### Ta **lgo Gap Device (by Joshua Coran)** 

**Background** Because it is fully articulated, Talgo equipment does not have traditional (exterior) vestibules and diaphragms. Instead, “plug” style side doors enter directly into passenger
- occupied areas. These plug doors are quite different from the usual sliding (“pocket”) type in almost universal use on North American railroad equipment. Diaphragms are also unlike anything we have here, as they do not have sliding face plates to accommodate lateral displacement between cars. Instead they are a single piece permanently attached to both of the adjacent car bodies. These doors and diaphragms seal well enough to support above
- atmospheric pressure in the train, from end to end. Thus when a step change made it necessary to relocate the storage location of the onboard wheelchair lifts provided with the new Talgo “Series 8” train sets from under the entry floor to inside the train, no one realized that this area might be considered a vestibule. We understood that we must provide doorways and accessible routes (in accordance with 49 CFR 38.113 and .125, respectivel y) at least 32 inches wide, and we did so. Because we did not think we had a “vestibule” (a term that is not defined in the regulation) we did not believe that the last sentence of 38.113(b) was applicable to our equipment (It requires a 42 inch minimum “w idth”, meaning longitudinal dimension, of any “vestibule” through which an accessible route passes.) When the first train set was nearing completion we invited the local disabled community to visit our Milwaukee facility and try out the accessible faciliti es. (Amtrak’s Gary Talbot was there as well, at our invitation.) We received many suggestions from all who attended, and incorporated all of them. No one had any problem negotiating the entrance area, but by then we had come to the recognition that if our entry was considered to be a “vestibule” we would be in compliance with the 42 inch minimum only when the wheelchair lifts on the passageway (right) side of the train were deployed. In their stored position we had less than 42 inches of “vestibule width” o n that side.
**Results** After several proposed methods of correcting the problem were rejected we finally decided to obtain the few inches we lacked by scrapping all “right hand” lifts and replacing them with a completely new design that had a smaller footpri nt when in the stored position. Thus in this procurement we purchased fifty more
- or- less standard lifts (25 each right and left hand), which we adapted to our application, and then purchased 25 custom
- designed ones to replace half of the originals.&nsp; Th e cost is shown in the following table:
Lift Version Modified Standard Custom Designed
One Time (design) Cost $179,975 $571,008

Unit Cost 14,600 31,579

**Full Disclosure** At least some of the difference shown here must be attributable to the emergency nature of the second procurement. Unfortunately we have no way to begin to estimate the magnitude of this effect. **Finally, if I may, a brief commercial message:**On the European general system&rdqou; only Talgo provides level boarding.

This picture (deleted ) shows a Talgo “Series VII” (upon which the FRA
- compliant “Series 8” is based) at a UIC high level platform. The car floor is a nominal 766 mm (30.16 inches) above top of rail, and the platform is at 760 mm (29.92 inches). The difference (less than 1⁄4 inch ) is well within the ADA limit (5/8 inch), but tolerances can, and likely do on occasion, cause it to exceed that limitation. The horizontal gap is practically negligible.



### The photo is the property of Patentes Talgo, SL and there is no restriction on its use.