought of: “please move to another car!” (ideally before the train stops to keep dwell time down and/or missing your train/station).
Just as subways, trams, etc. include "the doors will open on the right/left" with the automated next-station announcement, at Caltrain the platform level would be included. Meanwhile, the people waiting on the platform will see for themselves how high it is. (But then it doesn't much matter for them. If Caltrain stopped very accurately, more or less such that you could in theory install platform screen doors, you could just paint "the opening door will be here" on the platform. Given that Caltrain doesn't stop so accurately, the passengers will have to "chase the door" even if they would have wanted to queue up at the right spot.)
Delete--Hedgehog
Due to in-station ped & station-adjacent street crossing gates remaining down at some stations due to the longer 7-car trains stopping atop island circuits, Caltrain has started adding “spot EMU” signs/markers showing operators precisely where to consistently spot trains on platforms. (Staff said that in some cases crossing track circuits will also require adjustment.)
DeleteThe mini-high platform repositionings (or installations) for the EMUs should soon be complete at all stations.
For stations that are complete, bike car and other boarding door positions could be stenciled on platforms for the many years until an 8th car (if ever) is added.
This should help reduce reports of increased dwells due to bicyclists not knowing where on the platform they should expect to board bike cars (which are again filling to capacity on some peak period trains).
Let's say Caltrain adds high-floor bathroom cars, and converts one station to high-platform level boarding. Wheelchair passengers boarding into the high-floor car would still need to alight at low-platform stations. This would require one of:
ReplyDelete1. in-train wheelchair lifts
2. conductors board wheelchair passengers with time-consuming manual lift
3. build mini-48"-high-platforms at every station first before converting the first station to full level boarding
I suppose #3 seems the least problematic. Certainly no more so than adding a new car to every train or extending platforms.
Sharp-eyed readers will have spotted the paragraph about the standard-issue car-borne lifts, which are also shown on the diagram. These are an existing model that could easily be adapted to this purpose. Two per side are provided (four total) for redundancy.
DeleteI should add that the lift is precisely the same model as fitted to Siemens Venture cars used by Amtrak nationwide, in the same scenario of a high-floor car boarding passengers from 8-inch platforms. Shown in this video, its use is clunky but it has the distinct advantage of existing and complying with all regulations.
DeleteIt seems more costly to install mini high platforms than just converting half of the platform in one go. With minis you need two "interfaces" between low and high level, while if you do half of a platform in one go you only need one of those "interfaces". And also since it's obvious to anyone that it's work in progress, you can make those "interfaces" more shitty, i.e. just leave some sand or gravel or whatnot between the old and newly rebuilt platform parts.
DeleteTripling the number of WCs aboard the trains will also be welcomed by staff & riders alike. Already there are complaints of riders not knowing which direction to walk the train to find the one WC … and staff says due to heavy use (and/or not being emptied frequently enough) it sometimes automatically takes itself out of service en route when its retention tank reaches 70% full. Not good for riders expecting & needing it to be available. Staff has already begun thinking about adding more WCs … but not until Stadler’s warranty runs out.
ReplyDeleteOn the Stadler products that I regularly ride, on both sides of every door there is a minimalist schematic layout of the train, marking which direction the toilet is.
Delete-- Hedgehog
Yes, it has been suggested to staff to add interior “bathroom-this -way arrow” signage so riders know which way to walk.
DeletePlease spare us the signage. This information seems like the most trivial page to add to the already-existing information display screens in each car. You could even add a visual indication of real-time restroom occupancy status, just like in airplanes.
DeleteWould probably be a good idea to have electronic displays on board indicate that the toilet will close soon.
DeleteI would prefer regular signs rather than electronic displays. A toilet symbol and an arrow (and for the proposed versions of the trains in this blog post, ADA and non-ADA symbols when the ADA toilets are in one direction and the non-ADA toilets are in the other direction) is super simple to have.
I agree that there is a point in not having too much signage. I would say that TfL in London, and perhaps anything related to transit in the UK, is an example of over-signage.
This is a great solution that would be much, much more affordable and practical in terms of easing the transition to all-level boarding. I think this is a much easier way to implement level boarding - just add a higher platform for that segment of all stations initially then raise the rest of the platforms gradually, easy enough to do! The center level boarding segment shouldn't cost very much - $300M or so through the whole system is my high estimate, unless someone else has a better guess than I do! Assuming about $10M per station = $310M at the high end.
