Some good news: Caltrain is working on a level boarding plan, as documents requested under the Public Records Act attest. Their "Level Boarding Roadmap: Technical Task Force Platform Report" dated April 2024 is a reasonably well-written document that discusses how the system might be converted to level boarding using the European 550 mm platform standard. After reading it, three questions arise:
- Why are 48" level boarding platforms never discussed? The roadmap takes for granted that Caltrain's solution is 550 mm (22") platforms. It mentions "Caltrain EMUs have doors (...) at the mid-level (currently these doors are plugged)" and never again mentions how these doors got there, what else might be done with them, or why it shouldn't. While every solution has pros and cons, how is such a fundamental decision of system architecture presented with no context as a done deal, without the slightest technical rationale or public discussion?
- Why is the preferred solution allowed to violate HSR specifications? 22" platforms are discussed with two lateral offset alternatives: 64" (preserving today's platform offsets) and 68". The safety argument presented in favor of a 64" offset does not contemplate that such platforms would encroach into the high-speed rail vehicle body dynamic envelope, and that wide-body HSR cars would extend over the platform. These issues are shown in the precisely scaled graphic at right, using dimensions from the HSR vehicle RFP. Neither of these conditions seems safe and neither is addressed in the hazard analysis, unless an unstated assumption is being made that the high-speed rail project should fix Caltrain platform design errors at the public's expense.
- Why was this work not done ten years ago, before EMU procurement? There is no value added by testing platform mockups with a real EMU as done in the report, versus testing with a plywood vehicle mockup. Everything discussed in Caltrain's report was known ten years ago and the Stadler EMU fleet could have been delivered with a platform interface solution for level boarding at 22" had Caltrain specified one. Now, we're stuck with a retrofit situation, but better late than never.
The next steps discussed in Caltrain's report are good ones, and should be expedited. Specifically, developing a technical solution for an automatic step arrangement compatible with both 8" and 22" platforms is of the highest urgency. ("Funding a prototype for an estimated $3M lowers technical risk and also shortens the timeframe to begin fleet implementation should funding become available.") This small investment is among the most important and valuable projects that Caltrain should undertake immediately.
A bit over a month of electric service has made it abundantly clear that dwell times are long and on-time performance is systematically poor due to the rosy performance assumptions baked into Caltrain's timetable. The trains are fast, but much of their performance is wasted on long dwells. Level boarding can't come soon enough.
Posts
I heard the reason why they can't go 48" platform is because FRA banned Caltrain from using onboard lifts while the train is in motion, and Caltrain is concerned about on-time performance under this rule, like what would happen when someone on the wheelchair catching a train in last minute.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure they pursued this formally, as a record of the waiver process would exist on a regulations.gov docket.
DeleteIn any case, there are viable alternatives that do not require internal lifts for 48” platforms.
Do the ADA requirements specify anything about how long wait is ok for getting to the bathroom?
DeleteLike it would for sure be bad and also look bad if wheelchair users are stuck at the entrance waiting to use the lift until the train stops at the next station, but still.
Also, I get why the FRA might not be keen on using lifts while the train is in motion, but a solution to the safety risks would be to have barriers that block a wheel chair from falling off the lift while the lift is in use. The hard part would kind of be to somehow stop the barriers from being in the way when the lift is rather used as a step.
Thank you! Now I understand why we have these janky screaming drop steps on the EMUs: as we raise the station platforms over time, stations with 22" platforms won't need the janky screaming step. The doors will open and shut quicker. Life will keep getting better!
ReplyDeleteBut yeah better figure out the correct offset to allow HSR to run through stations! -danny
To be clear, there was no pressing requirement for a drop step; it could have been engineered as a fixed step with the same dimensions as the Bombardier cars, which have a 25” floor.
DeleteNote that 22” platforms will still require a gap filler to deploy as noted in the Caltrain document.
@Howard: they might be janky seeming … but “screaming”?? Are they noisy? … or what do you mean by twice writing “screaming” (and not seeming)?
Delete"To be clear, there was no pressing requirement for a drop step; it could have been engineered as a fixed step with the same dimensions as the Bombardier cars, which have a 25” floor."
DeleteIt could have, and it fucking blindingly obviously SHOULD have been. Everything about Caltrain's (by which re really mean LTK Engineering Services' -- the toxic Buy American clown show of utter incompetence and unprofessionalism that turns everything it touches to shit) EMU procurement was bonkers.
The "idea" to deploy (well-engineered, Swiss, but still mechanical, still complicated, and maintained by under-skilled non-Swiss) retractable steps 30k times/day, every day, until the heat death of the universe, awaiting the takeover of the corridor by our future undisputed overlords of California High Speed Rail (which is never coming, and was explicitly designed never to provide service to the public) with its SEPTA-compatible high platforms, was and is just insane.
One crosses that bridge when one comes to it .... which is never. Not in my lifetime. Not in any of yours', either! The KISSes will be end-of-life long before then. The rising seas will be rising. Will there even be a regional or even local electrical power grid?
