DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 4 Station Platforms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 4 Station Platforms CHAPTER 4 STATION PLATFORMS Chapter 4 Station Platforms TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS i I.A ALLOW CUSTOMERS TO WAIT IN SAFETY AND COMFORT 1 I.B SHOW CUSTOMERS THE MOST CONVENIENT MEANS OF ENTRY AND EXIT 1 I.C HAVE AN APPEARANCE WHICH CONVEYS A COHERENT SYSTEMWIDE IDENTITY 1 I.D PROVIDE FURNISHINGS AND ACCOUTERMENTS WHICH ENHANCE CUSTOMER SAFETY AND COMFORT 1 I. DESIGN INTENT 1 II.A PLANNING AND DESIGN 2 II.A.1 Platform Configurations 2 II.A.2 Platform Area 2 II. PLATFORMS 2 II.A.4 Queuing Space 3 II.A.5 Support Areas 3 II.A.6 Platform Water Supply 3 II.B TICKET VENDING MACHINES (TVM’S) 4 II.B.1 TVM Enclosure 4 II.B.2 Vending Machine Area 4 II.C CONSTRUCTION 4 II.C.2 Tactile Warning Surfaces 5 II.C.3 Materials 5 III.A STAIRS 7 III.A.1 General Considerations 7 III.A.2 Materials and Performance 7 III.B LOCKDOWN CONTROLS 7 II.B.1 Lockdown Controls 7 III. PLATFORM ACCESS 7 III.C. RAMPS 8 III.C.1 Program and Design Guidelines 8 III.C.2 Materials and Performance 9 III.C.3 Handicapped Ramp (Mini‐High Platform) 9 III.D OVERPASSES 9 III.D.1 Program Design Guidelines 9 III.D.2 Materials and Performance 10 III.E. AT‐GRADE CROSSINGS 10 III.E.1 General 10 III.E.2 Warning Devices 11 III.E.3 Crossing Gates 11 III.E.4 Median Barriers 12 III.E.5 Crossing Surfaces 12 III.E.6 Drainage 13 III.E.7 Emergency Grade Crossings with Gates 13 IV.A. CANOPIES 15 IV.A.1 Appearance 15 IV. PLATFORM ELEMENTS 15 IV.A.2 Materials and Performance 16 IV.B. WINDSCREENS 16 FIGURE 4.5 TYPICAL PLATFORM CANOPIES 16 IV.B.1 Appearance 17 SFRTA / Tri‐Rail i Station Design Guidelines Second Edition AUGUST 2012 Chapter 4 Station Platforms IV.B.2 Materials and Performance 17 IV.C TICKET AGENT OFFICE 17 IV.C.1 Program and Design Guidelines 17 IV.C.2 Materials and Performance 17 IV.D. RAILINGS 17 IV.D.1 Program and Design Guidelines 17 IV.D.2. Materials and Performance 18 VI.E SECURITY SYSTEM PROVISIONS 18 VI.E.1 Program and Design Guidelines 18 FIGURE 4.6 18 TYPICAL PLATFORM FENCE 18 IV.F PLATFORM FENCE 19 V.A SUSTAINABLE SITES (SS) 20 I.A.1 SS Credit 7.2: Heat Island Effect – Roof 20 V.B WATER EFFICIENCY (WE) 20 V.B.1 WE Prerequisite 1: Water Use Reduction 20 V.B.2 WE Credit 2: Innovative Wastewater Technologies 20 V.B.3 WE Credit 3: Water Use Reduction 20 V.C ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE (EA) 20 V.C.1 EA Credit 1: Optimize Energy Performance 20 V.C.2 EA Credit 2: On‐site Renewable Energy 20 V.C.3 EZ Credit 4: Enhanced Refrigerant Management 20 V.C.4 EA Credit 5: Measurement and Verification 20 V.C.5 EA Credit 6: Green Power 20 V.D MATERIALS & RESOURCES (MR) 20 V.D.1 MR Credit 4: Recycled Content 20 V.D.2 MR Credit 5: Regional Materials 20 V. GREEN DESIGN 20 V.D.3 MR Credit 6: Rapidly Renewable Materials 21 V.E INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (IEQ) 21 V.E.1 IEQ Credit 4.1: Low‐Emitting Materials – Adhesives and Sealants 21 V.E.2 IEQ Credit 4.2: Low‐Emitting Materials – Paints and Coatings 21 V.E.3 IEQ Credit 4.3: Low‐Emitting Materials – Flooring Systems 21 V.E.4 IEQ Credit 4.4: Low‐Emitting Materials – Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products 21 V.E.5 IEQ Credit 5: Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control 21 V.E.6 IEQ Credit 6.1: Controllability of Systems ‐ Lighting 21 V.E.7 IEQ Credit 6.2: Controllability of Systems – Thermal Comfort 21 V.E.8 IEQ Credit 7.1: Thermal Comfort ‐ Design 21 V.E.9 IEQ Credit 7.2: Thermal Comfort ‐ Verification 21 V.E.10 IEQ Credit 8.1: Daylight and Views ‐ Daylight 21 V.E.11 IEQ Credit 8.2: Daylight and Views ‐ Views 21 V.E.12 MR Credit 7: Certified Wood 22 SFRTA / Tri‐Rail ii Station Design Guidelines Second Edition AUGUST 2012 Chapter 4 Station Platforms I.B SHOW CUSTOMERS THE MOST I. DESIGN INTENT CONVENIENT MEANS OF ENTRY AND EXIT a. Platform layouts and signage should Large numbers of people will utilize TRI‐RAIL be representative of circulation stations as part of their daily routine. The patterns within the Station. majority of this experience will result from b. All points and means of access to the time passengers spend waiting for trains platforms shall also permit egress at the platform. from platforms. Platforms at TRI‐RAIL stations shall be c. Stairways, ramps, elevators, and designed to achieve the objectives outlined escalators, where used, shall be below. located to facilitate convenient I.A ALLOW CUSTOMERS TO WAIT IN access to, and swift egress from SAFETY AND COMFORT platforms. a. Platforms should be clearly visible I.C HAVE AN APPEARANCE WHICH from all parts of the Station; no CONVEYS A COHERENT SYSTEMWIDE portion of any platform should seem IDENTITY isolated or remote