Green Line Type 10 Procurement

ant8904

Active Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
608
Reaction score
2
FYI, in the Globe Comments section, there's a guy exasperated at the "9 years" to get the trains. The respondents only explain to the that it's another example of government red tape - citing endless government "studies".

I know newspapers comment sections of dumpster fires, but I do believe comment sections do influence people. It does affects politics and policies. "Who cares" about 2 random commenters, but every comment reader who reads it and believes it increases the chance that one of the readers may influence something IRL. And if no one dissents at all, it makes it more believable. But I don't have an account with the Globe that I can comments.

If someone wants to explain why 9 years is pretty normal for ordering trains, that would be great. Every bit less of misinformation counts. There's plenty of genuine stuff one can opine of governmental incompetence without piling on misinformation.
 

millerm277

Active Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
235
Reaction score
45
it is interesting that the GLX through Camrbidge/Somerville/etc gets the Type-9s
I think this is a misunderstanding. The GLX is not going to "get" any specific cars. They needed a larger Green Line fleet to be able to serve the new stops/branches with appropriate service levels, the new fleet is not specifically "for" the GLX. No type of train is going to just serve the GLX. All the Type 7/8/9's are going to be serving GLX, and by basic fleet numbers the Type 9's are going to be only a tiny fraction of what LRVs are running on any line.

then maybe in a decade+ the Type 9s after the Type 10 rollout. I can see where advocates from Dorchester and Mattapan wouldn't be happy with the plan, and the MBTA's reasoning was pretty flimsy and nonsensical.
There will be no new LRV's arriving on MBTA property until ~2025 and the base order should all be here by ~2029. If getting the Type 9's a little sooner would make people happy, I'd imagine they can probably tweak the retirement order to do it in 2027/8 or something once a decent number have come in instead of making it the last thing to do in 2029/30/XX when they're fully here/the option orders are coming in. But I don't see any plausible opportunity to make change happen faster than about 7 years from now.
 

Jahvon09

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
1,581
Reaction score
19
Does anyone know what type or style they've chosen, or who will make them yet?
 

HelloBostonHi

Active Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
631
Reaction score
419
Does anyone know what type or style they've chosen, or who will make them yet?
No and no, bids are due April 15th so that's the absolute earliest you'll hear an update on the actual cars, realistically we won't know precise details until long after that.
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
5,777
Reaction score
691
FYI, in the Globe Comments section, there's a guy exasperated at the "9 years" to get the trains. The respondents only explain to the that it's another example of government red tape - citing endless government "studies".

I know newspapers comment sections of dumpster fires, but I do believe comment sections do influence people. It does affects politics and policies. "Who cares" about 2 random commenters, but every comment reader who reads it and believes it increases the chance that one of the readers may influence something IRL. And if no one dissents at all, it makes it more believable. But I don't have an account with the Globe that I can comments.

If someone wants to explain why 9 years is pretty normal for ordering trains, that would be great. Every bit less of misinformation counts. There's plenty of genuine stuff one can opine of governmental incompetence without piling on misinformation.
You can't run the cars here until lots of GLT-related lineside upgrades are complete: power boost, substantial signal changes, curve mods (if they're pursuing that), light mods to Boylston's platform so a full 2-car stretched train can berth there, and closeout of D and E platform lengthenings so those (which pair-match to GLX) can be the debut branches while they buy more time for the bigger B/C platform backlog. All of those jobs have to be parceled out for design-build.

So, yes, you could order an "off-shelf" Siemens S70 tomorrow, lightly mod it, and get it delivered in 3 years. Where exactly are you going to run it in that span???...a Reservoir-Kenmore Loop dinky? The system won't be close to ready. And there's also the matter of where you're going to store 200 new cars while 200 incumbent cars are still on the property. The pace has to be chunked out slow so they can release batches of Kinkis & Bredas to scrap before each incoming next wave.

Total fleet turnover has NEVER been attemped before on Green, unlike the other 3 lines where that's been a recurring deal. Logistically it has to be slow-walked, especially with the huge batch of major lineside-change prerequisites this time that can't bloody be blitzed while retaining active service.

Anyone getting self-righteous about instant gratification should be asked to posit ONE realistic example of how you can actually reshuffle the construction deck to get so much as one end-to-end service pattern Type 10-ready in less than 5 years. Don't let them off the hook on it; they'll be changing the question to bitch about something irrelevant in no time after grasping at straws for a comeback.
 
Last edited:

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
5,777
Reaction score
691
Again, like the Orange and Red Line order, they could do smaller dimensions for the Highspeed line - and thus it would at least still have full component compatibility with the main fleet.
I am more pointing out the arguments made at the various community meetings - but, it is interesting that the GLX through Camrbidge/Somerville/etc gets the Type-9s, then all of the rest of the Green Line gets the Type-10s less than a decade later, while the Highspeed Line gets the PCCs, and then maybe in a decade+ the Type 9s after the Type 10 rollout. I can see where advocates from Dorchester and Mattapan wouldn't be happy with the plan, and the MBTA's reasoning was pretty flimsy and nonsensical. And, yes, it is only "incredibly wasteful" that the MBTA made the Type-9 order to have the GLX languish and then change direction and go full bore into the Type-10s.
Whether it's just relaying neighborhood sentiment or not, this is an utterly incoherent argument. Refer back to my last post debunking the myth that Type 9's are any sort of technological or livery 'sloppy seconds'. 50% low-floor cars bust M Line platform dwells to the absolute minimum, because there is no dwell in existence on that purely shuttle route that will ever saturate 2 doors' worth of low-floor entry such that you need 100% high-floor. The vehicles are brand-spanking-new, same technological generation as all of the wares the vendors in attendance at last week's GLT procurement meeting are pitching. CAF is contractually on the hook for 20 years of parts-n'-labor Service & Support. Which also means...with S&S locked down it would be insane for the T to walk away from those 24 cars at any time before 2040 unless we are selling the whole fleet AND the S&S agreement to another agency. And let's please duly note here...they are not leaving the Green Line until final retirement. Mattapan has no need or space for more than 8 or so cars. There's at least 16 more of them that are staying put, and will have to because the backlog of B and C platform lengthenings is going to take a painful extra decade longer to get compliant for the stretched cars than Central Subway. So if you're a regular Allston or Brookline rider...your fleet is going to be majority so-called 'sloppy seconds' too. Sloppy seconds of cars so new they haven't yet made a B or C revenue trip. Boo-fucking-hoo!

As to the first point...no, they can't order smaller dimensions for the HSL. These new orders come with extra-heavy vendor S&S support vs. past orders, and so scale is everything. S&S scale is everything with 404 alike heavy rail cars coming in for Red/Orange with 20 years of CRRC support, and with 200 alike GLT trains. Break out a piddling 8 units of a smaller form-factor variant of the base model with a differing (if still standard-flavor) truck design and the lifetime cost-per-unit sails for an extreme outlier share of the fleet. The deal they are seeking for 200 cars is not suited for including a divergently-configured 8 units; they get their price point by leveling the configuration ALL across the fucking board. It is literally easier and less cost-bloating to to do a whole separate Mattapan procurement for 8 streetcars with a whole separate-and-divorced S&S agreement...only there you'll be buying something like Brookvilles from a vendor specializing in small-order price points and not the 800 lb. gorillas Siemens or Bombardier. Do not get fixated on the supposed smallness of the M customization tucked into the largeness of the Green order as an equitable solution. That is not at all how the economics of this order works. Bulk, bulk, bulk...and make savings on the years of S&S coverage packaged in by being a slave to bulk, bulk, bulk.

And still, with that being how it works, there's nothing to consider here. Because the brand-spanking-new Type 9's of equal technological generation are fully covered by S&S from CAF for 20 years. So they are damn well going to get their money's worth using those 24 cars on (mostly) Green and Mattapan while their deal is locked in, because otherwise it would be an even bigger waste to leave stuff on the table. And as far as Mattapan is concerned with its extremely-limited shop capabilities...the fact that CAF techs are available for on-demand site visits for the next 2 decades is going to save the T yearly operating dough not having to truck the cars from Mattapan to Riverside for maint when the vendor techs can be on-call for widening the spread of on-site fixes. It gets cheaper to run more M service with the so-called 'sloppy seconds'. The horror!


