daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old March 1st, 2014, 12:20 AM   #421
KingNick
Make Wu'bar Great Again
 
KingNick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 6,035
Likes (Received): 8708

It's just not worth the ******* effort to solve a non-existing problem.
__________________
Europa per gli europei
KingNick no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 1st, 2014, 03:26 PM   #422
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
You know very little about German railways then. It is very well possible to segregate services to build dedicated platforms for high-speed services. In some station such a segregation would case some expanses while segregation has already been achieve at others.
I travel on German trains quite a lot. Enough to know that segregation of services is the exception, not the norm. In Karlsruhe the same platforms are used by ICE trains and Trams for example.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 2nd, 2014, 01:38 PM   #423
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,885
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
I travel on German trains quite a lot. Enough to know that segregation of services is the exception, not the norm. In Karlsruhe the same platforms are used by ICE trains and Trams for example.
That's not quite right. Trams call already at a different section of the platform than high-speed services. Which are technically two platform servicing the same track. With some minor re-arreangement one could segregate the track usage as well.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 2nd, 2014, 04:28 PM   #424
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
That's not quite right. Trams call already at a different section of the platform than high-speed services.
As I remember it they just use the same platform height. Pictures and movies I can find on the internet confirm that.
The point is that there is no such thing as a "dedicated long distance platform" in Germany. You can have an ICE train call at a platform, and a local diesel train just after that.
If anything, the platform height should be built to be compatible with the most common type of train. And that's not the ICE.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2014, 08:47 AM   #425
M-NL
Mixed-mode traveller
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,155
Likes (Received): 274

I just don't understand why germany doesn't settle on either 550mm or 760mm, but continues to use both. It also causes weird combinations, for example DOSTO driving trailers always have their doors at the low level, whereas the other DOSTO cars are available with doors at either low or intermediate level. To me the 760mm level would make the most sense, because it limits floor height differences within the train itself (with high level over the bogies being in the 1000mm to 1250mm range).
__________________
Public transport: Mode of transport that takes to much time to take you from the place you're not currently located, to the place you didn't want to go to, at a time that doesn't really suit you.
M-NL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2014, 11:47 AM   #426
rheintram
yeah, whatever
 
rheintram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,598
Likes (Received): 924

The passenger information system in the new ICE-3 seems to be the same as the one used in railjets.
rheintram no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2014, 10:23 PM   #427
XAN_
Registered User
 
XAN_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,034
Likes (Received): 760

Quote:
Originally Posted by M-NL View Post
I just don't understand why germany doesn't settle on either 550mm or 760mm, but continues to use both. It also causes weird combinations, for example DOSTO driving trailers always have their doors at the low level, whereas the other DOSTO cars are available with doors at either low or intermediate level. To me the 760mm level would make the most sense, because it limits floor height differences within the train itself (with high level over the bogies being in the 1000mm to 1250mm range).
Well, I'm not sure, but aren't 550 widespread in regions bodering to 550 countries, and 760, respectively, in regions bordering 760 countries?
__________________
"I'm lost but still I know//There is another world"
-H. Kürsch, 1995
"Well, we all know there's no other side"
-H. Kürsch, 2002
XAN_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2014, 09:35 AM   #428
M-NL
Mixed-mode traveller
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,155
Likes (Received): 274

If the internet sources are correct it is actually much simpler: Per EU regulations all platforms not at 550mm or 760mm must be changed to one of those heights by 2020, except for noted exceptions (e.g. S-bahn at 960mm). They also state that, contrary to my statement in the earlier post, Germany has actually chosen to adopt 760 mm, which is used for all new and major rebuild platforms. As you may have guessed, since a lot of platforms must be altered this will not happen overnight.
__________________
Public transport: Mode of transport that takes to much time to take you from the place you're not currently located, to the place you didn't want to go to, at a time that doesn't really suit you.
M-NL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2014, 11:13 AM   #429
rheintram
yeah, whatever
 
rheintram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,598
Likes (Received): 924

Extremely high platforms are an anachronism.
rheintram no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2014, 03:58 PM   #430
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,885
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
As I remember it they just use the same platform height. Pictures and movies I can find on the internet confirm that.
The point is that there is no such thing as a "dedicated long distance platform" in Germany. You can have an ICE train call at a platform, and a local diesel train just after that.
If anything, the platform height should be built to be compatible with the most common type of train. And that's not the ICE.
Tram-trains in Karlsruhe may use the same platform as high-speed services. There entrance can't be step-free then. There are, however, platform sections at Karlsruhe Hbf which are just 38 cm high. These sections are quite clearly left over or made for the tram-trains as these services don't fit to all the other platforms which are 76 cm high.

I didn't say that there are dedicated platforms for high-spedd services. I said there could be and there should be such a dedication.

