SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: Transit Developments (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101657)

Pink Jazz Sep 20, 2016 7:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7567589)

Besides, if you're just gonna use typical L rolling stock, why build a whole new line for only a few minutes of time savings? Why not just spend the money to increase headways on the Blue Line? Put in platform doors to speed up boarding, upgrade the signals, etc. That would actually reduce crowding, maybe to the point where CTA could install luggage racks and more seating in each car.

Unfortunately, the Blue Line probably won't be getting new cars until the 7000-series arrive, and even when they arrive CTA can change their minds about line assignments.

Mr Downtown Sep 21, 2016 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7567589)
Put in platform doors to speed up boarding, upgrade the signals, etc. That would actually reduce crowding, maybe to the point where CTA could install luggage racks and more seating in each car.

Wait. How would platform doors speed up boarding?

As for luggage racks, those were a spectacular failure last time they were tried.

HowardL Sep 22, 2016 2:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7570214)
Wait. How would platform doors speed up boarding?

Because it helps waiting customers self-organize. Think about a vertical L car better known as the elevator.
If you know with certainty where the doors open, you are less likely to introduce chaos into the system.
Or to keep things similar, which is easier, boarding a Jubilee Line or a District Line train? All other London distractions kept similar.

Mr Downtown Sep 22, 2016 1:39 PM

I ride a lot of metros around the world with platform doors, and I've never noticed that dwell times were reduced in any meaningful way. The delay due to OPTO seems more significant—but even that only seems to add about 3-5% to running times.

ardecila Sep 22, 2016 4:28 PM

^ Not dwell times but reliability. You virtually eliminate people falling onto the tracks.

Also, platform doors would act as a continuous windblock for elevated or expressway stations, so people wouldn't cluster near heatlamps or shelters (maybe CTA could even remove them) and they would spread out along the platform better.

CTA Gray Line Sep 22, 2016 8:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7571008)
^ Not dwell times but reliability. You virtually eliminate people falling onto the tracks.

Also, platform doors would act as a continuous windblock for elevated or expressway stations, so people wouldn't cluster near heatlamps or shelters (maybe CTA could even remove them) and they would spread out along the platform better.

Would platform doors require control automation, or would CTA Operators be able to berth trains within a few inches to line up with the platform doors?

ardecila Sep 23, 2016 5:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTA Gray Line (Post 7571397)
Would platform doors require control automation, or would CTA Operators be able to berth trains within a few inches to line up with the platform doors?

Although I would love to see full automation, I'm sure that in the 21st century we can find a way to make train doors align with platform doors. Maybe a partial automation that only kicks in when the train is approaching a station...

PKDickman Sep 23, 2016 3:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 7572028)
Although I would love to see full automation, I'm sure that in the 21st century we can find a way to make train doors align with platform doors. Maybe a partial automation that only kicks in when the train is approaching a station...

I suspect the problems with stopping these trains accurately is much more complicated then we realize.

A lifetime of standing on L platforms and some google measuring led me to the somewhat anecdotal conclusion that our platforms are long enough to fit a 9 car train, but we only run 8s.

Maybe there are mechanical limitations or union rules that I don't know about, but I think the problem is that in order for both the front and rear doors to open to the platform, the train would have to stop within a tolerance of a few feet.

I think that they could increase capacity 12.5% this easily, they would.

CTA Gray Line Sep 23, 2016 5:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PKDickman (Post 7572375)
I suspect the problems with stopping these trains accurately is much more complicated then we realize.

A lifetime of standing on L platforms and some google measuring led me to the somewhat anecdotal conclusion that our platforms are long enough to fit a 9 car train, but we only run 8s.

Maybe there are mechanical limitations or union rules that I don't know about, but I think the problem is that in order for both the front and rear doors to open to the platform, the train would have to stop within a tolerance of a few feet.

I think that they could increase capacity 12.5% this easily, they would.

I worked on the old C&NW in the 70's as a Switchman, Brakeman, Locomotive Hostler, and Fireman; the Fireman position at that time was effectively Apprentice Engineer, and I drove many trains around the yard, and transfers of more than 100 cars on the IHB from Proviso to the big yard (I think it was the B&O at the time) at approximately 135th & Ashland. You had to learn their Operating Rules also, to drive trains on foreign rails.

It would be almost impossible to berth a train with all the operational variables involved (loaded or empty train, new or old equipment, rookie or veteran driver) within inches without some type major automation.

Mr Downtown Sep 25, 2016 3:49 AM

Stopping an MU metro consist with dynamic braking on every axle is a lot different from stopping a freight train.

