Elevated Platforms off the NEC

[jis]

While I understand why there cannot be high platforms on most Amtrak Stations, I think there should be level boarding platforms at all Amtrak Stations (level boarding platforms for superliners would be low enough to allow for freight clearance.

Apparently Superliner height platforms are as problematic as full height platforms and sometimes more so because there are running gear interference issues at that height, which is a non-issue for high level platforms which can be built with plenty of space down there. That is why there are all sorts of games played with mini platforms at Superliner floor height etc at many places.

 

[afigg]

On the Empire Corridor Yonkers, Croton-Harmon, Poughkeepsie, Albany, and Syracuse currently have high level platforms. Schenectady is scheduled to get high level platform when the station is rebuilt. It is possible that eventually Rhinecliff and Hudson may get high level platforms, with one of the tracks having gauntlet for allowing extra wide freight to pass.

If Schenectady is to get high level platforms (HLPs), I would expect the longer term plans for the Rhinecliff and Hudson stations would include upgrades to HLPs for them as well. If the goal is a higher speed corridor to Albany/Schenectady, upgrading all the stations to HLPs to decrease station dwell time should be part of the program.

If Syracuse has HLPs, I would think NY state would want to eventually convert all the stations on the western Empire corridor to HLPs (long enough to support single stops of the Lake Shore Limited for the stations it stops at) if there is space for an HLP with gauntlet or pull-over tracks.

 

[battalion51]

Another thing to consider is that at a high level platform the Conductors don't have access to equipment (like AC equipment) underneath the cars if there is a high level platform. So, if you need to get to the equipment, and its on the same side as the platform, rather than addressing it at a station stop you'd have to delay the train to get to it somewhere else on the road...

 

[Nathanael]

If Syracuse has HLPs, I would think NY state would want to eventually convert all the stations on the western Empire corridor to HLPs (long enough to support single stops of the Lake Shore Limited for the stations it stops at) if there is space for an HLP with gauntlet or pull-over tracks.

Niagara Falls is getting a new station which will have high level platforms. Rochester and Buffalo-Depew are going through more and more rounds of "planning" for station improvements, but all the proposals will have high platforms (there's plenty of room for freight bypass tracks at both locations). I don't know of any plans for Amsterdam, Utica, or Rome at this point, but you're probably right, they will probably get high-level platforms sooner or later.

 

[Shawn Ryu]

Dont think stations like Rome or Amsterdam is busy enough to justify HLP. Utica is busy enough though.

 

[railiner]

Another thing to consider is that at a high level platform the Conductors don't have access to equipment (like AC equipment) underneath the cars if there is a high level platform. So, if you need to get to the equipment, and its on the same side as the platform, rather than addressing it at a station stop you'd have to delay the train to get to it somewhere else on the road...

What sort of service can a Conductor perform on the underside equipment of a car? I have never seen that....perhaps a Carman or Electrician, but I have only seen a Conductor maybe open an electrical locker inside of a car. The only time I have seen a conductor check under a car is when a defect detector is activated on the road....

 

[George Harris]

Albany, NY is another

On the Empire Corridor Yonkers, Croton-Harmon, Poughkeepsie, Albany, and Syracuse currently have high level platforms. Schenectady is scheduled tog et high level platform when the station is rebuilt. It is possible that eventually Rhinecliff and Hudson may get high level platforms, with one of the tracks having gauntlet for allowing extra wide freight to pass.

Incidentally freight cars that are consistent with standard plates should not have a problem passing by a standard platform. It is some non standard cars that would have a problem.

This would only be true if the setback of platform from track left a gap between car and platform that exceeded ADA requirements, and thus would require use of a bridge plate or other method of closing the gap if needed for access.

(Standard Plate Width is 10'-8". Standard Passenger car width is 10'-0" at car floor elevation, so gap would be 4 inches plus a reasonable allowance, usually not less than 3 inches to allow for rocking of freight car at that height. Also, it is common and should be universal to have a taper at the platform ends so that a car excessively out of line will contact it rather than strike a squared of platform end.)

 

[jis]

Currently ADA access at most stations on NEC requires bridge plates.

 

[George Harris]

Currently ADA access at most stations on NEC requires bridge plates.

That is what I thought. Now, if we could convince Amtrak to go with 11'-1" wide equipment (Shinkansen dimensions) the platform could both meet ADA and pass standard freight cars. But, better make sure the end tapers are wide, long, and strong for the random way out of gauge freight car.

 

[Nathanael]

This would only be true if the setback of platform from track left a gap between car and platform that exceeded ADA requirements, and thus would require use of a bridge plate or other method of closing the gap if needed for access.

(Standard Plate Width is 10'-8". Standard Passenger car width is 10'-0" at car floor elevation, so gap would be 4 inches plus a reasonable allowance, usually not less than 3 inches to allow for rocking of freight car at that height.

Going down straight, tangent track, there shouldn't be 3 inches of rocking, and the plates are supposed to include the dynamic envelope in any case.

Also, it is common and should be universal to have a taper at the platform ends so that a car excessively out of line will contact it rather than strike a squared of platform end.)

