Green Line Type 10 Procurement

[Brattle Loop]

BTW...these are likely to look like the CAF Urbos 3 cars used in Budapest. Over there they have 9-section 'stretched' trains. We're only getting 7 sections. So CAF definitely knows how to build for what the T is asking.

Are those things on the sides near the cab mirrors? I couldn't help noticing that on the T renderings the destination said Heath Street, but didn't show any mirrors, and CAF's last offering for us had some problems in that vein.

 

[bakgwailo]

Don't they need to correct the Boylston curve and other places in the central subway for these to work? Does that fall under "infrastructure upgrades"? If so that seems a pretty aggressive time line with work starting so late in the procurement.

 

[Brattle Loop]

Don't they need to correct the Boylston curve and other places in the central subway for these to work? Does that fall under "infrastructure upgrades"? If so that seems a pretty aggressive time line with work starting so late in the procurement.

Boylston, definitely not, the basic CAF Urbos can handle that radius. Given that this appears to be a T-specific model (though presumably as F-Line indicated one drawing significantly from the Urbos) it's likely designed to handle the existing infrastructure (their past statements had indicated that they viewed the Park Street loop as non-removable for operational/flexibility purposes, so that's now the ruling curve on the 'revenue' trackage).

 

[bakgwailo]

Boylston, definitely not, the basic CAF Urbos can handle that radius. Given that this appears to be a T-specific model (though presumably as F-Line indicated one drawing significantly from the Urbos) it's likely designed to handle the existing infrastructure (their past statements had indicated that they viewed the Park Street loop as non-removable for operational/flexibility purposes, so that's now the ruling curve on the 'revenue' trackage).

Fair enough, I thought I remembered conjecture back in the thread that Boylston, Park, and others would need to be corrected for the type-10s. I suppose good for any modification that they don't have to do, although would love for the screeching around Boylston to be a thing of the past

 

[737900er]

Given these are both CAF products is there any indication whether these will be trainlineable with the Type 9 off the shelf?

 

[Brattle Loop]

Given these are both CAF products is there any indication whether these will be trainlineable with the Type 9 off the shelf?

No discussion of that in the board presentation slides, apart from a timeline indicating "unified fleet of new supercars in service", though whether that's 'marketing' fluff or an indication as to the future of the Type 9s is unclear. (Though I thought the latest was that the T9s would get kicked over to Mattapan to replace the PCCs.)

Fair enough, I thought I remembered conjecture back in the thread that Boylston, Park, and others would need to be corrected for the type-10s. I suppose good for any modification that they don't have to do, although would love for the screeching around Boylston to be a thing of the past

Boylston's a touch smaller than a lot of purely off-the-shelf LRV designs can handle, but well within the capabilities of a bunch of the lightly-modified ones. Even some existing designs (i.e. Toronto's Flexity Outlook) can handle curves tighter than anything on the Green Line. Hopefully the T10 design is more of the "off the shelf modified to fit" end of things versus "custom unicorn", because the latter is where the kind of problems can tend to crop up that might have made infrastructure adjustments look better on paper (though, again, operational considerations with regards to the Park loop and the Brattle Loop might have pushed them in that direction anyway).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Given these are both CAF products is there any indication whether these will be trainlineable with the Type 9 off the shelf?

In the RFP specs, they said trainlining wasn't a requirement. Though I suppose that's still negotiable.

(Though I thought the latest was that the T9s would get kicked over to Mattapan to replace the PCCs.)

Only 6-8 of them. Mattapan doesn't need anywhere close to the full 24-car fleet. Where the T9's will live the longest is on the B and C lines, where platform lengthenings for 2-car supertrains are going to take the longest to implement.

 

[bigeman312]

What is the current status of Lake Street Yard?

I know that as of 2018, the yard had the tightest curves in the system after the since-eliminated Lechmere Inner Loop. I also know that around that time, the MBTA announced plans to expand Lake Street Yard to eliminate those restrictive curves.

Has there been any movement on that project?
What is the tightest curve these Type 10s can accommodate?
Will Lake Street Yard be expanded (EDITED: Autocorrect/typo) prior to the delivery of the Type 10 stock?

EDITED: Autocorrect/typo

 

[Equilibria]

What is the current status of Lake Street Yard?

I know that as of 2018, the yard had the tightest curves in the system after the since-eliminated Lechmere Inner Loop. I also know that around that time, the MBTA announced plans to expand Lake Street Yard to eliminate those restrictive curves.

Has there been any movement on that project?
What is the tightest curve these Type 10s can accommodate?
Will Lake Street Yard be excited Andes prior to the delivery of the Type 10 stock?

To my knowledge, that's still happening as part of Green Line Transformation, though I don't think it needs to happen prior to the first Type 10 arriving. The first bunch will be delivered to Riverside and can operate the D to Union for some period of time. Heck, the first two branches to get them would be D and E, the two that access Inner Belt, so there's 2 maintenance facilities.

 

[bigeman312]

What are the tightest curves the Type 10s can accommodate?

Also, these are seemingly more expensive than off-the-shelf light rail vehicles. With the tightest curves eliminated, what are the prohibitive elements of the Green Line infrastructure nowadays?

