Red-Blue Connector

cpontani wrote:I still don't understand the issue with the loop. They run the 1 train through the South Ferry loop with passengers aboard. And how are passengers going to get from one car to the next (or fall onto the tracks) when the doors between cars are locked???

The point is in an emergency the cars in the middle cannot be evacuated. This loop is very small and sharp.

How is this any different than say the sharp curve approaching Harvard? Or any of the sharp Green Line curves, IIRC around Prudential, the merve into the central subway, Boylston? Oh, the Bowdoin loop is single tracked. So is the E train under Mass Ave. And how do you get out of Porter in case of emergency??? You're single tracked, and 100 feet underground.

I still don't think the Red/Blue connection is entirely justified. The entire system hinges on transfers downtown, or your only other option is the somewhat serviceable Crosstown bus routes. Or you can get off at Bowdoin and walk to Charles/MGH, as it will take you the same time as transferring to the Orange or Green Line. The drawback is the six months known as New England winter. But if you're going to punch the Blue Line down Charles Street to a subterranean station connecting with the Charles/MGH headhouse, then you mind as well tunnel under the Charles and continue it on as the never built inner loop.

cpontani wrote:How is this any different than say the sharp curve approaching Harvard? Or any of the sharp Green Line curves, IIRC around Prudential, the merve into the central subway, Boylston? Oh, the Bowdoin loop is single tracked. So is the E train under Mass Ave. And how do you get out of Porter in case of emergency??? You're single tracked, and 100 feet underground.

I still don't think the Red/Blue connection is entirely justified. The entire system hinges on transfers downtown, or your only other option is the somewhat serviceable Crosstown bus routes. Or you can get off at Bowdoin and walk to Charles/MGH, as it will take you the same time as transferring to the Orange or Green Line. The drawback is the six months known as New England winter. But if you're going to punch the Blue Line down Charles Street to a subterranean station connecting with the Charles/MGH headhouse, then you mind as well tunnel under the Charles and continue it on as the never built inner loop.

another reason is that its a free transfer rather than paying twice for walking. the T would love to have everybody pay twice but it just isn't going to happen. what they coulddo is build a foot tunnel from bowdoin to Charles/MGH but then we still have the platform problem.

Well, if it's only 500 feet away from Charles St., why not just leave it as it is and connect it to Charles St. with a people mover? If you've gone from Porter Square commuter rail station down to the Red Line, that's about the same distance away. That way, you could get by with one station rather than two. I think that would be a lot cheaper too.

cpontani wrote:How is this any different than say the sharp curve approaching Harvard? Or any of the sharp Green Line curves, IIRC around Prudential, the merve into the central subway, Boylston? Oh, the Bowdoin loop is single tracked. So is the E train under Mass Ave. And how do you get out of Porter in case of emergency??? You're single tracked, and 100 feet underground.

You can't compare the Green Line to rapid transit cars, they do not have end doors. Those have stairs you can get into the tunnel and away from the train. On the Red Line you can go from one car to the next and out the front or rear door into the tunnel. That curve at Harvard isn't sharp enough to prevent one from going to another car in an emergency.

The last time I went around the loop with an inspector (this was nearly 8 years ago, so my memory may be a bit shakey) but, we walked between the middle cars and that gap was large, but it was not impossible to get across at all.

I can understand the whole wheelchair thing, but I'm sure some sort of board at the end of every cab could suffice.

Edit: Although that probably would not meet legal requirements, but if its either that, close the station, or open/close doors, I'd vote for the loop!

sery2831 wrote:

cpontani wrote:How is this any different than say the sharp curve approaching Harvard? Or any of the sharp Green Line curves, IIRC around Prudential, the merve into the central subway, Boylston? Oh, the Bowdoin loop is single tracked. So is the E train under Mass Ave. And how do you get out of Porter in case of emergency??? You're single tracked, and 100 feet underground.

You can't compare the Green Line to rapid transit cars, they do not have end doors. Those have stairs you can get into the tunnel and away from the train. On the Red Line you can go from one car to the next and out the front or rear door into the tunnel. That curve at Harvard isn't sharp enough to prevent one from going to another car in an emergency.

Are there emergency shutoffs in the tunnel for the third rail so that in the event of an emergency evacuation, people don't get electrocuted?? or is the protocol/procedure to shut off the power before evacuating?

diburning wrote: Are there emergency shutoffs in the tunnel for the third rail so that in the event of an emergency evacuation, people don't get electrocuted?? or is the protocol/procedure to shut off the power before evacuating?

It would seem logical for them to shut off power to the section of the line the train is in, if not the whole line.

Perhaps we should ask ROTEM to build new subway cars. They're perfect for accessibility and evacuation.



This is a subway set built by ROTEM for a Hong Kong subway.

That is just...wow.

On thing should be remembered about the Blue Line, it was built in 1904 and the extension to Bowdoin 1912 and completed in 1916. The key is that it was built for trolleys and in the 1904 era that was the 25' Box Car. The curves are tighter than you would find on the rapid transit lines. Someone tells a story about when they tested the first Type 1 Semi-Convertible, at 45' 10" long and 12' tall that it plinked all the lights on the tunnel walls.

So when conversion to rapid transit took place starting in 1921 it didn't do to much for the dimensions henceforth the new #5 East Boston cars are short at 48'. The ROTEM car for the Hong Kong subway look good but the sections would be smaller and the last batch of articulated cars, the Type 8s, leave allot to be desired on tight turns like Bowdoin.

JoeD

trainhq wrote:Well, if it's only 500 feet away from Charles St., why not just leave it as it is and connect it to Charles St. with a people mover?

Um, it's actually more like 2000 feet.

Veristek wrote:Perhaps we should ask ROTEM to build new subway cars. They're perfect for accessibility and evacuation.



This is a subway set built by ROTEM for a Hong Kong subway.

I've been on one of those. Those cars are married. They cannot be decoupled from their train.

How do they install the trainsets, then? Or do maintainence and such?

I think if they added a coupler under these articulated joints and made the articulated joints "snap on / snap off" or something, it'd be perfect for the Blue Line as far as accessibility is concerned.

On a side note, it makes me wonder if ROTEM will make married bi-levels for the MBTA's new order. Now that'd be strange to see! A bi-level set that you can see straight through for like 3, 4, or 5 cars.

I mean, they aren't coupled in the sense that they have a coupler. They can be dismantled at the articulation, but they cannot run without the train put back together.

This it what it looks like on the outisde. It doesn't have individual cars, just articulations for turning curves. It has a coupler on the front and back for pin-hitch rescues in the case they break down.