by BostonUrbEx
They could always go with those "egg shell" ones and toughen up the design of the cab ends to a Type 7 look. I agree the look would be more fitting, but have to worry more about function here...
Railroad Forums
Moderators: sery2831, CRail
FP10 wrote:I was just browsing on Kinki's revamped site and drooling over their offerings.Kinkisharyo's LFX-300 model looks like it would be perfect for the Green Line, except that it would need a third door in the rear section. It's not too long to fit in the tunnels at 65 feet long per three-section unit.
http://www.kinkisharyo-usa.com/
Their newest LRVs bost some great things, like bike racks, fold-up seats in the handicap spaces, and couplers covered by an energy-absorbing bumper (sounds great for all the collisions we've been having lately)
They look pretty good too (and even come in green!):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kinkisharyo
Imagine that car with a tapered front end and split windshield... mmm. Their Seatle cars aren't bad looking either, but holy crap the San Jose cars are godaweful.
With the success of the type 7s compared to the series before and after them I really hope Kinki will come with an acceptable bid.
I say 'slim' because the interior has 2-abreast seating on either side of the aisle and I think you have to go to a 2-1 (as opposed to 2-2) arrangement to be narrow enough to go through the Boylston curve.The Citadis trams used by LUAS are 2.4m wide, which works out to 94 inches. Type 7s and 8s are 104 inches wide. No problem there. I believe the 2-1 seating of a Type 7 is to provide for more standee room. You can do 2-2, but the aisles would be too narrow for the number of standees typically encountered on the Green Line.
jamesinclair wrote: A final example comes from other american subway systems. How did Washington DC metro work to attract car dependent commuters when they opened in the 1970s? IMAGE. Carpets. Cushioned seats. Forward facing seats.I'm not sure what you mean about forward facing seats. Half the transverse seats on a WMATA subway car face forward, the other half face backward, just like any other double ended cars I've seen with transverse seats.
jamesinclair wrote:The little interior things is what the MBTA sucks at providing, and hopefully, the type 9s have more thought put into them.What are 'demand doors'? Do you mean doors that the operator unlocks remotely and the passenger opens? I've noticed a trend, new LRV's and buses seem to have the operator open the doors, even if the line used to have a passenger control. For example NJT Riverline has a 'press green button to open door', but the doors seem to open regardless of if you press the button or not.
...
-Demand doors
jamesinclair wrote: -Buttons for stops instead of tapeWhat's the advantage of buttons instead of tape? I think tape gives a lot more places where a passenger can engage the stop request signal than a button. Tape seems to be an improvement over the old pull cords, at least I can remember a lot of broken cords, or the mechanism that the cords pulled, in my childhood.
djlong wrote:Then I stand corrected. I saw them take a tight 90-degree turn on a pretty narrow Dublin street and was wishing (like I did on the Eurostar a couple weeks ago) "why can't WE have that?"I was having the same feeling last week in Melbourne riding the Combino trams on several routes there - I never did manage to catch one of the Citadis, though. I wonder if the T's desire to not have to modify the shops to handle the much longer cars shapes the design here.
The train was a 5-segment-long car. Full walk-through or all the articulated segments. I'm showing my geekiness but it was fascinating to be inside (we got on at Heuston and eventually off at Connolly) and watch this thing take the curves. No more of that wasted space of (in the example of a 3-car train in Boston) 6 operator cabs and 2 gaps between cars. Heck, the seats were covered in fabric as well.
I repeat - why can't WE have this?
octr202 wrote: I was having the same feeling last week in Melbourne riding the Combino trams on several routes there - I never did manage to catch one of the Citadis, though. I wonder if the T's desire to not have to modify the shops to handle the much longer cars shapes the design here....as opposed to having to know how to maintain severl different types of LRVs. And if they don't have shops that can handle 3 LRVs in a row, they must be some pretty small shops (I only ever saw the insides of the Watertown barn)
djlong wrote:Remember, the shops were servicing Boeings, Type 7s, and Type 8s at one point! It's not impossible, although if the new cars are longer, then they may need new equipment to lift the cars or to even jack them up.octr202 wrote: I was having the same feeling last week in Melbourne riding the Combino trams on several routes there - I never did manage to catch one of the Citadis, though. I wonder if the T's desire to not have to modify the shops to handle the much longer cars shapes the design here....as opposed to having to know how to maintain severl different types of LRVs. And if they don't have shops that can handle 3 LRVs in a row, they must be some pretty small shops (I only ever saw the insides of the Watertown barn)
Seems to me there's plenty of space at Riverside, less so at Reservoir and they're still planning what to do on the north side.