Low Level Platforms

Are there any plans to upgrade the remaining low level platforms in the system to high levels?

noting in planning other than that CDOT is studying( sounds familiar) on moving Merrit 7 north 1600 feet( yup next to curve and at edge of hill) and making it high platform.
all others are not under consideration , Breakneck and Appalachian trail are not ADA required, and waterbury branch is the ugly red headed stepchild.

So Metro north will have to continue to order equipment with traps for the foreseeable future even though most stations are high level?

correct .
and since next push/pull equipment will be some kind multilevel like NJT it should not be a problem.

jackintosh11 wrote:So Metro north will have to continue to order equipment with traps for the foreseeable future even though most stations are high level?

DutchRailnut wrote:correct .
and since next push/pull equipment will be some kind multilevel like NJT it should not be a problem.

I wouldn't be so sure that they would have trap doors. My impression of the bilevel/multilevel purchase -thanks to some very thorough explanation by F-line in the "New Britain Busway or Expanded Rail?" thread- is that the Hudson and Harlem lines would get the new MLVs and the Danbury(?) and Waterbury branches + NHHS, Shore Line East (before MUs come into play) and any new or expanded commuter rail ops in CT would get the best of the Shoreliner IIIs and IVs transferred over from MNR allowing the Shoreliner Is and IIs to be disposed of. CT doesn't have the need (and/or probably the money either) for new MLVs so having as homogenous a coach fleet as possible for less buck is going to look pretty attractive to them. Unless CT intends on chipping in themselves for MLVs to be used in the equipment pool to account for the Danbury Branch you can pretty much guarantee that there won't be MLVs used on those trains.

Breakneck Ridge and Appalachian Trail could simply be outfitted with a very small wooden high level structure for boarding @ only one set of doors. And if Danbury trains do warrant MLVs a similar thing could be done for Merritt 7 until a permanent replacement platform is built. Those 3 stops + the Waterbury Branch stations aside from Waterbury are the only low level outlier stops on the MNR system east of the Hudson. And that line won't be needing MLVs for a long time to come. Same with NHHS and SLE, et al. NJT on the other hand has FAR more stations with low level boarding to warrant cars with trap doors.

Furthermore that high level door + "trap door" configuration at the end of each MLV is pointless beyond pointless as its positioning does nothing to help flow of passengers boarding and detraining and the doors themselves are narrow beyond narrow. They make the M-8 doors look enormous. Turning the end sections into even limited seating areas (similar to those in the LIRR C-3s) would be a much better use of space considering that capacity is at a premium (especially on the Poughkeepsie trains).

NH2060 wrote:

jackintosh11 wrote:So Metro north will have to continue to order equipment with traps for the foreseeable future even though most stations are high level?

DutchRailnut wrote:correct .
and since next push/pull equipment will be some kind multilevel like NJT it should not be a problem.

I wouldn't be so sure that they would have trap doors. My impression of the bilevel/multilevel purchase -thanks to some very thorough explanation by F-line in the "New Britain Busway or Expanded Rail?" thread- is that the Hudson and Harlem lines would get the new MLVs and the Danbury(?) and Waterbury branches + NHHS, Shore Line East (before MUs come into play) and any new or expanded commuter rail ops in CT would get the best of the Shoreliner IIIs and IVs transferred over from MNR allowing the Shoreliner Is and IIs to be disposed of. CT doesn't have the need (and/or probably the money either) for new MLVs so having as homogenous a coach fleet as possible for less buck is going to look pretty attractive to them. Unless CT intends on chipping in themselves for MLVs to be used in the equipment pool to account for the Danbury Branch you can pretty much guarantee that there won't be MLVs used on those trains.