Passive provision of mechanical space for a far-future retractable step, for the entirely science-fictional counter-factual far-far-far-far future in which Caltrian station platforms, used by actual real-world Caltrain riders here on actual and doomed Planet Earth, incrementally and temporarily transition to made-up California High Speed Rail high floor "standards", ought to have been as far as any of this nonsense went.
Actually installing retractable steps, decades before they could possibly have any functional need to actually do any actual retraction for any reason at all, is just pure cost-bloating shithousery by the US transit consultant mafiosi.
Is there a perverse rule where if you build a fixed step, you get dinged for ADA noncompliance, but if you build some utter jank, you are allowed to chant "temporary! interim!" and that banishes this issue for you?
DeleteSeparately: something should really have the (b)ac(k)ronym CALTROP, because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrop
I was convinced by the old article Clem wrote advocating for 48” platforms (HSR compatibility, etc), but as an Architect I’m realizing the advantages of 22 inches are huge to the point that it makes the transformation much more likely to happen.
ReplyDelete22“ (+14”) would be much less than ½ the space and cost. At 48” (+40”) ramps require landings (lots more space) Many cases would likely need Mechanical platform lifts (cost, space time and maintenance)
Phasing is much easier with the equipment on the trains able to open to either 8 or 22. As soon as one station has 48” platforms, every station on the line would require some provision to unload at 48” (Annoying and costly till project 100% done.) With 22" they can update stations as $ is found.
14" rise = 14 feet long
Delete40" rise = 43 feet long (3x)
@Randy: agree; raising platforms 14” is going to be way easier, cheaper, faster, and result in less impacts on station/platform access & interfaces. And so instead of procuring a fleet (1 for every 7-car tri-level set) of new single-level high (48”) floor cars and having to lengthen for 8-cars trains & raise all platforms by 3 and a third feet Stadler needs to figure out how to retrofit or replace the retractable step mechanism at all 4 low doors per car to work at both old 8” and new 22” platforms as described in Caltrain’s level boarding roadmap.
DeleteRemember that for decades of higher ridership than today, gallery cars with higher seated capacity worked with only 1 door per car.
So maybe if engineering a dual-height step mechanism proves too difficult or impractical, maybe only just have one door per car equipped for old 8” platforms and the other door for new 22” platforms during the transition period?
Conductors (or something) would still have to ensure the right set of doors open during the transition … and it would be a little confusing and so potentially extend dwell times somewhat — but only during the transition period.
Once all platforms were raised to 22”, then replace all the 8” retractable step mechanisms with 22” retractable bridges to return to 2-door-per-side boarding. Voila … level boarding transition complete!
Which stations would actually require a lift? I.E. where wouldn't it be possible to have a 43' long ramp, even if the ramp is zig-zag:ed (for a lack of a better way to describe it)?
DeleteAlso: I don't the details about the ADA requirements, but I would think that it's allowed to have some ADA compliant connections between platforms and street level, and also have some that aren't (at least if it's not too much of a detour to use the ADA compliant accesses).
Re: planning for 22” platforms, surely the quiet part that they don’t want to say out loud is that Caltrain staff no longer believe that HSR is ever coming to the peninsula, right?
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can read this. CA HSR plans are for separate platforms at all stations. They only place they were considering shared 48" platforms was Transbay but that was dropped in the most recent plans.
DeleteBut it’s not just the platform sharing, it’s also the dynamic envelope as Clem described. It definitely sounds like Caltrain staff is planning as though HSR is never coming to the peninsula.
Delete@Bryan if you read the report you will see that they are considering 68" as an option as that is what CAHSR has indicated to them in meetings as a minimum. Caltrain would prefer 64" in the event HSR rolling stock could be compatible with that. The actual rolling stock CAHSR acquire may have a specified dynamic envelope that ends up being smaller than the maximum shown in the RFP.
DeleteOf course, as @Richard has pointed out, there is 0% chance of the HSR rolling stock currently being acquired for the central valley IOS ever making it to the Caltrain corridor as it will be end of life by then, so it makes little sense to constrain level boarding based on dimensions in the current RFP unless HSR insists on it.
Regardless of when HSR’s IOS trains are EOLed/retired, why wouldn’t any replacement/additional trains have essentially the same width (loading gauge) and door height for compatibility with existing station platforms?
DeleteA possibly good outcome of the dynamic envelope and whatnot is that the Caltrain route might "accidentally" have to be quad tracked for HSR, and also HSR might "accidentally" have to stop at some intermediate stations where Caltrain fast / skip-stop trains also stops.
Delete@MiaM, if the Peninsula corridor is quad tracked because the CAHSR loading gauge is incompatible with Caltrain, then you can forget about HSR “accidentally” stopping at express Caltrain stops. At the point where you have segregated the infrastructure due to gauge differences then CAHSR will not spend the time or money to build a station on “their” tracks anywhere but the bare minimum.
