Railroad Forums 

  • Remembering the Boeings

  • 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

 #1415469  by jrc520
 
3424 is static for the foreseeable future. There isn't enough money or know how to get it running, nor enough interest. It's currently out front.

The Boeings were amazing in their ride quality, especially at speed. I'd sometimes wait for them if I could when using the Riverside line. They tracked well at all speeds, unlike the Kinki's as others have mentioned. The lower speeds have helped with the hunting. I'd have to pay attention to see if the rebuild has done anything to fix that.

One other point I do like about the Boeings - the lines. As delivered, the visual lines were wonderful. The covers over the articulation really gave it a clean look. Didn't make up for the fact that they were mostly junk as delivered, but I'll be damned if they didn't look good.
 #1415497  by MBTA3247
 
jrc520 wrote:3424 is static for the foreseeable future. There isn't enough money or know how to get it running, nor enough interest. It's currently out front.
To be perfectly honest, we don't actually know that it *doesn't* work. To my knowledge it was retired in operating condition, but no one has applied power to it since 2007 or so.
 #1415521  by jrc520
 
My understanding after talking with a few friends up there is that it would need at least some work at this time, as it sat for a while before they got it(it was operational when retired, but being almost a decade ago now, with no one really taking a deep look, there is little desire to power it up.) I'll ask around and see what exactly is wrong with it if it is known.
 #1415535  by NaugyRR
 
jrc520 wrote:...One other point I do like about the Boeings - the lines. As delivered, the visual lines were wonderful. The covers over the articulation really gave it a clean look. Didn't make up for the fact that they were mostly junk as delivered, but I'll be damned if they didn't look good.
Back in my 'dark times' before my interests and knowledge in railroading really took off, I used to assume that the Type 7's were actually older than the Boeings, because of the Kinki's resemblence to PCC's. The Boeings look so sharp and modern because of the visual aspects you described compared to the 7's. I think the original dark green and white paint scheme really complimented their lines as well; I know the Kinkis certainly looked better in it than that silver and teal paint, at least in my opinion.
 #1415616  by jonnhrr
 
NaugyRR wrote:The last time I rode the T was on a Type 7 from Lechmere when the viaduct was still in operation. We stayed at a hotel right on the river where I could look out and see Red Line trains cross the bridge and Green Line trains on the viaduct.
The viaduct is still used and will be for the forseeable future. The North Station project removed the old elevated structure that was in front of the Garden. It now goes into a tunnel just East of Science Park station.

I was away from Boston for a few decades so missed most of the LRV era but did get to ride them in the early 2000's just before they were retired, between Park and North Station.

Jon
 #1415624  by NaugyRR
 
I think I'm due for a nostalgia trip back to Boston to explore the T, especially now that Government Center is reopened (my family would always make a trip to Quincy Market when we were in town). The Boeings may be gone, but I would like to check out the Mattapan PCC's and try to catch a rebuilt Kinki. I wonder if that hotel on the river near Lechmere is still there. I'm sure the Howard Johnsons behind Fenway is loooong gone, haha. One of my favorite memories of the hotel by Fenway was walking around the corner and up the street (stopping to get fresh roasted nuts on game days of course!) towards the Citgo sign with my Dad, and standing on an overpass with what must've been the 'Pike below, watching the purple commuter rail trains alongside the highway. As a child I remember getting a kick out of them being purple, haha.
 #1415630  by rhodiecub2
 
The Boeing trains were the first green line trains I remember using in the early 80s. Then, I used the green line a lot in the late 80s and through the 90s. I especially remember the Boeing trains getting up to 40-50 mph in between Chesnut Hill and Newton Center.
 #1415843  by danib62
 
NaugyRR wrote:I think I'm due for a nostalgia trip back to Boston to explore the T, especially now that Government Center is reopened (my family would always make a trip to Quincy Market when we were in town). The Boeings may be gone, but I would like to check out the Mattapan PCC's and try to catch a rebuilt Kinki. I wonder if that hotel on the river near Lechmere is still there. I'm sure the Howard Johnsons behind Fenway is loooong gone, haha. One of my favorite memories of the hotel by Fenway was walking around the corner and up the street (stopping to get fresh roasted nuts on game days of course!) towards the Citgo sign with my Dad, and standing on an overpass with what must've been the 'Pike below, watching the purple commuter rail trains alongside the highway. As a child I remember getting a kick out of them being purple, haha.
Actually the HoJo behind Fenway has been converted into the quite stylish and trendy Verb Hotel!
 #1415881  by NaugyRR
 
