MBTA to remove seats from Red Line cars (Big Red)

3rdrail wrote:Electricrified doorways and prods such as are used for cattle are the answer. Riddle - How many T Starters does it take to move a "Door Maid" away from a doorway ? Answer - None. Just 12 Volts.

Reminds me of tales I've heard of old trackless trolleys with a bad ground getting a "hot body." The passengers would find out when they got on and grabbed a stanchion! Or one suggestion I've heard (in jest, of course) to run 600V through the grab loops on Red Line cars so when a hooligan slashes it, they get lit up.

In an effort to stay on topic...I rode a Big Red train the other day...but not in one of the seatless cars. This was somewhat towards the end of rush hour I believe, and the extra capacity was not really needed.

3rdrail wrote:In an effort to stay on topic...I rode a Big Red train the other day...but not in one of the seatless cars. This was somewhat towards the end of rush hour I believe, and the extra capacity was not really needed.

Seriously, right? Now that we've engaged in the folly that is asking the lay people of the riding public whether or not they feel the Big Red cars should go, the objective should be correlating system entrance logs with the times the train should be passing through downtown and in which direction. Whether or not you agree with the implementation of these 'human cattle cars', as I've heard someone say once, simple observation would make it obvious these are not being utilized as they should.

Oh great Jedi Master Yoda, but "simple observation" as you put it in this context, would only elicit basic function, and not more serious issues such as crash worthiness (which, by the way, have been discussed by lay Jedi in this celestial thread).

3rdrail wrote:Oh great Jedi Master Yoda, but "simple observation" as you put it in this context, would only elicit basic function, and not more serious issues such as crash worthiness (which, by the way, have been discussed by lay Jedi in this celestial thread).

Apologies if you've mistaken my quip at 'the lay people' to be a quip at people on this forum. I was referring to [html=http://www.universalhub.com/2010/what-d ... nk-big-red]the most recent survey[/html] by the MBTA of the general public regarding the continued operation of the Big Red cars. Perhaps I should've linked in-line to the survey. Further apologies if I've mistakenly assumed your sarcastic title for me is in regards to previous said quip about 'lay people'.

With regard to crash-worthiness, what was the verdict about adding more center poles and additional straps, especially additional poles in the center of the vestibules of cars? I assume the couplers and car ends are designed such that they appropriately absorb impact energy and prevent cars from riding up on each other so as to keep head-on crashes survivable (within certain expectations based on impact speed).

With regard to crash-worthiness, what was the verdict about adding more center poles and additional straps, especially additional poles in the center of the vestibules of cars? I assume the couplers and car ends are designed such that they appropriately absorb impact energy and prevent cars from riding up on each other so as to keep head-on crashes survivable (within certain expectations based on impact speed).

I'm not sure there was a true "verdict" on interior passenger accommodations and how they relate to crash-worthiness. There was some speculation in this thread, but that's about it.

"Crash-worthiness" as it relates to this thread is maybe not quite the right term. The Big Red cars are structurally identical to the rest of the 01800s. Their crash performance, from the couplers on back, should be the same as the rest of the fleet. What happens to the people holding the stanchions inside the car during a crash is...well, I don't want to say unrelated, but certainly a different type of consideration.

Outside the passenger compartments, all the appropriate features are in place. Coupler draft gear, shear bolts, anticlimbers, crash posts and the rest.

digitalsciguy wrote:With regard to crash-worthiness, what was the verdict about adding more center poles and additional straps, especially additional poles in the center of the vestibules of cars? I assume the couplers and car ends are designed such that they appropriately absorb impact energy and prevent cars from riding up on each other so as to keep head-on crashes survivable (within certain expectations based on impact speed).

That was my point Guy, I don't think that there is a verdict. I'm sure that the cars have gone through federally mandated crash trials prior to original construction, but a facet to our discussion here has been "does this modification alter crash-worthiness ?" "Anti-climbers" prevent telescoping and energy-absorbing bodies lessen g-forces upon impacts resulting in what's known as "Delta-V" (a change in velocity) which is the killer in most fatal accidents. But, to my knowledge, what we haven't seen is a comparison study of cattle cars in which crash test dummies are standing and milling about on their way to Harvard Sq. for a double creme mocha cappucino. Thus, no verdict.

3rdrail wrote:

digitalsciguy wrote:With regard to crash-worthiness, what was the verdict about adding more center poles and additional straps, especially additional poles in the center of the vestibules of cars? I assume the couplers and car ends are designed such that they appropriately absorb impact energy and prevent cars from riding up on each other so as to keep head-on crashes survivable (within certain expectations based on impact speed).

That was my point Guy, I don't think that there is a verdict. I'm sure that the cars have gone through federally mandated crash trials prior to original construction, but a facet to our discussion here has been "does this modification alter crash-worthiness ?" "Anti-climbers" prevent telescoping and energy-absorbing bodies lessen g-forces upon impacts resulting in what's known as "Delta-V" (a change in velocity) which is the killer in most fatal accidents. But, to my knowledge, what we haven't seen is a comparison study of cattle cars in which crash test dummies are standing and milling about on their way to Harvard Sq. for a double creme mocha cappucino. Thus, no verdict.

Interesting then that these cars could be modified and put back into revenue service without mandated testing by the FTA or whatever federal safety bodies that have jurisdiction here. I'm unsure whether or not Japan Railways Group itself, the entity that started this global standing-only car trend, has done crash-testing and to what extent they have done any. The closest document(PDF) I've found (granted, with minimal effort through an advanced Google search) refers to rolling stock safety improvements in general, and this is technical information only for the JR East division. (Oddly enough, when I searched for 'Japanese standing subway cars', this clip from the hilarious 1974 version of 'The Taking of Pelham One Two Three' was among the top video results...)

While I'm personally inclined to dismiss concerns about train crash safety, what with the safety devices that have been engineered into this relatively modern rolling stock and the probability of such an accident actually happening because of onboard and wayside safety devices, I understand and agree with the need to have concrete data, whether through real-world or simulated testing. My original issue was with the utilization of the cars and perhaps that is all moot because of safety issues surrounding the lighter weight from the removed seats and the fact that the cars are filled with only standees. Alas, I'd be one of those standees on his way to Harvard/Davis Sq for a grande soy double creme mocha cappucino, but NOT one of the few wearing his backpack so as to reduce the effective density of standees around me and put me at further risk of injury in the event of an impact (my assumption is that greater standee density = better ΔV force distribution through other standees - this of course may be flawed reasoning)...

No, it's solid reasoning and a valid concern, the question as to whether it would slow Delta V (love your Delta key !), however there are others such as how standee pole secured passengers fare in lower speed crashes, whether seated passengers are safer, and how those seats (fiberglass/metal, etc.) and pole configurations interact with the dynamics of injury. I'd love to take those 01400's at Cabot out to Pueblo, set 'em up accordingly with both configurations, fill 'em with the same amount of dummies, and see which carload comes out in larger numbers to enjoy that Caffe' Corretto in the Square. (It just occured to me that I've posted alcoholic beveridges in two succesive RRN posts ! Time to re-evaluate my lifestyle !) Am enjoying your posts, Guy. They are well thought out. (although I prefer calling you Yoda, if that's ok.)

digitalsciguy wrote:

3rdrail wrote:

digitalsciguy wrote:With regard to crash-worthiness, what was the verdict about adding more center poles and additional straps, especially additional poles in the center of the vestibules of cars? I assume the couplers and car ends are designed such that they appropriately absorb impact energy and prevent cars from riding up on each other so as to keep head-on crashes survivable (within certain expectations based on impact speed).

That was my point Guy, I don't think that there is a verdict. I'm sure that the cars have gone through federally mandated crash trials prior to original construction, but a facet to our discussion here has been "does this modification alter crash-worthiness ?" "Anti-climbers" prevent telescoping and energy-absorbing bodies lessen g-forces upon impacts resulting in what's known as "Delta-V" (a change in velocity) which is the killer in most fatal accidents. But, to my knowledge, what we haven't seen is a comparison study of cattle cars in which crash test dummies are standing and milling about on their way to Harvard Sq. for a double creme mocha cappucino. Thus, no verdict.

Interesting then that these cars could be modified and put back into revenue service without mandated testing by the FTA or whatever federal safety bodies that have jurisdiction here. I'm unsure whether or not Japan Railways Group itself, the entity that started this global standing-only car trend, has done crash-testing and to what extent they have done any. The closest document(PDF) I've found (granted, with minimal effort through an advanced Google search) refers to rolling stock safety improvements in general, and this is technical information only for the JR East division. (Oddly enough, when I searched for 'Japanese standing subway cars', this clip from the hilarious 1974 version of 'The Taking of Pelham One Two Three' was among the top video results...)

While I'm personally inclined to dismiss concerns about train crash safety, what with the safety devices that have been engineered into this relatively modern rolling stock and the probability of such an accident actually happening because of onboard and wayside safety devices, I understand and agree with the need to have concrete data, whether through real-world or simulated testing. My original issue was with the utilization of the cars and perhaps that is all moot because of safety issues surrounding the lighter weight from the removed seats and the fact that the cars are filled with only standees. Alas, I'd be one of those standees on his way to Harvard/Davis Sq for a grande soy double creme mocha cappucino, but NOT one of the few wearing his backpack so as to reduce the effective density of standees around me and put me at further risk of injury in the event of an impact (my assumption is that greater standee density = better ΔV force distribution through other standees - this of course may be flawed reasoning)...

I am honestly doubtful that the removal of seats would trigger much of a safety review in terms of crash performance. There is great focus on the crash performance of the vehicle as a whole. Interior modifications will not significantly affect that, either by weight reduction or otherwise. So you bring up a very good question: What, if any, are the applicable standards for the interior layout of a car with regard to passenger safety in a crash? If one exists, it's a fair bet that the Big Red cars were vetted by it. Safety-related things DO NOT usually slip through the cracks when a car is designed new, or modified significantly. (BTW...I thought the Big Red cars were designed and delivered new with the rest of the fleet. Was it actually a modification after the fact?)

Finch wrote:(BTW...I thought the Big Red cars were designed and delivered new with the rest of the fleet. Was it actually a modification after the fact?)

The seats were removed not too long ago. I want to say less than 2 or 3 years. It was originally done as a pilot to possibly expand it to more sets, but there's still only one set of them (and only 2 cars out of the 6).

Finch wrote:I am honestly doubtful that the removal of seats would trigger much of a safety review in terms of crash performance. There is great focus on the crash performance of the vehicle as a whole. Interior modifications will not significantly affect that, either by weight reduction or otherwise.

Not so. The interior passenger compartment of any vehicle is of prime consideration. How do you suppose American safety standards would address the removal of seats from automobiles or buses ?

Finch wrote:So you bring up a very good question: What, if any, are the applicable standards for the interior layout of a car with regard to passenger safety in a crash? If one exists, it's a fair bet that the Big Red cars were vetted by it. Safety-related things DO NOT usually slip through the cracks when a car is designed new, or modified significantly.

Umm, I'm not so sure. Was the same complex and highly technically engineered analysis focused on passenger safety inside these cars post-prototype and pre-delivery the same as it was after, following a change such as this of their originally seated configuration ?

Finch wrote:(BTW...I thought the Big Red cars were designed and delivered new with the rest of the fleet. Was it actually a modification after the fact?)

The Big Reds were born fourteen years after delivery to the T as the cars were manufactured in 1993-4.

I'm asking a question here, not making a statement of condition. It may very well be that the T did all of this stuff. I'm just not aware of it and would hate to see Red Line passengers suffer as a result of unsafe modification.

We really are asking the same questions here. I was too vague in my use of the term "crash performance," by which I was referring to buff loads, telescoping, and the like. The integrity of the vehicle's structure, essentially. These factors were mentioned in previous posts, which seemed only semi-relevant. I was hoping to direct the discussion towards something I know little about: The guidelines regarding interior passenger amenities and how they affect safety during a crash. And yes, I am expressing some optimism that due diligence occurred in this instance. Call me naive.

It's interesting regarding safety perception by members of the general public as regards to the seat issue. Think about the first thing that comes to mind if the T were to do this with a few buses. "Unsafe" immediately comes to mind, as there is the correct perception that motor vehicles are more likely to be involved in a collision than are railway vehicles. Having said that, there's a pair of cars that I'd like to show you in Cabot Yard. They're wrecked. So, we can see that it happens there too.

I'm a proponent of the cattle cars. I think that they could provide a real purpose even un-tested. That purpose being the dispersion and station removal of large crowds leaving sports and entertainment events. My feeling is that there is greater risk in a stabbing or someone getting nudged into the pit than there is of being involved in a train collision. But having said that, I'm still wondering for everyday rush-hour use, if these cars have been evaluated properly for safety compliance. Cmon ! In this railway brainfest, somebody's got to know the answer !

Finch wrote:What, if any, are the applicable standards for the interior layout of a car with regard to passenger safety in a crash? If one exists, it's a fair bet that the Big Red cars were vetted by it. Safety-related things DO NOT usually slip through the cracks when a car is designed new, or modified significantly.

3rdrail wrote:I'm a proponent of the cattle cars. I think that they could provide a real purpose even un-tested. That purpose being the dispersion and station removal of large crowds leaving sports and entertainment events. My feeling is that there is greater risk in a stabbing or someone getting nudged into the pit than there is of being involved in a train collision. But having said that, I'm still wondering for everyday rush-hour use, if these cars have been evaluated properly for safety compliance. Cmon ! In this railway brainfest, somebody's got to know the answer !

Speaking of, has anyone submitted a formal query about this to the MBTA? If not, I will bring it up during the public comment period at the next MBTA ROC meeting to see if they'll entertain the question. Mr. McAuliffe and the other MBTA officials who attend are always up for digging up this information, especially if it's safety related. Otherwise, I'll wait for the February meeting when Mr. Davey will be there; he'd likely enthusiastically pull me aside after the meeting and forward me to the right department - it's worked for getting answers to things so far. Whether it's the appropriate information query process is an entirely different subject, but technically they're supposed to release all of that data publicly anyway.

3rdrail wrote:(although I prefer calling you Yoda, if that's ok.)

I don't mind Yoda, though maybe I'd prefer Scott, LaForge, Data, or Spock

digitalsciguy wrote: has anyone submitted a formal query about this to the MBTA?

I don't mind Yoda

Not I, Yoda ! My days of formal queries are on hold presently. Keep us informed. May the force be with you !