DeleteToo many stops on an HSR line is a bad thing, but if you see value in future ability to add an all-stop Kodama-style HSR service at say Palo Alto to complement an express that goes SF to SJ direct, then the way to do it is with full gauge compatibility between Caltrain and CAHSR (loading, traction, signal, etc.) and a design that allows for shared use of infrastructure (FSSF, quad track overtakes, etc. - basically everything Clem identifies in his excellent blog).
@Onux:
DeleteI was thinking about the rare case where the HSR trains static loading gauge fits, but the dynamic envelope won't fit, i.e. they have to run slow through platform tracks.
I agree that HSR trains shouldn't stop at too many places, but in larger cities near/at the end of the line the amount of people benefiting from few stops decreases as a function of how close the train is to the terminus/start, and also having more stops decreases dwell times at the stops with many passengers, as some of those would be able to use a less crowded stop.
I'm thinking about a scenario where "Caltrain express" only stops at say 1-3 stations between SF and SJ Diridon.
(And of course, compatible trains would be the best solution, but if we don't get that then at least lets have the slight incompatibility as an excuse for full quad tracking and a better mix of express and all-stopper trains).
Reading this report it is pretty clear that the only reason Caltrain is even spending any time on level boarding right now is that it is required for the Portal/DTX new stations at 4th/Townsend and Transbay. Since these stations do not serve freight they must by law be ADA compatible with level boarding from day 1. The stations are in final design (even though funding is still uncertain), so Caltrain is being pushed to specify their platform interface.
ReplyDeleteBased on this, it's pretty clear that we should not expect Caltrain to implement level boarding at any stations until DTX opens which is 2034 at the earliest.
The latest Portal Schedule & Funding Update presented to the TJPA Board at their meeting yesterday.
DeleteOf course, the incoming SF-, California-, HSR-, rail-, and transit-hating kakistocracy greatly imperils the odds of receiving any hoped-for federal funding grants for the next 4 years or so.
The ugly work-around would be to ask UP to run some freight trains through/to that station. :D
DeleteFFCA RR in Lima, Peru to receive Caltrain’s 19 retired (and still operable) F40s & 90 gallery cars for the low, low price of only $6m.
ReplyDeleteCaltrain trumpets substantial year-over-year and electrification-related ridership increase.
ReplyDeleteRemind me again
ReplyDeleteA: Why the trains aren't about as large as the required loading gauge / free space for areas where freight operate?
B: Why did they buy double decker trains when it was obvious that they would need steps between the intermediate/end level of the cars and the lower level seating area?
Especially if the trains would had been built to the freight requirement free room space, they would as single deckers likely had had about the same capacity as the current trains.
“ Why the trains aren't about as large as the required loading gauge / free space for areas where freight operate?”
DeleteDing, ding, ding! We have a winner!
As I have pointed out many times before, AAR plates B, C, E and F all exist, with the same width, and not just as abstractions but as a continent wide standard in use not only by freight but by hundreds of thousands of people daily boarding cars of that width at level platforms 48” high with space for those passenger cars and equal width freight cars to pass. There is no reason in the US to do it differently and so many reasons to do it the same. Caltrain specifying the new EMUs at the same width as the legacy bombardier cars was foolish in the extreme.
"As I have pointed out many times before, AAR plates B, C, E and F all exist, with the same width, and not just as abstractions but as a continent wide standard in use not only by freight but by hundreds of thousands of people daily boarding cars of that width at level platforms 48” high with space for those passenger cars and equal width freight cars to pass."
DeleteAnd guess what? The entire Caltrain corridor is clear for better-than-plate-E, and clear for better-than-plate-F everywhere outside the tunnels in San Francisco.
And guess what? There is no level boarding on Caltrain, not at 8 inches, not at 22 inches, not at 48 inches.
You have some sort of point to make?
"There is no reason in the US to do it differently and so many reasons to do it the same"
There's zero reason to be compatible with Acela Liberty and SEPTA Silverliners, which is where it's clear you're going with this. There is, in fact, every reason in the world to run as far away from this catastrophic obsolete shit as possible.
"Caltrain specifying the new EMUs at the same width as the legacy bombardier cars was foolish in the extreme."
Agreed, but only because you don't have any idea what you're talking about, and for the exact opposite reasons you're imagining.
Caltrain's KISS EMUs in fact fit well within your precious Plate E laterally all the way up from the rails, and only exceed it by 195mm vertically at retracted pantograph roof level.
Plate E is 3251.2mm wide above 1016mm ATOR (including at 48 inches); Caltrain KISS are 3000mm.
Plate E is 3105mm wide at 550mm ATOR. Caltrain KISS are 2719mm. Narrower all the way.
Rather, Caltrain ought to have ordered wider trains, given the generous non-North East Corridor clearances of the existing infrastructure and given the one-time now-never-happening dream of non-NEC non-shit HSR running along (parts of) the Caltrain corridor. There's no reason not to have. 3+2 seating. Single-level widebody high capacity.
