|
|
| Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... (333618) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
|
| (352222) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 12 12:33:20 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by ntrainride on Tue Dec 12 12:30:15 2006. If you were as careful to absorb as I am, you would have understood what the thread was about.Get a grip. |
|
|
| (352225) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Dec 12 12:37:01 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by ntrainride on Tue Dec 12 12:30:15 2006. Excellent, excellent post. |
|
|
| (352481) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Dec 12 20:57:31 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Nov 6 14:54:28 2006. IIRC, when the RER in Paris was constructed, some of the 600VDC third rail lines were converted to 25kV @ 60hz.All of the 750VDC third rail lines were converted to overhead, earlier conversion was to 1.5kV DC, later ones to 25kV@50Hz except parts of RER C where Z5300 stock were still the mainstay. The last third rail line was converted to RATP T2 line with 750VDC overhead(LRT). |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (352485) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Dec 12 21:05:31 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Nov 6 18:45:55 2006. Third rail electrification still needs high voltage AC lines to run along the line to deliver power to sub-stations and they get blown down by weather if not built and maintained properly. As Will said, modern catenary tends to be more robust than looser wired power lines. |
|
|
| (352494) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Dec 12 21:23:35 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Nov 6 19:29:02 2006. And in the case of Paris catenary troubles under snowy weather were due to the newer rolling stock and its pantographs. The old Z stock on RER B ran just fine. (Therefore called the Saint Bernards of the RER)In Tokyo, oversized vehicles like cranes are more of a problem for cutting lines down at grade crossings than typhoons. They do stop running the trains at elevated sections when the wind is too strong but they'd do the same on third railed elevated lines if any of significant distance existed. (Osaka has them) |
|
|
| (352522) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Tue Dec 12 22:25:02 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 12 12:33:20 2006. Side, bottom or top? |
|
|
| (352556) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 00:08:11 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by Dan Lawrence on Tue Dec 12 22:25:02 2006. "THIS SIDE UP" 8-) |
|
|
| (352569) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by tracksionmotor on Wed Dec 13 00:54:11 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Dec 12 21:05:31 2006. Thank you Mr. Nikola Tesla for your words of widsom. HV transmission lines are pretty much weather sustainable...cat lines MUST be stiff to maintain contact to parallelograph.I'll post 'Logical Control Systems' soon. |
|
|
| (352596) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Wed Dec 13 03:59:06 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Nov 6 14:22:05 2006. Ron, it seems like this question comes up every year or so.Yes, you could certainly build an urban rapid transit system using "catenary", by which I assume you mean a high-voltage overhead conductor (certainly a 600VDC overhead would not have enough cross-sectional area to deliver the high currents needed for heavy rail). The question then is: why would you want to? High-voltage contact conductors only make sense when the distances involved are large. Only then does the savings in substation facilities and secondary (600-750VDC) feeders and of course third rail infrastructure outweigh the added per-car cost of high-voltage operation. |
|
|
| (352597) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Dec 13 06:01:51 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Nov 6 14:22:05 2006. "If it is so incredibly superior in all aspects to third rail, the subway could have used it."The point about tunnel clearances has been made in other posts. However, some European metro systems (Barcelona, for example) *do* use catenary throughout. If a metro system has any above-ground operation, though, a major disadvantage of catenary comes into play: the damn things blow down in high winds! |
|
|
| (352654) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by Brighton Private on Wed Dec 13 10:19:11 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by Jeff H. on Wed Dec 13 03:59:06 2006. why would you want to?For the LIRR, it would resolve the problem of "gapping out" for push-pull trains, a major obstacle to providing thousands of commuters a one-seat ride into Penn Station. It is not clear what, if anything, it would have done for the NY subways, though there must be some operational advantages even for urban subway systems because it is being widely used including, as noted, in Tokyo. Speaking of gapping out, a question: why were LIRR dual-mode locos built for third rail at all? Why couldn't they run diesel as far as Harold, and then shift to overhead AC for the rest of the run into Penn Station? It can't be that switching from DC to AC is a problem, as the MN New Haven Division trains do it all the time. Assuming this could be accomplished, one wouldn't need a loco on each end of the train and the LIRR would be able to provide more one-seat serviced, as had been promised to riders of the diesel lines when the DM's were ordered. I'm sure there's a sensible answer -- I'm not saying the LIRR people are idiots -- I'm just curious to know what it is. (It can't be a "cab forward" problem -- wayside indicators could tell the engineer when to raise the pantograph on inbound trains, for which control provision could be provided in the cab.) I might have thought the problem related to taking AC rather than DC power, but modern diesels generate AC propulsion power anyway. |
|
|
