Type 7 Overhaul Program

FP10 wrote:

houseman86 wrote:this might already been asked but what is the estimated extension of the life of the type 7's

I assume the 7s will replace the PCCs on the Mattapan line, and will also have a bunch converted to work cars, when their time comes.

Type 7s will never operate on the Mattapan Line due to ADA laws. Anything that replaces them has to be 100% accessible. It is possible Type 8s will operate there, but will they be able to be maintained at an outdoor service facility? ADA laws are the only reason the PCCs have survived. It's not because the T is interested in a historical fleet!

It's a shame the Type 9s will not be able to run with Type 7s, this would extend the life of the cars beyond the Type 8s for sure!

FP10 wrote:

houseman86 wrote:this might already been asked but what is the estimated extension of the life of the type 7's

I assume the 7s will replace the PCCs on the Mattapan line.

Where do you get this impression?

sery2831 wrote:

FP10 wrote:

houseman86 wrote:this might already been asked but what is the estimated extension of the life of the type 7's

I assume the 7s will replace the PCCs on the Mattapan line, and will also have a bunch converted to work cars, when their time comes.

Type 7s will never operate on the Mattapan Line due to ADA laws. Anything that replaces them has to be 100% accessible. It is possible Type 8s will operate there, but will they be able to be maintained at an outdoor service facility? ADA laws are the only reason the PCCs have survived. It's not because the T is interested in a historical fleet!

It's a shame the Type 9s will not be able to run with Type 7s, this would extend the life of the cars beyond the Type 8s for sure!

Why not? Every station except Valley Rd. with its hillside stairs got high-boarding compatible mini-highs during the Ashmont renovation line shutdown. It's completely ADA-compliant right this second for the PCC's, ADA compliant right this second for front doors on any vehicle that gets run down there. The rear doors don't open at outdoor stations anywhere on MBTA light rail for fare collection, so if all-door ADA was any sort of factor they wouldn't be allowed to do that practice without an exemption.

It's got to be some really B.S. hangup in the regs preventing some 7's from ever being assigned to the High Speed Line if they already bent over backwards to install full compliance compatible with the historic equipment. I would have to think they've got a strong case to argue that they're completely fine with the pre-existing LRT fleet...seeing as how they're completely fine down there with the pre-existing LRT fleet. It's not like the PCC's are under any sort of heritage operation exemption since their service time has been unbroken down there for 60+ years. It's considered to be as generically modern an operation as any GL branch.

I thought the PCCs survived on the High Speed Line because they are light enough for the bridges, draw little enough current for the existing wiring, hold few enough people to maintain reasonable frequencies without too many empty seats, and were so well built that they were worth rehabbing. I think I've seen all those reasons elsewhere on this board.

Arborwayfan wrote:I thought the PCCs survived on the High Speed Line because they are light enough for the bridges, draw little enough current for the existing wiring, hold few enough people to maintain reasonable frequencies without too many empty seats, and were so well built that they were worth rehabbing. I think I've seen all those reasons elsewhere on this board.

The bridges are a moot point now that the Ashmont viaduct was rebuilt. That was the big limiter because the old one was in such deplorable shape. I believe all the small bridges were taken care of a long time ago. The electric draw is tethered to the Red Line, but there's a programmed substation upgrade in the FY16-19 budget for upgrading the draw on the Ashmont branch in anticipation of the new Red cars, and the line item in the T's cap improvements document also officially states it as a future-proofing maneuver for the electric draw of LRV's on the High Speed Line.

So both of those former/current limitations will be evaporating before the Type 9's ever arrive. And certainly by the time the new Red cars arrive (even if they're still fishing for substation funding, they kind of have a firm deadline for when that must be done). While any fleet reassignments would still be a way's away after that...and require some track work + rail grinding since LRV's are more finicky about bad track, changeover of the catenary to pantograph clips, and an obvious reconfig of Mattapan maint shed (the too-tight loop can just be outright retired for changing ends), the line will otherwise be infrastructure-ready for initiating a conversion. They have not left themselves in any sort of lurch for that when the PCC's finally have to go.

When the Boeing LRVs were going, there was discussion of sending some of the latest survivors to Mattapan. It was the bridge restrictions that killed that idea. Also, at that time, was the proposal to pave it and make it a SUPER BUS!!!, which enough people apparently saw right through and killed (thank God!). So it was the bridge restrictions that killed the idea of articulated cars on the M/A line, but it's entirely possible that it was politically motivated BS.

Also, it is in the specs for the Type 9 that they must be compatible with both Type 7s and Type 8s.

NeTransit wrote:The proposed car must be mechanically compatible with the Type 7 and the Type 8.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

sery2831 wrote:

FP10 wrote:

houseman86 wrote:this might already been asked but what is the estimated extension of the life of the type 7's

I assume the 7s will replace the PCCs on the Mattapan line, and will also have a bunch converted to work cars, when their time comes.

Type 7s will never operate on the Mattapan Line due to ADA laws. Anything that replaces them has to be 100% accessible. It is possible Type 8s will operate there, but will they be able to be maintained at an outdoor service facility? ADA laws are the only reason the PCCs have survived. It's not because the T is interested in a historical fleet!

It's a shame the Type 9s will not be able to run with Type 7s, this would extend the life of the cars beyond the Type 8s for sure!

Why not? Every station except Valley Rd. with its hillside stairs got high-boarding compatible mini-highs during the Ashmont renovation line shutdown. It's completely ADA-compliant right this second for the PCC's, ADA compliant right this second for front doors on any vehicle that gets run down there. The rear doors don't open at outdoor stations anywhere on MBTA light rail for fare collection, so if all-door ADA was any sort of factor they wouldn't be allowed to do that practice without an exemption.

It's got to be some really B.S. hangup in the regs preventing some 7's from ever being assigned to the High Speed Line if they already bent over backwards to install full compliance compatible with the historic equipment. I would have to think they've got a strong case to argue that they're completely fine with the pre-existing LRT fleet...seeing as how they're completely fine down there with the pre-existing LRT fleet. It's not like the PCC's are under any sort of heritage operation exemption since their service time has been unbroken down there for 60+ years. It's considered to be as generically modern an operation as any GL branch.

Making vehicles ADA and having 100% ADA vehicles are two different things. We wouldn't have Type 8s if the mini high level boarding set ups for the Type 7s were sufficient. Anything that replaces the PCCs WILL have to be 100% accessible not just assessable. Remember single Type 7s or double Type 7s are NEVER supposed to happen...

Single 7's or 7-7's on Green means it's not level with any platform, except for those couple outliers like BU Central that still have mini-highs. On Mattapan it doesn't matter because all Mattapan stops except exempt Valley have the mini-highs level with the high floor of the car with the bridge plates the operator can flip without needing to exit the car. "Vehicular ADA" means two completely different things Green vs. Mattapan.

CRail wrote:Also, it is in the specs for the Type 9 that they must be compatible with both Type 7s and Type 8s.

NeTransit wrote:The proposed car must be mechanically compatible with the Type 7 and the Type 8.

This has been clarified to me, it only means that they must be able to couple to tow or be towed. They will not trainline according to spec.

sery2831 wrote:

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

sery2831 wrote:

FP10 wrote:

houseman86 wrote:this might already been asked but what is the estimated extension of the life of the type 7's

I assume the 7s will replace the PCCs on the Mattapan line, and will also have a bunch converted to work cars, when their time comes.

Type 7s will never operate on the Mattapan Line due to ADA laws. Anything that replaces them has to be 100% accessible. It is possible Type 8s will operate there, but will they be able to be maintained at an outdoor service facility? ADA laws are the only reason the PCCs have survived. It's not because the T is interested in a historical fleet!

It's a shame the Type 9s will not be able to run with Type 7s, this would extend the life of the cars beyond the Type 8s for sure!

Why not? Every station except Valley Rd. with its hillside stairs got high-boarding compatible mini-highs during the Ashmont renovation line shutdown. It's completely ADA-compliant right this second for the PCC's, ADA compliant right this second for front doors on any vehicle that gets run down there. The rear doors don't open at outdoor stations anywhere on MBTA light rail for fare collection, so if all-door ADA was any sort of factor they wouldn't be allowed to do that practice without an exemption.

It's got to be some really B.S. hangup in the regs preventing some 7's from ever being assigned to the High Speed Line if they already bent over backwards to install full compliance compatible with the historic equipment. I would have to think they've got a strong case to argue that they're completely fine with the pre-existing LRT fleet...seeing as how they're completely fine down there with the pre-existing LRT fleet. It's not like the PCC's are under any sort of heritage operation exemption since their service time has been unbroken down there for 60+ years. It's considered to be as generically modern an operation as any GL branch.

Making vehicles ADA and having 100% ADA vehicles are two different things. We wouldn't have Type 8s if the mini high level boarding set ups for the Type 7s were sufficient. Anything that replaces the PCCs WILL have to be 100% accessible not just assessable. Remember single Type 7s or double Type 7s are NEVER supposed to happen...

If you were replacing the PCCs with completely new cars you would be right. But as the Type 7s are existing cars which are no more non-accessible than the PCCs (and fully compatible with the existing mini-highs on the Mattapan Line), I don't think the ADA would prevent the T from transferring a few 7s over to Mattapan.

sery2831 wrote:

FP10 wrote:

houseman86 wrote:this might already been asked but what is the estimated extension of the life of the type 7's

I assume the 7s will replace the PCCs on the Mattapan line, and will also have a bunch converted to work cars, when their time comes.

