MBTA Construction Projects
- Thread starter justin
- Start date
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,098
- Reaction score
- 478
Re: T construction news
^ I want something purple on it. Add a splash of color and advertise the CR a little.
I like the blockiness/chunkiness and asymmetry. It is so un-Bostonian, it is welcome in a small structure. Would be unwelcome in something big (ahem... city hall).
^ I want something purple on it. Add a splash of color and advertise the CR a little.
I like the blockiness/chunkiness and asymmetry. It is so un-Bostonian, it is welcome in a small structure. Would be unwelcome in something big (ahem... city hall).
The EGE
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2013
- Messages
- 1,561
- Reaction score
- 3,695
Re: T construction news
By the latest I've seen - this image from May - there will be an overhead walkway and some platform overbuild, which will offer direct access from both Beacon Street and Brookline (finally!), including what looks like a straight shot across the tracks to Beacon. However, the angular pedestrian bridge will still be very visible.
Some early renderings showed large T roundels on various sides of the pedestrian bridge. I hope at least one or two are actually placed.
By the latest I've seen - this image from May - there will be an overhead walkway and some platform overbuild, which will offer direct access from both Beacon Street and Brookline (finally!), including what looks like a straight shot across the tracks to Beacon. However, the angular pedestrian bridge will still be very visible.
Some early renderings showed large T roundels on various sides of the pedestrian bridge. I hope at least one or two are actually placed.
Re: T construction news
Sad to see a tower-less rendering but at least we can all sleep easy knowing the anti-gun show billboard lives to fight another day...
Sad to see a tower-less rendering but at least we can all sleep easy knowing the anti-gun show billboard lives to fight another day...
Re: T construction news
I agree about the tower-less rendering being a disappointment.
I disagree about the billboard enduring.
I agree about the tower-less rendering being a disappointment.
I disagree about the billboard enduring.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Re: T construction news
This is the T construction thread. Please direct further discussion to the Fenway Center thread: http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=1404&page=36
This is the T construction thread. Please direct further discussion to the Fenway Center thread: http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=1404&page=36
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,934
- Reaction score
- 7,839
Re: T construction news
First HSP-46 loco is on the move. Going through Wyoming at the moment being towed cross-country by a freight train. Should be visible in the yard at BET for static testing sometime next week (provided CSX doesn't fuck up the waybill and lose it for a couple weeks in one of their yards like they did one of the Rotem coaches). Maint staff is in training on them right now.
First HSP-46 loco is on the move. Going through Wyoming at the moment being towed cross-country by a freight train. Should be visible in the yard at BET for static testing sometime next week (provided CSX doesn't fuck up the waybill and lose it for a couple weeks in one of their yards like they did one of the Rotem coaches). Maint staff is in training on them right now.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,934
- Reaction score
- 7,839
Re: T construction news
Ugly thing arrived in Worcester today. P&W freight yard on Southbridge St. about 2/3 mile west of the station. Will be staying there a little while for P&W to do some initial tests on it before it gets moved to BET. Shouldn't be too hard to spot if you're familiar with the area. That gigantic Bat Signal T logo on the side makes it an easy mark.
Ugly thing arrived in Worcester today. P&W freight yard on Southbridge St. about 2/3 mile west of the station. Will be staying there a little while for P&W to do some initial tests on it before it gets moved to BET. Shouldn't be too hard to spot if you're familiar with the area. That gigantic Bat Signal T logo on the side makes it an easy mark.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,934
- Reaction score
- 7,839
Re: T construction news
Thar 'tis:
Thar 'tis:
Re: T construction news
I would like the big (T) logo so much better if it was the inverse of the underlying paint scheme instead of black and white. I do like the concept of a giant logo however, the tiny bus stickers always look so sad on a big locomotive.
Other then that the lipstick really does wonders for this particular pig.
I would like the big (T) logo so much better if it was the inverse of the underlying paint scheme instead of black and white. I do like the concept of a giant logo however, the tiny bus stickers always look so sad on a big locomotive.
Other then that the lipstick really does wonders for this particular pig.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,934
- Reaction score
- 7,839
Re: T construction news
It's here. Taking rough guess at vantage point that's on the 3rd Ave. side of BET so may be tough to see from any revenue trains, but I'm not sure...too many of those brick warehouses in the Innerbelt look the same.
They're just doing static testing and employee training on it, so it's not fueled and won't be leaving the yard. The next 2 units units are the ones that go out for road tests, and they'll arrive within about a month.
It's here. Taking rough guess at vantage point that's on the 3rd Ave. side of BET so may be tough to see from any revenue trains, but I'm not sure...too many of those brick warehouses in the Innerbelt look the same.
They're just doing static testing and employee training on it, so it's not fueled and won't be leaving the yard. The next 2 units units are the ones that go out for road tests, and they'll arrive within about a month.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Re: T construction news
Clear case of someone who is successful in one area thinking that they are Leonardo [aka Renaissance man]
Just because he's been a successful developer doesn't make him a social commentator -- let him fund his own talk show -- we'll see how many agree with his social agenda
Clear case of someone who is successful in one area thinking that they are Leonardo [aka Renaissance man]
Just because he's been a successful developer doesn't make him a social commentator -- let him fund his own talk show -- we'll see how many agree with his social agenda
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Re: T construction news
Apology for drifting way off the plate with that pitch
By the way the Ugly Pig -- it just might be an Ugly Ducking [aka swan] when mated with its consist
Style-wise -- I kinda like the muscular Jetsons commin at you
Apology for drifting way off the plate with that pitch
By the way the Ugly Pig -- it just might be an Ugly Ducking [aka swan] when mated with its consist
Style-wise -- I kinda like the muscular Jetsons commin at you
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,934
- Reaction score
- 7,839
Re: T construction news
Great news, guys! The new locos may already be as fucked up as the Rotem coaches:
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=51137&start=1545#p1225137
Micromanaging is awesome!!! Moar T overcustomization plz!!!
Great news, guys! The new locos may already be as fucked up as the Rotem coaches:
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=51137&start=1545#p1225137
Micromanaging is awesome!!! Moar T overcustomization plz!!!
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: T construction news
A direct quote from the discussion linked above:
"Guys, all we have at this point in time is a rumor that someone overheard from someone else, so let's not be too quick to declare these units lemons or failures just yet.
If it's indeed true that the first few units are too heavy, we still have NO proof that it was any kind of error or wrongdoing on the part of the builder.
For one thing, GE is only a supplier of the diesel engine, traction motors, HEP, and computer, so they're probably off the hook. Those are all standard, off-the-shelf items that shouldn't have any surprises.
MPI, for all we know, may have simply been following directions. Who knows, it could have been a typo in the specs that were supplied to MPI by MBTA and/or you-know-who, depending on which one of them actually prepared the documents.
It could have been a mistake made by any one of the dozens of vendors who build the various custom-spec'd components used in the locomotive.
The trucks appear to be either a new or heavily modified design, so maybe they weigh more than was anticipated.
There are SO many possibilities here. We're talking about a huge machine with thousands of parts from dozens of vendors. If the only thing wrong with this all-new design is that the first few of them were a little heavy, that's actually pretty good! Much worse things have happened with new locomotives. This issue (assuming it's true) doesn't strike me as insurmountable... unless we're looking at such a massive goof-up that they're weighing in at 300K+ or something. And even that wouldn't be completely impossible to fix. At least they're catching it NOW, rather than at some point down the road. And that, gentleman, is WHY they ship an initial unit for testing and acceptance, to help find any issues before the rest of them are built."
End of quoted section
On top of what the above said, the loco comes in at 287,000 pounds, which is below the spec max of 295,000 pounds. However, the weight needs to be distributed 24-26% per axle, and that's where the problems may be (only speculating). It might be necessary to add ballast at one end , or to rearrange some of the equipment layouts to distribute the weight per axle better. But this is a pilot unit, and that's part of what you are supposed to do with pilot units, find problems and change them for the production units.
A direct quote from the discussion linked above:
"Guys, all we have at this point in time is a rumor that someone overheard from someone else, so let's not be too quick to declare these units lemons or failures just yet.
If it's indeed true that the first few units are too heavy, we still have NO proof that it was any kind of error or wrongdoing on the part of the builder.
For one thing, GE is only a supplier of the diesel engine, traction motors, HEP, and computer, so they're probably off the hook. Those are all standard, off-the-shelf items that shouldn't have any surprises.
MPI, for all we know, may have simply been following directions. Who knows, it could have been a typo in the specs that were supplied to MPI by MBTA and/or you-know-who, depending on which one of them actually prepared the documents.
It could have been a mistake made by any one of the dozens of vendors who build the various custom-spec'd components used in the locomotive.
The trucks appear to be either a new or heavily modified design, so maybe they weigh more than was anticipated.
There are SO many possibilities here. We're talking about a huge machine with thousands of parts from dozens of vendors. If the only thing wrong with this all-new design is that the first few of them were a little heavy, that's actually pretty good! Much worse things have happened with new locomotives. This issue (assuming it's true) doesn't strike me as insurmountable... unless we're looking at such a massive goof-up that they're weighing in at 300K+ or something. And even that wouldn't be completely impossible to fix. At least they're catching it NOW, rather than at some point down the road. And that, gentleman, is WHY they ship an initial unit for testing and acceptance, to help find any issues before the rest of them are built."
End of quoted section
On top of what the above said, the loco comes in at 287,000 pounds, which is below the spec max of 295,000 pounds. However, the weight needs to be distributed 24-26% per axle, and that's where the problems may be (only speculating). It might be necessary to add ballast at one end , or to rearrange some of the equipment layouts to distribute the weight per axle better. But this is a pilot unit, and that's part of what you are supposed to do with pilot units, find problems and change them for the production units.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,934
- Reaction score
- 7,839
Re: T construction news
This is a rather abnormal and potentially very serious problem to be having with a pilot unit. It's not fatal because not a single part has been fabricated yet for 37 of the 40 units on order, but it's a delay-inducer and a cost-bloater. At a time when they already have a bi-level coach order fucked up to hell. How many times does this same exact story have to repeat itself?
The guts of this thing are all known-knowns from GE and Motive Power used in active-production locomotives. It's very unlikely that this was manufacturer oversight like the Rotems' poor craftsmanship and quality control that led to a weight distribution issue. The customization of this thing is the particular packaging of those components that the T ordered. That's what the T's reams of specs mandated, that's what they hired "Big Dig" Parsons Brinkerhoff as subcontractor to manage. MPI and GE have to follow that, whether they think these specs are good ideas or not. Anybody who's had to manage a project-by-committee deals with the infuriating sausage-making process of trying to make something work when there's shit they know won't work.
The intent here was that if the vehicle proved a winner MPI would take the T's handiwork to mass market as a new generic platform and try to get other agencies to buy. Strike 1 against that happening now with compelling evidence that the T's own customizations once again are getting in their own way. Strike 2 if the solve for this weight distribution issue forces compromises on the vehicle's performance. They will have higher maintenance costs over life of vehicle if they are the only purchaser. Again. And MPI won't put it to mass market it takes kludgy damage control to fix this. They'll salvage what they can of the good parts and do a more conservatively generic make without the T's bloat or just screw it and introduce a 4600 HP generic in the MPXPress lineup with aggressive pricing. The number of operators lining up to buy MP36's and MP40's in mass quantity doesn't exactly lend credence to the T's concerns that those models are too heavy and that a total do-over was necessary. Other buyers will gladly look at some MP46 behemoth if they know what they're getting out of the hands-down best selling passenger diesel platform going. They're not going to look at an HSP-46 Frankenvehicle with last-minute kludges and doubts that all the flaws have been found. Not unless this is the only substantial fix needed, and it truly is a cure-all.
That is the risk they keep incurring again and again and again and again with this overcustomization fetish. They do it on the modes that have absolutely zero system-specific specialness with as much gusto as they do on their very unique installations. I'm sorry. This is not a little blip on the radar. It's a chronic problem that's bleeding them money and limiting the qualified bidders willing to make a competitive offer to their specs. Do we really want to go through this shit again with the Orange/Red order, the DMU order, the Type 9 order, the next coach and loco orders for 2018-20, the next dual-mode bus order, and the NEC electrics order? Every time they do this it takes an chunk of flesh they don't need to be giving, whether the end result is a good vehicle or bad. MassDOT top-down needs to step in and take more restrictive oversight of procurements if they can't manage that process with proper restraint.
This is a rather abnormal and potentially very serious problem to be having with a pilot unit. It's not fatal because not a single part has been fabricated yet for 37 of the 40 units on order, but it's a delay-inducer and a cost-bloater. At a time when they already have a bi-level coach order fucked up to hell. How many times does this same exact story have to repeat itself?
The guts of this thing are all known-knowns from GE and Motive Power used in active-production locomotives. It's very unlikely that this was manufacturer oversight like the Rotems' poor craftsmanship and quality control that led to a weight distribution issue. The customization of this thing is the particular packaging of those components that the T ordered. That's what the T's reams of specs mandated, that's what they hired "Big Dig" Parsons Brinkerhoff as subcontractor to manage. MPI and GE have to follow that, whether they think these specs are good ideas or not. Anybody who's had to manage a project-by-committee deals with the infuriating sausage-making process of trying to make something work when there's shit they know won't work.