| (352667) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Dec 13 10:43:16 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by Brighton Private on Wed Dec 13 10:19:11 2006. why were LIRR dual-mode locos built for third rail at all? Why couldn't they run diesel as far as Harold, and then shift to overhead AC for the rest of the run into Penn Station?...I'm sure there's a sensible answer -- I'm not saying the LIRR people are idiots...It can't be that switching from DC to AC is a problem...It can't be a "cab forward" problem...I might have thought the problem related to taking AC rather than DC power, but modern diesels generate AC propulsion power anyway."It is one of the elementary principles of practical reasoning...that when the impossible has been eliminated the residuum, however improbable, must contain the truth." Arthur Conan Doyle |
|
|
| (352669) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by Brighton Private on Wed Dec 13 11:09:59 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Dec 13 10:43:16 2006. Yes, but it may contain much else as well. So, what is the answer? |
|
|
| (352679) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Dec 13 11:43:16 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by Brighton Private on Wed Dec 13 11:09:59 2006. LIRR thought that they would run on the third rail throughout third rail territory, and then switch to the diesels. That it was impractical for them to do so was not encountered / considered until it was too late.LION's SOLUTION: Run the DMs as if they were straight diesels, and get some toasters to push/pull the train through the tunnels. You'd not want to pull the diesels off, just on the run connect them to a waiting toaster up front, and let the "tunnel crew" bring it into the station. Outbound the road crew is in the cab, and is controlling the train via the toaster. Once out of the tunnel, the diesel is fired up, the toaster lets go, and the train keeps on running. All they gotta do is buy about four toasters to cover their schedules. ROAR |
|
|
| (352686) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by Brighton Private on Wed Dec 13 11:56:38 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Dec 13 11:43:16 2006. Wouldnt this complicate operations at Jamaica? The toasters would have to wait somewhere to meet their trains, cross over various tracks to change direction, etc.Then once they get to Penn station, they'd be stuck on the back end of the LIRR train and would either have to wait to be pulled back out to Jamaica or would have to be run around. It's an interesting idea but somehow I don't see it happening given the current congestion at Penn, in the East River Tunnels, and at Jamaica. |
|
|
| (352700) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 12:36:43 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by Brighton Private on Wed Dec 13 10:19:11 2006. "For the LIRR, it would resolve the problem of "gapping out" for push-pull trains, a major obstacle to providing thousands of commuters a one-seat ride into Penn Station."That's true. The next question is, would that be cost-effective in terms of serving that particular customer segment? |
|
|
| (352703) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Dec 13 12:42:19 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by Brighton Private on Wed Dec 13 11:56:38 2006. The toasters cannot go to Jamaica. There are no wires there. They come out of the tunnel the engineer starts the diesel, hits the cutting key and the toaster falls off. The toaster operator moves onto a ready track.The toaster then moves into a westbound track and waits. A diesel comes up behind, makes a connect, and shuts down. The toaster driver takes the train into the station. It can stay there, after all, the train isn't going to be there all that long before it goes on out east. ROAR |
|
|
| (352706) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Dec 13 12:45:21 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 12:36:43 2006. TOASTERS!Let them ride through the tunnel on toasters. |
|
|
| (352707) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 12:46:33 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Dec 13 12:45:21 2006. White, wheat or rye? |
|
|
| (352719) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 13:22:33 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by WillD on Sun Nov 5 18:06:06 2006. Most likely this glut of people for whom the steps of a trap are a nearly impossible impediment to riding a train will come sooner than we could effectively build high platforms for the entire NYC commuter system.Or never. The NEC is high platform and (just about?) all the stations are ADA compliant. However the problem comes when the trains have to use the express tracks and low-platform for whatever reason. Then the ADA complaince goes out of the window. I wonder if this is actually worse than not being ADA complaint, as it sets up an expectation that’s not going to be met. Someone with a movement disability gets on a train in New York and then discovers that, instead of being able to get off at New Brunswick say, they have to travel all the way to Trenton. |
|
|
| (352728) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by Brighton Private on Wed Dec 13 13:30:31 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 12:36:43 2006. Of course that's the next question, but I don't even know if it would have been technically feasible. If so, we can assume that it would have been more cost efficient than putting a locomotive on each end for no purpose other than gap filling. |
|
|
| (352733) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by Brighton Private on Wed Dec 13 13:32:58 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Dec 13 12:42:19 2006. Of course you're right about Jamaica -- don't know what I was thinking.Doesnt someone need to attach -- detach brake lines, etc, or is that not necessary in your scenario? |
|
|
| (352735) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Wed Dec 13 13:34:06 2006, in response to LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by South Ferry on Sat Nov 4 04:21:03 2006. pulled the emergency breakThe person who typed up this story really needs to go back to Grammar School. --Mark |
|
|
| (352737) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 13:36:27 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 13:22:33 2006. That is a problem, but one that gets better with time.The LIRR is mostly ADA compliant. If you look at the network, very few stops are not ADA compliant anymore. That didn't happen overnight. |