In fact, Caltrain's EMU RFP explicitly allowed wider (exactly as wide as Plate E above 1016mm ATOR, between one and 2 potentially-useful inches wider than Plate E/F below, all well within the one-time-proposed CHSR static envelope up to 3400mm wide) trains, but, for reasons we will never learn, and which are certain to be the worst possible reasons made by some of the stupidest people on the planet, Caltrain's EMUs are not as wide as Plate E (which would have immensely simplified level boarding at any elevation); nor are they are not as wide as the allowed for in Caltrain's EMU RFP; nor are they are not as wide as one-time-proposed CHSR trains (for which poposed envelope clearance already exists, today, on all the Caltrain corridor); nor are they as wide as any other KISS Stadler has ever manufactured (2800m for UIC Euro-land, 3400mm for Azerbaijan/Georgia/Russia, 2970mm for Spain.)
They're as wide as the Caltrain Bombardier cars. Because. Reasons.
Which makes one think that idiots with absolutely no knowledge of anything at all in the world and zero intention of providing level boarding, ever, at any platform height, ever, were involved in telling Stadler what to do, and in charge of what's rapidly zooming towards a cool billion dollars of train procurement and sweet, sweet consultant and staff "overhead".
I mean, what are the odds of that?
Richard, is that available clearance an opportunity? Permanent 4 1/2" bridge plates, fixed to the high platform doors, with extension mechanisms built in to reach high platforms at 73" from center of track? And then in 30 years, with the regional rail tube near completion and Caltrain increasing to metro frequencies, order full-width single-level EMUs (2x2 with wide aisle) with the bridge plate mechanisms built in. Could even benefit from downsizing the tube bore to accommodate only single-level trains. Know you don't favor the tube, but it's in the state rail plan.
DeleteIf ADA access to the second car bathroom is the main issue preventing 48” platforms, couldn’t ramps be built down to the 22” level for the lower doors to the bathroom car, akin to current mini-high platforms? Why does this issue require lifts within the car or procurement of special single-level accessible cars?
ReplyDeleteA 2nd WC doesn’t (yet) exist.
Delete48” platforms would require Caltrain to provide an internal means for wheelchairs to move between the relatively small ~48” mid-level floor to the larger low ~22” floor the sole WC lives on.
The originally-considered internal lift is slow and janky … requires a crew member to operate … and we are told may only be used while the train is stationary.
And an internal ADA-compliant self-service ramp, if even feasible, would require a significant, costly, and space-inefficient retrofit.
Sorry, I should have been more clear in my question. I am referring to the current bathroom in the second car of the current seven-car consist, and an external ramp at a proposed 48" platform that dips to meet the lower doors of this car at the 22" height. This seems to be similar to the current procedure of loading passengers into the second car of the consist using mini-high platforms, just in reverse, and it can be made level with the lower doors so a gap-filler can be used instead of a manually deployed ramp.
DeleteSo there are ramps up, then ramps down? Remember a 2'-2" vertical rise takes about a 27-foot ramp at 8% grade (plus a landing or two). Outside the EMU this would take a fair amount of station space. Inside an EMU this would take a good portion of the corridor, a third the length of the car. (But no pesky electric-operated lifts). Multiple multiple doors! Door 1 at 22 inches, door 2 at 35 inches, door 3 at 48 inches.
DeleteI am assuming the entire platform would be raised to 48", so there would be ramps up outside the platform as needed, and on the platform a ramp down to an accessible 22" entrance for the bathroom car, just as there are currently ramps up to the 8" platform at many stations, and another ramp up to the 22" mini-high.
DeleteThe current mini-highs are already 47' long with two 15.5' ramps and a 16' landing. A "mini-low" with two 27' ramps and a 16' landing would total 70', larger than the current mini-highs but still only a small area on the over 500' long stations. This 70' space would still be useable and would not be an impediment to passengers traversing the platform, as there are ramps on both sides.
Fleshing out this idea a bit more, I would think these ramps would be designed in the following way, although I can think of some potential other ways a “mini-low” ramp could be built:
To prevent any fencing near the edge of the platform to avoid any clearance requirement, the ramp could be flush all the way to the edge of the platform, only requiring one line of fencing on the opposite side of the ramp. As the current mini-highs extend to 110" from the platform edge, the "mini-low" ramps could be 110" wide so that there could be adequate space to traverse the ramp away from the platform edge. Most island platforms would likely be ramped for the entire width of the platform.
The only downside I can see with this proposal with ramps flush to the edge of the platform is that some adjacent high-doors could potentially be inaccessible, namely the high-door at the back of the cab car 36' from the low door at the front of the bathroom car. However, with open gangways, plugging this door and allowing passengers to load at other doors does not seem to impede service.
@Nash:
DeleteIn that case it would probably be better to have one end of the platform at 22" and the rest at 48", so the first two cars use the existing 22" doors, and the rest of the train (possibly one of the doors on the second car too?) uses 48" doors.
