Green Line Type 10 Procurement

Somewhat related to the Type 10s, but just a thought, are we too obsessed with having one GL train to rule them all? Would it potentially be better to have one with longer segments and fewer bends, and one made up of shorter segments with more bends? That way some of the tighter loops like at Kenmore, Park St, or Government Center could be used without major renovations. These shorter trains could be used for additional branch service for example, with trains running from BC/Cleveland Circle/Riverside/Heath and terminating at Kenmore, or trains from Union Sq and Medford/Tufts ending at Gov Center, therefore avoiding the problems these additional trains might cause on the central subway. Yes, two variations is more than one, so two different types of parts and maintenance and whatnot, but at the number of trains the GL needs the economies of scale are most definitely still there.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Somewhat related to the Type 10s, but just a thought, are we too obsessed with having one GL train to rule them all? Would it potentially be better to have one with longer segments and fewer bends, and one made up of shorter segments with more bends? That way some of the tighter loops like at Kenmore, Park St, or Government Center could be used without major renovations. These shorter trains could be used for additional branch service for example, with trains running from BC/Cleveland Circle/Riverside/Heath and terminating at Kenmore, or trains from Union Sq and Medford/Tufts ending at Gov Center, therefore avoiding the problems these additional trains might cause on the central subway. Yes, two variations is more than one, so two different types of parts and maintenance and whatnot, but at the number of trains the GL needs the economies of scale are most definitely still there.
Click to expand...
Err so I doubt the number of segments meaningfully affects the turning radius of the trainset - it all follows in a line. Also the issue with central subway capacity isn't so much that the trains themselves take up too much space, it's more a issue of "there needs to be time and space between them." The length doesn't affect their ability to short turn at intermediate stations, and AFAIK I believe the type 10s have continued to be designed to be able to use the tightest revenue loops in service post-lechmere. Therefore, the way to maximize capacity on the branches is to maximize capacity on each train.

Also, keep in mind that the ultimate plan is to be able to run the type 10s in pairs. As a bigger trainset, a single type 10 takes up the space of 1.5 "standard" GL cars but has the passenger capacity of a 2 car type 7/8/9 train which is functionally the standard set we see on the GL today. That's what we'd likely see most often as they join the fleet. A pair of type 10s will occupy the same space as 3 standard GL cars (mostly maxing out the current platform capacity) with the passenger load of 4. Basically, they'd continue to have flexibility in how they set up the fleet with full 2 supercar trains or half singlets.
 
Interesting idea, Ratmeister. Stlin is correct here - turning radius is not as much dependent on number of segments as it is mechanical things like the truck design. I'll also add that having the ability to short turn any train at any location is very valuable.

The only situation in which separate fleets might make sense is, as Riverside and I have proposed in the reconfigurations thread, if the D and E are rerouted through a new east-west trunk and through the Pleasant Street Portal, essentially separating them from the B and C. Then you might want a more tram-like vehicle for the B and C, while the D and E are served by 2-car Type 10 trains. Even then, fleet commonality might be more worthwhile than any real improvements from the new vehicle type, especially since the B will still need longer trains.
 
Stlin said:
Err so I doubt the number of segments meaningfully affects the turning radius of the trainset - it all follows in a line. Also the issue with central subway capacity isn't so much that the trains themselves take up too much space, it's more a issue of "there needs to be time and space between them." The length doesn't affect their ability to short turn at intermediate stations, and AFAIK I believe the type 10s have continued to be designed to be able to use the tightest revenue loops in service post-lechmere. Therefore, the way to maximize capacity on the branches is to maximize capacity on each train.

Also, keep in mind that the ultimate plan is to be able to run the type 10s in pairs. As a bigger trainset, a single type 10 takes up the space of 1.5 "standard" GL cars but has the passenger capacity of a 2 car type 7/8/9 train which is functionally the standard set we see on the GL today. That's what we'd likely see most often as they join the fleet. A pair of type 10s will occupy the same space as 3 standard GL cars (mostly maxing out the current platform capacity) with the passenger load of 4. Basically, they'd continue to have flexibility in how they set up the fleet with full 2 supercar trains or half singlets.
Click to expand...
Fair points all around. Just to clarify though, the length thing is not about space in the central subway, my point is that if additional service from the branches to the edge of the subway can be run, service can be increased on the branches, which historically have some of the worst service, so that although you might need to transfer, you won't need to wait as long at a surface stop for a train. That way, more trains are run on the branches, but frequency on the central subway is unaffected, somewhat sidestepping the capacity problem. As a permanent solution it's hardly amazing, but I think it would be a significant improvement over what we have today.

Also another thought, as part of the fare system overhaul I don't think a "tap-out" system is being introduced, but if it were to be perhaps trips between GL surface stops should be reduced to bus fares? It would also allow for distance based fares, which I think make some sense in cases like Riverside, Quincy Adams, and Braintree that are so far out and mainly used as park and rides, and out of station interchanges at places like Copley/Back Bay or Bowdoin/Charles MGH for example. And also better statistics for nerds/planners.
 