I didn't think platform doors without automation was practical, but I saw them recently in Japan (on the private Aoyama Railway, serving Nagoya). Seoul also seems to be retrofitting all lines with them, and I'm not sure all those lines are automated.

denizen467 Sep 25, 2016 8:24 AM

Yes, retrofits of platform doors onto old lines keeping the existing rolling stock (i.e. without automation) are not unusual in that part of the world.

But what is OPTO? Overweight passenger tumbles off (platform)?

Mr Downtown Sep 25, 2016 3:00 PM

One Person Train Operation.

Without conductors, CTA trains have a one- or two-second delay when stopping at (and leaving) platforms where the doors open on the left. The operator has to bring the train to a full stop, then go to the left side of the cab to open the doors.

ardecila Sep 25, 2016 7:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 7573848)
Stopping an MU metro consist with dynamic braking on every axle is a lot different from stopping a freight train.

I didn't think platform doors without automation was practical, but I saw them recently in Japan (on the private Aoyama Railway, serving Nagoya). Seoul also seems to be retrofitting all lines with them, and I'm not sure all those lines are automated.

Looks like the platform door is significantly wider than the actual train door; this gives the operator a 4'-5' window in which to stop the train, which should be doable even for a novice.

But yeah, somehow this is an engineering challenge on par with the moonshot... :rolleyes:

Tom Servo Sep 28, 2016 12:48 AM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...927-story.html

This city needs to divert all bike traffic through neighborhood streets and away from the major arteries. This is horrible. Every time I see people biking down Western or Ashland or Milwaukee or any major traffic artery I wonder why the city allows it! It's so stupid and dangerous.

HowardL Sep 28, 2016 1:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 7576673)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...927-story.html

This city needs to divert all bike traffic through neighborhood streets and away from the major arteries. This is horrible. Every time I see people biking down Western or Ashland or Milwaukee or any major traffic artery I wonder why the city allows it! It's so stupid and dangerous.

I would take an opposing position.

Major streets are the great attractors in a neighborhood and people should be encouraged to arrive and circulate by walking or biking.

What is dangerous is the mindset that cars are the default norm and should be given precedence over other, often more efficient, modes of transport.

We need to re-educate motorists in this city that a suburban "cars rule the roads" mindset is inappropriate and dangerous on city streets.

denizen467 Sep 28, 2016 9:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 7576673)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...927-story.html

This city needs to divert all bike traffic through neighborhood streets and away from the major arteries. This is horrible. Every time I see people biking down Western or Ashland or Milwaukee or any major traffic artery I wonder why the city allows it! It's so stupid and dangerous.

I've been saying this for a while. Under good conditions things are dicey; add snow or rain or construction or potholes and collisions are guaranteed at some point; you can't legislate it away. Ideally there would be a bike route the next street over from any major artery. It would be comfy and wide; it might cost a lot of money to shift sidewalks or curbs or parking lanes but it would be worth it; bike commuting could be made less stressful and more enjoyable. Then cycles need not necessarily be prevented from using arteries but would have the safer options available.

k1052 Sep 28, 2016 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HowardL (Post 7576687)
I would take an opposing position.

Major streets are the great attractors in a neighborhood and people should be encouraged to arrive and circulate by walking or biking.

What is dangerous is the mindset that cars are the default norm and should be given precedence over other, often more efficient, modes of transport.

We need to re-educate motorists in this city that a suburban "cars rule the roads" mindset is inappropriate and dangerous on city streets.

As, almost exclusively, a pedestrian I could not agree more.

CTA Gray Line Sep 29, 2016 10:34 AM

Illinois Transportation Symposium
 
The Illinois Transportation Symposium will be held on Tuesday November 15, in Chicago's Cultural Center at Michigan & Randolph: www.illinoistransportationsymposium.com

The CTA Gray Line Project will be an Exhibitor there, please attend if you can: http://bit.ly/GrayLineInfo

Via Chicago Sep 29, 2016 8:53 PM

Red Line extension to 130th moving forward

http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/9/29/...ago-south-side

ardecila Sep 29, 2016 9:30 PM

Yeah, I assume the new transit TIF legislation is spurring this development... although there's probably not much tax revenue to be reaped from Roseland these days.

Anyway, as I learned a few years back, CTA needs a new and bigger yard on the South Side to support higher service levels on the Red Line. The current yard in the median of the Bishop Ford has no room to expand, but after the extension CTA will have room for a gigantic yard at 130th.

Still sucks that there is no transfer to Metra Electric planned.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.