ReplyDeleteSpecific to this car - since there's no second floor, could that extra space be used for additional equipment, batteries, etc? I'm wondering if this extra space will allow Stadler to be more creative with car design and equipment. I'd love to see a ton more windows almost like an observation car if there's space, too, which would be fun.
One suggestion, though - I'm not so sure that you need 3 bathrooms per train. I would cut back and have just one large ADA bathroom for this eighth car instead of 2, and/or delete the bathrooms completely and have roomier, nicer bathrooms at all stations. That'd be cheaper and easier, plus free up a ton of capacity. I'd also push for Caltrain to stop doing conductor checks and do it BART style with fare gates for a sealed system. This way, the bathrooms can be nicer since it's only for paying customers, and conductors could be cut back or pared down significantly to lower costs. If the union raises a stink, station the conductors at stations instead of on the trains, which would make stations much nicer if there were workers around most of the time to keep an eye on things. This probably could be it's own post, but I think if Caltrain works to make the system a sealed one much like BART and cut back on conductors and ticket checkers on trains, there's significant opportunity to improve the station experience (good bathrooms, some amenities like a small coffee shop/bagel shop, small convenience store with snacks, toiletries, ibuprofen, etc)...
BART style with fare gates is a completely nonsense argument and resource for Caltrain to focus on.
DeleteWhy add more cost to seal stations? It only works at 4th and king since it is sealed.
Note there would be no need for east-coast style high platform blocks. At a low-platform station, the doors on this car would not open at all, unless by exception for a crew-assisted operation of the lift to board or alight a passenger needing such assistance. Passengers who do not need such assistance would simply board or alight at the next car.
DeleteCertainly, another approach is to delete bathrooms from the trains completely, but if you have even one bathroom, then it must be accessible to all. This sets off a domino cascade of ADA consequences that inevitably include wheelchair lifts.
@ Anonymous at 12:05 - Why is it nonsense? This is what a lot of places do, and can cut back on conductor costs significantly, plus make the system more like a 21st century one!
DeleteRebuilding stations to funnel riders through faregates is insane. It’d cost a fortune and would add substantial new O&M costs. Unless reconfigured, trains would still require conductors … and as seen on BART, unless stations & faregates are “hardened”, you *still* have plenty of fare evaders making into the system unless there are also costly cops and/or fare inspectors watching faregates and/or checking PoP on platforms and trains. The European open access barrier-free proof-of-payment (PoP) fare-collection model is the right & best (most cost-efficient, user-friendly) way to continue for Caltrain, its riders, and the communities to continue having accessible, permeable stations that can most optimally blend into the surrounding area. The main problem with PoP in North America is that agencies don’t seem to understand or want to copy best practices & policies for how to implement and enforce PoP.
DeletePutting in faregates with the assumption that conductor will be obsolete is insane and 10 steps forward in Caltrain’s case.
DeleteCaltrain is under FRA and not FTA unlike BART. Adding faregates requires the maintenance and puts the assumption that fare evasion is a big issue (which is not for Caltrain).
In case you miss out, other countries that have fare gates also has conductor checking ticket on their trains for regional/ intercity level.
So adding fare gates doesn’t help anything
One problematic argument with this is the dwell times for bicycles alighting and getting off will be a little bit longer.
ReplyDeleteThis solution works really well, if Caltrain has the guts to tell off UPPR and go slow at stations to avoid rocking.
The new California high platform standard (agreed to by FRA, the California HSR authority and Brightline West) has platform edges 73 inches from track center, which is six inches further out than in the Northeast. This clears freight trains without any issues at all.
DeleteLimiting freight train speeds is important for a different reason: at any faster than 45 mph, the vertical curve radius required for grade separations becomes a design driver for the size of such structures. This is because the vertical acceleration limit on freight trains is six times lower than for passenger trains. Accounting for this acceleration varying with the square of speed, then for a given vertical curve radius the maximum freight speed is 1/sqrt(6) times the maximum passenger speed. Therefore, if you want to design grade separations for 110 mph passenger trains, then freight cannot go any faster than 45 mph or that starts driving the design by setting the dimensions of grade separations. But I digress, more here.