As I said last post, this bitching about trolley types has nothing...zero...nada to do about trolley types. It is the corridor's inability to articulate exactly WHAT rankles so much about the state constantly giving their service short shrift. Type 9's vs. Type 10's do not influence the actual service levels; a 50% low-floor car that satiates any/all platform dwells the line can throw at it already increases service levels to the max sustainable for however long it remains a trolley shuttle. So it's not that, and there is nothing technologically different or customer-facing you can point to 9's vs. 10's as evidence for a shortchanging. The visceral gripe is something else entirely. The state just rendered a value judgment on the corridor that they are not worthy of so much as an HRT paper study...the only service enhancement that would provide tighter headways (6 min. Ashmont branch) and above-and-beyond access (one-seat to downtown) over any LRV-running permutation of the trolley shuttle. They so brazenly thumbed their nose at the neighborhood telegraphing they're not even worthy of paper. And there is still no commitment beyond the 20-year duration of the next fleet's S&S vendor agreement to retain rail transit of any kind on the corridor, so this is just the latest punt to another 20-year re-evaluation period coming off the last one in the early-00's where they damn near got bustituted. There's no generational certainty with their transit, and goalposts-moving games have boxed in the growth ceiling of their transit by witholding a crucial set of study data collection that could otherwise answer this recurring 20-year uncertainty for good.

THAT'S worth getting pissed off about. And that's what they are pissed off about. It's just not coming out clearly, or being pointed at the actual injustice being perpetuated by the state on them. It's being pointed at utterly, totally irrelevant trolley Type wars. When, as you have pointed out in these posts, there is no more specificity than a 'gut feeling' as to why the best-possible for costs & applicability reassignment of Type 9's is a born insult and 'sloppy seconds' when Allston and Brookline aren't seeing their Type 9-dominated 2025-35 decade that way...that's the tell that they can't explain their feelings in any actionable way. They need messaging help. These are irrelevant diversions, and there IS a short shrift being perpetuated on the neighborhood that messaging help can bottom-line for them. But this isn't going to go anywhere productive if inarticulate feelings stay inarticulate and incoherent, then simply pick the CAF trolleys to throw rotten vegetables at on grounds that someone's got to be the asshole. That's giving the state all the leverage they need to keep dicking the neighborhood around for another generation. THEY know full well what transit improvements they're witholding; they're counting on neighborhood ire to keep pigeonholing the wrong target so they can keep witholding consequence-free.

Please do keep this in mind every time some gut feeling wells up a wad of spit to huck at the not-a-Type 10 vehicle. It's perpetuating the misdirection one citizen at a time.
 
Last edited:

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
4,288
Reaction score
449
Rule of thumb: new transit stations (like the GLX) see rapid ridership growth for their first 3 years as people move, dispose their car, and change commutes.

Implication: we expect GLX to be an instant success, but we won't experience its crushiest use until 2024 or 2025. It makes a lot of sense to be planning GLT now and building/buying in the 2022 - 2025 period
 

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
4,463
Reaction score
796
Please do keep this in mind every time some gut feeling wells up a wad of spit to huck at the not-a-Type 10 vehicle. It's perpetuating the misdirection one citizen at a time.
Except that one commenter here does not equal neighborhood discontent, and that the neighborhood by all accounts does not want HRT. I do, and you do, but the T doesn't, and the community doesn't.

The vehicles are brand-spanking-new, same technological generation as all of the wares the vendors in attendance at last week's GLT procurement meeting are pitching.
Regardless of which actual generation of tech you're getting, I understand the feeling of "sloppy seconds" when you're getting "new" ten-year-old equipment. Consumer tech companies have found ways to lie forever about how old their tech actually is - there are cars and trucks on the market that were largely engineered in 2010 yet somehow get called "all-new" every year through cosmetic changes and new parts. People are flying on airplanes delivered in 2015 but engineered in 1970.