|
|
| (352742) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Wed Dec 13 13:42:29 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 13:36:27 2006. I don't think the situation that John is describing is getting better over time. AFAIK, NJT has no plans to create ADA access to their low level auxiliary platforms at high-level stations. |
|
|
| (352744) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Wed Dec 13 13:46:50 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by WillD on Sun Nov 5 18:06:06 2006. The big challenge for the East Coast, IMHO, is building a car which can platform at both high and low platform stations and achieve ADA compatibility at both.Without having a ramp or elevator in the interior of the coach, how can you have a train that is ADA-compliant at both high and low platform stations? |
|
|
| (352745) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Wed Dec 13 13:47:38 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 00:08:11 2006. That's on a box.A grip is on a cable car. |
|
|
| (352747) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 13:50:13 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by Charles G on Wed Dec 13 13:42:29 2006. Granted. If the situation he describes occurs often enough, there will be pressure to do something about it. |
|
|
| (352748) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 13:50:45 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by Dan Lawrence on Wed Dec 13 13:47:38 2006. LOL! Good one! |
|
|
| (352753) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 14:02:17 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by Charles G on Wed Dec 13 13:42:29 2006. I don’t know how this can be achieved easily. About the only thing I can think of is a hydraulic/pneumatic lift in between the tracks. How reliable that would be I don’t know.But I think we can rest assured that NJT isn’t going to build extra platforms at the non-express stops. There’s no space to do it, so the entire station would have to be ripped apart and rebuilt. I can’t see the money for that coming any time soon. |
|
|
| (352782) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Wed Dec 13 14:55:34 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 14:02:17 2006. I suspect that the quick low-tech solution would be to have a bridge plate at the end of the high-level platform that could be quickly moved into place for those situations. |
|
|
| (352787) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Dec 13 15:06:34 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by Brighton Private on Wed Dec 13 13:32:58 2006. As those locomotives are configured now, yes you are correct, but the LION, being much smarter than this would outfit the locomotives with a different sort of coupling system that will permit this sort of operation.ROAR |
|
|
| (352796) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Dec 13 15:20:02 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 12:46:33 2006. Actually, I prefer Russian Black Bread.ROARING |
|
|
| (352797) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 15:23:42 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by Charles G on Wed Dec 13 14:55:34 2006. That would be interesting. The current bridge plates, which just have to go from train height to high-level platform height are heavy enough.The “weekend maintenance” bridges that NJT uses require a crane to set them. New job requirement for NJT conductor: must be able to lift 100lb! (and that assumes two people!) |
|
|
| (352805) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Wed Dec 13 15:35:46 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 15:23:42 2006. The current bridge plates, which just have to go from train height to high-level platform height are heavy enough.And this is all I am thinking of. Take Metropark for example. There is a low-level platform at the north end of the station. So at the extreme end of the high level platform, you install a bridge plate that connects the high-level platform to a high-level door. Non mobility challenged passengers still platform from the low-level platform. The “weekend maintenance” bridges that NJT uses require a crane to set them. Metro North seems to be able to get bridge plates in place pretty quickly on the New Haven line. They set them up all the time for mid-day track work and have them out of the way in time for the PM rush. Of course, I haven't witnessed the actual set-up and take-down of the plates, so I could be wrong. They certainly don't look like they would need a crane to set up -- probably just two reasonably strong people. Obviously that wouldn't work for the temporary service disruption you were thinking about, but I wonder whether or not the design could be modified so that the plate could be easily moved into place by one person. (That's got to be cheaper than installing hydarulics in the trackbed!) CG |
|
|
| (352809) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Dec 13 15:42:26 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Dec 13 15:06:34 2006. HelperlinkHowever, I dunno if you want to deal with a system like that on a passenger train operating on tracks as congested as the LIRR's mainline. I believe there's also a need to make a series of brake tests before, during and after the hookup. IMHO it just makes more sense to bite the bullet now, electrify all the way to Montauk, Greenport, Oyster Bay, and Port Jeff now and operate electrics all the way. The LIRR has been trying to botch together the same kind of crap for the past 40 years with absolutely no success. If you're going to have them acquire new electric locomotives you may as well just pay for wire all the way to the end of the island and order the locos with dual voltage capability. That way you get rid of the troublesome DM/DE30ACs, and gain a much more reliable mode to the eastern end. |
|
|
| (352817) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 16:05:07 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by Charles G on Wed Dec 13 15:35:46 2006. Don’t forget that you are now bridging a whole track, say about 10'. The bridge strength (and therefore weight) needs to be increased correspondingly.However, I think that you could arrange for a hinged plate, with a pulley system to lower it to a suitable train door. I can’t comment about Metro North. It takes NJ Transit about 45 minutes to set 6 fixed bridges for weekend work. And it takes a small track-running mobile crane. |