 

[Brattle Loop]

Also, these are seemingly more expensive than off-the-shelf light rail vehicles. With the tightest curves eliminated, what are the prohibitive elements of the Green Line infrastructure nowadays?

Park Street Loop's 47' is the tightest curve on revenue (or, quasi-revenue) trackage, followed by the Brattle Loop at 49' (Lake Street's tightest was 45'). At least as of 2018 the T's position was that the Park Street Loop was required for operational purposes and so cannot be removed (I'd argue that the Brattle Loop is similarly valuable on a longer time-horizon), so presumably the T10s will have to be able to handle that 47' radius. So they're still dealing with tighter curves than most off-the-shelf LRVs can handle out of the box (just reducing how much customization is needed).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

What are the tightest curves the Type 10s can accommodate?

Also, these are seemingly more expensive than off-the-shelf light rail vehicles. With the tightest curves eliminated, what are the prohibitive elements of the Green Line infrastructure nowadays?

It would state in the RFP what the curve tolerances are, but AFAIK all online copies of the RFP are paywalled to CommBuys (or other similar) members. They'll probably post the docs online fully publicly once they make the official announcement of the final contract award. I doubt the curve tolerances differ at all from the Green Line specs manual posted on the GLX site.

Besides curve restrictions there's also at least one height restriction in the C/D Beacon St. tunnel by the Eversource substation. That one does influence vehicle design as the Type 7/8/9's all had to have exposed HVAC units on the roof to fit instead of having fully-enclosed carbodies head-to-toe. That's not necessarily a major mod, but it exists. GLT was going to study whether they should do anything about that pinch point.

 

[Stlin]

It would state in the RFP what the curve tolerances are, but AFAIK all online copies of the RFP are paywalled to CommBuys (or other similar) members. They'll probably post the docs online fully publicly once they make the official announcement of the final contract award. I doubt the curve tolerances differ at all from the Green Line specs manual posted on the GLX site.

For what's it's worth, I do have access to CommBuys and the associated bid sites, but the published RFP for this was basically "email us, if you're actually a qualified and experienced vehicle builder then we'll give you the specs." As for what'll be public - I doubt we'll actually see the technical specs. Unlike GLX there just isn't that much scrutiny - I would expect to see a bid comparison though - from the meeting recording, the only other bidders were Alstom and Siemens.

 

[RandomWalk]

Is there a reason that recent specs and designs are Need to Know, when they had full sets of the printed and bounds designs for the Big Dig in many MA public libraries?

 

[bakgwailo]

Stupid question: does it seem rather expensive @ $810.9 million for 102 cars?

 

[stefal]

Stupid question: does it seem rather expensive @ $810.9 million for 102 cars?

Seattle recently awarded $730m for 184 cars. I think they're a bit smaller, and don't have to deal with the 125-year-old infrastructure we have here. Whether that means it should cost about double per car is likely up for debate, but puts some additional perspective to your question..

 

[bigeman312]

The cost was the impetus for my inquiry into prohibitive infrastructure.

The replacement of Lechmere was billed, in part, as a move that removed a major reason for our costly, hyper-customized rolling stock.

If we spent $100m towards standardizing Green Line infrastructure, what would that get us? I assume all of the projects advertised by the MBTA in 2018 to remove the tightest turns: expanded Lake Street Yard, a slightly renovated Reservoir Yard, and alterations to the Park Street Loop.

How much would that save per-car on an order? That would seem to be wise spending long-term.

It seems like the MBTA could have saved quite a bit of money, or could save money long-term, by focusing on these types of projects.

 

[Equilibria]

The cost was the impetus for my inquiry into prohibitive infrastructure.

The replacement of Lechmere was billed, in part, as a move that removed a major reason for our costly, hyper-customized rolling stock.

If we spent $100m towards standardizing Green Line infrastructure, what would that get us? I assume all of the projects advertised by the MBTA in 2018 to remove the tightest turns: expanded Lake Street Yard, a slightly renovated Reservoir Yard, and alterations to the Park Street Loop.

How much would that save per-car on an order? That would seem to be wise spending long-term.

It seems like the MBTA could have saved quite a bit of money, or could save money long-term, by focusing on these types of projects.

Green Line Transformation is intended to do everything they can do in that category.

 

[Stlin]

Seattle recently awarded $730m for 184 cars. I think they're a bit smaller, and don't have to deal with the 125-year-old infrastructure we have here. Whether that means it should cost about double per car is likely up for debate, but puts some additional perspective to your question..

Worth noting at least 2 things.
1) Unless you're talking about a different more recent order, that order was back in 2016, even as they only entered service last year. Prices have considerably increased in the intervening 6 years.
2) While the fleet size was to increased to 184 cars from 62, I believe the actual order was for 122 cars. They ordered another 30 odd options in 2017.

Adjusting for cumulative inflation of ~23% since 2016, Sound Transit's order has a 2022 value of $897m. Using their pricing, 102 units would cost the MBTA ~$750m - and given the larger trainset and customizations required, I'd say that we're in the ballpark there. Of course, I haven't looked for any other more recent large US LRT orders to validate that.

 

[BeyondRevenue]

Green Line Transformation is intended to do everything they can do in that category.

The MBTA --- Not completely screwed up ALL the time TM