Type 7s will never operate on the Mattapan Line due to ADA laws. Anything that replaces them has to be 100% accessible. It is possible Type 8s will operate there, but will they be able to be maintained at an outdoor service facility? ADA laws are the only reason the PCCs have survived. It's not because the T is interested in a historical fleet!

It's a shame the Type 9s will not be able to run with Type 7s, this would extend the life of the cars beyond the Type 8s for sure!

At that rate, it would make sense for the T to try and squeeze another decade or so out of the PCC's until the type 10 order goes through.

At that point, with the Type 10 order, it would make sense for the T to finally replace the entire LRV fleet with something with a much more modern form factor (e.g. longer trolleys, 100% low floor, regio citadis-style, faster trainsets for the D and the GLX, etc) and scrap both the Type 7s AND the 8s at the same time.

This would allow them to ditch the current form factor for something that can actually handle the current and projected ridership numbers for the GL in the next few decades, while finally making the signal and track upgrades to handle the new service density.

At that point, the Type 9's could be sent to Mattapan, or wherever else there might be a need for LRV service 15+ years from now.

Bramdeisroberts wrote:

sery2831 wrote:

FP10 wrote:

houseman86 wrote:this might already been asked but what is the estimated extension of the life of the type 7's

I assume the 7s will replace the PCCs on the Mattapan line, and will also have a bunch converted to work cars, when their time comes.

Type 7s will never operate on the Mattapan Line due to ADA laws. Anything that replaces them has to be 100% accessible. It is possible Type 8s will operate there, but will they be able to be maintained at an outdoor service facility? ADA laws are the only reason the PCCs have survived. It's not because the T is interested in a historical fleet!

It's a shame the Type 9s will not be able to run with Type 7s, this would extend the life of the cars beyond the Type 8s for sure!

At that rate, it would make sense for the T to try and squeeze another decade or so out of the PCC's until the type 10 order goes through.

At that point, with the Type 10 order, it would make sense for the T to finally replace the entire LRV fleet with something with a much more modern form factor (e.g. longer trolleys, 100% low floor, regio citadis-style, faster trainsets for the D and the GLX, etc) and scrap both the Type 7s AND the 8s at the same time.

This would allow them to ditch the current form factor for something that can actually handle the current and projected ridership numbers for the GL in the next few decades, while finally making the signal and track upgrades to handle the new service density.

At that point, the Type 9's could be sent to Mattapan, or wherever else there might be a need for LRV service 15+ years from now.

Type 7 cars could theoretically operate on the Mattapan - Ashmont line, since the wayside equipment used with the PCC cars would work with them also. The major issue is that the 7s, 8s and 9s all exceed the weight limit on the bridges over the Neponset - which once were rated for steam engines.

Increasing the capacity of the subway requires changing the operating pattern to turn everything from the west at Park St. and routing most service from the northwest into southerly routes such as City Point, Tremont St. and Dudley via Dover and Washington. (Making F-Line happy!) Nothing should cross from the inner tracks to the outer tracks. By eliminating the present overload on the tracks between Park and Government and limiting Government Loop to emergencies only, we keep service moving. If a way could be found to use Brattle Loop to terminate some service from the North, without using the outer tracks, this would increase the capacity further.

I rode 3615 home yesterday. Some observations on the interior side:

-The entire interior is now a darker beige than the original off-white the Type 7s originally had. The interior plastic panels seem to have been replaced with new beige ones with a much different texture than the off-white original ones, while the seats were painted with beige paint (there were bits of sand embedded in the paint).
-The Kinki Sharyo plate at the ends of the trains were replaced by an "Overhauled by Alstom" plate. -The train has new LED lighting, which is much brighter and cooler than the original fluorescent lights.
-The green light at the front was replaced with a plain white one.
-The old red LED grid in the steps were replaced with a single larger red LED, which changes to white when the doors are open.
-The doors now have a door closing alarm, though it's a set of beeps, rather than the chimes on the 3700s. The door closing light is orange.
-All interior stickers were replaced with new ones that kept the original wording, but changed the mishmash of fonts originally to all Helvetica. -The train had a rather strong "new train" smell.
-The interior cutout, where the rollsigns used to show the destination, and which just showed the back side of the LCD boxes when the 3600s were modified, has been patched over. Now there's a Green Line map there.
-The seats are numbered now for some reason:


The train rebooted at least twice during the trip between Hynes and Newton Highlands.

I hope that Green Line Map still has the stickers over the deleted B Line stops!

type 7 3704 wrote:I rode 3615 home yesterday. Some observations on the interior side:

-The Kinki Sharyo plate at the ends of the trains were replaced by an "Overhauled by Alstom" plate.

I'd say only about 10-20% of the pre-overhauled cars had Kinki Sharyo plates. Most are missing.