Dedicate half of this single level car to bike space (like the old gallery cars) and only a single bathroom, and stick two of these cars on each train. Now you've got three bathrooms per train but better distributed, and the bike riders don't have to haul their bikes up and down the mezzanine stairs on the bi-level cars at high-boarding stations.
Delete(hell, now i'm imagining these cars as gallery cars, like the Metra Highliners...)
I think it would be more confusing in the longer term since now you have a car that is a bike car and ADA wheelchair compliant car combined. At high volume stations, this would only slow things down.
Delete@adam:
DeleteAnd sign that a number of seats in that car are prioritized for people traveling with a bicycle, so they can sit in the same car as their bicycle. Don't know how to do that exactly, perhaps have integrated locks in the train, that you lock/unlock with your RFID ticket, and also an RFID reader at each seat that indicates that you are riding with a bicycle, and anyone with a bicycle would have priority over other riders (except those that need ADA compliance, or whatnot).
Note that an RFID reader that just asks your ticket if you have a specific type of ticket, but doesn't change the content of the RFID ticket card or whatnot, can be really simple and cheap, as it doesn't have to handle anything related to safety in the form of electronic fare evasion. So in other words, it's reasonable to have such readers at each seat. "Re-arm" each time the seat has been vacant for more than a few seconds (i.e. more than a leg stretcher).
It's great to witness this detailed analysis of how to make level boarding a reality. As a power wheelchair rider who regularly rides Caltrain, the lack of level boarding is an extreme pain point for me.
ReplyDeleteMy partner Peter follows this blog and suggested sharing the channel we are starting together. We made our first full video about riding in a gallery car on the last day of diesel service. The lift broke. I often say: Ramps beat lifts. Lifts are slow, breakage-prone, and LOUD! https://youtu.be/vk0mfcd-YzI
Anything separate-but-equal is a problem. All bathrooms should be accessible, not just the 1 in 3 that becomes dirty or unavailable. All doors should be accessible, not just the ones on a certain car or the ones near a designated “Boarding Assistance Area” at the opposite end of the undriveably bumpy stamped-concrete platform.
As much as I wish it weren’t true, I know change doesn’t happen overnight. But when Caltrain has a year to test their EMUs, and a month after official launch I’m still boarding via manual lift because some mini-highs are chained up and conductors aren’t spotting trains to align with the others, I have difficulty believing change is happening as fast as it could.
Staff says the mini-high platform relocations, modifications & installations for EMUs were supposed to be done before the new all-EMU service started. While that didn’t get done due to “problems with the contractor(s), it shouldn’t take too much longer to finish now.
DeleteMany years ago, I was told one factor in the aborted effort to develop a new bi-level “California Car” for Amtrak California corridor trains to use had to do with the thorny and never satisfactorily solved design hurdles of including built-in elevators to afford wheelchair users equal access to the upper-level amenities (e.g. cafe/snack bar).
Must bi-level jets like 747s & A380s also have wheelchair elevators?
Hi Aubrie, thank you very much for the first person view, it's very valuable and enlightening. I urge everyone to watch your video, and we can all be glad the gallery cars are gone. I hope you make another video like this with the mini-highs and the EMUs.
DeleteThe solution I propose here does still use lifts (acknowledging their limitations) but only for the period of the transition from the existing 8-inch high platforms to high platforms system-wide. At that point, the lifts can be removed as all cars and all doors will be accessible step-free and gap-free. I did think to include two lifts on each side, acknowledging that these mechanisms are failure-prone and that having two provides some measure of redundancy.
I have a question for you: how much of an imposition is it for you to have to board a specific car in order to have access to a bathroom? Even if you could board at any door or car in the train, to what degree is it an obstacle that you can't move throughout the train due to its bi-level design? I admit that I don't fully understand the ADA regulations in this regard; I've seen it claimed that true equal access means that every car must have two lifts to facilitate movement throughout the train, while others interpret the regulation such that only one car being so fitted is sufficient.
Thanks again for your outlook on these issues. This goes far beyond equal access, and touches the efficiency and throughput capacity of the entire corridor for all users.
I like this. It's certainly the sort of creative thinking that Caltrain should be bringing to their level boarding study.
