MARTA issues RFI for new railcars (Buford: fencing, train, ferry)

[MattCW]

I've submitted requests for corrections to both sites, but based on the comments on curbed, the damage has already been done

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by MattCW

I've submitted requests for corrections to both sites, but based on the comments on curbed, the damage has already been done

I submitted corrections to The Saporta Report.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

I submitted corrections to The Saporta Report.

Good, hopefully they'll realize that either of us isn't just some nut that doesn't like the story.

[primaltech]

But even without FRA compliance, wouldn't the overhead-power option allow for at-grade operation?

Like, if they took the Gold Line heavy rail, and extended it through Gwinnett along the Buford Highway corridor, mostly at-grade on the surface, with at-grade road crossings, and at-grade simple platform stations, to save on construction costs.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by primaltech

But even without FRA compliance, wouldn't the overhead-power option allow for at-grade operation?

Like, if they took the Gold Line heavy rail, and extended it through Gwinnett along the Buford Highway corridor, mostly at-grade on the surface, with at-grade road crossings, and at-grade simple platform stations, to save on construction costs.

In theory, it would certainly make it safer and thus more palatable. But there's really nothing wrong with at-grade third rail operation now. The Long Island Railroad and Metro North Railroad both have grade crossings along their third-rail lines, though they are FRA railroads and not transit. The Chicago CTA also has some legacy grade crossings, but the emphasis is legacy, they aren't new. I'm not sure if the FTA would even allow such an arrangement with overhead catenary. The only two heavy rail systems in this country are Cleveland's Red Line and part of Boston's Blue Line, neither of which have public grade crossings.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Good, hopefully they'll realize that either of us isn't just some nut that doesn't like the story.

Hopefully. I also rather spammed the Curbed comments section with statements trying to fix the issues, and I saw cqholt in there too.

Originally Posted by MattCW

In theory, it would certainly make it safer and thus more palatable. But there's really nothing wrong with at-grade third rail operation now. The Long Island Railroad and Metro North Railroad both have grade crossings along their third-rail lines, though they are FRA railroads and not transit. The Chicago CTA also has some legacy grade crossings, but the emphasis is legacy, they aren't new. I'm not sure if the FTA would even allow such an arrangement with overhead catenary. The only two heavy rail systems in this country are Cleveland's Red Line and part of Boston's Blue Line, neither of which have public grade crossings.

Yeah, I don't think that frequent heavy rail would be allowed to have the grade-crossings on anything new. A train every 10 minutes just messes with the service possibilities. Especially when you include trying to keep people off the tracks. Gates would have to swing to cover the tracks or the road, and there would generally be security and safety issues at hand.

I highly doubt that you'd see grade crossings with heavy rail. Even commuter rail would likely try to limit / remove them as best as possible along the more frequent sections of overlapping lines.

[primaltech]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

I highly doubt that you'd see grade crossings with heavy rail.

Then if that's the case, might as well just continue it as third rail. Since you're going to build all the new bridges and tunnels anyway.

I mean, obviously you'd have to build a bridge over major thoroughfares like Pleasant Hill Rd. But it seems like it could at least use the same grade-crossings over the smaller roads, that the freight rail utilizes.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by primaltech

Then if that's the case, might as well just continue it as third rail. Since you're going to build all the new bridges and tunnels anyway.

I mean, obviously you'd have to build a bridge over major thoroughfares like Pleasant Hill Rd. But it seems like it could at least use the same grade-crossings over the smaller roads, that the freight rail utilizes.

Eh, the benefit for shifting to overhead wires is the ability to run them at a different power setting than the 3rd rail. Specifically, if the overhead is Alternating Current, rather than Direct Current like the 3rd rail is, then you can space the electrical substations out much further (one in 10 miles vs. one per mile). That saves on the construction cost of the route, and makes sense for the longish distance expansions like Connect 400 and I-20 East.

[primaltech]

Originally Posted by fourthwarden

Eh, the benefit for shifting to overhead wires is the ability to run them at a different power setting than the 3rd rail. Specifically, if the overhead is Alternating Current, rather than Direct Current like the 3rd rail is, then you can space the electrical substations out much further (one in 10 miles vs. one per mile). That saves on the construction cost of the route, and makes sense for the longish distance expansions like Connect 400 and I-20 East.

Ah, gotcha.

[arjay57]

You have to give MARTA credit for thinking outside the box on this one.