Why high level?

Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Why high level?

Postby SM89 » Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:22 am

I've noticed that many other commuter rail systems use bi-level coaches that have the doors on the lower level, not in between like the MBTA's. Does anyone know why the MBTA chose to reconstruct every station as high level (or accessible through mini-high) instead of just buying new coaches with lower doors?
SM89
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:45 pm
Location: Mission Hill, MA

Re: Why high level?

Postby jaymac » Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:04 pm

Given my nonexistent position on the MassDOT/MBTA/MBCR information food-chain, I'm guessing to standardize entrance/exit specs, possibly for future all-ADA-compliant platforms, for subsequent rolling-stock purchases.
"A white SUV with a roof antenna just might not be a company van."
jaymac
 
Posts: 3427
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: Why high level?

Postby Jersey_Mike » Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:38 pm

The standard for passenger platforms in the Northeast is the 48 inch high level platform which was literally set in concrete by the PRR and NYC when they built Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal. Seeing as how Boston is tied in with the same northeast corridor that needs to support the Penn Station 48 inch platforms and that the major stations on the NEC would get said 48 inch platforms, the MTBA rightly decided to purchase compatible equipment, even before said stations were upgraded. Having cast its lot with the 48" platform for all South Side trains the MTBA wisely standardized on the 48" platform system wide for all mini-high and full length platforms.
Jersey_Mike
 
Posts: 4689
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:39 am
Location: CHARLES aka B&P JCT MP 95.9

Re: Why high level?

Postby MBTA F40PH-2C 1050 » Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:33 pm

trains load much quicker at a high level vs. low level
MBTA F40PH-2C 1050
 
Posts: 3498
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:57 pm

Re: Why high level?

Postby MBTA1016 » Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:51 pm

MBTA F40PH-2C 1050 wrote:trains load much quicker at a high level vs. low level



That's important during rush hour for any commuter rail system.
Josh.W
Formally mbta fan
WE ARE BOSTON, WE ARE BOSTON STRONG


Flicker: http://www.flickr.com/photos/116905626@N06/
Blog: http://jpwilkinson2448.blogspot.com/?m=1
User avatar
MBTA1016
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:16 pm
Location: Walpole MA

Re: Why high level?

Postby Jersey_Mike » Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:47 am

Gallery and GO Bi-level cars have trainline low level doors which relieves most of the boarding penalty at low level platforms.
Jersey_Mike
 
Posts: 4689
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:39 am
Location: CHARLES aka B&P JCT MP 95.9

Re: Why high level?

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:13 am

Mbta fan wrote:
MBTA F40PH-2C 1050 wrote:trains load much quicker at a high level vs. low level



That's important during rush hour for any commuter rail system.


It's also the only way the T can use its automatic door coaches, which really speeds dwell times on the Old Colony. Any line that's a mix of highs and lows requires the conductor to manually flip the trap door and manually work the individual doors at stops. It'll be a big frickin' deal if they meet Amtrak's target for all-highs on the Providence Line. And the service levels envisioned for Fairmount pretty much depend on them finding some spare change to raise the Fairmount and Readville platforms (they've already got ADA mini-highs so raising them wasn't funded with the Morton St. and Uphams Corner rebuilds).
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7230
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Why high level?

Postby MBTA1016 » Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:14 pm

Just about every line except the old colony lines are a mix of high and low level platforms. I know that the franklin and Worcester line is for sure. The only stations along the providence line that are high level is the ones Amtrak uses, along with TF Green and maybe canton junction. Providence trains don't stop at readville anymore even though it's high level on the corridor.
Josh.W
Formally mbta fan
WE ARE BOSTON, WE ARE BOSTON STRONG


Flicker: http://www.flickr.com/photos/116905626@N06/
Blog: http://jpwilkinson2448.blogspot.com/?m=1
User avatar
MBTA1016
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:16 pm
Location: Walpole MA

Re: Why high level?

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:30 pm

Mbta fan wrote:Just about every line except the old colony lines are a mix of high and low level platforms. I know that the franklin and Worcester line is for sure. The only stations along the providence line that are high level is the ones Amtrak uses, along with TF Green and maybe canton junction. Providence trains don't stop at readville anymore even though it's high level on the corridor.


Amtrak's NEC infrastructure plan calls for the T to raise every remaining low platform on the Providence Line. For Providence and Fairmount they are at least under significant pressure to get the automatic door coaches on those lines by decade's end to achieve their service goals. And I suppose Stoughton too, since there's only two off-NEC platforms there and it's a requirement of South Coast Rail.

That's close to two-thirds of all southside service being targeted.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7230
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Why high level?

Postby Head-end View » Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:16 pm

Mbta fan: When were high-level platforms built at Readville on the corridor? Last time I railfanned there a couple of years ago it was still low-level, not that it mattered since no corridor trains stopped there anyway.
Head-end View
 
Posts: 2347
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: The second row on a SEPTA Silverliner V

Re: Why high level?

Postby The EGE » Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:24 pm

All four high-level platforms (Franklin, Fairmount, and NECx2) at Readville were built in the early 90s. 1990 Commuter Rail map shows Readville as non-accessible but planned; 1995 aerial imagery shows all platforms as mini-highs.
User avatar
The EGE
 
Posts: 2460
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: Waiting for the N Judah

Re: Why high level?

Postby diburning » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:20 pm

Readville is ALL mini-highs. No full length highs at Readville. One for each of the NEC tracks, one for the Dorchester Branch, and one for Franklin.
User avatar
diburning
 
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Practicing safe CSX by using Three-Step Protection

Re: Why high level?

Postby R36 Combine Coach » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:57 pm

By comparsion, LIRR has been all high level* since 1998 (but not without closing several diesel only stops with low ridership).

*Except Belmont Park
Since my friend continues to chain smoke nonstop, she is probably an Alco.
User avatar
R36 Combine Coach
 
Posts: 4892
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Why high level?

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:41 am

The EGE wrote:All four high-level platforms (Franklin, Fairmount, and NECx2) at Readville were built in the early 90s. 1990 Commuter Rail map shows Readville as non-accessible but planned; 1995 aerial imagery shows all platforms as mini-highs.


Those too will get raised within a few years. The Amtrak cap improvements fix for the single-track Franklin bottleneck at Readville has the current short Franklin inbound platform being demolished for restoration of the 2nd track and the unused NEC outbound platform being returned to service as the new Franklin inbound in its former configuration as an island platform. I bet they raise NEC inbound at the same time just to get it over with on the same project, even though that particular platform's not going to see any revived usage like the other one.


The Fairmount platform is planned (but unfunded and T-only responsibility) for relocation about 200 feet north of the current one so it sits on an island, can stop 2 trains at once, and is positioned to allow continuing service at the switch to either the Franklin or the NEC instead of just Franklin. Needed for the envisioned Fairmount headways, intermingling of the Fairmount schedule with more Franklin thru-routes (or handling a full Foxboro schedule), and any future extension of the Fairmount Line to 128.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7230
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Why high level?

Postby diburning » Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:23 am

On a related note, Porter's mini-high does not line up with the coaches on Track 2. Because the curve into the station is elevated, the platform is lower than the doorway on the coach by a few inches.
User avatar
diburning
 
Posts: 2975
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Practicing safe CSX by using Three-Step Protection

Next

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests