Note: The output shown below is from the Communication 

Access Realtime Translation (CART) system used in the Boarding 

and Alighting Subcommittee Meeting #5 and is generally 

unedited. 

August 28, 2014 

Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee

Boarding and Alighting Subcommittee Meeting #5

>> PAUL BEATTY: Good 

afternoon. This is Paul Beatty. 

Welcome to the 5th meeting of 

the boarding and alighting 

subcommittee. As you know 

since anyone may participate in 

subcommittee discussions, no 

time of public comment has 

been scheduled during this 

two-hour call. It appears we 

do not have a CART chat box 

therefore if anybody -- if you 

are only using the CART system 

to participate you want to raise 
a question or make a 

statement. Use the RVAAC 

E-mail address at RVAAC @ 

access-board.gov. We will 

communicate your question. 

When speaking remember to 

give your name as a reminder. 

Your next subcommittee 

meeting will probably be 

sometime during the full 

committee meeting scheduled 

for September 11 and 12. 

Here in Washington, DC. In 

this room we have myself, Lisa 

Fairhall Jim Pecht Melissa 

Anderson on and the CART 

reporter in the interest of time 

on the line, we have Francis, 

Paul, Blair, Kenneth, Paul Smith, 

compared to Paul (inaudible). 

Crystal Lyons. Billy Carrie,

Mary, Andre Gagne. Sid 

Goldstein, Glenn Millis, Michael

Chisena
-- I am butchering people's name. Ken 

Shiotani -- Ken -- sorry Ken. If I missed anybody

>> Is Marilyn?

>> PAUL BEATTY: Anybody that I missed? Okay. 

What I am going to do is turn the call over to the chair of 

the subcommittee which is Marilyn go ahead.

>> Thank you Paul. Am I audible here?

>> PAUL BEATTY: You are good.

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Thank you. Well, so approval of our 

agenda, thank you for introductions Paul, our agenda is 

essentially a consideration of this proposal for the small 

group. And the hope the ardent hope is that we can reach 

consensus on it today. So, it can be presented from our 

subcommittee at the in-person meeting coming up very 

soon. I am go to go try to museum us -- I am going to try 

to move us forward promptly to the goal on the call.

I tried to stay in touch with the small group while they 

were working and they worked very hard to get everything 

right. And it's -- I think it represents a lot of our 

discussions. And you know, pretty well. So, I hope that 

we can get through it today. Let me thank Dennis Cannon, 

Ed Hoff and Ed Steinfeld for their work on this proposal. I

heard Dennis' name are either of the Ed's on?
>> I just joined

>> That's Ed Hoff.

>> Yes

>> Ed Steinfeld are you on? I don't think -- I think he 

expected not to be able to come on. Because their new 

academic year, I think he has a class. One other thing 

before we start, over the last few meetings I noticed 

sometimes our discussion was getting bogged down where 

we were repeating the same points over and over. So, I 

just want to encourage everyone to say your point we don't 

need to repeat it too often. If you are not convincing 

others repeating isn't probably going to help.

So, let's try to move pretty quickly. If we can. If there 

is, you know, somebody disagrees with what appears to be 

otherwise a consensus there may be a need to move ahead, 

and you know, anyone disagreeing will certainly have ample 

opportunity to bring it up to the full committee this being 

only a subcommittee.

If we don't have a pretty solid consensus we may need 

to vote. The draft of the proposal that the staff distributed 

thank you staff I think you did some things that needed to 

be done to make it an acceptable format for everyone. 

What the small group said in red is showing up in my 

computer anyway in light purple. So, I hope everyone can 
see it. It reflects -- I am pretty sure it reflects all of the 

changes I went through it really closely. So, I think it's all 

there. As we move to content, I just want to remind 

everybody that this proposal is for new cars. So, what I 

would like to do is see who has changes or questions. 

First, I want to get a list of people and then have you 

present them not necessarily with discussion. Because I 

want to get a sense of what all we have. Before we go back 

and actually talk about it. Is that approach acceptable? Is 

there anyone to whom that approach is not acceptable? 

Okay. So, who -- I realize people didn't get this until fairly 

recently. I hope that you did have a chance to go over it. 

Much of it are things that we have discussed at previous 

meetings. Is there anybody who has changes -- I want to 

get an answer to that. And after that I want to ask is there 

anybody who has questions. So first of all is there anyone 

who has changes?

>> This is Ken Shiotani I just -- I have sort of a 

question or change that in the very beginning of rapid rail 

or high-speed rail I don't think you need to say it for new 

cars. I think by definition rapid rail, you know, in the

original 37.3 says rapid rail is -- needs level boarding cars. 

That runs on separate roadways or I mean rails or 

something like that. And then on the light ray and 
commuter rail in the second thing I just want a little 

explanation of that I am not quite sure I understand exactly 

what is being intended particularly for light rail in -- when 

there is some level boarding but there is some not level 

boarding so I want a little explanation of that.

>> Okay. Ken in terms of your first question, whether 

something that was said was necessary, I may -- we may 

say let the Access Board staff sort that out, because these 

are just -- these are recommendations, these aren't in 

certificate of specification language, all of it, and if some 

things were redundant of the regs it won't be said if you 

have questions about the scoping that's a question that we 

should address. And I think the small group can explain 

what they meant. That's a perfectly good question. Other 

people have changes -- let me just get a list.

>> Marilyn this is Blair. I would just say, particularly 

with where there is dimensions -- rather, that you use the 

primary reference in inches because, for example, where we 

say 800 millimeters or 32 inches 800 millimeter is more like 

31 and a half inches so -- we should pick one and stay with 

it. And maybe --

>> They should mean the same thing, first of all. But 

I think that's a good question. Yeah primary inches

>> This is Dennis Cannon could I say something about 
that?

>> I would rather list them and go back I don't want to 

get bogged down in one thing I want to see what everything 

is we have one immediate to go get through it so I am 

taking a list I he won't forget.

Anybody else with changes?

>> Yes, Marilyn this is Don Mebius with LTK I have a 

question on the second page where operation, is that 

strictly for people movers? Or -- because it says car doors 

open automatically in platforms designed for (inaudible) 

prior to door opening. That's still automatically after doors 

close.

>> Marilyn: No that's not just people moves I don't 

think that's everything. And

>> Mr. Mebius: That probably needs to be discussed 

for the you know, how realistic that approach would be.

>> Marilyn: Okay: It's on the list. Others? All 

right. Well this is not people's last chance at all.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Marilyn: But it sounds like the only people who 

have -- who are prepared to speak up right now just let me 

ask one more time, changes especially or questions? And, 

again, of course you can think of it later if you have a 

question later.
>> This is Ken Shiotani again. On the second page on 

the advisory clear width, I sort of a question or the issue is, 

is that -- the wider ramp recommended is that going to be 

only for ramps attached to new cars or something? Or 

could that apply to ramps that might access older cars 

because I think I have heard Dennis say in the past, you 

know, the ramp width needs to not be wider if you can't 

maneuver within the car. So, it may just be a clarification 

issue that it's ramp that is -- comes out of a new car or 

attached to the new car or something which is a clarification 

issue.

>> Marilyn: Okay. Got it. Thanks Ken. I think we 

should start with Don's question. Don, you were -- you 

wanted to raise questions about the practice cast of 

automatic operation?

>> Don Mebius: Not so much -- on the automatic 

nature of it. But that it needs to be deployed before a door 

opens.

>> Can you speak up please

>> I can barely hear him

>> Don Mebius: Is this any better

>> Yes.

>> Don: Okay. My question is: That it needs to be 

activated before the doors open and then retracted after the 
doors are closed. This -- you know, that's structurally a 

critical area of the car, and to hold that up to have 

something obviously that has to sit below the floor 

becomes a little bit of an issue. So, it's --

>> Marilyn: I think the members of the subgroup 

thanks Don the members on the subgroup with us are 

Dennis or Ed either of you want to address why it has to be 

after and before the way that's written that actually 

occurred to me as well.

>> This is Dennis. The idea is that you don't 

want -- this is from the ICE train for example in Germany 

which has a draw bridge kind of deployment. The draw 

bridge that is raised it's not slides in under but raised in 

front of the door. You don't want that to be -- you don't 

want the doors to open with that to be where people will 

trip. So, you want to make sure that that it deploys prior to 

the doors or as the doors are opening it doesn't have to be 

a long time prior just make sure that when the doors open 

the bridgeplate is in place. We have seen this on the -- on 

a couple of videos that are sent around from the high speed 

log in California that shows operation in light beg is 

Stuttgart and I think Wutenberg also mentioned I can't 

railroad where he saw another one where a bridgeplate 

deploys. Remember, this is only the case where you got 
a -- you have to deploy a bridgeplate. You already said if 

you get the gap down to two inches as you can do with sill 

extension like they did in Marta with rapid rail there is no 

bridgeplate. It doesn't apply, unless you have got the 

clearance issue greater than two inches.

>> Okay. That's fine you said a key point here. 

Because the way this was worded was shall deploy 

automatically prior to door opening, would it make sense to 

say "prior to or as the door is opening"?

>> Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that it 

didn't -- the door didn't open and then, you know, then the 

gap and then it would suddenly -- but yeah that can finesse 

it that's fine.

>> Okay.

>> This is Blair. To that point, thinking about winter 

operations and ice and snow and all how horrible things can 

be in the winter conditions, and getting things to deploy 

properly. Obviously if it lived inside the door and it's out 

of the ice and snow that's its deployment would be more 

predictable. I see your point Dennis about people tripping 

over it. But to Don's point if the -- to be absolutely -- it's 

absolutely integral to the door -- if you had one of those 

things deployed on the outside and they deployed or 

something as the train was coming in it could be quite 
hazard or going out with these wings sticking up.

So, you know, as the door is opening, so that it's 

maybe the door is part way open for the things deploy, 

might be a good thing.

>> Marilyn: On the --

>> That is something for the designers and engineers 

to sort out. But I would just to that point try not to box it 

in too tight.

>> This is Dennis. I think maybe we could say 

something like "should deploy -- the deployment should be 

integrated with the door opening and closing," something 

like that.

>> We could add something like what the intention is 

so that it should be integrated in the words you just used. 

And in a way that people will not be able to exit or enter 

while the bridgeplate is deploying.

>> Sounds good to me.

>> Yes, that's -- that reduces my concern, thank you. 

(Dog barking heard.)

>> Was that a comment?

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Marilyn: I just noticed I am talk and my mute 

button is on that's not going to work. The dog may be 

trying to take over the chairperson position.
 (LAUGHTER)

>> Marilyn: We may have to vote on that one and I 

am nervous how it's going to come out.

 (Laughter) 

>> Marilyn: Let's see thank you Don it sounds like 

your concern was resolved. I think that was -- I love how 

easy that fix was. It seems like maybe Ken do you want to 

go to your questions?

>> Ken: Let's see advisory one or the definition one is 

just I shouldn't worry about the language because the staff 

will deal with it.

>> Marilyn: The one you said you thought was 

redundant of the regulation. You could say

>> Ken: Right. I think that in the regs rapid rail is 

defined as you know, retrain -- I think the wording is like 

subway-like car and have a different (inaudible) 

right-of-way something like that. I just don't know if that 

is necessary to say.

>> Melissa: Ken can you speak up please.

>> Ken: I'm sorry.

>> Melissa: I think we got mobility of that as you are 

talking.

>> This is Dennis Cannon. Yes, you are right rapid 

rail is talked about in the definition of subway but my 
recollection is high speed rail doesn't say that in the 

definition but in the provision for highspeed rail it does 

require level boarding. Some of that may be redundant. 

But I think that's an issue that can be worked out with 

the -- or maybe the -- redefine high-speed rail to be level 

boarding. But I think the board can work it out.

>> Okay.

>> Linda: Yes this is Linda at FRA the definition of 

rapid rail is in (inaudible) and but what you guys are 

working on today would end up in Part 38 it's not a bad 

thing to repeat -- repeat it.

>> Ken: Good point.

>> Marilyn: Okay. And Ken you had a question 

about advisory clear width?

>> Ken: I am getting more static I am trying to mute 

as much as possible. Irrelevant guess my -- just the 

question was: The advisory -- you know, wider -- we all 

sort of know wider is easier makes it easier for people to 

get on. But I guess the question that I had was: I think 

that something that Dennis has talk beside in previous 

meetings, you don't want a bridgeplate or ramp that is 

wider than all of the clearances in the car. And so, I 

just -- I didn't know whether this advisory was intended for 

bridgeplates or ramps that are connected to new cars so 
that you know the access would be great. The -- one thing 

the visioning is that you have a nicely designed new wide 

bridgeplate going on to an Amtrak Amfleet car which is 

pretty tight in all sorts of dimensions.

Just so it was just how to clarify that so you are not 

having a portable bridgeplate that would sort of allow a 

person to get on but then won't get the person -- the 

person will get stuck.

>> Dennis: Well this is Dennis first of all advisory 

language is kind of interesting but not very useful.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Dennis: I mean it's kind of -- this is kind of nice 

thing to do but it is really not a regulatory requirement. It 

doesn't have any force of anything other than just to say 

that. The bridgeplate has to fit in the door. So, if the 

door is 30 inches wide, you will have a 30-inch wide 

bridgeplate it doesn't matter really that if the door is wider 

you have a lot more room wider bridgeplate may be fine. 

But I don't think it means anything with respect to how it's 

used or what cars there are or any of those kinds of things. 

If you can fit the a 36-inch door and you put in a 36-inch 

bridgeplate then that's fine.

>> Ken: Okay.

>> Marilyn: Dennis, it shouldn't exceed the door 
width is that --

>> Dennis: Yeah, I am not sure that it can but --

>> Chris: Hey guys

>> Marilyn: Hey, welcome Chris.

>> Chris: I'm sorry I got kicked out a couple of times. 

At any rate just a little note, that yes the bridgeplate will 

always be slightly (inaudible) -- slightly less than the door 

width. Just because you need space to maneuver that 

bridgeplate into the door. So, if you got -- if you have a 

different door and bridgeplate following, it won't be more 

than 35 and a half or 35, just to give folks a little wiggle 

room to get in to place. Then --

>> Marilyn: Understood.

>> Dennis: Remember we say in the scoping 

car-borne bridgeplate. This is talking about something 

that is actually on the car, the new cars it's not a separate 

device that you might use for an existing car. This is part 

of the new car.

>> Chris: Understood. And I was just, again, say 

that I am not aware of any -- anything on the market today 

that is that dimension of the door.

>> Dennis: Right.

>> Marilyn: Good point, good point this is Marilyn. 

Okay. Chris just to catch you up, what we did was, just list 
people that had changes or questions about the proposal. 

And we have been through several questions and short 

discussions about different parts of it. Blair, I think you 

were the other person on the list with a point to make about 

primary reference in inches.

>> Blair: Yes, or in -- in English dimensions including 

the way as the primary or the initial because we see in some 

places Marilyn that it's like 5/8 of an inch there is no metric 

equivalent. My recommendation is we stay with inches and 

pounds to keep everything ancient and backwards.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> And use metrics as a secondary reference just so 

we keep it consistent with the old rules and where people 

are making comparisons. Because as we see with 800 

millimeters as a railroad I vote that that but I think you be 

disappointing it's not 32 inches. I was -- (inaudible)

>> Oops.

>> Blair, are you still there?

>> Yes.

>> We lost him.

>> Are you still talking?

>> No I -- where did you guys lose me?

>> Marilyn: So, I -- okay. So I think that makes 

sense to switch them. I would also either the 
subcommittee or the full committee or the staff, somebody 

has to make sure that they are really the same. If 800 

millimeters is 31 and a half inches millimeters are awfully 

small we should get a number very close to 32 inches.

>> Marilyn? This is Marsha. We do have a metric 

policy here for our conversions. And we can share that 

with the committee. We don't want to interpret millimeters 

in one way in one document and another way in a different 

document. Particularly when it's the same number of 

inches but we will get to that to the committee, and -- and 

share that with you. Okay?

>> Marilyn: Thank you. Thanks Marsha.

>> Blair: Marilyn, this is Blair. If I could throw out 

one more things I -- thing I forgot to put it in the list but 

you hit on a little bit. When we look under the scoping the 

general rapid rail and high-speed rail cars and the full 

length level boarding,, whenever you are dealing with rail 

cars you know manufacturer of things there is a certain 

degree of tolerance in construction but there is also the 

wheels and things wear down as you move down the 

railroad. What is the assumed tolerance for level? There 

has to be some -- there has to be some allowance for 

mechanical realities, you know, moving up and down the 

railroad.
>> Marilyn: You know, the standard is for new cars 

but does anyone want to address Blair's question beyond 

that?

>> Dennis: Yeah, this is Dennis. That issue was 

come up before, one thing as happened here in DC the 

(inaudible) platform after it was built sank four inches 

because the engineers didn't do a good job and it had to be 

raised and wheels do wear and the suspension gets tired 

and a whole variety of things like that. What we had said 

early on in the current reg and it's not, maybe needs to be 

clarified here is you first of all you measure the gaps when 

the car is at rest because obviously when people are getting 

on and off it rocks back and forth and it doesn't (inaudible). 

And you also have to specify a passenger load. Because 

even with the best pneumatic suspension and self 

correction it's not perfect to get it aligned all the time no 

matter what the load is. So, it will change. We probably 

need to say that -- I think I said it somewhere I am not sure 

if it's in here. That the measurements the two inch gap 

and the 5/8 is done when the train is at rest with a set say 

50% passenger load or something like that. To make sure 

when you measure it, obviously it will change because the 

cars rock and they have degrees of freedom that you don't 

have in the middle except in California.
 (LAUGHTER)

>> The issue of where however is one that needs to be 

looked at periodically and it may mean that at some point 

it's wear so bad that you have to put in a bridgeplate where 

you didn't have to before. So, I don't know what the 

tolerances are because prior to the -- part of the problem is 

tolerances vary for all kinds of things and they are different

for all kinds of things. So, we have been -- the board has 

been struggling with this issue of construction tolerances 

for years. And I am not sure how to address it if anybody 

has a good idea. But when the first -- one of the second 

sets, I guess, of rail cars that Metro ordered, there was a 

delay in a part somewhere so the delay you know the whole 

train cars didn't arrive. Metro was very anxious to get 

them on so it accepted them and put them into revenue 

service but it -- before it had gone through its verification 

that is met the specs. And the cars were quite a bit higher 

than the platform. The manufacturer could have been 

forced to fix that if they hadn't accepted them but they did 

anyway. And the argument was, well, you know, within a 

couple of years the wheels will wear down and we won't 

have to worry about that. I don't think that's an acceptable 

answer you have to be careful of the sit. Be sure it meets 

your spec before you accept them and make sure that the 
manufacturer corrects any defects. But you are right, 

over time it's going to change, and I don't know how you 

deal with that. First of all -- how you deal with that 

personally.

>> This is Blair again Dennis. I know that 

in -- typically in heavy cars like the Acela high-speed train 

you are allowed for a mismatch of wheel size from side to 

side within the same truck and obviously from end to end 

of the car. Because they do wear at different rates wheel 

gets they are very expensive when they wear you turn them 

down and reface them so they track properly and ride well. 

And you can -- and you continue that until the wheel is 

condemnable you replace the wheel and you are back to a 

new standard. But I don't know of -- you would actually be 

looking at something that would level the vehicle based on 

its height above the track. And the relation to the 

platform. And then in a heavy train like that I don't know 

what predictability you could have. My only point is that it 

needs to be realistic. You know anything is achievable but 

with the heavier trains it does need to be a realistic, you 

know, tolerance. And obviously we want to maintain the 

trains properly and so they come in and they do what they 

are supposed to do. But we don't (inaudible) wheels every 

day. Thank God.
>> Dennis. This is Dennis. With respect to things 

with rapid rail that may be more of a problem. The issue 

with something like the Acela -- inner-city rail and 

commuter rail. We already know we are not going to get a 

two inch gap we are automatically going to have a 

bridgeplate. So the bridgeplate is going to solve that 

problem even when it sinks. Even when it moves quite a 

bit up and down. Once the bridgeplate is there, once you 

already required a bridgeplate to be there. The fact that 

the train moves up and down or side to side isn't going to 

affect -- unless you had a bridgeplate that was just exactly 

the right length to get from the cell to the platform and 

then with some shift in ballast or something it ended up 

with a gap. But that's not likely to happen.

>> Marilyn: I hope not.

>> So I don't think it's going to be an issue in most of 

the cases because we are going to have a bridgeplate 

anyway.

>> Right. But when flow in the word "level" you could 

argue level is level. But there obviously has to be some 

deviation allowed for all of those realities.

>> I think level boarding is the way it's defined in the 

DOT reg I don't know that DOT has any definition of 

tolerance within that framework.
>> Okay.

>> Marilyn: Blair, with reference to the word "level" 

was the one that concerned you?

>> Blair: Well, on the first page, where under scoping 

where it says general -- rapid rail and high speed cars 

purchased after the effective dates of these requirements 

shall be designed for full length platform level boarding to 

meet the provisions of this section. So, that was again, 

just to make sure that we don't get it into box that's not 

reasonably achievable.

>> Marilyn: Right. You are talking about -- I am not 

saying that you are -- that since you work in inner-city your 

concerns about to be limited to inner-city. Inner-city has a 

slighter different standard a little lower. But you are 

talking about your concerns of rapid rail and high speed.

>> When you say high-speed rail. We run high speed 

inner-city rail the Acela is an inner-city train. That's my 

concern. When I look at rapid rail I think about subways 

and things like that, you know, there is a whole other 

element of control that you have because people I am 

sure -- I am sure some folks on the rapid rail side might 

argue with that. But versus inner-city trains. And when I 

think of that, today, I think of the Acela and future trains 

like that operating in inner-city conditions. When you are 
building whole new systems you can do a lot more to keep 

that under control and that's what we are talking about 

hopefully new stations and platforms and all of those things 

that eventually -- but there is mechanical realities of how 

things wear and behave.

>> Dennis: This is Dennis. I think what we -- what 

we might want to do and suggest the Board do is look at 

the what the DOT the latest iteration of the DOT regs that 

talk about level boarding. I am not sure but it occurs to 

me that they say something like, where the -- the platform 

height is generally at the same level as the frame car. That 

vaguely sounds like it might be. It may be in the definition 

of taking whatever the DOT reg said the newest one says 

how it defines level boarding and make sure that we are 

consistent with what level boarding means and don't invent 

something -- don't take that term and try to change it when 

it's already in the regulation that DOT just put out.

>> Right.

>> This is Linda.

>> My

>> Marilyn: Go ahead Linda and Blair.

>> and David Nelson has a question also.

>> Marilyn: Let's do Linda David Nelson then Blair 

then back to you if that's all right.
>> the recent regulation back in 2011 it does include a 

definition of level boarding, and we -- we refer to it as level 

entry boarding as opposed to level boarding to hopefully 

get out of the little bit of that confusion about it literally 

doesn't mean level boarding in most cases. And 

that -- that is 37.72F that applies to high speed commuter 

and high-speed rail it defines level boarding to a means of 

boarding platform design in which the horizontal gap 

between the car at rest and the platform is no more than 10 

inches on tandem track and 13 on curved. And where 

you -- and more -- not more than 5.5 inches above the 

boarding platform. Where you can't meet that, then you 

have to have a bridgeplate ramp or other means to get 

across it.

>> Marilyn: Okay.

>> I know it sounds tremendously large this is based 

on Dick Cogwell's tolerances that you were talking about in 

terms of wheel wear and track -- track, um, sinking and all 

of that stuff.

>> Marilyn: Thank you. David Nelson.

>> Yes David Nelson here apologies got kicked out of 

the conference room I was in I switched over I am not sure 

how far along we are in the discussion I was thinking about 

the future just technology and stuff that might come into 
the picture sometime down the road. Maybe it might be 

best to go ahead and put in proposal as possible, I know we 

were talking about the level -- level boarding problems due 

to the wheels being worn down, different sizes. I don't 

know, I was kind of having the thought process maybe if we 

could have what I am calling maybe a car lift or some kind 

of lift that when the train does arrive at a station platform, 

the car lift itself would kind of automatically raise or 

actually lower it would just adjust the train car to be the 

same level as the platform. Say like with modern buses 

speed buses they have kind of the knee -- I am not sure 

exactly what it's call knee lift or knee level where the bus 

drops down to ground level so people can board and 

unboard. When it's time to move the vehicle the bus will 

go ahead and raise back up to the normal height, normal 

level (inaudible). Maybe it's best to me the technology is 

not currently available not but it might be ready some time 

10 years from now. We know this stuff takes so long to go 

through the rulemaking and the process of regulation, so I 

would like to see that maybe some kind of language that 

would be put in that when feasible or in the future when the 

technology is a available -- that the technology is available, 

this rail car would have some kind of lift or some kind of 

adjustment lift to help make sure that it would be 
the -- that is would be safe for boarding. That goes with 

writing the specific language. I wanted to throw it in that's 

the end of my long, boring spiel.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Marilyn: This is Marilyn not at all David thanks. 

Blair, you had a response before?

>> Blair: No, I just wanted to make sure -- and I 

think Linda covered it, but the -- obviously the intent is 

concept of level boarding is that you can make a 

reasonable -- a reasonable safe transfer from the platform 

to the car or the car to the platform and that may not be 

dead level. But it's very close to level that is within a safe 

range to traverse. Either with or without a plate.

>> Linda: This is Linda again I want today clarify what 

I said because I skipped through some things. Basically, 

with the maximums are the 13 and 10 inches, but where 

you can't meet the 3 inches and 5/8 inch use a boarding 

device like a ramp or platform. And I think you guys are 

suggesting that that be two inches not three, I am not sure. 