|
|
| (352819) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 16:07:20 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by WillD on Wed Dec 13 15:42:26 2006. I would agree with you. If it were anything but railroad, the step-child of American transportation, this would have been completed a while back. |
|
|
| (352821) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Wed Dec 13 16:07:51 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 16:05:07 2006. I'm no engineer, but the hinged plate and pulley sytem was kinda sorta like what I had in mind.My office is right near a MNRR station. One day when I see the bridge plates set up at lunch time I'll have to make it a point to go lurk around the station at 3 or 4 PM to see how they take them down. |
|
|
| (352830) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 16:28:48 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by Charles G on Wed Dec 13 16:07:51 2006. With camera, I hope… |
|
|
| (352842) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 17:02:32 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Dec 13 15:20:02 2006. Yummy! |
|
|
| (352845) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 17:03:59 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 15:23:42 2006. Sometimes lidting is difficult not because of weight, but because of the ungainliness of the object being lifted or how the person lifts.Or sometimes all three. |
|
|
| (352849) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 17:14:44 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 17:03:59 2006. Absolutely.I am intrigued though and I think you have some expertise with ADA here: how do you think NJT should handle the case where someone with a physical disability boards a train and finds out close to his/her station that low (dis)boarding is required? I’m not blaming the train crews or anyone here: sometimes this happens because of stalled trains and the railroad does its best to keep things moving. The crew may only find out when the train crosses a switch to go from the local track to the express track. |
|
|
| (352851) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 17:21:45 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 17:02:32 2006. There was a type of bread that I could buy in the North East of England, called “Granary Cob”. It was whole-wheat bread with small pieces of wheat. “Floor sweepings” was my great aunt’s description.The bread was dense, nutty and great. I could eat half a loaf at a sitting if it were bought fresh! |
|
|
| (352853) | |
Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 17:31:38 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Third rail vs. catenary, posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 17:21:45 2006. I'm getting used to whole wheat pasta these days (6 grams of fiber per serving). I admit it was not my first love, but with a good pasta sauce (tomato - more fiber, lycopenes, vitamin C) it eats well. |
|
|
| (352856) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 17:39:05 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 17:14:44 2006. It depends on the person's disability. If the person is ambulatory, it may be that a crewmember's support is all that's needed.If the person is in a manual chair, perhaps the crew can lower the person to the ground after the chair has been passed through the door and set up. (I advocate use of manual chairs for travel whenever possible; obviously this is not always possible. One option is to travel with a companion who can do the pushing). If the person is in a heavy motorized chair (in some cases, the combined weight of person+chair can exceed 600 lb, the federal requirement for bus wheelchair lifts) they have a real problem. If the station has portable ramp equipment that can be set up and can hold the weight, that's great but I don't know that we can count on that. |
|
|
| (352861) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 17:51:25 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 17:39:05 2006. If the person is ambulatory, it may be that a crewmember's support is all that's needed.I have seen that: “frail, little old lady” a lot of times. It’s the wheelchair situation that’s more difficult. I haven’t seen that yet. But it’s likely to get there given that the average weight of the population is increasing (especially in the critical segment, the baby-boomers). But my experience is mostly limited to late nights and early morning weekends. I’m pretty sure that if someone in a motorized wheelchair boarded at NY Penn and discovered en route that the deboarding at Princeton Junction was low platform, then there would be a problem. I wonder what NJ Transit’s policy is in such cases? Paratransit back to the correct station? I write this because I have seen a lady get off the train at New Brunswick Southbound, exit the elevator in a wheelchair, then get into a minivan equipped with a lift and drive away. |
|
|
| (352864) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 18:03:54 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 17:51:25 2006. I believe you. |
|
|
| (352882) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 18:58:53 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 13 18:03:54 2006. This is one of the cases where I’m not going to offer backup evidence. Here, and in the one case I saw a NJ Transit bus provide a wheelchair lift, I was fascinated by the mechanism (and would have wanted to document how it worked for my own satisfaction later), discretion said no. |
|
|
| (352883) | |
Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall.... |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Dec 13 19:01:17 2006, in response to Re: LIRR: Another GAP Fall...., posted by JohnL on Wed Dec 13 18:58:53 2006. And ironically, NJ Transit will order low floor LRVs, but NOT A SINGLE LOW-FLOOR BUS for a circumstance just like this...providing more opportunities for Murphy's Law to reign supreme. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