The intent here was that if the vehicle proved a winner MPI would take the T's handiwork to mass market as a new generic platform and try to get other agencies to buy. Strike 1 against that happening now with compelling evidence that the T's own customizations once again are getting in their own way. Strike 2 if the solve for this weight distribution issue forces compromises on the vehicle's performance. They will have higher maintenance costs over life of vehicle if they are the only purchaser. Again. And MPI won't put it to mass market it takes kludgy damage control to fix this. They'll salvage what they can of the good parts and do a more conservatively generic make without the T's bloat or just screw it and introduce a 4600 HP generic in the MPXPress lineup with aggressive pricing. The number of operators lining up to buy MP36's and MP40's in mass quantity doesn't exactly lend credence to the T's concerns that those models are too heavy and that a total do-over was necessary. Other buyers will gladly look at some MP46 behemoth if they know what they're getting out of the hands-down best selling passenger diesel platform going. They're not going to look at an HSP-46 Frankenvehicle with last-minute kludges and doubts that all the flaws have been found. Not unless this is the only substantial fix needed, and it truly is a cure-all.
That is the risk they keep incurring again and again and again and again with this overcustomization fetish. They do it on the modes that have absolutely zero system-specific specialness with as much gusto as they do on their very unique installations. I'm sorry. This is not a little blip on the radar. It's a chronic problem that's bleeding them money and limiting the qualified bidders willing to make a competitive offer to their specs. Do we really want to go through this shit again with the Orange/Red order, the DMU order, the Type 9 order, the next coach and loco orders for 2018-20, the next dual-mode bus order, and the NEC electrics order? Every time they do this it takes an chunk of flesh they don't need to be giving, whether the end result is a good vehicle or bad. MassDOT top-down needs to step in and take more restrictive oversight of procurements if they can't manage that process with proper restraint.
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: T construction news
Its not unusual for pilot units to have weight problems. That happened with both the Neoplan CNG artic and dual-mode buses, and corrections were made. Someone on railroad.net pointed out that the first MP36s built for Metra in Chicago a decade ago had weight issues, and corrections were made. Seems a bit early to say "strike 1, strike 2" etc. when nobody even knows the exact concerns. You seem to know more than all the railroad.net folks about the nature of the problem. Care to share your info?
The MBTA wanted a loco that could haul 10 bi-levels at 100 MPH. MPI could have offered a beefed up MP40 and didn't. The MBTA didn't force them to team up with GE. MPI seems much cooler to depending on EMD as a partner ever since Caterpillar bought EMD in 2010. MPI sees CAT as a competitor, not a partner.
Its not unusual for pilot units to have weight problems. That happened with both the Neoplan CNG artic and dual-mode buses, and corrections were made. Someone on railroad.net pointed out that the first MP36s built for Metra in Chicago a decade ago had weight issues, and corrections were made. Seems a bit early to say "strike 1, strike 2" etc. when nobody even knows the exact concerns. You seem to know more than all the railroad.net folks about the nature of the problem. Care to share your info?
The MBTA wanted a loco that could haul 10 bi-levels at 100 MPH. MPI could have offered a beefed up MP40 and didn't. The MBTA didn't force them to team up with GE. MPI seems much cooler to depending on EMD as a partner ever since Caterpillar bought EMD in 2010. MPI sees CAT as a competitor, not a partner.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,934
- Reaction score
- 7,839
Re: T construction news
Oh, knock it off with the passive-aggression. I said my piece in the RL/OL cars thread about what my insider sources lackthereof are. If you've got a problem with that use the ignore feature. Or go snitch to some RR.net administrator that I'm full of shit and get me satisfactorily banned from there. I'll say it again: it is very curious that you only show up on AB at all or say anything--anything whatsoever--when it's playing humorless nagging nanny to one single poster. There's a whole board out there, you know?
You have a lot of valuable knowledge to share. It is a waste that you are only choosing to use it reactively for some...I don't know what...chip on your shoulder. If that's how you want to define yourself, with ever-higher majority of your lifetime posts following this exact pattern, go right ahead. That's your problem.
Good night, sir.
Oh, knock it off with the passive-aggression. I said my piece in the RL/OL cars thread about what my insider sources lackthereof are. If you've got a problem with that use the ignore feature. Or go snitch to some RR.net administrator that I'm full of shit and get me satisfactorily banned from there. I'll say it again: it is very curious that you only show up on AB at all or say anything--anything whatsoever--when it's playing humorless nagging nanny to one single poster. There's a whole board out there, you know?
You have a lot of valuable knowledge to share. It is a waste that you are only choosing to use it reactively for some...I don't know what...chip on your shoulder. If that's how you want to define yourself, with ever-higher majority of your lifetime posts following this exact pattern, go right ahead. That's your problem.
Good night, sir.