from the rest of a. Use of consistent design elements, the Station, or from the surrounding colors and finishes to enhance community. systemwide identity is encouraged. b. Platform lighting shall be in b. Platforms and canopies that are to accordance with the guidelines be added to existing Stations shall promulgated in Chapter 6 of these match the architectural image, Guidelines. color, finishes and construction c. Platforms shall be provided with components of the existing Station. full‐length canopies and adequate windscreens to ensure reasonable I.D PROVIDE FURNISHINGS AND passenger comfort under severe ACCOUTERMENTS WHICH ENHANCE weather conditions. CUSTOMER SAFETY AND COMFORT d. Passenger information systems and a. Platform fixtures and furnishings public address systems shall be in shall be provided in sufficient accordance with the guidelines quantity to provide for anticipated promulgated in Chapter 5 of these loading. Guidelines. b. Fixtures and furnishings such as e. Ancillary facilities such as Station seating, trash receptacles, Buildings (where provided), TVM windscreens, and the like shall be enclosures, and overpass structures adequately distributed to prevent shall be clearly visible from the overcrowding, and facilitate even platform, and convenient to use. loading of incoming trains. SFRTA / Tri‐Rail Page 4‐1 Station Design Guidelines Second Edition AUGUST 2012 Chapter 4 Station Platforms iv. Slope & Curvature: Essentially level and flat, except as follows: II. PLATFORMS a. Drainage: Maximum grade on the platform shall be 2%; minimum grade on the platform shall be 1%. Tolerances shall be maintained to II.A PLANNING AND DESIGN eliminate “bird baths” on the The location and configuration of platforms finished platform surface. Platform for TRI‐RAIL stations will generally be grades shall correspond to the track determined by existing track alignments, grade and be sloped to drain away and the right‐of‐way boundaries of the rail from tracks. corridor. The guidelines delineated in this b. Longitudinal Slope: Slope of Chapter must be applied within those platforms in the direction parallel to constraints. the tracks shall match slope of the Several TRI‐RAIL stations are shared with adjacent track, except at those other train providers, most notably Amtrak. location that must be ADA At these stations, certain design criteria, compliant. such as platform length, may be modified to c. Vertical Curvature: When tracks suit the service requirements of these other experience vertical curvature within providers. the limits of the station platforms, II.A.1 Platform Configurations the edge of each platform shall have vertical curvature applied to The following guidelines apply to side match the adjacent track. platforms, which are the preferred configuration. In the event an island v. Horizontal Track Clearance: The platform is required, additional elements required distance from centerline of the and clearances will be required. These near track to the platform edge shall be additional elements and clearances will 5’‐1 1/8”. The minimum clearance from significantly affect platform widths, end edge of platform to face of layouts and drainage requirements. For elevator/stair tower structure shall be island platform configuration requirements, 20’‐0”. The minimum clearance from please refer to Section II.A.3 centerline of nearest outside track to canopy column or post shall be 12’‐0”. i. Length: Platforms shall be 400 ft. (nominal) in length. Tri‐Rail/AMTRAK II.A.2 Platform Area stations shall have a minimum platform The minimum net area of each platform length of 1,000 feet. shall be no less than 83.3% of the total ii. Width: 25’‐0” minimum, with square footage of the platform, exclusive of additional width as necessary to meet platform edge “clear zones”, structural the “Platform Area” criteria under elements, vertical circulation elements, II.A.2. queuing spaces for designated station elements, and any restricted or otherwise iii. Alignment: Platforms should be unusable areas. located along tangent track. Where this is not possible, the total track curvature i. A 2’‐0” wide platform edge clear zone along the entire length of the platform shall extend the entire length of each shall not exceed 1°40’. platform. SFRTA / Tri‐Rail Page 4‐2 Station Design Guidelines Second Edition AUGUST 2012 Chapter 4 Station Platforms ii. The minimum platform width II.A.5 Support Areas delineated herein shall be increased as Equipment rooms and support areas shall necessary to meet this requirement. not be located within platform areas, nor iii. Should property lines or other should access to such areas directly from geometric restrictions limit the platform platform areas.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alberta-To-Alaska-Railway-Pre-Feasibility-Study
