Platforms

Rob Kemp spake thus:

Because Americans are idiots when it comes to designing and running passenger railroads. This is actually one of the hot issues here in the San Francisco Bay Area with one of our railroads, the Caltrain commuter line, where rail advocates have been pushing for years for higher platforms to allow level boarding (what a concept! you mean I don't have to take 3 giant steps to get into the railroad car?).

High platforms cost money to build. Lower population densities mean that there is less money available per platform. A step is cheaper.

Regards, Greg.P.

Historical reasons and because most of the track has to allow for freight cars, which won't fit if there are high level platforms.

Here in New Zealand (back when we still had passenger trains) city platforms were about the level of the top step while at small country stations the platform was at or a little below the second step. Flag stops often had a short platform a little lower so that both steps were required.

Regards, Greg.P.

Do you seriously think that three steps is all that stands between U.S. passenger rail service and profitability?

Wanna buy a bridge?

f*ck that.

wanna buy a moon?

I'd consider it.

What's today's best price on Ganymede?

cheap. $20 million. but youll have to pick it up.