I also think something modern really changes the perception of the potential ridership and will attract more riders than something more generic/standard.
5 Likes
The key is that new equipment may have that shiny, clean look and that “new train” smell, but that does not mean it is modern.
Bombardier bilevels pulled by a MPI locomotive (as found at TRE, FrontRunner, SunRail, NM RailRunner, probably others, and also shown in every rendering for GoTriangle Commuter Rail that I’ve ever seen) - basically the standard “new commuter rail line” equipment - can easily be ordered new, but they are not modern in the international sense. They would get laughed out of the room for being slow, clunky, loud, smelly, and passenger-unfriendly on any other continent.
Electric is better, but if it has to be diesel, something like the trains from the A-train in DFW or CapMetro in Austin would be best. Although I’d really prefer high-floor trains and all high platforms (with bridge plates so we don’t have to spend $infinity on a siding for each platform).
4 Likes
Making the train work for the station seems to make MUCH more sense and MUCH more scalable than building out the station to work for the train.
4 Likes
Agreed, hoping to see Stadler’s FLIRT or something similar on this line. I guess the big question is whether NCRR is okay with freight sharing tracks with DEMUs (I’m pretty hazy on the regulatory aspects of this; perhaps there wouldn’t be any sort of issue whatsoever).
And maybe, if we’re really lucky, we’ll get BMUs instead with the promise of incremental electrification. Not holding my breath, but it’s definitely the ideal scenario here.
3 Likes
And building a whole set of high levels for every station but Union might be an issue in itself. Mini-highs would be a half measure at best and mailing the accessibility issue in.
2 Likes
Right now, NCRR has a blanket rule of “no high level platforms on mainline tracks.” The intent is to accommodate extra wide freight trains, but the rule is written as an absolute prohibition.
This is dumb. It takes much longer to load and unload trains via stairs at low platforms. So high platforms shorten dwell times, which actually helps the freight railroads out. A rule rule of “no high level platforms less than (some distance, perhaps up to 7’) from track centers” would be much more reasonable. Their minimum standard for track spacing is 14’ anyway, so a platform 7’ from center doesn’t cause any clearance issues not already caused by trains traveling in the opposite direction on an adjacent track. Retractable bridge plates could be used to close the gap.
1 Like
It wouldn’t be of any issue whatsoever. It might look slightly awkward, but if a car passes FRA muster it’s good to go regardless.
A FLIRT now is no different than a Budd RDC from the 50’s in the FRA’s eyes on that matter. Also, don’t get any ideas NC, the RDC’s Trimet bought as backups for the WES outside Portland are an obsolete disaster.
1 Like
The WES in general seems like a bit of a disaster. Not really sure what the thought process was there beyond “eh, the rail already exists, so why not?”
1 Like
For the people who had a hard time keeping up with the discussion about train widths and platform heights, I made this quick sketch based on Wikipedia numbers and Norfolk Southern’s dimensional shipping requirements. Hopefully this makes it clear why it’s a pain in the ass to make passenger rail conform to freight rail needs:
Part of me wonders if the GTCR has a multibillion dollar budget, in part, because they want to build sidings for passenger rail stations? Since they could let trains “pull over” and stay away from freight trains (or Amtrak or even high-speed trains?) and provide level boarding at local stations, I think that could be one way to get around NCRR (read: CSX and NS)'s demands on track dimensions. Accessibility and ADA issues repeatedly got mentioned in public + stakeholder comments in some older CAMPO meetings, so it seems like there’s bureaucratic pressure to take level boarding seriously, too.
11 Likes
I think that this is why we default to Bombardier Bilevels in these discussions as most non-NEC railroads save Metra and VRE have done. Between the track gauge being between a FLIRT and NS maximum and the ease of access otherwise, it hits that sweet spot in a way though then you still have to deal with locomotives.
Most cars that run on high-platform systems are near that 10’ 6" width give or take a couple inches less as it is. Only issue then is that starting a high platform system from scratch might end up costing more and cheapening out with mini-highs a la the MBTA has headaches of their own especially when the mini-high is far from the station. I provide the MilesInTransit YouTube video critiquing the three Needham, MA stations (all with mini-highs) as Exhibit A.
3 Likes
Stadler can build trains to whatever width the buyer specifies, without too much difficulty. They already manufacture their ‘KISS’ in 2.8m width for mainland Europe, 2.92m for Sweden, 3.0m for Caltrain, and 3.265m for Russia. I’m not quite sure but I imagine they can do the same for FLIRT or WINK or whatever other vaguely suggestive/erotic names they have decided to give their trains. So that’s really not quite the entire concern here.
As @keita mentions, the standard max for dimensional freight is 10’6" (3.2m), and this is also the standard width for most passenger equipment like Amfleets or NCDOT’s heritage fleet.RRs measure things in terms of distance from the track centerline, so in Raleigh, the platform is built almost exactly 5’3" (3.1m) from the track center line. Within an inch or two - the gap there is really quite small, and for good reason - FTA has recently got very strict about ADA requirements related to level boarding.
Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor has high platforms too, but if y’all have ever ridden Amtrak there, you’ll notice that the gaps aren’t nearly so snug. There’s a few reasons for that, but a big one is that freight has to use those tracks too, and freight trains can wobble side to side on their suspension somewhat as they roll by - so there’s typically a few extra inches - maybe 4 or 5? of gap. It’s called the “dynamic envelope” - the space a train might be expected to occupy while in motion. Raleigh Union Station’s platform doesn’t have to worry about that, since freight will never use that track - only slow moving passenger trains. So they can make the train-platform interface really dialed in.
Now, the Northeast Corridor’s situation is one thing - a few extra inches of gap, basically grandfathered in, to accommodate wobbly trains - it works. But it’s also only possible because Amtrak owns the tracks, and oversized freight is generally not allowed to operate there. But more generally, freight RRs do like to retain the ability to carry oversize freight. Why, because they can charge more for it of course! So they want extra clearance from their mainline tracks. How much? Not sure, exactly, but the NCRR sort of puts a hard limit of 14’ because that is how close they allow one track to be to another. A more reasonable width might be 12’ or something.
The “conventional” solutions are to:
- Just build a low platform, no higher than 8 inches, and use stairs to board the train
- Build sidings for passenger trains to access platforms at every station
- Build “gauntlet” tracks (If you’re unfamiliar, go look it up)
- Somehow exclude oversize freight from the tracks
A “new” way, first introduced to US practice by Brightline in Florida. They use retractable “gap fillers” that are attached to the train at every door, and deploy at every stop by extending out 12 inches and providing a “bridge” for passengers to walk across in order to reach the platform.
That is the way that I’d like to see us go.
5 Likes
Stadler’s sales pitch for the KISS and FLIRT product lines (and maybe the others, too) is that they’re modular and customizable. I didn’t realize that Caltrain’s KISS is made to be wider; if we end up having Stadler rolling stock in the Triangle, that’s definitely promising for us!
Oh, and while we're talking about Stadler's trains...
I just want to say I love how Stadler came up with those names! The SMILE, FLIRT, KISS, and WINK are actually acronyms for things that sound* legit and appropriate for trains.
*=if Wikipedia is right, anyways. I don’t know German.
Low platforms are almost certainly an ADA no-no, and the “mini-high” platforms @jdb820 mentioned just seem like lazy and tasteless solutions in my eyes. Gauntlet tracks seem to have weight-loading issues (read: expensive and tough to maintain) that may not be worth the hassle, and excluding oversize freight in one of the busiest freight rail corridors in the state seems like a no-go. I personally like the siding idea, but I wonder if there’s space issues with that? 
So yeah, I think gap fillers on trains could be a good idea, but maybe it could work on station platforms, as well, like in New York, Tokyo, and Hong Kong. Either way, I feel like that’s something we should tell GoTriangle’s project managers the next time we get a chance.
4 Likes
We’ll I know Austin’s Commuter Rail is Stadler GTW. But it very identifiable to light rail, and some of the tracks run on the roads.
That light rail-like build means the GTW could have safety issues if it’s used in the Triangle.
European rail operators ditched GTWs for FLIRTs since they had problems meeting EU crashworthiness standards. American GTW users ignore that problem because they don’t have to share their tracks with freight operators (at least, sort of, in New Jersey). GoTriangle will not have that luxury, though, because we’ll be sharing tracks with NCRR (NS and CSX) and need tougher trains.
@orulz mentioned the idea of street-running trains a while back, but both rail companies and federal rules get in the way of making that possible. Tram-trains in America also seem to rely on freight trains not running during certain hours, and that’s ridiculous to expect out of a major corridor.
2 Likes
WRAL interviews Mary-Ann Baldwin on the need for commuter rail:
Baldwin hopes to have it up and running “by 2030.” Also says city leaders are planning to go to Miami to look at their system.
11 Likes
They need to have some city leaders go to Boston too they have the best rail system in my old supervisor’s opinion. Boston has widespread subway/streetcar and commuter rail systems.
7 Likes
They should visit Austin or Dallas and look at their system. It says construction will start in 2030. I gave up on that commuter rail system.
2 Likes
Denver! Just go to f*ing Denver! That is the place to learn from and copy. Electric trains, service every 15 minutes all day, new-build commuter rail, opened to the public in 2016. 23 miles (50% in an existing rail corridor, 50% greenfield) for $1.2 billion.
They had some headaches and bumps in the road along the way, but we can learn from them and hopefully avoid them.
22 Likes
Boston still has some gaping holes in their system and in all fairness much of their Commuter Rail leaves a lot to be desired.
The age of Boston’s systems are what hamstrings it a ton as does the constant meddling of the Commonwealth in everything. The disconnect of inside 128 from the rest of the state doesn’t help.
4 Likes
Biggest problem with Denver’s commuter rail, in my opinion, is that most of the stations are at giant park-and-ride lots with virtually no TOD (not the case with their light rail, but it’s also a much older system). I think they’re working to change that, but it still makes for car-oriented sprawl north of downtown. But ultimately, yes, I agree. Fifteen-minute headways, late hours, good speeds… it’s a pretty solid system.
I love me some Boston (grew up in New England), and, to their credit, MBTA seems to be moving in the right direction, but their commuter rail is slow as all get out currently. The Providence/Stroughton Line runs on the NEC, but the trains are diesel and therefore take almost twice as long end-to-end as the Northeast Regional and Acela. Also, they really need run-through service, but the North-South Rail Link seems to be on the backburner.
6 Likes