    Alberta to Alaska Railway Pre-Feasibility Study 2015 Table of Content Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... i Infrastructure and Operating Requirements................................................................ ii Environmental Considerations and Permitting Requirements .................................... ii Capital and Operating Cost Estimates ......................................................................... iii Business Case .............................................................................................................. iii Mineral Transportation Potential ................................................................................ iii First Nations/Tribes and Other Contacts ..................................................................... iv Conclusions .................................................................................................................. iv 1 | Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 This Assignment............................................................................................................ 1 This Report ................................................................................................................... 2 2 | Infrastructure and Operating Requirements ........................................................ 3 Route Alignment ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Solent Connectivity May 2020
    Solent Connectivity May 2020 Continuous Modular Strategic Planning Page | 1 Page | 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 The Solent CMSP Study ................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Scope and Geography....................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Fit with wider rail industry strategy ................................................................................................. 11 2.3 Governance and process .................................................................................................................. 12 3.0 Context and Strategic Questions ............................................................................................................ 15 3.1 Strategic Questions .......................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Economic context ............................................................................................................................. 16 3.3 Travel patterns and changes over time ............................................................................................ 18 3.4 Dual-city region aspirations and city to city connectivity ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Accident Report
    Rail Accident Report Collision at Swanage station 16 November 2006 Report 35/2007 September 2007 This investigation was carried out in accordance with: l the Railway Safety Directive 2004/49/EC; l the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003; and l the Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005. © Crown copyright 2007 You may re-use this document/publication (not including departmental or agency logos) free of charge in any format or medium. You must re-use it accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the title of the source publication. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This document/publication is also available at www.raib.gov.uk. Any enquiries about this publication should be sent to: RAIB Email: [email protected] The Wharf Telephone: 01332 253300 Stores Road Fax: 01332 253301 Derby UK Website: www.raib.gov.uk DE21 4BA This report is published by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, Department for Transport. Rail Accident Investigation Branch 3 Report 35/2007 www.raib.gov.uk September 2007 Collision at Swanage station 16 November 2006 Contents Introduction 6 Summary of the report 7 Key facts about the accident 7 Immediate cause, causal and contributory factors, underlying causes 7 Recommendations 8 The Accident 9 Summary of the accident 9 Location 9 The parties involved 10 External circumstances 10 The infrastructure 10 The train 12 Events
    [Show full text]
  • Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guidelines 1