People have unrealistic expectations of how new anything is.
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
5,777
Reaction score
691
Except that one commenter here does not equal neighborhood discontent, and that the neighborhood by all accounts does not want HRT. I do, and you do, but the T doesn't, and the community doesn't.
That wasn't my point..at all. The community is mad they're getting shade thrown at them by the state. The state is throwing shade in the form of denial of the HRT study option. Denial of the HRT study option consigns them to another 20-year punt in which they have to wonder whether next existential fleet decision is the one that takes away their rail transit forever...this time when parts/warranty vendor S&S guarantee on their LRV fleet runs out and this debate repeats itself all over again.

It has buck nothing to do with choice of rolling stock. It has everything to do with the evolving PTSD of always being under threat of transit loss at the end of every 20-year punt. They want something that isn't another 20-year punt. The state is outright refusing to offer that. It's stoking the PTSD again, but in unfocussed fashion. They hate Type 9's even though Type 10's are technically impractical. They hate the HRT option because the state's open hostility means change (even beneficial change!) is being wielded like a weapon at them. They hate that the PCC's can't be immortal.

They hate everything in front of them. Why do they hate everything in front of them? Because none of what's being offered is being sold with any certainty or permanence, when that is the very thing that eases their transit loss PTSD. Nobody says it needs to be the HRT option. But it most absolutely fucking needs to be more substantial than another 20-year punt.



Regardless of which actual generation of tech you're getting, I understand the feeling of "sloppy seconds" when you're getting "new" ten-year-old equipment. Consumer tech companies have found ways to lie forever about how old their tech actually is - there are cars and trucks on the market that were largely engineered in 2010 yet somehow get called "all-new" every year through cosmetic changes and new parts. People are flying on airplanes delivered in 2015 but engineered in 1970.

People have unrealistic expectations of how new anything is.
Then they need messaging help to articulate what they're really unhappy about--the uncertainty--because "feeling" of sloppy-seconds is, as I described, an utterly incoherent argument. Again...ask anyone with that "feeling" to substantiate it with a real gripe and you'll either get crickets, stammering, or more incoherent screaming. Nobody is naming one substantive feature that is objectionable, because it's got buck nothing to do with rolling stock and everything to do with existential fear of transit loss.
 

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
4,463
Reaction score
796
That wasn't my point..at all. The community is mad they're getting shade thrown at them by the state.
My point is that the community isn't actually mad. Here's how last year's meeting was reported in Dorchester:


Rep. Dan Cullinane, who has been a leading political voice in support of light rail on the Mattapan-Ashmont route, said he was encouraged by the MBTA’s current thinking on the line’s future. He pointed to a petition signed by more than 2,000 residents in favor of preserving the trolley system, as well as a 2016 letter he wrote to the MBTA board that was signed by ten local elected officials and objected strongly to a potential shuttle bus replacement service.
And their editorial:


It’s a reasonable, fiscally prudent, and fair plan. Critically, it locks in the use of light rail on the Mattapan-Ashmont corridor for decades to come. The more likely alternative— a dedicated asphalt bus path— is unpopular and, surprisingly, more expensive than keeping the light rail right-of-way.
It seems as though, as long as bustitution is off the table, this is an acceptable outcome for them.
 
Last edited:

HenryAlan

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
2,308
Reaction score
296
No and no, bids are due April 15th so that's the absolute earliest you'll hear an update on the actual cars, realistically we won't know precise details until long after that.
I'm amazed that it's happening so quickly. April 15 is right around the corner, I'm still not past the excitement of reading that there might be a type 10 on the horizon (especially given the GLT aspect of the order).
 

whighlander

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
7,542
Reaction score
516
Except that one commenter here does not equal neighborhood discontent, and that the neighborhood by all accounts does not want HRT. I do, and you do, but the T doesn't, and the community doesn't.



Regardless of which actual generation of tech you're getting, I understand the feeling of "sloppy seconds" when you're getting "new" ten-year-old equipment. Consumer tech companies have found ways to lie forever about how old their tech actually is - there are cars and trucks on the market that were largely engineered in 2010 yet somehow get called "all-new" every year through cosmetic changes and new parts. People are flying on airplanes delivered in 2015 but engineered in 1970.