Breakneck Ridge and Appalachian Trail could simply be outfitted with a very small wooden high level structure for boarding @ only one set of doors. And if Danbury trains do warrant MLVs a similar thing could be done for Merritt 7 until a permanent replacement platform is built. Those 3 stops + the Waterbury Branch stations aside from Waterbury are the only low level outlier stops on the MNR system east of the Hudson. And that line won't be needing MLVs for a long time to come. Same with NHHS and SLE, et al. NJT on the other hand has FAR more stations with low level boarding to warrant cars with trap doors.

Furthermore that high level door + "trap door" configuration at the end of each MLV is pointless beyond pointless as its positioning does nothing to help flow of passengers boarding and detraining and the doors themselves are narrow beyond narrow. They make the M-8 doors look enormous. Turning the end sections into even limited seating areas (similar to those in the LIRR C-3s) would be a much better use of space considering that capacity is at a premium (especially on the Poughkeepsie trains).

None of that's decided yet. The MTA is purchasing MLV's; it's not known yet if CDOT's joining in on that. They might. They might not. And if they do, it'll probably be at tail end of an option-packed order so they'd be years away from needing to make any sort of decision on what they do run for Danbury/Waterbury coaches.


But no conventional coaches for East Coast platforms are designed without traps. The LIRR C3's are the only ones, and they're a dead-end lineage that'll never be replicated. Just because the coach has traps doesn't mean you actually have to use them. It's standard equipment on a generic Bombardier MLV that would probably be more expensive to customize out of the design than just leave there and never use. LIRR's certainly never going to use them, but they'll be ordering too. Hey...it comes in handy for some things. If a train suffers a minor derailment and passengers need to get off on the ballast to walk over to the rescue train that just pulled up...traps on an MLV are way more convenient than having to send extra rescue personnel out to help people get down from the ledge on a C3. Why over-complicate?

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:None of that's decided yet. The MTA is purchasing MLV's; it's not known yet if CDOT's joining in on that. They might. They might not. And if they do, it'll probably be at tail end of an option-packed order so they'd be years away from needing to make any sort of decision on what they do run for Danbury/Waterbury coaches.

They only ponied up $40M for 12 more M-8s (on top of the 405 ordered) when there apparently is a great need for even more so where would there be money for MLVs (of which there would need to be probably at least 35)? Not to mention NHHS rail upgrades post-2016 startup and SLE improvements (including the planned South Lyme station). And let's not forget the urgent need to replace whatever drawbridges can be replaced ASAP after WALK is completed. Unless that tax increase + transportation lock box goes forward there will only be so much money available at which point new MLVs won't be high on the priority list.

But no conventional coaches for East Coast platforms are designed without traps.

Because the Comets, MLVs, etc. were originally built for the same agency, NJ Transit, which has it's fair share of low level and high level platforming. Even in the early 2000s when the MLVs were being procured not that many stations since the early 1970s had converted to high level platforms in comparison to the rest of the NJT system. Then practically everyone else said "I'll have what they're having" because they could obviously piggyback.

But the issue of no coaches designed without traps is not the point. It's is that MNR doesn't need to take low level vs. high level platforms into account for their particular MLV purchase. If they buy them with the traps and make no changes to the NJT design then obviously no harm no foul. And if they buy cars without them? No harm no foul either. The number of low level platforms on the EOH lines is so low -with most of them contained to the Waterbury Branch (which will need to have its stations ADA'd in the near future anyway which will = high level platforms)- that it doesn't matter. The Waterbury Branch won't need MLV equipment when there will be scores of perfectly good condition coaches available for purchase/swap/transfer to CDOT to run 3, 4, 5 car trains. What it needs before any of that is a permanent Devon Transfer station and expanded frequencies with connections to the main line.

Believe the prototype single door Hi-Level platform was done at Mt Pleasant when the 3rd rail went north to Southeast on the
Harlem Line.
This is a design that can be copied to the other trailhead stations on the Harlem and Hudson lines.
If the MLV design is the next step for loco hauled equipment,the should have 1 door set with traps in each coach/cab car
to allow Train evac at locations other then platforms,easier to use then evac ladders carried on the C-3's and M series cars.