    Amtrak Station Program and Planning Guidelines 1. Overview 5 6. Site 55 1.1 Background 5 6.1 Introduction 55 1.2 Introduction 5 6.2 Multi-modal Planning 56 1.3 Contents of the Guidelines 6 6.3 Context 57 1.4 Philosophy, Goals and Objectives 7 6.4 Station/Platform Confi gurations 61 1.5 Governing Principles 8 6.5 Track and Platform Planning 65 6.6 Vehicular Circulation 66 6.7 Bicycle Parking 66 2. Process 11 6.8 Parking 67 2.1 Introduction 11 6.9 Amtrak Functional Requirements 68 2.2 Stakeholder Coordination 12 6.10 Information Systems and Way Finding 69 2.3 Concept Development 13 6.11 Safety and Security 70 2.4 Funding 14 6.12 Sustainable Design 71 2.5 Real Estate Transactional Documents 14 6.13 Universal Design 72 2.6 Basis of Design 15 2.7 Construction Documents 16 2.8 Project Delivery methods 17 7. Station 73 2.9 Commissioning 18 7.1 Introduction 73 2.10 Station Opening 18 7.2 Architectural Overview 74 7.3 Information Systems and Way Finding 75 7.4 Passenger Information Display System (PIDS) 77 3. Amtrak System 19 7.5 Safety and Security 78 3.1 Introduction 19 7.6 Sustainable Design 79 3.2 Service Types 20 7.7 Accessibility 80 3.3 Equipment 23 3.4 Operations 26 8. Platform 81 8.1 Introduction 81 4. Station Categories 27 8.2 Platform Types 83 4.1 Introduction 27 8.3 Platform-Track Relationships 84 4.2 Summary of Characteristics 28 8.4 Connection to the station 85 4.3 Location and Geography 29 8.5 Platform Length 87 4.4 Category 1 Large stations 30 8.6 Platform Width 88 4.5 Category 2 Medium Stations 31 8.7 Platform Height 89 4.6 Category 3 Caretaker Stations 32 8.8 Additional Dimensions and Clearances 90 4.7 Category 4 Shelter Stations 33 8.9 Safety and Security 91 4.8 Thruway Bus Service 34 8.10 Accessibility 92 8.11 Snow Melting Systems 93 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Infrastructure - Tram Stop Platform Design
    Standard Infrastructure - Tram Stop Platform Design CE-021-ST-0012 1.01 17/03/2020 Disclaimer: This document is developed solely and specifically for use on Melbourne metropolitan tram network managed by Yarra Trams. It is not suitable for any other purpose. You must not use or adapt it or rely upon it in any way unless you are authorised in writing to do so by Yarra Trams. If this document forms part of a contract with Yarra Trams, this document constitutes a “Policy and Procedure” for the purposes of that contract. This document is uncontrolled when printed or downloaded. Users should exercise their own skill and care or seek professional advice in the use of the document. This document may not be current. Current standards are available for download internally from CDMS or from https://yarratrams.com.au/standards. Infrastructure - Tram Stop Platform Design Table of Contents 1 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................ 4 2 SCOPE .................................................................................................................................................... 4 3 COMPLIANCE ......................................................................................................................................... 4 4 REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 5 4.1 General .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Intercity Passenger Rail System
    Appendix 3 Intercity Passenger Rail System Introduction passenger rail system, including: The Pennsylvania Intercity Passenger and Freight Rail Plan provides a High-Speed Rail Corridors (110 mph and above) – Corridors under strategic framework for creating a 21st-century rail network. The Plan 500 miles with travel demand, population density, and congestion on visualizes the passenger and competing modes that warrant high-speed rail service. freight rail network in 2035 Regional Corridors (79 to 110 mph) – Corridors under 500 miles, with and offers strategies and frequent, reliable service competing successfully with auto and air objectives to achieve its vision. travel. The purpose of Appendix 3 is Long-Distance Service – Corridors greater than 500 miles that provide to provide background basic connectivity and a balanced national transportation system. information on existing passenger rail service in In a report to Congress, Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, dated April Pennsylvania with a 2009, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) provided the following concentration on existing definitions: intercity passenger rail service and performance. High-Speed Rail (HSR) and Intercity Passenger Rail (IPR) HSR – Express. Frequent, express service between major population Intercity Rail Definitions centers 200 to 600 miles apart, with few intermediate stops.1 Top There are numerous interpretations of what constitutes “intercity speeds of at least 150 mph on completely grade-separated, dedicated passenger rail.” In a recent publication, Achieving the Vision: Intercity rights-of-way (with the possible exception of some shared track in Passenger Rail, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) urged Congress to enact a National Rail Policy that should address the development of a national intercity 1 Corridor lengths are approximate; slightly shorter or longer intercity services may still help meet strategic goals in a cost-effective manner.