ReplyDeleteAs an approximation, converting the platforms at ~20 stations to 48 inches instead of 22 inches will have a cost premium, and make access marginally more difficult - longer ramps and four more steps in the stairs. (Counter cases: At stations like Townsend and 22nd St, access would become easier because they're below street level. At stations like Millbrae, where tracks are vertically unconstrained either side of the station so could perhaps be lowered, maintaining the current platform elevation. At stations like Redwood City and San Bruno, which will be rebuilt anyway by grade separation work or by CAHSR, the premium is much less.)
Costs that could conceivably be attributed to going with a 48" platform rather than 22":
- 48" vs 22" platform premium
- Reinstall the high-level doors
- Purchase 8th cars
If one were able to eliminate the third/fourth track at the future Townsend station, and make High Speed Rail give up their separate platform at Millbrae, then the platform premium would certainly be paid for. Eliminating the Townsend track with a commitment to figure out 48" Caltrain boarding by the time the station opens might even be enough to get DTX going.
The 8th car cost, as you argue, could be considered moot, as planned passenger benefit. However, it will probably be years until adding passenger capacity becomes fiscally attractive.
A further advantage of high-floor boarding is that it would provide for better, Regio 2N-style EMUs in the eventual fleet replacement, with power equipment above and below the single-level vestibules, creating more room for passengers. (https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2010/11/future-emu.html)
I don't know if the level boarding height should be 22" or 48", but Caltrain should be thinking on this level. I worry that when we see their level boarding study next year, it will not make an effort to challenge assumptions and constraints, and will instead merely present an entrenchment of an inadequate future, that, the argument will go, cannot be reexamined because it would mean another year+ of study.
Caltrain's stated goal has been level boarding at 22 inches (550 mm), but the technical details of how the transition would be accomplished, short of a total corridor shutdown and train retrofit during platform reconstruction, have not been fleshed out or shared with the public. From a technical standpoint this is a far more difficult technical and regulatory puzzle than it initially appears, and many people (past Caltrain staff, numerous train nerds) have greatly underestimated it. I don't know how it would work, short of having Bode Schaltbau (the supplier of the step mechanism) engineer a new design that can serve both 8-inch and 22-inch platforms. This is not a trivial engineering problem, as I pointed out before.
DeleteMy beliefs are that (a) it's easier to do the transition to 48 inches and (b) it's important to have Caltrain and HSR be compatible at all shared stations, for operational flexibility and recovery from delays.
Can their stated goal of 22" change to 48"? Seems like Amtrak is moving towards 48" with their new venture cars, so it only makes sense to design it for 48" to be the standard instead of 22" for intercity and regional rail in California.
DeleteSome of the people would say "Stadler makes 22" low floor FLIRT". But what they fail to include is they also only have 2 powered bogies at both ends of cab car. Its only easier to make it 48" floor height and store all the equipment at the bottom of the single level cars. We've seen Caltrain's obsession with powered bogies so it only makes sense to assume it'll be the same for other operators.
We have the issues between bi-level and single level vehicles. In the restricted loading gauge in Europe, bi-levels require doors on the lower level, and that leads to 550 mm, in order to get sufficient internal height. This is implemented in the standard KISS, but also the TGV-2N types, and many other MUs. Single-level allows simpler designs if high floor, in the 1100 mm range. There is one single-level high speed train: Stadler SMILE (aka Giruno), which is set to 760 mm (a platform height, unfortunately often found in Germany); however, the "accessible" section (1st Class, Restaurant, 2nd Class also has doors at 550 mm and internal ramps; the Restaurant has no doors, and is all high floor).
DeleteT
ReplyDeleteS
I
Compliant!
https://ibb.co/0DpS73q
I get the love of TSIs but California is not in Europe, and the accessibility regulations (and physical access of trains with high floors) is dreadful in Europe. If your meme implies that HSR should use 550 mm platforms or that HSR doesn't need to be compatible with Caltrain, then please describe.
DeleteUnder U.S. ADA regulations and subject to the fact that HSR will use 48" platforms and further subject to the constraint that Caltrain and HSR should be interoperable (any train, any track, any platform) the European TSIs are clearly lacking.
What do you suggest?
Yes, 550mm platforms. Large parts of Europe use that height, and has a mandate that all trains comply with level-boarding regulations going forward, including HSR. Even ICE will be TSI-compliant starting in 2030. California doesn't have to invent anything here, such as the dual door trains, lifts, etc. and just follow what everyone else is already doing. Having ridden their latest TSI-compliant trains with disabled companions, the accessibility was fantastic -- it is incorrect to suggest they present some ADA issue (what exactly?).
