Great Platform Height Debate: Subway-Style Level Boarding for GO Trains

[mdrejhon]

New nearly 200 page GO RER business case document released.

There is provisions to incrementally do this during GO RER to extend the assistive-platforms eventually to full platforms, with features that allow unassisted boarding for the disabled. Not full height 48-inch, but the current assisitive platforms extended to full platforms with features permitting unattended all-door wheelchair boarding.

Platform Height: Raising platforms to allow level loading with EMUs should be explored. New bi-level EMUs can be designed for level boarding as on the Toronto subway. This allows passengers with wheelchairs, strollers and other mobility devices to load at any door, and can also make boarding of all passengers faster and safer. Minor platform height adjustment will be required, and perhaps other measures, to ensure compatibility with existing GO bi-level equipment which will continue in service. The Zurich S-Bahn is an established and successful system with bi-level EMU coaches where boarding occurs from the lowest levels of the train cars, achieving level boarding with an excellent standard of accessibility.

Assume continued use of low platforms.

Consider: 1) migrating toward full-length higher platforms, at the same height as the mini-platforms, for faster loading and shorter dwell times, and 2) purchasing new rolling stock with door and threshold designs, and with a threshold extension, as operating in Zurich that would allow unassisted boarding by – users who require step free access. See Figure 58. Zurich S-Bahn, serving a cold climate city and region, demonstrates excellent unassisted disabled passenger accessibility using new rolling stock mixed with old rolling stock.

The goal is basically the trainsets would be compatible with present low platforms and the current assistive platforms -- but stations (infills, and incremental upgrades) can have a full-length unmanned assistive-height platform rather than a one-door assistive platform.

Zurich provides a template where GO can cheaply slowly migrate to high(er) platforms. Also noteworthy is Utah's FrontRunner has level boarding with Bombardier BiLevels.

While not compatible with UPX or HSR platform height, this would be relatively incremental-friendly -- cheap because it doesn't have to be done right away -- and new infill stations only serviced by the EMUs can be full assistive-height.

 

[drum118]

And more importantly is the actual safety. There have been way too many train crashes in Europe and elsewhere as of late. Imaging a subway running into a parked freight train? Scary. That's why we have these regulations and I'm quite glad we do.

And the cause of these derailments has been "HUMAN" errors, not tracks or equipment in most cases in Europe. Tracks and maintenance is number 1 in NA.

We have seen subway trains running into another in NA in the last few years.

You can buy lowfloor EMUs that will allow the use of exiting platforms. Zürich has both types of platforms and most are lowfloor. Most systems in Europe have lowfloor platforms that I have visited with the odd highfloor.

 

[rbt]

And the cause of these derailments has been "HUMAN" errors, not tracks or equipment in most cases in Europe. Tracks and maintenance is number 1 in NA.

A few should be classed as a engineering design flaw. Giving a single driver very tight timeline to change speed (after an hour at a fixed speed) or everybody dies isn't entirely the drivers fault. If that's actually necessary, there should be 2 engineers.

Of course, an automatic speed control system seems like an obvious benefit. Amtrak could use this in places too.

Actually, any design that relies on a human to be 100% alert but given a monotonous task for an 8+ hour shift is broken and I blame the designer.

 

[reaperexpress]

The recent decision to integrate UP into the GO transit system as the first RER line raises some interesting possibilities about platform height and single-level multiple units.

Also relevant is VIA's decision to build high-level platforms at Ottawa station, indicating their commitment to high-floor single-level trains.

Here's an idea for a high-platform rollout on the Kitchener line which uses the existing high-platform UP service as a jumping-off point.

In the "2020" initial rollout, the UPX would morph into "Suburban" services, using three-car single-level EMU and DMU trains along a separate pair of tracks. This would be a substantial improvement in capacity since stopping services would be independent from faster trains. Regional services would continue to use low-platform bilevel trains, though new rolling stock purchases would be both high-level and low-level compatible.

Further down the line, Guelph and Kitchener Central stations would each get one of their already-planned new platforms built at high-level, to serve VIA and a Kitchener to Guelph shuttle operated with leftover UPX DMUs.