In any case I didn't want to leave that with a big giant thud 

which is 10 inches and 13 inches is acceptable.

>> Blair: This is Blair. Those numbers come from, I 

think used to be the AREA it's now AREMA but those govern 

the platform setbacks where there is freight and things 
moving through the same platforms. And take into 

account all kinds of wiggles and jiggles in the cars.

>> Chris: Yeah. Blair, this is Chris. I think I wanted 

to point out Areva it's worth while to recall the (inaudible) 

institute with the (inaudible) research project at (inaudible). 

Basically says that nothing used by the (inaudible) was 

below 15 inches. I think. Or 17 inches. And of course 

that makes sense because of your typical rail car wheel is 

14 -- is in 28-inch or larger diameter. And (inaudible) is 

actually on the car it's going to be at the -- at 14 or higher. 

So, the work that we did in some ways (inaudible) is the 

point that the 8 and 10 inch height of platforms could 

actually go up significantly. That was dealt with at DOT. 

Last (inaudible). But it is worthwhile to note that a 8 and 

10-inch platform height doesn't actually have a lot of width 

when you look at the (inaudible) freight car infrastructure.

>> Yeah, Chris, when you are looking at the height of 

the platform above the top of rail you are correct. But I 

think what Linda was referring to was the edge of the 

platform to the edge of the train. And what that was or 

tangent track versus in curves. And I think that that was 

driven by wide loads on freight railroad cars such as tanks 

and military apparatus those types of things. But, again, 

my only point I was more concerned about the level issue 
than the setbacks. Because, obviously, there is work going 

on to deal with that. But, also, just to make sure that there 

was an understood -- that there are tolerances in the 

railroads and the manufacturing and the wear and tear and 

those kinds of things. So, and that we get what we want, 

which is that you can safely board and detrain but it may 

not always be on the bubble level. And I think that that's 

been discussed. So, I am good.

>> Chris: Blair, I am just curious I know that you 

talked in the past about the trouble with maintaining the 

older cars (inaudible) and I wonder if the newer air bags, 

ancient systems, might begin to point us to a better 

solution for (inaudible) compliance. Continually in rapid 

rail, where because you are try to go get a lot of people on 

board, you don't ever really want a step up or step down. 

(Ringing.)

>> Yes, this is Blair. To that point Chris the 

technology is always changing. And we -- we do base a lot 

of our thinking on what we know works today. But if -- I 

remember having the discussion with engineers 15 years 

ago about the tilting trains and they were scared to death of 

tilting trains. And I use the comparison to agricultural 

machinery that has very high-tech sensing devices and 

things like that. And still though when you add all of the 
technology in the world to very dynamic vehicles, there is 

always a chance for things to go awry. But I don't want to 

discount that things should continually get better. But at 

the same time, you know, as things wear you need to have 

some allowance. Because you could have a system 

theoretically that as the train rolls in no matter what 

it's -- its running condition is that it looks at some element 

on the platform and something and lifts itself up to match. 

Now, throw in snow and ice and other variables you know, 

okay predictability goes away. They are not sun 

surmountable I want to make sure whatever we are 

requiring had a reasonable left of -- level of tolerance that 

didn't push it out of what we anticipated, and that is when 

the train comes in that whatever devices or mechanisms it 

uses to bridge the horizontal gap that the vertical difference 

for level boarding is manageable. That it's safe and 

reasonable for people to make a transfer either walking or 

wheelchairs or how ever. And then again that was my only 

point.

>> Dennis: This is Dennis, I think the issue that we 

could do is say, where it says, full length platform level 

boarding insert "as defined by DOT in whatever the 

regulation -- latest regulation is."
>> Marilyn: Okay. Very good.

>> David Nelson here.

>> Marilyn: Go ahead David.

>> David: Just had a quick question maybe it might 

not be relevant in the current discussion. I just wanted to 

go ahead and throw it out there. I was in California just 

recently, I just -- I found out that two commuter trains out 

there are not using the 15-inch (inaudible) top rail level 

they are doing 18 or 19. And one of them -- one of them 

purchased a new car it was still 18, 19 inches of topper rail. 

And some people with disabilities complained about why we 

are not have to have the same level platform. They asked 

me if there was any standard for train platforms. I I'm 

sorry for train floors. I told them that I didn't know of one. 

So, my question is -- well this level boarding as you define 

it as 15 to 48 inches above top of rail. Is there going to be 

a guide for future passengers, future passenger train cars 

including commuters or would we need to have a separate 

regulation made for the train standards for consistency?

>> Marilyn: This is Marilyn anybody want to address 

that question?

>> Dennis: Yeah, this is Dennis. There are train 

cars -- there is no standard because the design varies. I

mean, we have got trains -- the train car floors that are 48 
inches above top of rail. And you have got some that are 

20. You have some that are like the some of the 

Bombardier cars that essentially are -- have a low section 

between the trucks so the ends of the -- of the car, the 

floor is higher to go over the truck. But then it drops 

down. And there is a low section in the center. And so, 

you can board from a fairly low platform. The same is true 

with some of the soup pare liners -- superliners that 

Amtrak is running. Where you board in the center platform 

essentially with a fairly sloping -- not very steep ramp. 

The sleepers and double deckers so there is a whole bunch. 

And what you actually run depends in large part on 

the -- where you are running them. There are places, for 

example, that -- where the double decker cars can't run. 

They run the Chicago but can't run up and down northeast 

corridor I can't remember. But there are all sorts of 

restrictions with tunnels and bridges and clearances and 

what not that you can't run some of the cars that you have 

to use only some cars and some parts of the country, so I 

don't think there is going to be a standard floor height ever 

as long as the technology keeps evolving and people keep 

trying to redesign the trains. That is one of the things 

about the scoping that says you have a car-borne 

bridgeplate or a car-borne left because -- lift because you 
buy all of these brand new cars, I guess the idea would be 

to have the highest floor possible but not really. 

And -- they are going to have to operate in stations that 

are existing they won't have to be rebuilt in the foreseeable 

future. You have to have a way to get on and off the car 

when you can't have level boarding. High-speed rail for 

the most part is being designed with dedicated 

right-of-way. They are not running these things with the 

exception of the Acela like the Texas train is going to build 

its own track its own stations and whatever they can control 

all of that. When you are running your trains on somebody 

else's rail, you have to contend with all of the barriers that 

are there are there in terms of tunnel height and bridge 

width as all of that stuff I don't think you are going to get a 

standard quote unquote level train floor level for that's 

going to work anywhere except in small pieces of the 

country.

>> Marilyn: This is Marilyn I actually had a couple of 

things that I wanted to ask the group. At the risk of 

upsetting the apple cart. But I think this is a very good 

discussions that we are having, stop me if I, you know, go 

too quickly over a point that we haven't exhausted. But I

was talking to Dennis about what the small group did, and 

he acknowledged to me and this is by the way, on page 2, 
the last -- very close to the end of the section just before 

ramps and bridgeplates starts. That there is a 12-inch 

standard or specification here that manually (inaudible) 

shall be permitted horizontal gap exceeds in essence 12 

inches."

Dennis, do you want to say what you told me about 

that?

>> Dennis: Yeah. The issue was there are some 

places where, and you got existing stations where the gap 

is very big. Somebody actually said there was a gap that 

was as big as 24 inches or something in someplace. There 

is not likely to ever be a bridgeplate that's stowed on board 

that actually going to work in that situation. You think of 

the bus ramps, for example, which fold out from the floor 

of the bus. There is a limit on how long the ramp can be it 

has to fit into the -- the front of the bus area. The same is 

true with the vestibule of a train car. You are not going to 

be able to have a ramp or bridgeplate that is four feet long, 

for example, in that situation. And in those cases it's 

almost absolutely necessary that you have a manually 

deployed bridgeplate that may or may not be on the 

platform. Remember, we are going to operate these cars in 

a whole bunch of existing stations that are not going to be 

modified. The idea that people are going to built 
high-level platforms is not realistic it's not going to 

happen. So, we have to assume that we can -- there will 

be cases where the short bridgeplate that deploys 

automatically simply isn't going to work. It is going to 

have to be a manually operated device. The idea was 

where the doors are open by personnel in the train, many 

cases when it pulls into the station not all of the doors 

open. The only ones that are opened by conductors. So 

that people are shepherded out of the door. In that case it 

seems reasonable to say that it was deployed a manual 

bridgeplate in that case where you have got some control of 

the doors the doors open people can board but there is 

actually a person at that door that is opening it. And the 

12 inches I picked off the top of my said saying that -- top 

of my head saying that the top of the platform and the rail 

is more than 12 inches you may have to have a manual 

deployed bridgeplate to take care of that. The 12 inches is 

the number I picked up off the top of my head and we can 

argue whether that's the correct number or not. That's the 

rationale where it came from.