DeleteIn any case, this argument is purely academic. The CHSRA seems to have little to no interest in platform compatibility; i.e. look how many billions will be spent at Diridon and Millbrae to build separate HSR platforms. Even TBT, I have doubts they are actually serious. And then there is the issue that HSR service on the Peninsula is many, many decades away (if ever). Whereas Caltrain service is the here-and-now, and your proposals for a special 8th car has some huge and obvious drawbacks, with the only upside being some hypothetical HSR compatibility 100 years from now?
I dunno if I'm as pessimistic about HSR as you seem to be. I think Brightline West is going to make some waves in this area by taking a more thrifty approach to punch through difficult topography.
DeleteYour solution (550 mm) raises an interesting engineering puzzle. What do you think about this step arrangement? Its feasibility seems dodgy to me as the engineering to make a step that can handle both 8-inch and 550 mm might be complicated. Could it make sense to have one 8-inch door and one 550 mm door per car, for the year or two (minimum) that it would take to raise all platforms? What's your path to get to the end state of TSI nirvana?
“Yes, 550mm platforms. Large parts of Europe use that height,“
DeleteThat would be very relevant information if Caltrain was in Europe. Basically the only parts of the US that have level boarding use 48” platforms (not just the NEC, also Denver, Birghtline). In the US context, going to 550mm platforms is the proverbial “reinventing the wheel” and condemning the Peninsula to interoperability issues. Amtrak has a standard for platform height that hundreds of thousands of people use to board trains daily (both on Amtrak and on MNR, LIRR, etc.) Just copy that.
If Caltrain cannot figure out level-boarding heights other than 48", then may as well pack it in and give up now. Even Utah (Utah!!) is able to do level-boarding into the lower level of their Bombardier bi-levels.
Delete@Drunk Engineer:
DeleteEurope isn't great. For example the bi level wagons common in Germany, are available with the doors either on the lower floor level, or at the intermediate level at the ends of the wagons, to fit two different platform heights. However there aren't any such wagons with both doors, and there are a bunch of lines in Germany where different stations have different platform heights. And to make things even worse, regulations stipulate that new platforms have to be built using one of these two standards, even if all trains and most stations along a route uses the other standard. Thus they even build new stations / renovate stations resulting in the trains not being accessible at those stations :(
Another amazing solution is on Belgian bi level trains, where some cars have doors at both heights, but passengers aren't trusted opening the low level doors themself, so you have to climb a few steps from the low level floor to the intermediate level, and then climb a few steps down again to reach the platform. Also there aren't any signs that clearly states that the low level doors won't open at stations, so you might end up in a real hurry going to the doors that actually open.
Re separate HSR platforms:
My impression is that was/is partially due to the decision makers not really "understanding trains" after all. I.E. they still have the North American mind set where any train ride outside daily commuting and/or outside the NEC (sort of) has to be a complicated "adventure", comparable with flying. And similar to airports having separate staff within the airport building for different air lines, and maybe also different parts of the terminal dedicated to different airlines, they believe that stations have to have different platforms and whatnot for different types of trains.
The actual problem is that the intermediate floor level on the new Caltrain EMUs are not the same as the platform level Cali HSR has decided on. I don't know how for Cali HSR is in it's process, probably too far to change things, but it would be great if Cali HSR changes it's train floor and platform height to be the same as the Caltrain EMUs.
By 2032, Belgium expects to rebuild the vast majority of its rail network comply with TSI requirements for level-boarding. They are currently new rolling-stock based on the standardized platform height.
DeleteUtah is not a good example: (1) they can build platforms much closer to the train because there is no high speed express service and (2) it’s not even ADA gap compliant level boarding and a crew-emplaced bridge plate is still required to board or alight passengers with reduced mobility.
DeleteAgain, lots of hand waving about how easy and simple this is. It’s not!
I have not been out to see in person, but seems to work quite well to me. Not seeing any bridge plate?
DeleteRe: UTA’s now-complete gap-filler project. Staff explains in the video of this May 22 board meeting’s agenda item 8c (order #24-004) that they’ve installed 16,000 feet of gap-filler at 16 stations, tested it at “high speed” for possible interference, and that Amtrak & BNSF are now interested in checking it out.