The "2030" full buildout for regional services would proceed once enough of the Kitchener line fleet is compatible with high-level platforms.

 

[mdrejhon]

The recent decision to integrate UP into the GO transit system as the first RER line raises some interesting possibilities about platform height and single-level multiple units.

Very good fantasy maps. I know steveintoronto was looking for this -- about how a rail-to-rail grade separated Pearson spur can improve the through-capacity of the Kitchener corridor (for RER and HSR).

I can see the 2030 scenario assumes the CN-elements completion of the 407 Freight Bypass (the CP elements are much harder but does not affect the Kitchener Line...) assuming 407 Freight Bypass was put on a theoretical fast track on the CN side of things.

If a platform height change occurs, the question is what "high" platform height GO might choose for their EMUs. The accessibility height, or the 48 inch UPX/VIA/HSR height.

The fact that EMUs are now being considered for all electrified routes (LSE, LSW, Barrie, Stoufville, Kitchener), I would imagine GO want to choose only one EMU for fleet reassignment flexibility. With such a large number of stations, they may rank backwards compatibility very highly, and this may automatically exclude 48 inch platforms from consideration especially due to the cost of station conversion, unless they come up with a creative transition buildout sequence or choose multiple EMUs for a goal of merging UPX/ST/RER platform height on Bramalea-Unionville routes/spurs.

One (less strong) correlation I noticed -- from multiple anecdotes -- is Metrolinx is looking for 4-coach compatibility on the UPX route, and the big RER document suggest 4-coach consists that are dockable to 8-coach and 12-coach consists. The question now needs to be begged: What if a rebuild of UPX stations could lower the platforms to accessibility height? My guess is not anytime in the near future, given political sensitivity of UPX. But ruled out? This scenario needs to be considered at least as part of RER Phase II, 2025+ -- the theoretical process of converting UPX stations to be compatible with the 4-coach GO EMU -- e.g. a Stadler KISS or another EMU (Assuming that particular EMUs' bend radii supports going over the spur). This would decrease UPX infrastructure cost efficiency, but increase GO infrastructure cost efficiency. This is not politically feasible to butcher the UPX stations right now, but need to be considered as a theoretical 2030s scenario ("refurbish the UPX infrastructure to turn it into integrated GO infrastructure").

One more likely seems to be a no-pressure transition to full-length intermediate-height (accessibility height) platforms. This allows new infill stations to be 100% unassisted accessible level boarding, while remaining backwards compatible with existing GO stations. This won't be compatible with UPX/VIA/HSR height, and forces UPX to use separate trainsets, but has the advantage of being non-mandatory to convert existing GO stations to be compatible with the EMUs.

 

[jcam]

Or when you replace the UP trainsets, do you make THEM double floor height EMUs, so that they are compatible with new GO accessibility heights AND the existing high platforms. Make them modifications of the accessibility-height standards sets.

 

[mdrejhon]

Or when you replace the UP trainsets, do you make THEM double floor height EMUs, so that they are compatible with new GO accessibility heights AND the existing high platforms. Make them modifications of the accessibility-height standards sets.

The "Bombardier MultiLevel" technique could also come into play. That particular train, however, would be a poor fit because of the narrow low-platform door permitting only single-file boarding rather than BiLevel / KISS / etc double-file boarding doors.

It is not impossible GO might commission a custom design again, 40 years after the BiLevel being custom designed for GO. My opinion is that it is too risky to commission a custom clean-slate design...

I think just doing minor modifications to a good European-style stock design is all that is warranted for cost efficiency (seating density, "Transport Canada compromise" tweaks, integration with whatever ETC system chosen (CBTC/PTC), level boarding compatible with any possible new EMU gauge standardization for GO-owned network, etc) -- so that probably precludes a dual-level door design -- though I could be wrong.

 

[mdrejhon]

drum118 just made a post referring Caltrain getting a Stadler KISS with dual-platform-height doors.

I've never seen a Stadler KISS with dual-platform-height entrances -- and it seems to be the first one I've seen that has double-file boarding width for these doors.

 

[rbt]

A question, why aren't platforms on GO built slightly higher in order to nor require the "step up"

On sections where freight runs there are certain clearances required. Within the Union Station itself, I'm not at all sure why platforms weren't raised a touch when the stairways and elevators were mostly rebuilt.

 

[steveintoronto]

On sections where freight runs there are certain clearances required. Within the Union Station itself, I'm not at all sure why platforms weren't raised a touch when the stairways and elevators were mostly rebuilt.

I got thinking about that again when watching Ottawa's O-Line latest Alstom "Tram-Train" acquisition videos a few nights back, and how they will do exactly that. Disabled access as well as normal is direct and and it took a while to figure it out, since there is no quick answer, especially when considering Montreal has high level platforms for VIA and AMT. (Which requires two sets of egress steps/doorways, problematic in themselves especially for rate of ingress/egress)

It all comes back to the 'eternal conflict' of freight clearance gauge and direct level access for passenger, without the compromise of the extending plates to do it.

It would at first seem a no-brainer to have done it at Union since any freight routed that way is by-passed by the tracks to the south of the shed, except the compromise for the disabled access has already made that impossible, let alone the treadle step already on GO coaches. UPX is another matter entirely.

Until the entire system is on a passenger only basis, or automatic extender plates (and this is done in some jurisdictions, Oz for instance), then the compromise to accommodate freight gauge clearance on shared tracks renders all other platforms to be also compromised.

Btw: The same question could be asked about the new LRVs for GTHA use.

 

[kEiThZ]

Will they have any electrification work started before the next election?

 

[dowlingm]

I recall there being talk of rebuilding a platform at Union as high level for VIA use. Presumably this would follow completion of all other remaining works to give flexibility to Union construction work platform closures.

 

[steveintoronto]

I recall there being talk of rebuilding a platform at Union as high level for VIA use. Presumably this would follow completion of all other remaining works to give flexibility to Union construction work platform closures.

For VIA, it would make sense, as their coaches are already low or high compatible, and not required to empty or fill at the rate commuter coaches are. It would make it difficult to share platforms with GO though.

 

[reaperexpress]

On sections where freight runs there are certain clearances required. Within the Union Station itself, I'm not at all sure why platforms weren't raised a touch when the stairways and elevators were mostly rebuilt.

Because GO coaches other than Accessibility Coaches are only designed for super-low platforms - they have a permanently-affixed lower step that sticks out further than the top step/coach interior. In other words, if Union had platforms level with the coach floor, you'd end up with a step down then a step back up (or to most people, a massive gap to jump).

Bombardier Bilevels can just as easily be spec'd with an exterior step level with the interior floor, which allows for level boarding while also allowing the platform to be set back far enough to accommodate freight movements.

UTA FrontRunner - from Wikimedia Commons

 

[steveintoronto]

Because GO coaches other than Accessibility Coaches are only designed for super-low platforms - they have a permanently-affixed lower step that sticks out further than the top step/coach interior. In other words, if Union had platforms level with the coach floor, you'd end up with a step down then a step back up (or to most people, a massive gap to jump).

Bombardier Bilevels can just as easily be spec'd with an exterior step level with the interior floor, which allows for level boarding while also allowing the platform to be set back far enough to accommodate freight movements.
UTA FrontRunner - from Wikimedia Commons

A picture is worth a thousand and twenty seven words (inflation adjusted). It's that time of the year where my eyes are drawn to the bike, the sky and the intense sunlight before the train! Only five months to go...tick, tick, tick....

There are pics around of models (including the BBD bi-levels IIRC) that extend a plate where a raised plinth platform requires it for flush entrance/exit. It incredibly simplifies and speeds loading/unloading where it's done. Note the split level platform in this case compared to where the single level coach sits behind! Btw: The shown example above just might have the extendable lips!

As an aside, here's the same car type interior, as all US users I've ridden on have: (eat your legs out!).



The interior of a Utah Transit Authority FrontRunner train