There really needs to be parity between rail and bus fares. If the goal of transit is to maximize the access that everyone has to jobs/housing/services/entertainment/etc, then people should be able to make decisions based solely on what will get them to their destination, not which way has the lowest cost. It's unfortunately very difficult to make this change because the surface-level effects are equity-negative (since buses currently serve more low-income and non-white people), and the actual equity-positive effects of better access are more difficult to quantify.*

Similarly, having higher fares for park-and-rides isn't going to work very well. It's not going to convince riders to pay a higher price for a theoretically premium experience; it's just going to convince them to drive for their whole journey. It also discourages TOD, which is one of the few levers we have to increase the number of people who have access to transit.

* Title VI equity analysis is based in the long-existing zero-sum game of "we have a limited budget for transit, who gets it?", and is pretty good at evaluating that. However, it's primarily based on whether a given change increases/decreases service and/or cost most for disadvantaged groups. It doesn't really quantify that different groups have different travel patterns, different amounts of choice, and different tolerance for variability.** It will need to be updated as we slowly move into "how do we actually maximize access for everyone".

** For example: in my current office job, no one will even notice if I'm ten minutes late unless I have a meeting, in which case someone would message me about 5 minutes in. When I worked retail, I'd be fired if I was even a minute late without calling.
 
Title VI is a mess. The service side isn't terrible but the fares guidance is outdated and just bad. As you say, it assumes the status quo is equitable and evaluates any changes based on that. It hamstrings agencies who want to do more interesting things with fares* but doesn't really prevent all but the most obvious inequitable changes. Also the analysis is too simplistic and ignores that low-income and minority people take all modes of transit and misses a lot of things that really do harm protected populations.

I was really hoping the Buttigieg FTA would issue new guidance that was more sophisticated and rewarded agencies who try to be innovative and measure equity better but so far nothing. I am pretty sure they could just do it through the regular rulemaking process, maybe it will come at some point.

*For example, an offpeak discount on MBTA commuter rail only would likely be inequitable because it would be evaluated against the whole system and CR riders who are disproportionately white compared to bus and rapid transit would disproportionately benefit. Or if WMATA decided to go to a flat fare for simplicity it would be inequitable because the people who take longer trips are disproportionately white, even if they just dropped everything to the minimum fare so everyone got a discount. But if the MBTA were like New York and had a different agency running CR they could make any changes they wanted to CR as long as the fare structure was equitable within itself.

The other big issue is it only considers changes at the point in time they are made, so agencies have to wait to bundle a bunch of changes together into one package to pass title VI, and can't experiment with things because if did something like give bus riders a discount, you'd never be able to reverse it unless you packaged it with other changes even if you just want back to the fare structure you had in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W-4
Its that time again, the MBTA has put out a survey for people to pick which paint scheme they want to see on the new green line trains.

IMG_9127.jpeg

IMG_9128.jpeg

IMG_9129.jpeg


Survey link

Mbta page
 
Folks clearly don’t like the first option. I think the second one makes the doors look like screen doors.
 
This is going to be a controversial statement: all three are incredibly underwhelming. All three fall into the "generic pinstripe and click and filled doors and side panels." Personally, of the options presented 2 is best to me, but for a 800M+ procurement the T should be able to spend a few tens of thousands on an actual design firm to design options that actually look like they're trying, even if you don't let them touch the sheet metal.

Back in 2011, the first of these public votes was for the new CR locomotive livery, the one the HSP46s debuted. While that livery vote as presented was a false choice, the thing is, that design was by Cesar Vegara, a noted industrial designer of trains and the like. This, on the other hand, looks like they gave the job to an intern and gave them a day to figure out 3 choices. I realize we might have been scarred by the Type 8s and Pininfarina's insistence on teal, and that a attractive train is far less important than a reliably functional one, but we'll be looking at these things for 20+ years.

To quote Cesar Vegara, "we don't need any more ugly things in this world and it costs as much to build an ugly train as an attractive one".
 
It’s the parent that lets their kid pick out the paint colors for their bedroom, but only hands them part of the color wheel.
 
I prefer option 3, just because it has the most green. That said, I wonder why none of the options save one have more than a pinstripe of green on the front end.
 
I don’t like the dark base. It reminds me too much of the Type 8. However, the T probably likes how it will hide the dirt and grime in a way that a eurowhite scheme wouldn’t.
 
This particular shade of green seems very close to "Fenway/Green Monster". I'm not sure if that was the intention.
 
Aprehensive_Words said:
Is the white swoosh on the side of each option a safety thing? Because it feels very "late-2000s RV graphics" so I hope they ditch it.
Click to expand...
I think its just following the contour of the panel - it would look strange if they had it remain straight while the panel bends downward.
 
I voted for option 3 when I first saw it because at first glance it looked the best and seemed like it would look better longer due to hiding grime etc.. Having a couple days to look at them now I probably like 2 more, I just wonder how fast it would go to shit. Id prob change my vote if I could but oh well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top