New Red and Orange Line Cars

KentXie said:
Are you kidding me? It's clean, it's timely, it's fast and smooth, they even carpet the floor. I love the DC metro.
Click to expand...

And you also can't eat or even enjoy a cup of coffee. Screw that, I'll take the T', thank you.
 
After a twenty+ minute, as scheduled, wait for a WMATA train, you might have a gripe or two too.

Carpeted trains and fabric seats were a fad of the 70s. Like disco, bell bottoms, Brutalism, gas guzzling cars, and highway sprawl, all terrible ideas.

Also, if we're bringing up BART, can I say that their old trains are something scary. One eyed monsters. I have to repress the urge to run away every time I use BART. Admittedly, there's other reasons to run too!
 
HenryAlan said:
And you also can't eat or even enjoy a cup of coffee. Screw that, I'll take the T', thank you.
Click to expand...

Meh, a trade off for being cleaned. I'm okay with this. It's hard to eat and drink on the train while it's moving anyways.
 
I never ate or drank anything on the bus or train anyway, so it matters none to me.
 
Matthew said:
After a twenty+ minute, as scheduled, wait for a WMATA train, you might have a gripe or two too.

Carpeted trains and fabric seats were a fad of the 70s. Like disco, bell bottoms, Brutalism, gas guzzling cars, and highway sprawl, all terrible ideas.

Also, if we're bringing up BART, can I say that their old trains are something scary. One eyed monsters. I have to repress the urge to run away every time I use BART. Admittedly, there's other reasons to run too!
Click to expand...

Indeed, if we're going to continue talking about other systems' trains, in particular those that came online in the late 60s, early 70s, might as well tie it back to our main subject:

The carpets and fabric seats were indeed an epidemic of the time (though I'll probably be the one of the few of my generation to say that I love disco). However, BART's public involvement, testing, and outreach in designing the features of the new cars has been fully 21st Century. I hope the MBTA can do the same with the upcoming procurement.

If you look at BART's project pages, all the information on the project is well-organised and easily digestible. They not only provide a background on why the cars are needed, but also summarise the new features that were tested in revenue service to be included in the final design, feedback from multiple public demos and mockups, and even a brief description of the procurement process.

One of the things we NEED to bring to the new Orange and Red Line cars is this baby: behold - THE THREE-HAND HOLD STANCHION

3-hand%20hold%20stanchion2_0.jpg


I think this may have been brought up at an MBTA Rider Oversight Meeting a few months back, the first in which the vehicle procurement people made their presentation. Ergonomics for poles and stanchion placement is definitely high priority. As was mentioned a few posts back, they definitely want to get the right balance for flip-up seats - too many and it starts to add too much weight (one of the ROC members asked why ALL the seats couldn't be flip-up).

I'd like to see metal grab holds considered instead of the flimsy straps that leave people flapping around when the train starts and stops no better than if they were standing on their own. The MTA has several models of their buses equipped with mini-grab holds in between the stanchions that are secured into the seatbacks:

dsc02015yq7.jpg


Also, would it be too much to ask for a less derpy design? I always thought the new Blue Line cars looked a bit... off... inelegant... I also never realised how much they look like the Bombardier 1800 series Red Line cars.

1203589399_0448.jpg


RedLineCharlesMGH.jpg


Even the PA-5, PATH's successor to the PA-3 (and PA-4), cousin of our late 0600 series Blue Line cars and current 1200 Orange Line series, looks relatively modern. It bears striking resemblance to the new WMATA 7000 series cars and MTA's R142 and R160, perhaps by design considering they're all Kawasaki orders.

07.jpg


nyc_subway_car_r32_on_the_r_line_by_255express-d54587b.jpg
 
DigitalSciGuy said:
I agree with you 100%. I'm very disappointed to see the specs ask for married pairs for operational flexibility. I would imagine one of the reasons they want such pairs over triplets is possibly because of the length of yard sidings and switches; I don't know the layouts of the yards well enough to speak as to whether this is an actual concern and I got bored reading the specs so I started skipping around looking for key words, so I don't know for sure. Having 1 out of every 3 cars not have control equipment would mean some semblance of added saving that could permit added expense elsewhere. I would hope the eligible bidders offer a triplet option, though it's doubtful they'd even develop a proposal with an option that isn't explicitly within the design specs.
Click to expand...

A six-car train made up of two triplets would have four cab cars and 2 "blind" cars. A six-car train made up of three A-car/B-car pairs as proposed by the MBTA would have three cab cars and three "blind" cars. There is a greater reduction of cab cars with the A-car/B-car scheme than with triplets, while still maintaining the flexibility of only two cars having to be taken out of service when one individual car needs work.
 
Last edited:
winstonoboogie said:
A six-car train made up of two triplets would have four cab cars and 2 "blind" cars. A six-car train made up of three A-car/B-car pairs as proposed by the MBTA would have three cab cars and three "blind" cars. There is a greater reduction of cab cars with the A-car/B-car scheme than with triplets, while still maintaining the flexibility of only two cars having to be taken out of service one one individual car needs work.
Click to expand...

Ah, this makes sense. My suggestion of a triplet configured as A-B-A, where the B car is actually a blind trailer with no control equipment, was from the assumption that this would reduce the cost in some meaningful measure since, as specified, the B-cars will still have a pared down set of control equipment for the hidden hostler panel where a full cab would normally be.

As you've pointed out, there would be one more full-sized cab for every 6-car train set; are you suggesting that the savings from 2 fully blind trailers would not appreciably offset the cost of the additional full-sized cab and liberate enough money to be spent elsewhere on design? With our current cars from forever ago, I know pneumatic lines need to be drawn from the air block to the driving panel. However, I've not had the chance to look at detailed technical documents on modern heavy rail transit vehicles to know how much or how little is involved in equipping a car with control equipment these days - hostler panel or full sized cab. Since everything's fly-by-wire, I'd imagine the bulk of the cost is in the computer behind the controls.

That said, as currently specified, all cars will have some control equipment, either as a hostler panel or a full sized-cab. Also, I wouldn't think having to take one additional car out of service (for triplets instead of a couplet) would have enough of an impact on operations to drive design (other than 'that's the way we've always done it'), considering reserves are included in the quantity of the order. I trust is carries some weight in the design decision, but I doubt it's the governing factor.

Is there any possibility that the decision of couplets over triplets is also determined by the length of maintenance spaces, switches, etc. in yards associated with train movements?
 
Is an A-B-B triplet not an option? To make an A-B-B-B-B-A 6 car train?
 
fattony said:
Is an A-B-B triplet not an option? To make an A-B-B-B-B-A 6 car train?
Click to expand...

Oh, that works, too. Though technically, they would want an A-C-B configuration where:

A - cab car
C - blind trailer
B - 'blind' trailer with hostler panel on unpaired end.
 
DigitalSciGuy said:
Oh, that works, too. Though technically, they would want an A-C-B configuration where:

A - cab car
C - blind trailer
B - 'blind' trailer with hostler panel on unpaired end.
Click to expand...

This is how I believe its done.
 
DigitalSciGuy said:
Ah, this makes sense. My suggestion of a triplet configured as A-B-A, where the B car is actually a blind trailer with no control equipment, was from the assumption that this would reduce the cost in some meaningful measure since, as specified, the B-cars will still have a pared down set of control equipment for the hidden hostler panel where a full cab would normally be.

As you've pointed out, there would be one more full-sized cab for every 6-car train set; are you suggesting that the savings from 2 fully blind trailers would not appreciably offset the cost of the additional full-sized cab and liberate enough money to be spent elsewhere on design? With our current cars from forever ago, I know pneumatic lines need to be drawn from the air block to the driving panel. However, I've not had the chance to look at detailed technical documents on modern heavy rail transit vehicles to know how much or how little is involved in equipping a car with control equipment these days - hostler panel or full sized cab. Since everything's fly-by-wire, I'd imagine the bulk of the cost is in the computer behind the controls.

That said, as currently specified, all cars will have some control equipment, either as a hostler panel or a full sized-cab. Also, I wouldn't think having to take one additional car out of service (for triplets instead of a couplet) would have enough of an impact on operations to drive design (other than 'that's the way we've always done it'), considering reserves are included in the quantity of the order. I trust is carries some weight in the design decision, but I doubt it's the governing factor.

Is there any possibility that the decision of couplets over triplets is also determined by the length of maintenance spaces, switches, etc. in yards associated with train movements?
Click to expand...

As long as the blind cars are motorized, they will still have propulsion equipment on the car itself. The cost of adding hostler controls is minimal. The hostler controls provide for basic braking and operating only at slow speeds allowed when the cab signal system is cut out. They can be used to move a car around the yard, or move a crippled train off of the main line, but they are not capable of the more robust full-speed operation of the full control system (and they don't need to be)
Given some of the grades on the system (Longfellow bridge as an example) I don't think there would be any serious consideration of non-motorized trailers.

There is a savings from eliminating entire full cabs (ATO equipment, control stands, full PA/Radio installation, etc). There is also the space savings.
My understanding is their initial review several years ago of potential car configurations was originally focused on conventional married-pairs (both cars having one cab) vs. triplets with a motorized blind-trailer in the middle. From that review came the hybrid idea of married pairs, but only one car in the pair having a cab. It reduces the amount a cabs even more than the triplet proposal, but maintains the married-pair flexibility. Triplets would still require a greater spare ratio to account for more cars out of service, and that is enough of a disadvantage to make the A-car/B-car married pair layout the preferred scheme. If the comparison had been to conventional married-pairs, then perhaps the triplet scheme would have prevailed.
 
The sheer amount of protectionism that gets bundled into these orders is disgusting.

FUCK YOU so-called "BUY MASSACHUSETTS RULES"

We need working trains NOW, not 6 years from now, after every fucking corrupt dipshit "regulator" gets their beak wet, in a country that can't figure out a locomotives rear from its front. (no, really)
 
Matthew said:
The sheer amount of protectionism that gets bundled into these orders is disgusting.

FUCK YOU so-called "BUY MASSACHUSETTS RULES"

We need working trains NOW, not 6 years from now, after every fucking corrupt dipshit "regulator" gets their beak wet, in a country that can't figure out a locomotives rear from its front. (no, really)
Click to expand...

I think this is a federal requirement not Massachusetts. Why not in Mass then.
 
"Buy America" and "Buy Massachusetts" are both corrupt, stupid laws from a country (and a state) that cannot build a train but is sure good at manufacturing opportunities for graft and patronage.
 
Matthew said:
"Buy America" and "Buy Massachusetts" are both corrupt, stupid laws from a country (and a state) that cannot build a train but is sure good at manufacturing opportunities for graft and patronage.
Click to expand...

You can get around those rules if you don't use federal funding like New Jersey and California for your equipment purchases... We order our DMU's and Locomotives from Germany.... Our New EMU's will be made in the US most likely by Kawasaki...
 
Matthew said:
The sheer amount of protectionism that gets bundled into these orders is disgusting.

FUCK YOU so-called "BUY MASSACHUSETTS RULES"

We need working trains NOW, not 6 years from now, after every fucking corrupt dipshit "regulator" gets their beak wet, in a country that can't figure out a locomotives rear from its front. (no, really)
Click to expand...



Yeah, I just don't see why they can't seek existing co's here that they've been getting their rail cars from. That would seem more logical to me! :confused:
 
http://www.masslive.com/business-ne...cnr_changchun_railway_vehicles_other_bid.html

CNR Changchun Railway Vehicles, other bidders, to submit bids Thursday for MBTA Red and Orange line cars

SPRINGFIELD - CNR Changchun Railway Vehicles Co. and its fellow candidates for a $1.5 billion contract supplying Red and Orange line cars for the MBTA must have their bids in Thursday.

CNR Changchun, which has plans to build the cars at the former Westinghouse site on Page Boulevard in East Springfield, will send its bid endorsements from both the Springfield City Council and the East Springfield Neighborhood Council.

Besides Changchun, bidders include CAF or Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles of Spain, Kawasaki Rail Car. of Japan; Siemans of Germany; Alstom Transport of France; Bombardier of Canada, Hyundai Rotem of South Korea and CNR.
 
I'm hoping that they choose Kawasaki.

They're making the new rail cars for Washington, DC's WMATA's subway system. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top