Post by Greg GrittonLooking at the web site, I realised that I had missed one of the
platform offsets.
(I.E. there is an "F" indication for the platform offset but no key.)
- http://www.gritton.org/greg/rail/docs/clearance/AAR_plates.gif
- http://www.gritton.org/greg/rail/docs/clearance/AAR_plates.svg
(They are the same diagram in 2 different formats.)
That diagram is absolutely amazing for the amount of information it
conveys without, except for the lower left corner, being confusing at all.
It appears to be missing plates D and K, though.
Post by Greg Gritton- http://www.gritton.org/greg/rail/docs/clearance/AAR_plates_with_UIC.gif
- http://www.gritton.org/greg/rail/docs/clearance/AAR_plates_with_UIC.svg
I think this one, however, has reached the saturation point; there are
simply too many lines--all the same color--in too tight a space.
Post by Greg GrittonFinally, I have a more detailed drawing of the various possible platforms
- http://www.gritton.org/greg/rail/docs/clearance/PlatformClearance.gif
- http://www.gritton.org/greg/rail/docs/clearance/PlatformClearance.svg
I assume leaving out rail-level platforms (common in many parts of the
US) was intentional?
Post by Greg Gritton1. Standard US low platform (18" high)
ITYM 8in.
You're also missing European 380mm standard platforms.
Post by Greg Gritton2. Possible platform for 17" height.
3. Possible platform for 18" height
4. European 550mm standard platform.
5. European 760mm standard platform.
6. US standard high platform.
You have this listed as 4ft, but AFAIK it's 51in (4ft3in).
Post by Greg GrittonMy favorite for platform US usage would be the 17"-18" (432-457mm) high
platforms. They would provide almost level boarding with many US trains,
including Amtrak superliners and the California Cars.
If we assume no improvement in rolling stock, this is probably
sufficient. However, COTS (non-FRA) equipment has 550mm floors, and
432/457mm platforms offer no freight clearance benefit over 550mm
platforms. Wouldn't it be better to move to an international standard,
in case the FRA ever wakes up?
Modifying the existing fleet with 17in floors for such platforms
wouldn't be a trivial undertaking, it'd be a lot easier than trying to
modify 550mm equipment for use with 17in platforms--and the former would
be a one-time cost, while the latter would haunt us forever.
Post by Greg GrittonThe 17" height is 1" below floor level, allowing an inexpensive short
ramp for handicapped access, while the 18" is about floor level,
allowing short filler swing up/out steps.
That'd be an improvement over the situation today, yes.
Post by Greg GrittonEuropean trains with a 550mm-600mm floor height could also run with on
this platform single 3-4.5" step up, that could also be bridged for
handicapped access with a 2-3' ramp extending from the train.
So every train would require a conductor to put down bridge plates or
operate a lift?
This is a large enough step that many people, not just those in
wheelchairs, would require assistance. And even able-bodied people
would take longer to (de)board, increasing dwell times.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