People have unrealistic expectations of how new anything is.
Equilibria -- as usual the real answer is:
Its complicated:

System versus Technical Longevity is a relatively new issue -- in the past individual mechanical parts might wear-out but the user could typically buy replacement parts or else fabricate parts as needed. This approach to long-lasting systems persisted into the early semiconductor era.

However, today with many fewer -- but far more important parts involved in critical subsystems - - the issue is becoming very important. For example:

  1. B-52's and DC-3's are flying today which were designed by the grandfathers of the current pilots*1
  2. The Navy is still flying specialized versions of Vietnam era aircraft for special and critically important missions
  3. The Army is cannibalizing some old scraped equipment looking for good DEC "Vax on a chip" that were engineered into systems during the 1980's but are still running.
  4. The Navy expects that the USS Gerald R. Ford -- just now getting into service will still be in commission in 2070

Now some of these like the Ford are designed for mid-life updates of many of the systems and subsystems -- others such as the Army equipment designed to operate with the Air Force's JSTARS targeting system were essentially designed with some key obsolete [although very popular] components.

The overall issue of how to maintain systems despite the rapid turnover of technology is so critical that DOD has been buying-up old fab equipment [such as 2 micron fab tools] to be able to make "ancient" anachronistic parts still used in many fighting systems.

One of the new missions for Lincoln Laboratory is to make sure that the systems of the future are technology -- future - proofed -- in some cases by essentially enabling an almost "Star Trek" -- "replicator" capability for electronics and electro-optics.

Unfortunately -- no -one is going to make that scale investment in the technological sustainability of the electronics inside a subway car at the component level. Ten to fifteen years from now -- you wont even be able to replace major subsystems at the box level let alone individual semiconductors.
As a result -- Designers of the vehicles need to take into account that the only real-commercial future proofing possible is at the functional application software level. It wont even be possible to insure that the operating systems and communications protocols are reverse compatible. Thus the mainteance program for a vehicle will need to assume that the electronics hardware which will be available for either planned or "emergency" maintenance is likely to be far different than what was designed and manufactured when the vehicles were new -- despite the mechanical structures and such being still viable.


*1
Note that the pilots may be either grandsons or granddaughters -- but the grandparents working in aircraft design back then were all men -- so please skip the charges of sexist language
 

Jahvon09

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
1,581
Reaction score
19
New Green line Trolley concepts.jpg

I hope that they choose the style & color scheme on the bottom right. To me, it would freshen up the Green Line & give it a great change From that boring dark green color that has been around for decades!! (eons!!) :mad:
 
Last edited:

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
5,777
Reaction score
691
The drought's finally broken with 2 more Type 9's accepted--cars 3910 & 3912--after an unexplained few months of radio silence. One more and we're at the halfway point of the order.
 

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
4,463
Reaction score
796
The drought's finally broken with 2 more Type 9's accepted--cars 3910 & 3912--after an unexplained few months of radio silence. One more and we're at the halfway point of the order.
Funny how that didn't generate 1/100th the angst that a much better documented OL process has.
 

millerm277

Active Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
235
Reaction score
45
Funny how that didn't generate 1/100th the angst that a much better documented OL process has.
I think the obvious answer to that is that the public badly wants the new Red/Orange Line trains to be in service and replacing the battered/abused old ones, as well as the other (capacity) improvements that come along once they've been fully delivered.

The Type 9's are extra fleet capacity for an extension that hasn't opened yet, and with the Type 7's all looking pretty nice with the overhauls there's not a particular demand in terms of "niceness" either.
 

Jahvon09

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
1,581
Reaction score
19
Saw this when reading about the new OL trains out of service again; Quote;

The MBTA recently said the transit agency will soon be taking bids for two more large train-car contracts: 100 more bi-level Commuter Rail cars — with options for another 100 — and 165 of the new, much larger “Type 10” Green Line cars the T plans to roll out as part of an overhaul of that line. ;End Quote;
 

Top