Railroad Forums 

  • Green Line Type 9 Thread

  • Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.
Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: sery2831, CRail

 #872500  by SM89
 
MBTA3247 wrote:AFAIK the noise is a "feature" of Adtranz propulsion equipment. The R142As in New York have almost identical equipment (Bombardier model 1508C vs the Type 8s' Adtranz model 1507D; Bombardier acquired Adtranz in 2001) and they sound very similar to the Type 8s.
It's obnoxious. I hope the new cars are nothing like the Type 8s. I'm still wondering how they plan to repaint them in the darker green and white in a few years when its their time. I can't imagine it looking as nice as the Type 7s.
 #872556  by CRail
 
Anything new is going to have AC propultion, and therefore require an inverter (which makes that whiney sound). Future technologies may produce a different or more quiet sound. The 01800s on the red line also have this but it's not nearly as annoying, so a different souding inverter is certainly possible.
 #872783  by diburning
 
The 0700s are barely noticeable. NIMBY's are already against living near transit lines due to flange squeal. If they had any intelligence whatsoever, the type 9s should be as quiet as the 0700s so that they're not developing NIMBYs who will be against any future line expansions.
 #889060  by 3rdrail
 
The Boston Globe published a legal notice from the MBTA today (1-11-2011) soliciting proposals for 24 Type 9 light rail vehicles. Hopefully, a good product will result.

Image
 #889061  by type 7 3704
 
There was something about the MBTA putting out a contract for 24 or so Type 9s in today's Globe (1/11/11). It was under that area where the government contracts usually get posted. I don't usually read the Globe and it wasn't my copy, so no scans.

EDIT: Crud, my timing sucked. See above post.
Last edited by type 7 3704 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #889071  by CRail
 
Interesting timing above...

Anywho, why only 24 vehicles? Obviously these cars won't be replacing any as the oldest of the 7's are only at mid-life at this point, but still I'd think with the Somerville extension and included Union Square service they're only going to need 24 more vehicles? I guess if all 3 trackless routes are covered by 28 coaches then 24 vehicles should be able to handle a single additional branch with a short spur, but it still seams like a pretty small order, especially for a TA which refuses to buy off the shelf.
 #889088  by danib62
 
Is there even such a thing as an off the shelf LRV these days?
 #889096  by 3rdrail
 
Is there even such a thing as an LRV these days ?
 #889101  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
CRail wrote:Interesting timing above...

Anywho, why only 24 vehicles? Obviously these cars won't be replacing any as the oldest of the 7's are only at mid-life at this point, but still I'd think with the Somerville extension and included Union Square service they're only going to need 24 more vehicles? I guess if all 3 trackless routes are covered by 28 coaches then 24 vehicles should be able to handle a single additional branch with a short spur, but it still seams like a pretty small order, especially for a TA which refuses to buy off the shelf.
Not really. It's larger than the 3700 order, which was only 20 vehicles. They have a pretty large existing fleet, and could easily serve the extensions with what they have were they to continue doing 2-car consists. But they want to do 3-car on most lines...and in fact have wanted to do so ever since the initial Boeing order. But car shortages from the Boeings' unreliability, and the need to scrap so many of them and rebuild the others before their time, kept that shortage going until the mid-90's. And then the Type 8 saga kept it going another 10 years. Now they're finally at a stable-enough number to do what they've intended all along; only the interminably delayed platform construction projects downtown have held them back. That's what the relatively comfy number of spare cars is allotted for. Had circumstances allowed them to run more triplets more regularly to-date the need for 24 new cars on the extensions would probably be more obvious.