    [Show full text]
  • 3097 Provision at Jerrarnungup. Long-Service Leave Entitlement of Senior Officers
    I ASSEMBLY .3 QUESTIONS. BULK GRAIN BIN. Thursday. 14th November, 1957. Provision at Jerrarnungup. CONTENTS Hon. A. F. WATTS asked the Minister page for Lands: at Questions :Bulk grain bin, provision that it is the opinion Jerramnungup .....- ..... 3098 (1) Is it correct Public Service, long-service leave etiut- of Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd. that lament of senior officers...... .... 3096 the responsibility for providing funds for Native welfare, (a) Well 40 natives, the provision of a bulk grain bin at or near Jerramungup is that of the Govern- of Information re rood ...3097 (b)source Well 40 area, blood test of natives ment? evacuated .... .-. ...... 3097 (2) If so, has the Government decided Traffic offenders, scale of fines, etc. .. 3097 to provide the funds necesary? Transport, (a) alteration and deletion of (3) In either case, when is it likely that bus stops. ................. 83097 work will be put in hand? (b) interstate operators, taxation legis- this very urgent lation .. ... .. ...3097 The MINISTER replied: (c) check on IMllct road haulage In (1) The Government is prepared to dis- North-Eastern Goidfields ... .. 3097 cuss with Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd. State finances, details of Interest, Federal means of financing the construction of a grants, etc. .. .89 bin when necessary. Pensioners, concesslonal fare on Govern- ment transport 8098 (2) Answered by No. (1). Railways, (a) new diesel cars, points for (3) The whole question of handling and electric razors ... 0..9...8 transport of grains east of Ongerup is (b) facilities for electric razors, West- under review. land coaches I809... .. 8Ia "C" series Index, details of commodity PUBLIC SERVICE.
    [Show full text]
  • Newark Train Station Study Final Report
    Newark Train Station Study Final Report July 2010 Newark Train Station Study – Final Report ReportReport Table of Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4 The Current Bottleneck at Newark Station ................................................................... 4 Potential Future Conditions ......................................................................................... 5 Preferred Solution........................................................................................................ 5 Capital Cost Estimate .................................................................................................. 6 Next Steps ................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 1 – Existing Conditions ...................................................................................... 8 1.1 Introduction and Background ............................................................................ 8 1.2 Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................... 9 1.3 Existing Railroad Configuration .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Arup Journal
    KCRC EAST RAIL EXTENSIONS SPECIAL ISSUE 3/2007 The Arup Journal Foreword After 10 years' planning, design, and construction, the opening of the Lok Ma Chau spur line on 15 August 2007 marked the completion of the former Kowloon­ Canton Railway Corporation's East Rail extension projects. These complex pieces of infrastructure include 11 km of mostly elevated railway and a 6ha maintenance and repair depot for the Ma On Shan line, 7.4km of elevated and tunnelled route for the Lok Ma Chau spur line, and a 1 km underground extension of the existing line from Hung Hom to East Tsim Sha Tsui. Arup was involved in all of these, from specialist fire safety strategy for all the Ma On Shan line stations, to multidisciplinary planning, design, and construction supervision, and, on the Lok Ma Chau spur line, direct work for a design/build contractor. In some cases our involvement went from concept through to handover. For example, we were part of a special contractor-led team that carried out a tunnel feasibility study for the Lok Ma Chau spur line across the ecologically sensitive Long Valley. At East Tsim Sha Tsui station we worked closely with the KCRC and numerous government departments to re-provide two public recreation spaces - Middle Road Children's playground at the foot of the historic Signal Hill, and Wing On Plaza garden - examples that show the importance of environmental issues for the KCRC in expanding Hong Kong's railway network. This special issue of The Arup Journal is devoted to all of our work on the East Rail extensions, and our feasibility study for the Kowloon Southern Link, programmed to connect West Rail and East Rail by 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Safe Management of Pushchairs and Wheelchairs on Station Platforms