@Reality Check:
Re the slow lift that would require staff - is this an issue with faster user-operated lifts not being a thing in general in USA? I remember many years ago reading about the ADA compliant lifts on some of the New Orleans street cars and thought it seemed extremely weird to have cumbersome lifts that staff have to operate, taking ages to use and whatnot, when they could just had opted for modern trams with a low floor section but (like they did) style them like the vintage trams. Sure, wouldn't look as "genuine" with a low floor section, but would be way better for almost everyone involved.
Side track: I wonder if there is a difference in how accessibility is viewed from the point of view both from those needing accessibility and also the general public, depending on if the majority of those needing accessibility needed that since they were kids, or if it's due to something happening during their adult life (war veteran, workplace accidents and whatnot). My impression is that most of those who need accessibility here in Europe either had the need since they were kids or it's due to age related issues.
Well, the Paris Metro's RATP has probably the best opinion on ADA access to the subway:
Delete"Wheelchair users can take the bus."
Martin: Even ten years ago that was not true at all:
Deletehttps://parisbytrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/paris-wheelchair-accessible-metro-rer-tram-train-stations.pdf
Martin, strongly disagree. WMATA/DC Metro is 100% ADA accessible and is superior to the bus. It's not hard to design an ADA accessible system if you're a competent transit agency...
DeleteLink-21 chooses standard-gauge as preferred option.
ReplyDeletehttps://bart.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7024337&GUID=634FECEB-C758-47B5-B3CE-DE1F20D67C7E&Options=&Search=
30 years too late, but I'll celebrate the decision to stop building wide gauge in the Bay Area when the final vote is tallied tomorrow!
DeleteDid anyone else notice HSRA Boardmember Ernest Camacho toward the end of the CEO’s report at this month’s (Nov. 7) board meeting asking about “moving from a wide-body [train] car to something completely different”? Legal counsel immediately shuts him down explaining that “we’re in active procurement” and that “it’s very confidential.” After also clarifying they cannot discuss it in closed session either. Chair Richards says that the CEO can meet with board members one-on-one to discuss any such questions they may have.
ReplyDeleteSo … anyone know what’s up with that? It sure sounds like there may be some sort of late board desire or interest in revisiting train widths.
Avelia Horizon / TGV M with either a 2.9m or 3.2m width and a now Caltrain preferred 550mm boarding height boarding height enters the chat...
DeleteFucking Pennsylvania Railroad (which is all our unspeakably retarded Buy American consultant scum have ever know or ever will know) has taken over the chat.
DeleteIf you want a picture of the future, imagine Acela and Amtrak and UPRR stamping on a human face — for ever.
There is an "agreement" with Brightline and the Feds to adopt a global platform height and offset standard. Funny how neither Metrolink nor Caltrain were part of that agreement.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/yEBGzySoJPY?t=4045
They were included. From the "notice to designers" about the new high platform standard adopted for California HSR, we learn this:
Delete"The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) convened a working group to align on a future platform-train interface (PTI) standard composed of all agencies involved in public rail transport in California. Currently in California, there are a multitude of platform and train boarding heights that affect accessibility and ADA compliance, customer acceptance and convenience, and reliable dwell times and operational performance. In addition, the difference in heights impact future ridership growth, network interoperability, and planning certainty for capital investments.
The PTI working group concluded that a two-standard solution was required for California – one at the low-level platform height and one at the high-level platform height. Consensus through the working group, which includes CHSRA, Brightline West, and High-Desert Corridor, has been reached on the high-level platform heights. Furthermore, in the June 12, 2023 letter to Caltrans, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) indicated that the proposed solution for high-platform level boarding, to accommodate passenger rail equipment with different high-level floor heights, will meet the requirements codified in 49 CFR 37.42, with the equipment-borne gap filler meeting the intent of 49 CFR 38.175."
What's ironic is that Caltrain's EMU could work with a 48" x 73" platform interface.
Asked Alon Levy on stream about 550mm HSR. They said Avelia Horizon (and TGV) are the only ones available, and have worse performance than high floor. Recommended against vendor-locking into Avelia.
ReplyDeleteThe merest hint that California High Speed Rail, a fully-owned subsidary of rent-seeking, bid-rigging, competition-excluding, globally unemployable, technical and fiscally incompetent, Buy American scamming, best-practice-ignorant, best-practive-hostile consultant mafiosi, would do anything but laugh (all the way to the bank!) about "vendor-locking" is utterly risible. I mean, CHSHA itself is the very definition of vendor lock-in (to PB aka PBQD aka WSP and successors.)
DeleteI mean, for just one semi-trivial but utterly typical example, these are the fucking clowns who designed their own bespoke, globally-unique high sped rail turnouts, based on nothing but their self-importance and hallucinations any sort of expertise. Guaranteed insane over-cost, guaranteed single bidder.
If CHSRA is in favour of something, it can only be because somebody is on the take. It's been that way, without exception, since I first became aware of the utterly deranged way the "public" agency was operating in the early 1990s. Stupidly at the time I imagined, as with Caltrain, that it was just lack of information that lead to poor outcomes, and that with better knowledge better decisions would be made.