>> Marilyn: This is Marilyn does anyone want to 

argue about whether that is the right number or not?

>> This is David here. No, we have -- I think we had 

that problem in Maine if I remember correctly. Because the 
train stops on a curve at that station. And so, that is where 

we ended up with a wider gap. And I know that there are 

some other stations where that occurs, but there are 

smaller stations that use the superliner. But in Maine, I 

know that it happens with all of the single-level cars where 

you have a gap, I think the biggest gap that we found were 

35 inches. So, completely to my dismay and surprise the 

new station I am not sure why they built the station with a 

curve. But I know the future regulation needs to account 

for that. That you know, there needs to be a direct 

platform so that you will avoid that gap.

>> Marilyn: This is Marilyn I think the suggestion in 

the proposal -- I mean, I think David what you said is ideal. 

But the suggestion in the proposal provides for when you 

can't avoid a big gap. For whatever reason. I mean, 

especially given that we are not talking about you know this 

is not a platform standard this is a car standard. 

Other -- other -- does anyone else have comments on this?

>> Ken: This is Ken. I guess the only comment is 

that the difference should be, you know, what is a realistic 

gap that a car -- automatic car-borne lift can car-borne 

ramp or bridge plat goes out that maybe that's 10 or 11. 

When it's beyond that then it should be the manual deploy 

lift, you know, when the doors don't open automatically. 
But, you know, it's just -- I don't know if 10 or 12 is the 

right number. You know, it's -- it's -- I assume that you 

are conceding it's when the bridgeplate that's attached to 

the car and deploys automatically just can't reach then you 

use the manual bridgeplate.

>> Chris: Well, Ken, I think the bigger question here 

is let's just say that you have got a gap or if we want to pick 

on the two-foot gap of the (inaudible). When you are 

above the track bed should anybody be crossing that gap 

without handrails, and without edge protection. And my 

gut says, no way in heck would I want someone crossing 18 

to 24 inches out four feet above the ground without 

handrails and without edge protection. And if that is the 

case, then you are only going to get that with a manual 

bridgeplate. Now, you are not going to design similar with 

a 12-inch horizontal gap, except for a couple of random 

(inaudible) where you have movable platforms edges or 

(inaudible). But --

>> Chris, this is Marilyn you have actually a few 

paragraphs later I should have said this, a provision for 

handrails -- I put -- I sort of coordinate a coordinating -- a 

coordinating provision for handrails on bridgeplates where 

the gap is greater than 12 inches.

>> Chris: Yeah.
>> Marilyn: That's in either of the gang planks that 

you were talking about.

>> Chris: I think, Marilyn just from operational 

standpoint, the more you have to design with personnel the 

more likely things go wrong. And so, as the rail 

advisement say they don't have enough bodies as it is today 

on the trains. So, they don't really want to add more things 

or people -- for people to do.

>> Dennis: This is Dennis. The idea of handrails is 

probably one of the automatically deploying bridgeplate like 

the one that they have in the buses and so forth that you 

can put in the rail car, maybe. There is no way that you 

can really deploy handrails that is almost automatically 

something that you would have to do manually. And as far 

as personnel, the more personnel that you have that can go 

wrong it's true but you can have failures of the automatic 

systems just as well. The provision here is that you have to 

have all of the ramps and bridgeplates have to have edge 

protection but in addition to that where the gap you are 

spanning is greater than 12 inches, you must have 

handrails and that's automatically going to be a manually 

deployed lift ramp excuse me for bridgeplate. But the 

issue then is in most of these systems, as opposed to rapid 

rail and things, they open door -- this is true of lots of 
platforms not just where the gap is large. That they only 

open certain doors because there is some kind of 

obstruction or something on the platform. So, in 

inner-city rail, typically, they don't open all of the doors 

automatically, the doors are opened individually and people 

are taken through a car which is why it's important when we 

do the accessible route issues that we make sure that we 

have got an accessible route to whatever the door is.

>> Marilyn: Does that require another provision?

>> Dennis: No that is part of the accessible route 

issue.

>> Marilyn: Oh, I see okay. That's a good point.

>> Chris: You know, I would also suggest to you all 

that you may not want to make your recommendation on a 

very small number of oddball locations where we have 

extreme gaps. I think that you better think about as you 

got new systems, you have got new cars, what is the 

(inaudible). And for the oddball location, you are going to 

have to figure out alternative options.

>> Marilyn: Well, language is welcome. But I haven't 

heard a lot of -- this is a good discussion. I haven't heard 

anything that suggests a change of the language in the 

proposal, I don't think. Other than -- well, no I -- I don't 

think it has.
>> Chris: Marilyn, I would suggest that maybe folks 

need to digest it a little more and ponder before you call it 

closed.

>> Marilyn: Right. Well there is no really closed on 

the subcommittee because it will be discussed by the full 

committee. Chris before you got on we are talking about 

this is the last committee commit -- meeting before the fall 

committee meeting. In a couple of weeks, and we just 

want to get this proposal done to present to them with the 

understanding that of course the full committee can make 

whatever changes. But just to show -- just to show that 

we have been doing something. The other -- the other 

point that I wanted to raise is that there is a storage 

section -- I am going to find it and then tell everybody 

where it is on my computer although I added changes, so, 

it's bottom of page 3 or near the top of page 4.

I think. Right before lifts the section of lifts starts. 

And it wasn't in red or purple or whatever, but I think it 

does include some new language. It's reflecting the shift 

that we are -- that our subcommittee appears to be trying 

to bring forward for the future of emphasizing on board 

devices whether they are automatic, and integrated with 

automatic doors, or whether they are simply stowed on 

board and we discussed why, Ed Hoff a number of reasons 
why you recommended that I think you were the person 

who kicked that -- you know, brought that proposal 

forward and you can repeat those points if people need to 

hear that. But I just I noticed this morning that that 

paragraph wasn't highlighted and it should have been 

highlighted. I believe. Because -- if it's not the same as 

the current it looks like it should be highlighted.

>> Dennis: This is Dennis the storage provision that 

you are saying is where portable ramps and bridgeplates 

are -- securement or other methods is that the part you are 

talking about?

>> Yes.

>> That is the current regulation.

>> Even the vehicle part?

>> Dennis: Yes, the thing that Ed raised in a note to 

you was it says where portable ramps bridgeplates are 

permitted, his question was: We didn't say where they are 

permitted. Then I just realized when we just got through 

talking about this operation issue is that, yes, we did. The 

issue is they are permitted when you got more than a 

12-inch gap.

>> Marilyn: That's right. And -- well, I mean, I think 

whether manual operation manual deployment is the same 

as portable. Ed and I were talking about that yesterday. 
We had thought manual deployment met still attached. 

And it could include pushing buttons or attached to the car 

but deployed by personnel. You are suggesting that 

manual deployment could be a platform-based thing for 

large gaps and really is the same as portable. That 

sometimes portable will be on board but other times for 

example if it have handrails you felt portable would mean 

platform-based.

>> Dennis: Yeah.

>> Marilyn: Any comments or any discussion on any 

of that?

>> Chris: If Gary is on the phone, he can speak to the 

bridgeplate if he has worked out handrails. And it will be 

kept on board the train.

>> Marilyn: This is Marilyn. That was Chris I don't 

think Gary is here. Gary are you here? I don't think Gary 

is here.

>> Dennis: Some of us went to Union Station a few 

weeks ago and saw the new design ramp. Yeah it folds up 

it has Rand rails that detach and there will be a 

compartment for it to fit in inside the door somewhere. 

They haven't designed that I don't think. That would meet 

this provision.

>> David here I'm sorry to interrupt you yes that was a 
ramp that we are planning on stowing on the train car I am 

not exactly sure what is going on with the bridgeplate. 

Gary told me he was going to be on the conference call 

today. But I will send him a quick text and see if I can 

jump on this call and answer that question.

>> Blair, I think we are -- we are -- I know Gary has 

been working on our down eastern service cars where we 

have the long setback from the tracks. And I think his idea 

was that that bridgeplate would go along with the cars. Let 

me just throw out that I know Linda experienced the 

situation and most unfortunate situation at one of the 

stations where the bridgeplate was to be kept at the 

stations and train pulls in everyone was scrambling trying 

to find the bridgeplate that evidently someone had put 

somewhere else or something so I think the idea is that if 

you have the plates on the cars, and it's part of the daily 

condition of the vehicle then you stand a pretty good 

chance of having a bridgeplate where you need it when you 

need it rather than chasing it down at the station. Where if 

you require both, then you have a much better chance of 

actually having the bridgeplate when you need it.