    RDG Guidance Note: Safe Management of Pushchairs and Wheelchairs on Station Platforms RDG-GN-OPS-022 Issue 2 – October 2019 Safe Management of Pushchairs and Wheelchairs on Station Platforms RDG-GN-OPS-022 – Issue 2 – October 2019 About this document Explanatory Note The Rail Delivery Group is not a regulatory body and compliance with Guidance Notes or Approved Codes of Practice is not mandatory; they reflect good practice and are advisory only. Users are recommended to evaluate the guidance against their own arrangements in a structured and systematic way, noting that parts of the guidance may not be appropriate to their operations. It is recommended that this process of evaluation and any subsequent decision to adopt (or not adopt) elements of the guidance should be documented. Compliance with any or all of the contents herein, is entirely at an organisation’s own discretion. Other Guidance Notes or Approved Codes of Practice are available on the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) website. Executive Summary: This Guidance Note provides advice to Station Facility Owners on identifying and mitigating the risks of wheeled vehicles, i.e. pushchairs and wheelchairs, rolling away if left unattended on platforms. Issue Record Issue Date Comments 1 December First issue 2014 2 October 2019 Restructured and amended to incorporate RSSB 2387-T1098-02 Recommendations and put in the RDG format This document is reviewed on a regular 3-year cycle. Sponsored by: Ellie Burrows Operations Director, Southeastern Chair of RDG TOC Safety Forum Rail Delivery Group Page 2 of 28 Safe Management of Pushchairs and Wheelchairs on Station Platforms RDG-GN-OPS-022 – Issue 2 – October 2019 Contents About this document ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Island Platforms, Terminus Loops and Unidirectional Trams
    UNIDIRECTIONAL TRAMS Island Platforms, Terminus Loops and Unidirectional Trams: An Analysis of the Evidence Tony Prescott his article examines existing literature and opinion on the following and make liberal use of central island platforms. On the other hand, Tspecific tram operational issues: the specification for the Gold Coast light rail system stipulates side • Easy-access passenger platforms in multi-lane roads – central platforms emphatically and without apparent debate! (TransLink island or side island? 2008.) One wonders about the presumptions made and the amount of • Terminus loops - balloon loops or around-the-block loops? analysis given to this issue in designing these new systems. • Unidirectional vs bidirectional running? An electronic literature search reveals one substantial paper that deals The context of this analysis is my consideration of design for a Sydney (in part) with the merits of central island vs side island platforms. This light rail system in my recent TA article (Prescott 2008), in the course was written by Dennis Cliche (Chief Executive of Melbourne’s Yarra of which I found a frustrating lack of critical discussion of these basic Trams) and Sam Reid (Cliche and Reid 2007). The authors note that design and operational issues. Most studies often completely ignore platform stops have produced a number of improvements in the them and make bold, but sometimes short-sighted, assumptions Melbourne tram operation: concerning light rail operation and infrastructure, assumptions that • level access for mobility-impaired passengers (and thus then translate into decisions. Dead-end termini and bi-directional trams compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act); are the inevitable default in new Australian systems, while centre-island • reduced dwell times; and platforms are often chosen (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Sussex Industrial Archaeology Society Newsletter Number 159 July 2013
    Sussex Industrial Archaeology Society - Newsletter Sussex Industrial Archaeology Society Newsletter Number 159 July 2013 Singleton goods shed being examined by SIAS members on the occasion of the Society’s visit on 3 May 2008. This shows the north (track) side of the building with the typical Myres mock-timbering and pargetting. The goods office is to the right. Do not miss the article on the recent listing and history of this building. (Alan Green) 1 Sussex Industrial Archaeology Society - Newsletter Newsletter 159 Contents July 2013 Editorial ..........................................................................................................2 Forthcoming SIAS Events ............................................................................. 3 Events from Other Societies ..........................................................................4 SERIAC 2013 ................................................................................................ 7 Endangered Sites ........................................................................................... 9 Sussex Garage Listed .................................................................................. 10 The Railway Buildings of T. H. Myers ........................................................ 11 Book Review ............................................................................................... 19 Mad Jack Fuller ........................................................................................... 20 Changing Countryside .................................................................................
    [Show full text]