How's that working out?
Speaking of which, Caltrain's CEO has been at the agency, in decision-making positions, for the entire 20 past years in which level boarding has been brushed-off, denigrated, and actively designed against (entire system-wide station platform reconstructions, the castastrophically stupid EMU procurement.) This sort of this hasn't happened because of a lack of information or because of "vendor-locking" or because of accident. It's active and relentless seeking of the most expensise and worst outcomes.
Obviously that "Anonymous" above is I.
Delete100% of global HSR trainsets will have long been sold for scrap by time HSR comes to the Peninsula. Going forward, everything will be TSI-compliant -- so if the concern is vendor lock-in then California should be complying with the latest standards.
Deleteany trainset with less than 48" boarding height simply trades external ramps/steps for internal ramps/steps, unless non-standard, smaller diameter wheels are used or no solid axles, both would lead to other design complications and trade-offs.
DeletePutting all the machineries at the under floor also improves stability, which is especially important at high speed.
Earth to William:
Delete48" boarding height requires internal wheelchair lifts in the Caltrain duplex cars. The reason for going low-floor is precisely to eliminate the need for wheelchair users to deal with internal ramps/stairs/lifts. And BTW, the world's fastest HSR train (TGV) is low-floor. It is quite stable, even at 574kph.
@Drunk Engineer, you're assuming high-speed rail will reach the Peninsula someday. The reality is, maybe, or maybe not, with the odds currently being very strongly against it, as the odds are strongly against completion. Don't overlook that "real" HSR with this state project also means Los Angeles Union Station is the southern terminus, for example. It's sufficient at this time to be skeptical of any northern mountain crossing enabling high-speed trains (traveling ordinary speeds in the Bay Area as well as nearby developed areas) to reach the Peninsula or go from there to points elsewhere along the line.
Deleteto Anonymous @ 26 November, 2024 16:11
DeleteTGV-duplex still uses standard sized wheels, so there is still sections of ~48" "barriers" at the bogies and cannot pass to other cars on the first floor, thus would need internal lifts for ADA compliance as not all amenities are concentrated in one car.
TGV-duplex, as currently designed, is not ADA compliant. All other newer built HSR with dedicate infrastructures all have trains with internal floor height ~48". CAHSR chose rightly in this case.
William: let's not making mountains out of molehillts.
Delete(yes not a TGV, but the point remains.)
to Anonymous27 November, 2024 10:19
Deletethe picture proves my point: floor height less than 48" ramp/steps are needed, whether it is internal or external to the train. Only ~48" boarding height leads to flat, no steps, floor inside the train car
Lifts are needed for the Caltrain riders in the Stadler Duplex. That's the issue which you seem to be deliberately ignoring.
Deleteto Anonymous27 November, 2024 12:39
DeleteLike Clem said, there are other solutions to ADA access to the bathrooms, no internal lifts needed
@Drunk Engineer:
DeleteWill they have been scrapped by then?
I would think that at least some of them would be handed down across countries, either to poorer countries or to budget operators in relatively rich countries.
Either a specific type of rail vehicle is crap even after attempts at fixing design mistakes and whatnot, and ends up scrapped early on, or it's a great design and is worth keeping in shape for ages.
@Anonymous27 November, 2024 09:09:
the very surprising alternate reality would be that Cali HSR gets stuck at crossing from the valley to the bay area, but somehow Capitol Corridor gets electrified and improved, and Link21 gets built, and the HSR the Caltrain route will see would be Capitol Corridor HSR. Not very likely, but also not fully impossible.
Something at least not unthinkable is having diesels pulling HSR trains from Merced (or rather Stockton) via the ACE route to San José, and then running under their own power to SF. For this to make sense there has to be a way to run them, at decent speed under their own power, to LA, as even with diesel on the ACE route it would still be faster than the slow coastal route.
A question here is what the cost of ownership per time unit and per mileage is for HSR train sets as compared to regular loco hauled passenger cars? I assume that the HSR trains would be more expensive, but the question is how much more expensive would they be?
"Like Clem said, there are other solutions to ADA access to the bathrooms, no internal lifts needed"
DeleteClem's solution is to have wheelchair users board one special car, which goes against letter and spirit of ADA. Or else confine persons with mobility issues to a really cramped vestibule area, which is also problematic for obvious reasons. Commentators on this blog seem to have developed a terminal case of "Not-Invented-Here" syndrome when it comes to accessibility issues that others have already solved.
“ Clem's solution is to have wheelchair users board one special car, which goes against letter and spirit of ADA.”
DeleteNot at all. ADA requires reasonable accommodation, not everything exactly equal all of the time. It is perfectly acceptable to have a handicap accessible entrance at one end of a building but not at the other, to have a wheelchair path to a playground that starts at the bottom of a park not the top, to have an accessible single bathroom next to normal bathrooms without large stalls. Having a special accessible car seems to be the norm in much Europe, with a large handicap symbol on the outside (just as the pet car has a large symbol of a dog on the outside, the car with the playroom has a stroller symbol, etc.)
