HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #13241  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 7:22 PM
Pink Jazz's Avatar
Pink Jazz Pink Jazz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13242  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2016, 11:58 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13243  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 2:48 AM
HowardL's Avatar
HowardL HowardL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: East Lakeview, Chicago
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13244  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 1:39 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13245  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 4:28 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
^ 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.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13246  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 8:04 PM
CTA Gray Line's Avatar
CTA Gray Line CTA Gray Line is offline
Obsessed Activist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Downers Grove
Posts: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
^ 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?
__________________
bit.ly/GrayLineInfo > "Make no little plans....." - Daniel Burnham
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13247  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2016, 5:38 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTA Gray Line View Post
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...
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13248  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2016, 3:38 PM
PKDickman PKDickman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13249  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2016, 5:14 PM
CTA Gray Line's Avatar
CTA Gray Line CTA Gray Line is offline
Obsessed Activist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Downers Grove
Posts: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKDickman View Post
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.
__________________
bit.ly/GrayLineInfo > "Make no little plans....." - Daniel Burnham
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13250  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2016, 3:49 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13251  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2016, 8:24 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
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)?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13252  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2016, 3:00 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13253  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2016, 7:54 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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...
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13254  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2016, 12:48 AM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,647
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13255  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2016, 1:11 AM
HowardL's Avatar
HowardL HowardL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: East Lakeview, Chicago
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13256  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2016, 9:48 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13257  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2016, 12:08 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardL View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13258  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2016, 10:34 AM
CTA Gray Line's Avatar
CTA Gray Line CTA Gray Line is offline
Obsessed Activist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Downers Grove
Posts: 586
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
__________________
bit.ly/GrayLineInfo > "Make no little plans....." - Daniel Burnham

Last edited by CTA Gray Line; Sep 29, 2016 at 2:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13259  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2016, 8:53 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
Red Line extension to 130th moving forward

http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/9/29/...ago-south-side
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13260  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2016, 9:30 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
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.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:17 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.