Also, these runs are going to be extensions of the westbound lines, so aside from maybe some supplemental Gov't Ctr. short-turns from Medford at rush hour or during Garden events all of your Union Sq. runs are going to be E's and all of your Medford runs are going to be D's and possibly run-as-directed extensions of the other lines. Union's only 1 additional stop for the E, and the E is the one line whose traffic didn't merit going to all 3-car consists so you're maybe talking 2 extra 2-car consists needed there. That then leaves +6 3-car trains for Medford fitted into the existing D schedule or for run-as-directeds. Keep in mind that the 3-car setup is also intended to reduce bunching and dwell time on the B by spreading equal seating capacity out on slightly longer headways so the line blows fewer schedules than it does with 2-car trains. That's where the slots for tighter D headways and additional D runs are coming from: slightly reduced B runs (this has been tried with triplets before, and it does indeed work better that way). It's probably not possible to fit +6 D runs any other way without some load trade-off on the other lines because of how choked things are from Kenmore to Park (mixing GC-turning cars with NS/Union/Medford cars will be easier, though, when the the new inner-track crossover is built at Park). That shifting of runs makes it so that there's somewhat fewer total additional consists running at peak hours than the total number of runs to Medford would indicate. It's an increase, but it's not anywhere near a +24-car/+8-triplet piling on to every single rush hour run on today's schedule. Majority 3-car vs. 2-car consists and which lines get extended to which termini changes the calculus a bit.
 #889111  by CRail
 
I'll admit the need for a larger new fleet probably doesn't exist, but it's still a notably small order, unless they plan to tack on an additional option clause to the contract, which wouldn't be unprecedented (type 7's, NewFlyers, 700 series Kawasaki's, No. 2 Red Line cars [kind of], etc.). The Type 7 order was for 50 cars originally, and was also a tack on to a prior, much larger order. So that order isn't really comparable to this one. I could see if they were to order 24 more (improved) Type 8's, or a small order of a car model already in production, but with Boston a "Type" usually means a reinvention of the wheel, which I don't think is really worth it for such a small fleet. That's just my 2 cents, naturally we'll see how things play out.
 #889137  by 3rdrail
 
I don't think that you're going to see large orders of first generation "Types" as the State is gun shy now after some previously ill-advised orders.(Not mentioning any names, but the King required a Federal "pardon" and the Queen had an Italian accent.) If anything, they'll buy in multiple groups without commitment or with a "junkola escape clause" (that's the technical term) in a contract.Their barn capacity is limited also, particularly now with the longer cars.
 #889149  by CircusFreakGRITZ
 
3rdrail wrote:The Boston Globe published a legal notice from the MBTA today (1-11-2011) soliciting proposals for 24 Type 9 light rail vehicles. Hopefully, a good product will result.
Thanks for uploading the scan. Very exciting. Here's to hoping they actually exercise their right to reject a proposal if needed! ;) Although, I also feel like it's weird they aren't ordering more type 8's. Are they crap? Yes. Would it be easier and probably cheaper to order them though? Yes.
 #889190  by Arborway
 
danib62 wrote:Is there even such a thing as an off the shelf LRV these days?
For cities without esoteric requirements like the ability to navigate the Boylston curve, yes. Every city has their own custom specs, but it's not some massive re-engineering job.
CircusFreakGRITZ wrote: Thanks for uploading the scan. Very exciting. Here's to hoping they actually exercise their right to reject a proposal if needed! ;) Although, I also feel like it's weird they aren't ordering more type 8's. Are they crap? Yes. Would it be easier and probably cheaper to order them though? Yes.
The Breda cars are a mess, and I'm not sure how optimistic anyone is about their ability to last for decades to come. The Type 8 production line is gone, the final assembly facility in the U.S. has been gutted, and another order would force them to rebuild the entire construction / testing infrastructure from scratch. And we'd still be stuck with Type 8s.
 #889198  by ns3010
 
Let's just hope that the T has been watching SEPTA's Silverliner V debacle and will be wise enough to not choose Hyundai-Rotem as the builder.

Hopefully the new Bi-Level order will go much more smoothly than the Silverliners...
 #889290  by 3rdrail
 
I'd love to see them go with Siemens. San Diego has three models and is purchasing new third model ones. You can't kill them. Go to the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Trolley
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 51