“confine . . . to a really cramped vestibule area”
Again, this is totally normal. People with mobility issues (specifically wheelchairs but also some others) obviously can’t use normal seats. It is very standard to put spaces for wheelchairs and associated restraints in car vestibules where there is room for the wheelchairs to maneuver and get set, along with some nearby seats for companions/caregivers (that also function for people whose mobility makes it difficult to get into a normal seat row from an aisle). This is so standard I’m surprised you would even question it.
Cardinal rule of ADA: don't require persons with mobility issues to travel any farther than they have to. That is why disabled parking is near the front entrance of buildings, etc. By requiring a special car, a passenger possibly have to travel a long ways down a platform to reach the special loading location. Or have to find that location if they are vision impaired...
DeleteADA also requires maximum feasible accommodation; confining people to vestibule violates that requirement since there are better options available.
And then there is the whole issue of people with luggage/strollers/bikes having to drag those things up and down the stairs, which can be avoided entirely just by boarding directly to the lower level.
The malicious compliance solution to not have longer walking distance for disability access than other access is to close all station entrances that are far away from wherever the second car usually stops at. That way it's a far walk for everyone.
DeleteThe combination of malicious compliance and also not being terrible to the general public would be to technically close those entrances, but only do that by removing entrance signs and replace a bit of each path with compacted dirt.
"Clem's solution is to have wheelchair users board one special car, which goes against letter and spirit of ADA."
DeleteHow is this any different than the current EMU configuration as converted for 550 mm platforms? There is one special car with the toilet, inaccessible from the others. I sense a subtle double standard being applied. My 48" concept requires no lifts at all after platform raising is completed. As for "not invented here" there are plenty of examples of high-floor bi-level stock-- the latest Paris RER stock or Madrid Cercanias are recent examples. Elevating German/Swiss practice above all is just another kind of myopia.
Clem, my reading of 49.A.38.107 would require restrooms in both cars to be accessible: "If a restroom is provided for the general public, it shall be designed so as to allow a person using a wheelchair or mobility aid to enter and use such restroom." Your scheme (if I understand) provides 2 cars with restrooms, one of which is not accessible.
Delete@Drunk: unless regulators hold trains to a higher standard, aren’t there many non-train examples around us where only one (or some) of many restrooms (or toilet stalls or porta-potties) is accessible?
DeleteThe malicious compliance solution would be to close one of the restrooms.
DeleteQ: What actually counts as "one restroom"? I.E. not that it's a place to take a dump at, but rather what counts as one restroom with multiple stalls v.s. several individual restrooms?
Since Caltrain afaik don't serve food or whatnot, they could class all of the train (or a few cars in the middle) as "one restroom" and each actual restroom could be classed as "a stall".
The question is what distance between ADA-compliant restsrooms/stalls and non-ADA-compliant ones are acceptable.
Cardinal rule of ADA: don't require persons with mobility issues to travel any farther than they have to.”
Delete“ADA also requires maximum feasible accommodation”
These are not correct. The standard for ADA is either accessibility requirements (doors must be 36” wide, maximum slope of ramps, etc.) or reasonable accommodation. Look at this diagram from the official ADA website, it shows a door where people can walk directly up the steps but have to go off to the side to use the wheelchair ramp - making people go farther for the accessible entrance is clearly legal.
https://www.access-board.gov/images/ada-aba/guides/chapter4/4edg4.JPG
And of course you could study station layout and place the ADA/toilet car where it is closest to the main entrance of most stations/escalators to platforms, thus giving disabled users preferential access, just like disabled parking.
“confining people to vestibule violates that requirement since there are better options available.”
Except boarding at the lower level isn’t automatically better. Most space on any train is useless to wheelchair users since normal rows/seats are useless. What they need are certain amounts of clear area to maneuver, a spot with restraints to park their wheelchair safely, and an adjacent seat for a caregiver/companion. Providing 10m2 of accessible seating on the lower level gives no more freedom than 10m2 of accessible seating in a vestibule since that is all the disabled can use.
“And then there is the whole issue of people with luggage/strollers/bikes having to drag those things up and down the stairs”
This is an entirely different issue. I am a proponent of single level trains for exactly this reason, both for the convenience factor and the impact on dwell times at stations from boarding/deboarding, combined with the fact that space for stairs and equipment that is otherwise under floor limits how much extra seating bi-levels gain you.
“@Drunk: unless regulators hold trains to a higher standard, aren’t there many non-train examples around us where only one (or some) of many restrooms (or toilet stalls or porta-potties) is accessible?”
Delete@Reality, you are exactly right, as well as instances of only some entrances being accessible with a sign pointing the way to an accessible entrance somewhere else. Drunk’s interpretation of ADA is stricter than reality.
The vestibule-with-no-wheelchair-space is a reasonable concern, but once you add the eighth car, there is only one place in the entire trainset (between the north cab and the original bathroom car) where this issue arises. Everywhere else than these two doors, you can roll through to the next car where two wheelchair spaces can straightforwardly be made available, on the mid-level. I don't think this is a show-stopper for 48".