DeleteLooks pretty damn good and cheap to me!
Wow, that’s a really neat solution. No software or moving parts.
DeleteGood approach, however, I would see this car with general purpose space instead of fixed seats.
ReplyDeleteA way to avoid the need of temporary lifts during the transition, is to first add the new single level cars, then raise half of every platform. Select if this should be done with the southern or northern half, and go with that half on every station.
ReplyDeleteNote that this can also be done in additional steps, starting with either each east-facing platform, or each west facing platform, to split it up into smaller chunks.
When this starts, clearly sign that for ADA compliance, users must enter/exit via the low platform / low floor, with staff assistance, even if there happens to be level access at the high platform level, as they otherwise might get stuck not being able to exit at their destination. (Make sure that the end stations for every scheduled train are done first, so anyone stuck at least don't have to sit inside an almost empty train while it waits for departure in the opposite direction).
When all "half of" station platforms are converted, change the signage to indicate that ADA compliance is on the high level parts of the platforms, and then convert the other half of each platform to also become high level. In this case, do every terminating platform last, also to ensure that anyone entering the wrong section will be able to exit at the end stations.
==========================
Question: Some bi level trains with an intermediate entry level have ramps rather than steps between the intermediate and low level. Would this be possible to make the Caltrain trains ADA compliant?
==========================
The hottest of all hot takes:
How about if the politicians overseeing Caltrain just decides that they are done with the Caltrain board and all consultants and whatnot, and decide to fire everyone and sell the new trains, and buy new trains again, but this time single level trains with no steps/stairs anywhere, and with the floor at the same level as the Cali HSR platforms.
The luke warm take of this is to sell half of the new trains, and replace them with single level cars. And by that I don't mean half of the amount of trains, but rather half of each train.
I think that it would actually be great for transit/railways to have a big scandal, as that would act as a wake-up call to the industry, clearly telling everyone that if they to a shit job heads will roll.
Sometimes you have to inflict some pain on yourself just to inflict even more pain on someone else who really deserves that pain, to ensure that fewer people will put themselves in the position of deserving pain.
Like you in USA seem to like harsh punishments for crimes - why not have harsh punishments for incompetence among the Caltrain leadership too? (I think I'm starting to sound like Richard :D ).
Staff will present how the new EMU service is going so far to the Caltrain Board’s 1:30 pm TOPS (Technology, Operations, Planning, and Safety) Committee meeting today.
ReplyDeleteNote the complete lack of concern about long dwell times, and the immediate capitulation to this, as evidenced by the stated plan to add minutes back into the timetable.
DeleteA year before electric service started, I predicted 86 minutes for all-stops local service including the Broadway Burlingame stop, or 84 minutes if you remove that stop.
Caltrain started with their ridiculously optimistic estimate of 75 minutes, followed by relaxing to 77 minutes in their current timetable. They need to add back at least 5 minutes to the local to account for the lack of level boarding.
Also: the lack of spares is partly self-inflicted. Trainset 311/312 would have been a useful second spare had they not wrecked it at CEMOF.
Also: fixing the door control software would save everybody three minutes. This is not mentioned, demonstrating that nobody cares about long dwell times at Caltrain.
DeleteLoading all the conductors onto a rocket and firing it into the sun would also solve the "door control software problem."
DeleteEverywhere else on the planet where modern, non-knee-capped, non-fucked-over, Stadler trains run, the train driver, using a push button located on the train driver's control console, assisted by video feeds from along the length of the train that are directly displayed on the train driver's control console, safely closes the doors when it is safe to depart. No stupid fucking dancing of a dead-weight wage-sucker "conductor" in and out of the "closed" doors, no stupid fucking bleating double-repeated shrill alarm that A TOTALLY NORMAL THING THAT HAPPENS EVERY THREE MINUTES IS, YES, HAPPENING AGAIN, YES, THE "TRAIN" MIGHT BE ABOUT TO "MOVE".
JFC.
They simply do not give One Single Fuck.
It's all a make-work insider lifetime employment scam for insiders.
sorry for commenting here, but in the august open thread, where you have to click "view more" to see all comments, you just got a spam comment that promotes some electronics thingie with a .uk URL.
ReplyDeleteCommenting here as you might miss it due to the "click to view more" issue on that post.1