Oh very cool! Thanks for sharing that danib62!
 #1416572  by BigUglyCat
 
Thanks to those who commented, and all who read. I wasn't sure anyone would be interested at all, and I'm glad some were. I'll be quiet now (for a while, at least). :-D
 #1416633  by jwhite07
 
Don't forget, there are still three Boeings on MBTA property - work cars 3417, 3448 and 3453. All three are reported stored out of service at Riverside. I was out there last spring and could easily see 3448 (the orange and cream painted one) sitting in the yard as I walked down the ramp from the platform to the pick up/drop off lot. Unless they've all been dragged out back or inside since, it probably wouldn't take too much effort to spot at least one of them from areas open to the public. About half of the Riverside complex is visible from parking lots, after all.

Regarding Naugy's trip plans, if you live it up and stay at the Indigo hotel adjacent to Riverside, you can probably get a better deal on a room facing that "dirty ugly railroad yard". :-D I've stayed there before (well, back when it was a cheaper place), but those rooms have a fairly decent view of the west end of the yard. By the way, not going to be a problem catching a rebuilt Type 7 now... the challenge will be catching a non-rebuild in original paint!
 #1416649  by danib62
 
jwhite07 wrote:the challenge will be catching a non-rebuild in original paint!
More like original rust...
 #1416653  by Disney Guy
 
At about the time Seashore Trolley Museum was taking delivery of Boeing 3424 I was thinking it would have been nice to instead get half of a rebuilt car (with the folding doors) and half of an unrebuilt car (with plug doors) to make a static display with.

I don't think I could orchestrate it but a torched off section of one of the work Boeings with the plug doors might make an interesting addition to the Seashore collection, to be displayed near or behind the Type 6 mockup.

There were some news accounts that the MBTA felt compromised by having to take the Boeings with the plug doors as opposed to a car with folding doors. But the Type 6 (intended to be the PCC replacement) and also the Center Entrance cars had sliding doors. So the T was getting with the Boeings roughly the same kind of doors the T was already thinking of. And today the T has spec'ing out its Type 9 with plug doors, although using a more modern nowadays commonplace plug door design that is much better than what the Boeings had. I was told that San Francisco had lots of problems with the Boeing plug doors also.
 #1416658  by jrc520
 
The problem with the Boeing plug doors was that they had about 300-400 parts. All to avoid paying a license fee for a Duwag patent. If they had just forked over for that patent, they could have done it in something like 25 parts instead, and it would have been proven.
 #1416664  by NaugyRR
 
jwhite07 wrote:...Regarding Naugy's trip plans, if you live it up and stay at the Indigo hotel adjacent to Riverside, you can probably get a better deal on a room facing that "dirty ugly railroad yard". :-D I've stayed there before (well, back when it was a cheaper place), but those rooms have a fairly decent view of the west end of the yard. By the way, not going to be a problem catching a rebuilt Type 7 now... the challenge will be catching a non-rebuild in original paint!
Certainly something for me to look into jwhite, thanks for the suggestion. I e-mailed my Dad the link to the Verb Hotel from danib62 and I think I got the gears in his mind turning, haha. He actually remembered the name of the hotel next to Lechmere, it's called the Royal Sonesta. It's next to a mall and a block or two from the station. He's getting to be quite the Amtrak rider on his trips from Lake George to visit me in Pine Plains, so he's been asking me about taking the train to Boston. I showed him an example day trip where we'd leave Rhinecliff at 6AM and get to Boston just before lunch on the Acela, spend roughly an hour in Boston, then catching a Regional back. Maybe I can talk him into doing a long weekend. If I was flying solo, I'd take the Acela there and come back business on the Lake Shore essentially making a big loop to log the mileage, but I'd have very little layover time in Boston and an hour wait in Albany to catch the next Empire train back to Rhinecliff.

Here's a question; did the Kinkis and Boeings ever operate trailed behind one or the other, or were they incompatible to be used as a set?

Another question regarding Seashore's Boeing; it's been since high school since I've been up there (actually got to run the Dallas car and had a blast), but don't they run basic trolley wire up there? Hypothetically, if the Boeing were made operable, it'd have to be rigged with a trolley pole instead of the pantograph, correct?