>> Yes, this is Dennis. You know, the idea that you 

don't find it on the platform is one thing but I have also 

been in the situation when I went up to Baltimore on the 
MARC train we came across the bridgeplate stowed in the 

car wasn't there either. They can disappear from either 

place.

>> Chris: And I --

>> and they have to get it out of another car to get me 

in the car.

>> Chris: And (inaudible) I would push that and say, 

if I have got 6 cars in my train and I have a bridge plate on 

each car, it's pretty unlikely that all 6 of those would be 

missing. Now, if I have one platform, in Podunk USA where 

the bridgeplates are, where (inaudible) a teenager or 

skateboard guy can attempt to -- can potentially walk off 

with the bridgeplate. I got a lot less guarantee.

>> That point is right on the mark I wanted one little 

thing it's something that is unfortunately more common 

than not when you have the platform based bridgeplate. 

Because there is no as Chris just mentioned, there is no 

determination as to how many you need on a platform 

relative to how many cars are on a train usually combined. 

If we require at least one bridgeplate on every car, perhaps 

we can do even better if you have two ends of a car that are 

accessible perhaps we should tie the bridgeplates to being 

stowed on the car relative to their distance from an 

accessible door where you might require two bridgeplates 
per car that point is well taken once you tied them to the 

car and you have that many that the likelihood is much, 

much less that you are not going to -- that your going to 

run out of a bridgeplate at the time that you need one. We 

have had the experiences not so much with vandalism skate 

borders you don't simply walk out of the station with one of 

ours they are 30 by 30 inch bulky thick alum number what 

is normally the case is my experience is, crew member will 

take one put it down, be afraid he gets to the destination 

there might not be one easily available to them they will 

keep it on board. And in a noncontainer where there is 

nothing to hold it against the wall anything when they get 

to the end they leave the bridgeplate somewhere on the 

platform not secured in a box or what have you. So you 

have a haphazard inventory of the plates. We have 

controlled it to a certain extent I know it still occurs. If we 

have it stowed on the car, and better yet tethered to the car 

or integrated with the car somehow, as manual as it may 

be, you bring down the likelihood that much more.

>> This is Dennis. We do -- I wasn't arguing against 

car-borne. We do this provision in fact requires car-borne 

ramps or bridgeplates or a car-borne lift.

>> I understand it was simply because we understood 

the -- the cumbersomeness and bulkiness of the handrails 
and that it might be not be achievable to stow that type of 

bridgeplate on the car. So, I fully understand that.

>> Right.

>> This is David here.

>> Go ahead David.

>> I am not able to find the dimension about the 

car-borne bridge plate on page --

>> Under gaps

>> Does it say.

>> It's in the scoping provision under gaps.

>> It's called

>> This is Marilyn that's the storage section before the 

lift?

>> No, no, no. In the -- it's in the scoping provision 

at the very beginning. Under gaps.

>> Oh, I see. It's the third --

>> David Nelson I see it now. That's the word 

"automatic."

>> Yes. We have been talking at least one or two 

meetings about automatic deployment. This is Marilyn.

>> Chris: Just to be clear, the automatic deployment 

is really an issue for rapid rail and for people movers where 

you don't really have the luxury of waiting (inaudible) for 

someone to just show up with a manual plate.
>> I don't know. I think -- I think you are right. 

That's probably where it's going to end up. However, you 

could use it on another railroad if the railroad was so 

ambitious to use one automatic bridgeplates.

>> Chris: I am sure anyone does that Ed it might be 

you. It's more work for you guys.

>> Marilyn: Ed you are already doing it aren't you?

>> Ed: I am working on it not doing it yet but I 

appreciate the compliment though

>> Ed, this is Blair, then everybody goes well Jersey 

Transit is doing it.

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Ed: I have used that against myself sometimes 

too.

>> Well, we have done some things that you guys have 

had to live with that as well. Well just because Amtrak 

does it, you know?

 (LAUGHTER)

>> Well, that's a race to the top is better than a race to 

the bottom that's for sure. Good. So, other discussion of 

any of these issues? We have had a lot of good discussion 

not a lot of avoiding changes but a few. Should I go over 

the ones that I wrote down?

>> Chris: Marilyn, this is Chris. Did you guys 
discuss the 20 mile an hour people mover language in 

scoping?

>> Marilyn: No. We have not just today discussed 

that. We may have discussed it in previous meetings 

though.

>> Chris: In case (inaudible) plenty of people movers 

available around the world that operate at much higher 

speeds. And I don't know the history of that 20 mile per 

hour, but really want to think about just (inaudible).

>> This is Dennis. The provision currently says, 

people -- slow moving people movers shall have a gap of 1 

inch it doesn't define in the regulation itself doesn't define 

what "slow moving" means. The 20 mile an hour came 

from a discussion with the folks from the advanced transit 

association that are sort of -- advanced transit association 

the people that run all of these people movers around the 

country. And also from a standard that's being developed 

by ASCE, I think? For the (inaudible) systems. And the 

issue was that the two or the 3 or 2 inch gap for currently 

existing for rapid rail was okay trying to meet a 1-inch gap 

was not conceivable on something that came in out of 

stations rapidly.

>> Chris: All right.

>> So the suggestion was the 20 mile her hour was the 
standard that's being used by AGT systems for the 1-inch 

gap that's where the 20 mile -- it was in an advisory 

document put out by the board for the people mover 

section. It does not -- it did not appear in the regulation. 

The regulation only said slow moving.

>> Okay. Yeah. I am just aware as more rapid rail 

essentially becomes (inaudible) and you have a lot faster, 

let's say airport styled people movers it may come back to 

bite us.

>> It only means that you have to meet a tighter 

standard in the slow moving you still have the 2 inch 

standard.

>> Marilyn: That's right. If they go faster, then they 

have to do -- they have to meet what do they have to meet 

Dennis?

>> The 2 inch and 5/8. The maximum horizontal gap 

2 inches the same as rapid rail if it goes faster than 20 

miles an hour they have to meet rapid rail standard 20 

miles or less they have to meet a 1-inch gap.

>> Hi, Marilyn, Gary Talbot. I'm sorry I have been 

trying to call in and had connectivity problems I am on the 

call. I will mute myself. But sorry about that.

>> No, welcome Gary. This is Marilyn. Welcome 

Gary. We had a question for you a while back I can't 
remember what it was.

>> Blair: This is Blair. I think it was Gary the 

situations that you have run into with the platform setbacks 

up on the main service? And your intent on having the 

bridgeplates carried on the car versus living at the station.

>> I think he muted himself again.

>> We cannot hear you Gary.

>> Gary: I'm sorry. Yeah that was -- that was really 

an eye opener for us. When we went out the first time and 

Chris was with us Chris Hart the gap is so huge the 

horizontal gap is so huge it would never be safe for a crew 

member to actually like jump across the gap to get a plate 

that's on the platform. And likewise, you could never have 

any ambulatory person let alone a wheeled mobility device 

wouldn't stand it. As a result what that service does they 

carry the plate with them on the car. Now, because they 

currently carry the plate on the car that was one reason that 

they made the plate so small. Because they have to carry 

the plate through the car depending which car lands at the 

setback platform. The set back platform is 45 foot in 

length except on a couple of locations. And so depending 

on which car is going to land there. They have to walk the 

bridgeplate through the cars. So the bigger that plate 

becomes, the more difficult it is to get it through the car 
and then they just stand it up in the vestibule wherever they 

use it or wherever they get ready to deploy. So, it was a 

much more difficult design effort for us. Not only did we 

have, you know, proper engagement length in the car and 

trying to get the slopes of the actual bridgeplate right, but 

we also had to try and figure out, okay, how are we going to 

do this keep it on the car make sure it has foldable 

handrails so it's safer for everybody, especially your 

ambulatory users that's mentioned somebody in a wheeled 

mobility device when you have a two-inch side guard and 

no handrail. And then the ability to walk it through the car. 

And that's really why we had to go back on numerous 

occasions we just made another series of changes, we know 

we are getting closer but it has been quite the challenge 

because as that gap gets bigger the only place you can keep 

it is on the car you have to deploy it from the car. It's kind 

of like backwards if you think about it. So, I hope that 

answers the question.

>> This is Marilyn. Does that answer the question?

>> Lets us know it's achievable how ever difficult and 

cumbersome to stow a long bridgeplate with handles on the 

car. This is -- this goes back to what Blair says Amtrak is 

doing it why can't we do it?

>> Chris: And keep in mind I think Gary is trying to 
get that thing down to 18 or 15 pounds which is about 10 

pounds less than what their current bridgeplate is.