The most common are S-Bahn trains which are optimised for 96 cm platforms. I am in favour of such a platform height for all platform which don't serve high-speed services.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2014, 05:44 PM   #431
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,525
Likes (Received): 21227

Quote:
Originally Posted by rheintram View Post
Extremely high platforms are an anachronism.
760mm seems to be a good compromise. It is high enough to be a deterrent to passengers crossing track at unauthorized places.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2014, 05:54 PM   #432
chornedsnorkack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,972
Likes (Received): 388

Quote:
Originally Posted by rheintram View Post
Extremely high platforms are an anachronism.
For which reason?
chornedsnorkack no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2014, 08:40 AM   #433
M-NL
Mixed-mode traveller
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,155
Likes (Received): 274

I would like to know that too. In fact, all info I've read on the subject so far seem to suggest higher platforms are actually better.
__________________
Public transport: Mode of transport that takes to much time to take you from the place you're not currently located, to the place you didn't want to go to, at a time that doesn't really suit you.
M-NL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2014, 11:52 AM   #434
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by M-NL View Post
I would like to know that too. In fact, all info I've read on the subject so far seem to suggest higher platforms are actually better.
High platforms aren't always better. SBB is standardizing on 55cm, and this will enable step free access in most domestic trains in the future. This would not be possible with 76 cm or higher.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2014, 08:54 PM   #435
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,885
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
High platforms aren't always better. SBB is standardizing on 55cm, and this will enable step free access in most domestic trains in the future. This would not be possible with 76 cm or higher.
That's bollocks. It is very well possible to achieve step-free access with 76 cm platforms. Higher platforms are even better for this aim.
On the other hand with 55 cm Switzerland binds itself to a standard which works rather poorly in regards of passenger exchange.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2014, 09:07 PM   #436
XAN_
Registered User
 
XAN_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,034
Likes (Received): 760

Quote:
Originally Posted by M-NL View Post
I would like to know that too. In fact, all info I've read on the subject so far seem to suggest higher platforms are actually better.
Actually, high platforms costs more, and are more tricky in terms step-free acess (length of ramp are growing notably faster then its height). Also having platform (construction) higher than lower part of speciallized platform (rail car) for oversized cargo would result in limitation of what oversized cargo can be transported over the line.
So there's lot things to consider, high platforms are nice, but aren't always feasable.
__________________
"I'm lost but still I know//There is another world"
-H. Kürsch, 1995
"Well, we all know there's no other side"
-H. Kürsch, 2002
XAN_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2014, 09:35 PM   #437
XAN_
Registered User
 
XAN_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,034
Likes (Received): 760

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
That's bollocks. It is very well possible to achieve step-free access with 76 cm platforms. Higher platforms are even better for this aim.
On the other hand with 55 cm Switzerland binds itself to a standard which works rather poorly in regards of passenger exchange.
Passenger exchange really matters for regional trains, where cars are tightly packed with passengers, while intercity trains - not so much. Most modern EMU for local trips, both single-level and double-level, have options of having 550-600 mm entrance, so it isn't such a big deal.
__________________
"I'm lost but still I know//There is another world"
-H. Kürsch, 1995
"Well, we all know there's no other side"
-H. Kürsch, 2002
XAN_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2014, 07:28 AM   #438
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
That's bollocks. It is very well possible to achieve step-free access with 76 cm platforms. Higher platforms are even better for this aim. On the other hand with 55 cm Switzerland binds itself to a standard which works rather poorly in regards of passenger exchange.
Sorry, but you are mistaken.

You will find more step free access to trains in Switzerland than in most countries. Why would that be? All rolling stock currently on order has step free access.

If you make platforms higher it becomes harder to have step free access in to double deck trains. It makes a lot of sense to do the following:
- Build double deck trains with the lower level as low as possible.
- Match platform level to this floor level.
- Match floor level of regional single deck rolling stocktto this level.

The constraining factor here is the need to have step free access to double deck trains, and at the same time maximizing interior space. That is easier done with 55cm then with 76 cm. raising the lower floor of an double deck carriage to 76cm isn't even an option in Switzerland.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2014, 08:50 AM   #439
M-NL
Mixed-mode traveller
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,155
Likes (Received): 274

You seem to be stuck on the idea that on double deck trains the doors must be placed on the lower level. If you make platforms higher you can create step free access to the intermediate level over the bogies, which is also convenient for single deck trains. Every double deck train in Japan, Belgium and the Netherlands is built like that.

This discussion just shows that there is no one way of doing things right, which is not only proven by the large variety of platform heights in service today.
__________________
Public transport: Mode of transport that takes to much time to take you from the place you're not currently located, to the place you didn't want to go to, at a time that doesn't really suit you.
M-NL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2014, 10:11 AM   #440
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by M-NL View Post
You seem to be stuck on the idea that on double deck trains the doors must be placed on the lower level. If you make platforms higher you can create step free access to the intermediate level over the bogies, which is also convenient for single deck trains. Every double deck train in Japan, Belgium and the Netherlands is built like that. This discussion just shows that there is no one way of doing things right, which is not only proven by the large variety of platform heights in service today.
I don't know of any double deck train where the intermediate level is at 76 cm, or at the standard height used in The Netherlands. Anyway, Swiss IC double decker don't have an intermediate level, and they are, IMHO the best design for long distance double deck trains...

I'm not stuck on anything. I only observe that step free access in to double deck trains does not exist in the Netherlands, nor in Belgium, but does exist in Switzerland...
__________________

Dichtefan liked this post
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
ice

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium