Green Line Type 9 Thread

[diburning]

Why won't they allow ramps? Is it because a wheelchair could roll down the ramp and smash into the stairs/next section (if for example, the wheelchair was in the center section and the train started moving before the wheelchair was secured)

How about a high-floor car like the Type 7s, but have a wheelchair lift built into the stairs like with the old RTS buses? Or does the ADA not approve of that either?

[sery2831]

ADA requires full access to all new vehicles. That is why everything is low floor these days. Naturally it cannot be 100% accessible, but as much as possible has to be. Restricting ADA passengers to a certain area of a vehicle is really discouraged, and these laws are in place for people that have walking(any type really) disabilities too.

[Arborway]

...and these laws are in place for people that have walking(any type really) disabilities too.

Thanks for pointing this out. Most people (and as I've found, many on the other forums here) think "ADA" and equate that with wheelchair access. The number of people with mobility impairments absolutely HUGE, and growing exponentially as the population ages. Not all of them need wheelchairs, but a LOT find boarding / alighting something like a Type 7 / RTS to be an impossible hurdle.

Simple things like functioning ASA and door chimes help a lot with visual impairments, and they're not hard to implement.

[diburning]

I use the wheelchairs as an example because anything that would work for a wheelchair would work for most (f not all) other people.

If the type 9s had a high floor like the type 7s but had an RTS style lift built into the stairs, wouldn't the disabled passenger have access to the whole car then?

Besides making all the platforms high level, I don't see a way to make it work.

[Arborway]

If the type 9s had a high floor like the type 7s but had an RTS style lift built into the stairs, wouldn't the disabled passenger have access to the whole car then?

Lifts never really worked out that well. They're unreliable at best, and when they do work it's an ordeal to use them. Before low-floor vehicles had ever reached the prototype stage, it was believed that lifts could allow for easy access and solve the accessibility problem. This was quickly proven false in places like NYC where it turned out to be a lot of trouble for everyone involved. (in that case it was the bus fleet)

Neither the T nor a disabled passenger are really interested in destroying headways each and every time someone with a mobility impairment wants to get on or off a train. The ADA doesn't really look too kindly on "solutions" that aren't really solutions. If you're making it difficult for the impaired and the non-impaired alike to get from point A to point B by complying with the ADA, then you're not satisfying the ADA.

I'd love to see a 100% high-floor train that is magically accessible to everyone, but that's not going to happen on the Green Line. So we're going to see something that fits the mission profile AND the esoteric geometry of the line. And there are sadly only so many ways you can do that. Believe me, I'm NOT a fan of the middle section on the Bredas...

[Arborway]

From our friends at Kinki comes further evidence of the fact there are really only so many ways you can fulfill a mission requirement.

[jamesinclair]

I still dont understand why trains and even buses abroad can be low floor the entire length of the vehicle*, but that's impossible in america. Does this country require bigger axles? Is american engineering not capable of design a 100% low floor unit that can work on american rail systems?

*With raised seats over the tires of course.

[sery2831]

I use the wheelchairs as an example because anything that would work for a wheelchair would work for most (f not all) other people.

If the type 9s had a high floor like the type 7s but had an RTS style lift built into the stairs, wouldn't the disabled passenger have access to the whole car then?

Besides making all the platforms high level, I don't see a way to make it work.

There is an unobstructed rule and lift is an obstruction. It has to be barrier free access for all.

As for an all low floor vehicle, I think the US tough crash worthiness laws prevents that from happening. I would like to see some of those looked at, since the technology has changed so much since those laws and standards were put in place.

[madcrow]

I still dont understand why trains and even buses abroad can be low floor the entire length of the vehicle*, but that's impossible in america. Does this country require bigger axles? Is american engineering not capable of design a 100% low floor unit that can work on american rail systems?

*With raised seats over the tires of course.

Vehicle design (from jumbo jets right on down to motorcycles) is one of the few things that's actually MORE regulated in the US than in Western europe. Just as FRA regulations have really served to keep mainline railroading in the past compared to Europe and Japan, other federal regulations mean that things that are common in light rail systems elsewhere in the world are illegal in the US.

[typesix]

Even agencies that have 100% low floor cars continue to buy 70% low floor cars because they're less expensive and more dependable according to this report:

http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr38/f30_hat.html

[jamesinclair]

Even agencies that have 100% low floor cars continue to buy 70% low floor cars because they're less expensive and more dependable according to this report:

http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr38/f30_hat.html

"Different models of 100% LF-LRVs have been developed as prototypes and some are being used in transit systems. Each model has technical advantages and disadvantages. Two obvious problems are difficult maintenance of the complex mechanical systems as well as the high cost per unit because there are no economies of mass production yet."

Is this what you're referring to? If it is, then that's a barrier that will lower as more agencies adopt 100% low floor models.

As for the american regulation...what makes a 100% low floor vehicle more dangerous than a 70% low floor? It seems like the use of steps would lead to more dangerous conditions for passengers.

Either way, if the MBTA cannot get 100% low floor vehicles for whatever reason, be it legal or cost, they SHOULD go for models with only one step inside, as these are in US in america, so clearly they're legal.

[diburning]

But I thought the major problem with the Type 8s was the center truck. If that issue isn't addressed in the type 9s, then what's the point of ordering the type 9s?

[sery2831]

Well the design was clearly flawed, but a lot has been learned why it didn't work. Engineers will go from there and make sure that issue isn't repeated. That is being very optimistic

[RailBus63]

Two thoughts:

1. The last thing the MBTA needs is to go ‘back to the drawing board’ and try an entirely new design. The Type 7 has been a tremendous success precisely because the MBTA engineers in the 1980’s had so much experience debugging the Boeing LRV’s. They also prioritized function over form. I personally would advocate going with a basic design that is crashworthy and also easier and cheaper to repair when T operators eventually crash Type 9’s into other trains.

2. Every effort should be made to steer this contract to Kinki Sharyo. The MBTA’s needs for the Green Line are unique – these are a heavy-duty car as streetcars go and this prohibits the Authority from buying an off-the-shelf design. Kinki already has experience in designing and building light-rail cars for the MBTA, and they have experience in general building low-floor cars for NJ Transit and others. It’s all fine and good that Bombardier is building a big order for Toronto, but they would still be starting from scratch in designing a Boston car – to my knowledge, none of their current designs would work. The bottom line is, the T simply cannot risk another Breda-type fiasco.

[diburning]

The problem is that MBTA buys cars from companies with no experience. Before the MBTA orders, Boeing didn't make light rail vehicles, Breda didn't make light rail vehicles (only subway cars) and Siemens didn't make heavy rail vehicles (only modern LRVs). Siemens turned out ok, but I hope they've learned by now.... If not, we'll probably have the type 9s made by Hyundai or something.

The Type 7s worked out because they were based on the boeing, but they did use the Type 6's PCC style ends with PCC style controls (foot pedals) and because they were built by Kinki who had experience with light rail.

Bombardier is a great manufacturer. Those 01800s are near 20 years of service. However, Bombardier hasn't built any light rail vehicles so I wouldn't go with them.

I guess it all comes down to the bidding process and whether the MBTA rejects Breda's bid (they probably will as they rejected Breda's bid for the 0700s)