>> Yes, yes, if I could follow-up on that. I mean, it's 

really quite amazing the current plate for a 34-inch gap the 

current plate is about 36 inches long. So, we are changing 

that considerably because we have to have engagement into 

the car so that the plate can't become dislodged and just 

fall and someone who is whether a walky or someone in a 

chair could fall. That means the overall length of the plate 

has to increase which is has. Then add into it the foldable 

handrails as well. And we are going to end up about 50% 

of their -- the mass of the current bridgeplate with the 

updated current and fiber unit and it will be probably 35% 

longer, I think it is. And have handrails as well. And yet 

be about half the mass of the current one. So, we do think 

it's much more feasible. For their system for the down 

Easter system. I think it actually works okay for them. But 

the key piece of it is the bridgeplate. And having a good 

and safe bridgeplate one that works for the staff as well as 

the passengers. I think this is going to be a huge step in 

the right direction on that.

>> Yes, this is Blair. And, Gary, to add to that, one of 

the things that when we talk about new vehicles and 

hopefully new stations everything is designed as it should 
be, in the U.S. right now, it's really critical woo have inroads 

into places that have passed for years, and if we can have 

the flexibility that device like Gary is working on gives you 

to go into places that haven't seen train service in years, 

and start up without all of the prerequisites, then everybody 

wins because now we have, you know, trail transportation 

where there was none and we have a way of making it 

accessible safely. And I think those are critical things to 

keep in mind that we are not always so fortunate to be able 

to build when you are building new cars, to be able to put 

them on, you know, new -- new rights-of-way and things 

like that. So, just wanted to throw it out. The last thing in 

the world that you want to have happen is that people make 

decisions about offering service because they feel the 

accessibility aspect becomes too cumbersome. You know, 

lets take those excuses away wherever we can.

>> Yes, agree with that. This is Gary. I would even 

add to that, you know, you look at flag stops. To me, we 

really shouldn't have any flag stops in America today. If we 

do my goodness they should be so, so limited. In addition 

to flag stops there are seasonal stops where you have like 

even a county fair kind of thing or a state fair where you 

have different systems that have a two-week stop 

something like that. And I think the whole setback 
strategy, and in some cases with the larger bridgeplates on 

board the vehicle, may open up some options like that 

where today there is a carve out in the rule where because it 

doesn't -- it doesn't explicitly say that a seasonal or 

anything like that is required to be accessible, then it just 

calls -- falls on DOT. If it's a short duration type of thing 

like Blair said often folks are just using a little strip of dirt 

someplace and taking people in and out which for us as a 

community, to me it's just outrageous we wouldn't be 

included in that. And maybe, you know, I think it's back to 

the tools in the tool box. It's never going to be a one-size 

fits all. At least not for inner-city. For heavy rail light rail 

rapid transit it's pretty much level boarding those things the 

automated gap filler stuff things like that for inner-city it's 

kind of a different thing. And commuter rail fits into that 

as well. When commuter rail is used for something other 

than just your standard commuter. You have some 

commuter rail systems that are going to crank up things in 

the summertime or during ski season something like that 

add additional things that hopefully at some point we can 

get creative and find ways to make those accessible for us.

>> Ken: This is Ken. Gary's comments about the 

bridgeplate in Vermont -- not Vermont in Maine just 

reminded me that I have a question about a wording issue 
on the top of -- the hard copy page 3, the section that says 

"attachment" and it's -- it says attachment when used or 

boarding and alighting much be firmly attached in the 

vehicle and shall not overlap the platform. Is attachment 

the right word or -- because Gary used the term 

engagement just now. I just -- again, this may be not 

necessary at this stage it may be, you know, more in the reg 

language. But I just had had a question about whether 

attached was too restrictive a word or is the word what 

needs to be used.

>> if I could comment on that, Ken, this is Gary. To 

me, I think that is critical. I would even add to it that if 

you -- depending on how are either engaged or attached, 

whatever the right word is, it should be done so in such a 

way that it's -- it's structural it's meant to be there. If it's 

not done that you have to come up with other means so 

that you -- so that you get what we commonly referred to 

as a secondary engagement. What often happens today 

you will have someone that use a part of the car, a lip of the 

car, or something like that and they will put something in it 

that's structural into an area that's not structural, and if the 

least little bit of shifting on it the thing can fall. That's 

where we have taken that and said wait a minute, we want a 

secondary means of engagement where this thing you can 
kick it and it can't fall out of the way. So, if somebody in a 

very heavy-power chair hits it just a little bit wrong the 

spaces are so dog gone tight you know that's going to 

happen every day or every time it's used for that purpose. 

And so, how do we design it in such a way if you do hit it 

like that it can't get dislodged. I don't know, you know, 

rulemaking wise I am not exactly sure what word to use I 

saw when you read it out I was in a meeting I didn't get a 

chance to respond, I think you are right, I mean, I do think 

that's an important piece. Not only how do we refer to it, 

and to me, like on the superliner ramps, we have lugs in the 

floor that I think Blair and others put in. Those are 

structural lugs. We know that we can attach to those, they 

can handle all of the loading that we can give them. And 

that's how we have designed the ramps to interface with the 

superliner car. I think that's appropriate. But if we were 

then to go to a car like an Amfleet car, use an element that 

wasn't ever intended to hold the structure or load, use that 

as our only means of attachment that's where I think you 

run into trouble. I am not sure how to word it from a 

rulemaking, but I do think that's a very critical piece. 

These things ought to be there in such a way that you 

can't -- they are fixed in such a way they can be used the 

way they are supposed to be used and people can't nudge 
them with their foot hit them with the tire and become 

dislodged. And that's happened.

>> Chris. This is Chris. You look at commuter rail, 

where you (inaudible) with a sack key or (inaudible) car. 

When you look at the existing bridgeplates that are being 

used across the country, they typically only have a half-inch 

engagement with the car. And (inaudible) the thing that is 

wet -- if it gets wet or you hit it the wrong way, you can 

move that engagement that you had and the bridge plate 

either stay on or they fall into the gap. And so, (inaudible) 

appropriate to think about point crossing of is it one point 

of engagement or is it multiple points of engagement.

>> Dennis: This is Dennis. This is straight from the 

current regulation it says, shall not be subject to 

displacement from the vehicle. You can't kick it and nudge 

it to make it (inaudible).

>> Chris: There is a problem, now what you have got 

(inaudible). Whether it's (inaudible) or Kawasaki or 

Hyundai. You have bridgeplates that have hatch-inch 

tooth and that half-inch tooth drops into a slot on the 

trapdoor floor. Okay? And if that tooth is bent, if there is 

any kind of slight error putting it in, it doesn't actually drop 

in.

>> Gary: Yeah this is Gary. I agree with Chris 
Dennis. I think the intention of the current rule is fine. 

But it's not prescriptive enough. Because we are ending up 

with exactly what Chris said. And boy, I tell you, you look 

at some of the gaps at the train or some of the gaps at the 

platforms and you see the engagement or lack of 

engagement in the car and no secondary means, if that 

thing for whatever reason if you have trash in that little 

troph or birth piled up any reason you can drop it in think 

it's fine have it not be fine then 650, 700-pound package to 

get across that oh, my goodness you would not 

believe -- Chris almost knocked the plate out accidentally 

trying to get on the plat and I guarantee you that plate they 

would consider it compliant to the current rulemaking 

because they can drop it in and it will say, you know it's 

fine. There is nothing wrong with it. And yet one of the 

folks we are working with accidentally just kicked it with his 

foot and it popped up and almost fell between the gap and 

it was just we had quite a few of us around the opening of 

the car we were working on the car it was one of the things. 

We used it as that's why we are designing the one that we 

are designing. I think somehow the requirements in the 

language need to direct folks that they can't do what Chris 

just said. That's what almost everybody does.

>> What is the language, what should it say?
>> It almost seems to me that you want to prescribe 

some, you know, minimum engagement. So type of shell 

pea -- have a distance or something like that that you have 

to be engaged.

>> This is Blair. Let me throw out an option here I 

have been sitting and listening to everyone. If you word it 

so that it said, the bridgeplate however you want to say it, 

shall engage the car in such a manner that the plate may 

not be dislodged by horizontal or vertical movement during 

use, (inaudible) actively disengaged by a member of the 

crew.

>> Chris: I think that you have a provision that also 

included, it will say where if this is dislodged it cannot move 

more than, you know, a half an inch forward or backward, 

that fight get you where you need to go.