But no conventional coaches for East Coast platforms are designed without traps. The LIRR C3's are the only ones, and they're a dead-end lineage that'll never be replicated.

The LIRR C3's are based off the same Kawasaki design as the Boston, and MARC cars, just specified with quarter point doors without traps...

ohh no they are not, complete different car/shape/trucks/etc etc

...and the fact that the LIRR C3 bilevels are 12 inches shorter in height then the MBTA and MARC cars are...

The MBTA and MARC (Kawasaki) bilevel cars do not fit under the catenary in the tunnels leading to Penn Station...

MACTRAXX

...and they can't fit through the North River Tunnels. Only East River.


C3's are a dead-end lineage. They're not very reliable and they have design limitations the far more successful MBTA and MARC K cars avoided. You'll never see anything C3-derived manufactured again. The MLV's on the other hand, did blend some of the most successful elements of Bombardier's extremely popular and 40-years-proven BLV low-level boarding cars and the high-boarding K cars for that new design, and made sure that the dimensions fit every vertical clearance confined commuter rail line in North America: East River Tunnels, Penn, North River Tunnels, GCT and the Park Ave. Tunnel, SEPTA Center City, and AMT's Mt. Royal Tunnel. It's the only completely universal-use bi-level make out there. And it would be trivial for Bombardier to serve up a version of it at the taller/non-constrained K-car dimensions as a direct competitor to Kawasaki and (yuck) Rotem for future MBTA and MARC orders at no cost difference from the MLV's. Or any commuter rail operator that's thinking of introducing level boarding platforms where they wouldn't be buying the BLV's.

ohh no they are not, complete different car/shape/trucks/etc etc

Please, tell me more. I work with them every day, do you? The trucks are Kawasaki. The outer cosmetic shape of the car has nothing to do with the fact it's of the same basic car body structural design.

C3's are a dead-end lineage. They're not very reliable and they have design limitations the far more successful MBTA and MARC K cars avoided. You'll never see anything C3-derived manufactured again. The MLV's on the other hand, did blend some of the most successful elements of Bombardier's extremely popular and 40-years-proven BLV low-level boarding cars and the high-boarding K cars for that new design, and made sure that the dimensions fit every vertical clearance confined commuter rail line in North America: East River Tunnels, Penn, North River Tunnels, GCT and the Park Ave. Tunnel, SEPTA Center City, and AMT's Mt. Royal Tunnel. It's the only completely universal-use bi-level make out there. And it would be trivial for Bombardier to serve up a version of it at the taller/non-constrained K-car dimensions as a direct competitor to Kawasaki and (yuck) Rotem for future MBTA and MARC orders at no cost difference from the MLV's. Or any commuter rail operator that's thinking of introducing level boarding platforms where they wouldn't be buying the BLV's.

Again, I work with them every day, do you? The C3's are based off the previously mentioned cars, sharing the same basic car body structure. The entire Kawasaki Bi-Level design has not been produced in quite a while so what's your point? You should re word that to read anything Kawasaki Bi Level derived manufactured, FYI. It's impressive to see you have such an intimate understanding of their performance and reliability, seeing as you have absolutely zero experience with them. What reliability issues they may suffer have nothing to do with their basic structural design based off the Boston and MARC cars, but due to differences such as doors. Now you go on to compare a Bombardier product that has zero structural car body relation to their original offering..

EM2000 wrote:

ohh no they are not, complete different car/shape/trucks/etc etc

Please, tell me more. I work with them every day, do you? The trucks are Kawasaki. The outer cosmetic shape of the car has nothing to do with the fact it's of the same basic car body structural design.