DeleteOnux: in terms of non-train examples we can look at the building code. When there is a group (cluster) of restrooms at different floors/levels, code requires that each cluster must have at least one accessible restroom.
Delete@Onux:
Delete"a spot with restraints to park their wheelchair safely"
Why? I get that that is needed on for example a bus, but as trains don't have seat belts, and generally aren't jerky in their movements (and have a very low likelihood of crashing in a way that hurts the passengers), it seems like wheel chairs can just park anywhere.
I have not seen wheelchair restraints on BART, MUNI LRVs, Caltrain, and do not remember seeing any on SMART, Capitol Corridor/San Joaquin trains, or VTA LRVs. Yes, they are on buses, but motorized users on MUNI don't use them, nor do most non-motorized. AC Transit buses are more picky, but they also wait until all fares are paid to leave each stop. But I do not believe from local daily experience that the ADA requires them on rail vehicles.
DeleteA 2023 FRA report says "there are currently no requirements for [wheelchair] users to be restrained or their devices to be secured while riding on passenger railcars."
Deletehttps://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2023-04/Improved%20Collision%20Protection%20for%20Wheelchairs.pdf
Hi Clem, we took your suggestion of making a video about boarding EMUs with a wheelchair using the mini-highs. Here it is: https://youtu.be/XfCk3GrJJgo
ReplyDeleteVery cool, thanks-- obviously a much better experience than the gallery cars! Here is a link to your video.
DeleteI am surprised by how small the overlap of the folding bridge plate on the mini-high appears in the video. It looks like there isn’t much overlap on the car floor side either … so it’s just barely long enough and appears that it could fall if not carefully positioned correctly, or if it shifts only small amount while in use.
DeleteThere is a lip at each end of the underside of the bridge plate that prevents it from sliding longitudinally.
DeleteOff topic: I was distracted today reading about the Wuppertaler Schwebebahn, the Shonan suspended monorail, and the Chiba suspended monorail and imagining a line from Beale St. to Davis St. Embarcadero, Bay St., Cervantes, Marina, Mason, Long, Marine, across the bridge and through the headlands to the Waldo, along 101 ending at SMART Larkspur. Parts of the line would pass over electric bus cables.
ReplyDeleteCan anyone explain the practical meaning, effect, or rationale behind this Stadler announcement?
ReplyDelete“In order to promote this successful business development and to secure an even stronger presence in the American market, the US site will be separated from the Swiss division as of 1 January and will operate as a new US division.”
I read the article and assume that it's an accounting/tax issue.
Delete“Level boarding” appears thusly in the “Amended and Restated Interim Agreement – Caltrain and TJPA”” up for approval at tomorrow’s Caltrain board meeting. (see Exhibit B-1 on PDF page 56)
ReplyDeleteExhibit B: Joint Workplan to be completed by both Parties from November 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025 (Includes 4th & King Yard Preparation)
Workstream 4. MCA or/and 4KY interim agreements development/negotiation
c. Reach interim agreements supporting progress toward a comprehensive MCA (Master Cooperative Agreement), including:
Rolling stock: i. Level boarding implementation and funding plan
Caltrain HQ will decamp from San Carlos to continue cohabitating with SamTrans in their spiffy new HQ building steps away from the Millbrae BART/Caltrain (and maybe someday HSR) station.
ReplyDeleteFun fact I earlier failed to note is that the new building SamTrans is leasing to own at the Millbrae BART station is on BART-owned land. Since it has significantly more space than SamTrans needs for its HQ, they were always planning to sub-lease to other retail and office tenants. And so now after evaluating several other sites ranging from downtown SF (MTC’s building at 375 Beale) to downtown SJ, Caltrain is now going to be one of those tenants in a building on BART-owned land.
DeleteIt's yet another reminder of, in addition to other things, the ridiculous new Trans-Bay Terminal that has had other things wrong with it already, including functionally. As has been said elsewhere, rather than the silly park atop a lower-height station, the station could have had high-rise construction atop it not only providing some housing but office spaces and of course making this downtown site the new headquarters of all manner of Bay Area transportation organizations. Where are the headquarters for MTC and Caltrain and BART, in addition to S.F. Muni? They all should be atop the mass transportation station that defines "downtown San Francisco." Other government offices could be there, plus retail, etc., doing a better job than in Miami with the private real estate developers running a new passenger railroad. But no. Where mixed-use including (actual) transportation in addition to stationary uses could work well, it's absent, by design. Miami's example provides the concept and downtown San Francisco's version EASILY could have outclassed Miami Central and other transit-adjacent development (accurate term).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.som.com/projects/brightline/
On the other hand, it's easier for so many to drive to and from Millbrae. That's despite the usual blurbs about being in a transit-rich location, etc. (It's great if one can do it; few can. If in downtown San Francisco, people would work extra hard to do it.)