>> Gary: Yeah this is Gary. I agree with that. I am 

thinking about the design changes we just put into the 

down Easter plate. We are going -- we are designing in 

about a half inch maybe 3/4 inch of slot there is going to 

be ears on the inside that you will be able to kick it from 

any direction that you want and it's wedged on the outside 

it only goes half an inch or inch it stops it has to because 

the plate is wider than the door opening on purpose. From 

the inside of the car we have the two ears that will pick up 
the inner edge and you will be able to, you know, kick it, 

whatever you want, you could hit it with as big a chair on 

the plate. And there is no place for the plate to go. So, 

but the fact that it can move a little bit we have to have 

otherwise it's a precision fit and you know, you 

wouldn't -- I don't think it's not the movement so much as 

it just can't go anywhere. So, if we have a longer plate if 

we had two inches of movement that wouldn't matter it 

wouldn't have impact as long as it can't fall in the gap or 

come out of the car or something like that.

>> Marilyn: Well I got the language I think. Maybe I 

will read it and Gary will offer or whatever offer -- whoever 

offer amendments engage in the car in such a manner that 

the plate may not be displaced by horizontal -- it says it 

can't be dislodged from the movement and actively 

disengage from by a member of the crew I think that's what 

you satisfied Blair. Please have at it.

>> Melissa: This is Melissa I want to remind you guys 

you have 8 minutes to finish up.

>> Marilyn: Yeah, thank you.

>> I apologize this is Gary I know I goofed that up you 

had this question. Marilyn, I would say this, could we work 

on Blair's language? I think that's a great start. And I do 

agree with Chris, I think we got to -- to me the one thing 
that would make it better is if we could either put a 

maximum movement or language that would say, you 

know, -- and maybe it's all right the way it is. But I mean 

jut the chance to look at it and respond to you.

>> Of course I can circulate this.

>> Chris: And maybe it would be helpful if I brought 

a couple of our current commuter rail bridgeplates down 

so, folks can see what little engagement is built in to the 

plates now. And you know, maybe Ed could springboard 

his (inaudible), basically you are kind of hanging there on 

very -- very little steel or aluminum. 

>> I can bring one down.

>> Chris: I know, people need to see how -- what we 

have got, to understand what is wrong.

>> I agree. Actually I got some photographs that 

might be better where you can see one in action where we 

are boarding somebody or deboarding somebody using a 

bridgeplate you can actually see close up how the 

bridgeplate engages with the car it might be better than 

bringing it down it's better for me anyhow.

>> I am wondering about disengaged about the 

number of the crew the fact I think the ones you are talking 

about are moved and engaged by the crew. But this 

proposal also talks about automatic deployment. And this 
attachment section applies to that as well. So, I don't want 

to introduce a crew member's intervention necessarily for 

every bridgeplate. Because we want some to be 

automatically deployed. It still has to meet a good at tap.

>> This is Dennis. It works anyway because if it's 

automatically deployed it's going to be mechanically 

attached to the vehicle and it cannot be -- cannot be 

detached without a crew member.

>> Marilyn: Because the crew member would inter 

gait. Closing of the doors might instigate disengagement?

>> Right.

>> it's still attached even though it folds up retracts or 

something it's not detached if it's coordinated with the door 

opening, it's still part of the structure of the vehicle. It 

can't be detached accidentally. If you want to service it, 

then a crew member will have to take it off.

>> Oh, I see because we are only talking about the 

vehicle here we are not talking about the platform, okay. I

see your point. Then it does work. Okay. Who wanted to 

say something? And then we have -- it has to be quick. 

And by the way, let me just say, actually, let me add one 

more thing, sorry. Just thinking about our process, it may 

be that this has to be place where the language -- that 

changes are still very possible, but they may have to be 
after, you know, at or after the in-person meeting. 

Because we can exchange language before but we can't 

really -- we won't have another time to all talk to reach 

consensus.

>> Melissa: You will have time

>> Marilyn, this is Gary. If I could add a couple of 

quick things. One thing Chris and I added on heavy rail 

was no human intervention to actuate. So, on the 

automated one, you would want to just it to be automated. 

The door opens like Dennis says door goes to close it 

shows itself. That way a person used a wheeled mobility 

device who needs it it's just there it gets use understand. 

The -- and then the other thing that I wanted to just 

mention is: For those that are coming to the gap and 

accessible boarding and technologies thing in Detroit, we 

will have the new down Easter bridgeplate there and we 

have a mockup so we will be able to deploy that and you 

will see exactly what I am talking about. You will see the 

current version and then the latest design iteration for the 

down Easter plate the ramps et cetera just to let folks know 

that as well.

>> Marilyn, one quick comment

>> Sure Ed, go ahead.

>> I wanted to know also we talked about the 
automatic and manually deployed and portable. Also 

something I envision that I don't think the 

requirement -- the recommendations preclude is a 

possibility of a powered and attached device that is 

deployed by a crew member by a button push so that it's 

not automatic the door operation but perhaps based upon 

need where simply a button pushes and a powered 

bridgeplate is then deployed.

>> Chris: And that might be appropriate for 

inner-city, I don't necessarily think you want to go that way 

for rapid transit.

>> Yeah, I agree -- this is Gary. I agree with Chris on 

that. The other thing I meant to mention Marilyn is the 

plat form itself. New York has done a really cool thing 

several people have where the plat form will fold out or 

move to fill the gap from the platform side on heavy rail. 

So, I am not sure it would be applicable to inner-city but it 

might be. You may not want to preclude something 

happening on the platform side as well.

>> No we certainly do not want to preclude it does this 

language preclude it? This is Marilyn.

>> No, because this is just for the vehicle. And I think 

the people in New York, at least that I talked to would say, 

the last thing that you want to do is use the system that 
they have in New York.

>> All right. Ed, this is Marilyn, Ed to your question, I 

know Melissa we need to end, to your question, I think this 

is a -- this is another thing that we need to refine 

after -- at and after the full committee's meeting in person. 

Because I mean, the difference between portable and 

manually deployed got blurred at this meeting today 

because -- said it could be platform based for situations 

with big gaps and Blair and David pointed out that Amtrak 

is developing bridgeplates with handrails that are stowed 

on the car. So, I sense that we are releasing manually 

deployed some of that is portable actually. We may need 

to develop a distinction between -- I don't know when -- I 

don't know when normal deployment can be required if it's 

not allowed to be portable.

>> It's not required but it may be an opportunity for 

where you might find, again, the rare ambitious railroad 

that figures out that, hey, I can integrate this thing I can 

power operate it and I don't need to deal with making the 

portable anywhere. That's way further down the road I 

appreciate that. Having one stowed on board portable 

close to the door might be easier if I had them at every door 

it was reliable in service that might be a better solution.

>> I --
>> That would be great go ahead Dennis this is 

Marilyn.

>> in closing I think we should take the language that 

you just said put it in the attachment portion and that's 

what we will agree on for the committee's submittal, a 

couple of people can look at language before the full 

committee meeting and then during the presentation at the 

committee meeting, if those folks have a better finesse but I 

don't think we want to spend a lot of time in wordsmithing, 

okay if they have a better finesse for fixes it, it could be 

raised at the meeting. For the sake of the subcommittee 

the language as you wrote down from Blair, basically, is the 

baseline.

>> Marilyn: Yeah that's (inaudible) I think Ed is 

talking about a different point I like your rare ambitious 

railroad that develops a deployment. I don't know how to 

make that fit into the proposal. Or Ed if you think there is 

a way.

>> I don't think it's precluded.

>> That's all I was looking for we don't preclude it, it 

may be achievable you could have a car manufacturer say I 

can do it better it cuts down on dwell time make it easier 

you don't have to manage a portable bridgeplate you hit a 

button it comes out and you go.
>> I think the automatic requirement -- I think you are 

suggesting other systems could develop a pushbutton 

deployment for a large gap is that your point

>> Yes just so we don't preclude it from happening 

where full automation is infeasible or not achievable. 

Instead of going into a fully portable bridgeplate whether 

stored on board or someplace else I didn't want to preclude 

the possibility

>> Melissa: Okay guys we need to wind down.

>> Marilyn: E-mail me language that you think 

precludes it we will see if we can play with it I don't know 

where it would be yet. This is great. And we are -- we 

will next meet at the in-person meeting thanks everybody.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you guys.

>> This is Melissa quick reminder to the committee 

chairs we are going to have a conference call tomorrow.

>> Yes, yes.

>> Okay.

>> What time was that again Melissa?

>> It's at 1 o'clock eastern time it should be fairly 

short.

>> It's a different number than this right?

>> Right.
>> PAUL BEATTY: This is Paul speaking I sent out 

E-mail with the number which is different.

>> Okay.

>> PAUL BEATTY: Okay. Operator this concludes the 

conference call you can shut us down.

>> Melissa: Thank you

>> I hope you have a great day. (End of meeting.)