C3's are a dead-end lineage. They're not very reliable and they have design limitations the far more successful MBTA and MARC K cars avoided. You'll never see anything C3-derived manufactured again. The MLV's on the other hand, did blend some of the most successful elements of Bombardier's extremely popular and 40-years-proven BLV low-level boarding cars and the high-boarding K cars for that new design, and made sure that the dimensions fit every vertical clearance confined commuter rail line in North America: East River Tunnels, Penn, North River Tunnels, GCT and the Park Ave. Tunnel, SEPTA Center City, and AMT's Mt. Royal Tunnel. It's the only completely universal-use bi-level make out there. And it would be trivial for Bombardier to serve up a version of it at the taller/non-constrained K-car dimensions as a direct competitor to Kawasaki and (yuck) Rotem for future MBTA and MARC orders at no cost difference from the MLV's. Or any commuter rail operator that's thinking of introducing level boarding platforms where they wouldn't be buying the BLV's.

Again, I work with them every day, do you? The C3's are based off the previously mentioned cars, sharing the same basic car body structure. The entire Kawasaki Bi-Level design has not been produced in quite a while so what's your point? You should re word that to read anything Kawasaki Bi Level derived manufactured, FYI. It's impressive to see you have such an intimate understanding of their performance and reliability, seeing as you have absolutely zero experience with them. What reliability issues they may suffer have nothing to do with their basic structural design based off the Boston and MARC cars, but due to differences such as doors. Now you go on to compare a Bombardier product that has zero structural car body relation to their original offering..

Awesome. You've established beyond a reasonable doubt that you work with them every day and are willing to shout that from the rooftops. Congratulations. And then you bury the lede that they have reliability issues. So...what was your point again?

The K-car design is still being produced. The MBTA just took delivery of 75 K-car clones from Rotem, its 5th consecutive order from that design (the others being '90, '97, '01, and '05). They have the first-generation K cars out on a midlife ovehaul right now, with an option on the contract to send Order #2 into rebuild. They have their largest order of new coaches ever scheduled for FY2018-22 when all 200 of their remaining single-level coaches hit retirement; their fleet management plan calls for coach uniformity. K-car design, 6th consecutive order, orders placed in a fourth consecutive calendar decade. The fact that Kawasaki got underbid for the same design does not mean the design is no longer produced. The fact that "Brokem's" Philly plant ended up being as completely incompetent assembling Order #5 as it was with the Silverliner V's doesn't mean the design was flawed or that it was a dead-end lineage like the C3's. Because they'll be buying them a 6th time.

LIRR ordered 1 batch of C3's, is doing no midlife rebuild, and is getting rid of them at the 20-year mark. Which will put a complete and total end to the design's active service, since they can't trainline with anything else out there.


But the important thing is you personally feel superior, I guess.

Yes, I do. Thanks for recognizing that fact. Now all you need to do is realize that you don't, and listen to the professionals and maybe learn something.
Reliability issues? No, I just brought up one problem prone area unrelated to the other Kawasaki cars, being doors.
The Boston Rotem cars are designed from the Kawasaki design? (Yes, I know they are). Now you're backpedaling. Please do not try and tell me what is what. There is nothing worse than a buff who spends every free minute of his time gathering useless information (which it's obvious you do) only available to the general public, and spreads it on buff forums such as these as gospel. The truth is if it were not for Boston, the Kawasaki Bi Level design as we know it would not be produced again, even being a different manufacturer. And again with the "dead end lineage". How many times do I have to say the C3's were built off the same basic car body structure design as the rest of the Kawasaki Bi Levels? One batch? We're not baking a cake here. That's all the LI intended to order, period. Who knows what LI will buy down the road. Will LI rebuild them? Doubtful. And they are getting rid of them at the 20-year mark? I did not realize they had a posting out for equipment engineering. Drop the false sense of certainty as if you're in the "know". Regardless, they will last in service un-rebuilt for a long time. They are in general the best cars in the fleet. And a complete and total end to the designs active service? You just said Rotem was keeping the Kawasaki design alive. Again, foot in mouth. The train line specs were RR specific, and nothing to do with the basic design. Again, the C3's were built off the basic Kawasaki Bi Level car body. We can keep on going. And yes, I am superior. I work here.