Bridgeplates to cover 4", or even 7", are not a big deal, and are fast to deploy and safe to use. Further, most people with minor mobility impairments (canes, walkers, etc.) can cross a 4" or even 7" gap, assisted, without a bridgeplate. Hell, some wheelchairs can go straight across 4" gaps.

Bridge plates to cover 2 foot or 4 foot gaps *are* a big deal -- absolutely everyone will need to use the bridgeplate, and it won't be entirely safe. So there's a big difference between a "short bridgeplate" solution (fine) and a "huge bridgeplate" solution (crazy).

 

[jis]

Dont think stations like Rome or Amsterdam is busy enough to justify HLP. Utica is busy enough though.

Rome and Amsterdam will never get HLP because no one will ever build a siding away from the main at those stations. There will never be an HLP along a freight main line.

 

[TML]

Some years ago, when Amtrak used Superliner equipment for the Lake Shore Limited (due to winter weather-related equipment shortages), the train had to use a small lower level platform at the end of the current high level platform in Syracuse. The Superliner cars only went as far as Albany, and then passengers transferred to other connecting trains from there.

Although I support the concept of high-level platforms in general, I would only support converting the majority of non-NEC stations to HLPs if Superliner equipment were either replaced or redesigned to accommodate HLPs - which, as we all know, is economically infeasible at this time.

 

[jis]

Some years ago, when Amtrak used Superliner equipment for the Lake Shore Limited (due to winter weather-related equipment shortages), the train had to use a small lower level platform at the end of the current high level platform in Syracuse. The Superliner cars only went as far as Albany, and then passengers transferred to other connecting trains from there.

Although I support the concept of high-level platforms in general, I would only support converting the majority of non-NEC stations to HLPs if Superliner equipment were either replaced or redesigned to accommodate HLPs - which, as we all know, is economically infeasible at this time.

Yeah, conversion to HLP should happen only on routes which are predominantly served by equipment with at least some doors at 48" level. For a few routes it may be necessary to maintain accessibility from both HL and LL equipment. The Empire Corridor is one that has only HL equipment under normal circumstances, so it stands to reason that high usage stations should get HLP, with perhaps short LL platform for emergency use such as at Syracuse.

 

[RampWidget]

Norfolk VA which was discussed in an other thread here may be getting a high level platform. Any stations south of DC on the Crescent, Silver/Palmetto routes that have high level platforms?

Delray Beach, Fla. has mid-level platforms but not true high-level ones. (Amtrak uses the Tri-Rail station facility). The other Silver Service stations shared with Tri-Rail in the S. Florida Rail Corridor (WPB, DFB, FTL, HOL) are the ones constructed by the SAL Ry. in the 1920s and have low platforms. The former SAL station at Delray Beach was abandoned and sold to a private owner several years ago. Delray is the only unstaffed station in the Corridor.

 

[Eric S]

Norfolk VA which was discussed in an other thread here may be getting a high level platform. Any stations south of DC on the Crescent, Silver/Palmetto routes that have high level platforms?

Delray Beach, Fla. has mid-level platforms but not true high-level ones. (Amtrak uses the Tri-Rail station facility). The other Silver Service stations shared with Tri-Rail in the S. Florida Rail Corridor (WPB, DFB, FTL, HOL) are the ones constructed by the SAL Ry. in the 1920s and have low platforms. The former SAL station at Delray Beach was abandoned and sold to a private owner several years ago. Delray is the only unstaffed station in the Corridor.

Does mid-level platform mean 15" ATR?

 

[George Harris]

This would only be true if the setback of platform from track left a gap between car and platform that exceeded ADA requirements, and thus would require use of a bridge plate or other method of closing the gap if needed for access.

(Standard Plate Width is 10'-8". Standard Passenger car width is 10'-0" at car floor elevation, so gap would be 4 inches plus a reasonable allowance, usually not less than 3 inches to allow for rocking of freight car at that height.

Going down straight, tangent track, there shouldn't be 3 inches of rocking, and the plates are supposed to include the dynamic envelope in any case.

Also, it is common and should be universal to have a taper at the platform ends so that a car excessively out of line will contact it rather than strike a squared of platform end.)

Bridgeplates to cover 4", or even 7", are not a big deal, and are fast to deploy and safe to use. Further, most people with minor mobility impairments (canes, walkers, etc.) can cross a 4" or even 7" gap, assisted, without a bridgeplate. Hell, some wheelchairs can go straight across 4" gaps.

Bridge plates to cover 2 foot or 4 foot gaps *are* a big deal -- absolutely everyone will need to use the bridgeplate, and it won't be entirely safe. So there's a big difference between a "short bridgeplate" solution (fine) and a "huge bridgeplate" solution (crazy).

OK, it has been months, but I ran across this when looking for something else.

1. Standard freight car plates are static, and DO NOT include any allowance for rocking or other dynamics.

2. The standard Amtrak high platform is 4'-0" high and 5'-7" offset from track centerline. The ADA requirement is not more than 3 inches laterally and 5/8 inches vertically from the car floor elevation at the door. Thus, the standard Amtrak high platform is not ADA compliant. However, it appears that it is tolerable to most people with disabilities. Most of these platforms are on tracks where freight traffic is minimal or none.