New Red and Orange Line Cars

Has anyone seen the RFP for this? I can't seem to find one. I remember a date in may being significant, I thought that was the day that bids were due, but maybe that's when the RFP is to be issued?
 
The MBTA should try to seek rider input to help them design and build rapid transit cars that are more rider-friendly and include all or some of the latest technological advancements in rapid transit cars.

This would help give them the golden opportunity to offer commuters the latest and most advanced things that they would like to see on the new rail cars. Like they often do when new lines or stations are proposed.

Also, like Washington, DC has done when THEY were proposing & designing THIER newest rapid transit cars that are about to come into service after the present testing program is completed. :cool:
 
Proposals are due May 1.
Click to expand...

So is there an RFP out there somewhere? Just curious...

Jahvon09 said:
The MBTA should try to seek rider input to help them design and build rapid transit cars that are more rider-friendly and include all or some of the latest technological advancements in rapid transit cars.

This would help give them the golden opportunity to offer commuters the latest and most advanced things that they would like to see on the new rail cars. Like they often do when new lines or stations are proposed.

Also, like Washington, DC has done when THEY were proposing & designing THIER newest rapid transit cars that are about to come into service after the present testing program is completed. :cool:
Click to expand...


I agree completely, perhaps when a builder is selected they'll seek more community input. At least I hope so.

I've had a couple thoughts, and figure I'll throw them out there for discussion
I've seen reports that the NYC subway was investigating articulated subway cars, meaning you could walk from end to end through articulated sections similar to the green line, but on HRT. I don't think fully articulated trains are practical, but maybe articulated married couples would be beneficial. You could still mix & match, and build trains or different lengths. The articulated nature means that passengers could spread out and fill in cars more.

All cars should have at least 4 doors on each side. This may be standard by now, I don't know. But more doors = faster passenger loading = shorter times in each station. It also means less seats, which means more standing room, and higher capacity.

New cars need to have polls in the center of the door areas, like NYC so people that are stuck in that no-mans land have something to hold onto.

Signage inside the car is is a big issue. I'm a big fan of these signs on the NYC subway:
DSC02195.JPG

But i think we could also improve/ find the next generation sign.

Like I said, I really hope to see some kind of forum for the public to express their wishes in the new cars.
 
Fully articulated subway trains are eminently practical, and have existed for quite some time. Did you mean "not practical" due to some "special problem" of ours?

If they don't supply four wide doors on each side, there ought to be some kind of internal revolt.
 
Matthew said:
Fully articulated subway trains are eminently practical, and have existed for quite some time. Did you mean "not practical" due to some "special problem" of ours?
Click to expand...

I guess I just figured that the MBTA wouldn't want end to end fully articulated subway cars, and would be more interested in married couple because of the flexibility that provides them, being able to. If they could be completely articulated end to end, that would be even better.

Matthew said:
If they don't supply four wide doors on each side, there ought to be some kind of internal revolt.
Click to expand...
haha, agreed. Like I said I have no idea, this could be an industry standard at this point, but if it isn't, is should be.
 
Can't stress the importance of center poles enough. I can understand omitting them at one door per car to ensure ease of access for wheelchairs/ADA, but all others should have them.
 
I believe the RFP had some sort of mention of fully articulated trains for the T. I can't remember exactly, but I think it was something like, "try to figure out a way to do this if possible." So, not necessarily a requirement, but something they're looking into.
 
underground said:
I believe the RFP had some sort of mention of fully articulated trains for the T. I can't remember exactly, but I think it was something like, "try to figure out a way to do this if possible." So, not necessarily a requirement, but something they're looking into.
Click to expand...

There is no provision for articulated cars. The cars are to be configured as A-car/B-car married pairs. The A-car will have a control cab at one end, while the B-cars will not have any control cab. A six-car train will be made up of A-B-A-B-B-A. The existing cars each have a control-cab on one end, so an existing six-car train has 6 cabs vs. only 3 on a train of the future fleet. That frees up more space for passenger use, but maintains the maintenance flexibility to having married-pairs.

They do have a provision in the specs for builders to propose a greater use of flip-up seats that can create more standing space, but the total weight of a loaded car can not exceed the limits in the specs.

The 69-foot long Red Line cars will have four door-pairs per side (like the existing 01800 cars) while the 65-foot long Orange Line cars will have three door pairs per side (like the existing fleet). The individual door-leafs will be wider, so that a wheelchair can pass through even if only one leaf is open.
 
Well, if not articulated trains (the absence of that option from the specs is something I see as a huge mistake), articulated pairs might be a good runner-up. Could a bidder propose something like that without it being specifically mentioned in the specs?
 
Roxxma said:
Well, if not articulated trains (the absence of that option from the specs is something I see as a huge mistake), articulated pairs might be a good runner-up. Could a bidder propose something like that without it being specifically mentioned in the specs?
Click to expand...

No, builders usually respond to what's in the specs because they assume that is what the buyer wants.
 
bobthebuilder said:
I guess I just figured that the MBTA wouldn't want end to end fully articulated subway cars, and would be more interested in married couple because of the flexibility that provides them, being able to.
Click to expand...

winstonoboogie said:
That frees up more space for passenger use, but maintains the maintenance flexibility to having married-pairs.
Click to expand...

What kind of maintenance flexibility is derived from married pairs on Red/Orange? Neither line has plans for any sort of platform extensions, nor do they use variable train configurations in revenue service. A long list of systems utilize fully articulated trains to much success, meaning the benefit must outweigh any sort of flexibility they might see in individual cars. Am I missing something?

It's really too bad they didn't include that in the specs because fully articulated trains are able to actually distribute passenger loads across the cars, especially when station entrances/exits are located at extreme ends of the platforms.
 
omaja said:
What kind of maintenance flexibility is derived from married pairs on Red/Orange?
Click to expand...

Let's say a door motor fails and needs to be replaced on a car. With married-pairs, the 2-car pair is cut from a train, sent to the shop, while the other four cars have another pair coupled on and go back into service. With a six-car unitized set, all six cars sit out of service until that door motor is replaced.
(I use door motor as just one example of a component that can require shop time because of in service failures)

If you don't have real spot on maintenance with a generous amount of spare parts always in stock, you will need to have a very generous spare ratio to keep cars on the line to meet the schedule. As fleets age and down time for maintenance increases, systems with large numbers of unitized train sets might regret not having the flexibility of pairs.
 
winstonoboogie said:
Let's say a door motor fails and needs to be replaced on a car. With married-pairs, the 2-car pair is cut from a train, sent to the shop, while the other four cars have another pair coupled on and go back into service. With a six-car unitized set, all six cars sit out of service until that door motor is replaced.
(I use door motor as just one example of a component that can require shop time because of in service failures)

If you don't have real spot on maintenance with a generous amount of spare parts always in stock, you will need to have a very generous spare ratio to keep cars on the line to meet the schedule. As fleets age and down time for maintenance increases, systems with large numbers of unitized train sets might regret not having the flexibility of pairs.
Click to expand...

I think the T should be looking at married triplets instead of pairs, but entire trainsets are a bad idea for precisely the reasons you stated. In addition, I'm not sure if its done in practice, but I imagine if one part of the set failed it could be cut out, unloaded, and the other half of the set used to shove it to the nearest yard.
 
The T should considered putting electronic displays inside the trains for advertisement. They may be able to pull more revenue this way. These display could also show weather, news, and any service delays, similar to the ones in place at North Station.
 
KentXie said:
The T should considered putting electronic displays inside the trains for advertisement. They may be able to pull more revenue this way. These display could also show weather, news, and any service delays, similar to the ones in place at North Station.
Click to expand...

We can only dream. Berliner Fenster <3

Plakativ_04_09_kino.jpg


(also note the fully articulated Großprofil train)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top