#14 Orange Line Cars 1400-1551 (From Red/Orange Procurement discussion)

[Gerry6309]

Yea, but the Red Line 1700 should get a good over haul, and retire with the 1800. So Retire 1500,1600, then put 1900 in service, and then Retire 1700,1800 and replace them with 2000, that would be cheaper. Hum, it would be nice for blue line to get open gangway, because the blue line doesn't have that much curve. But i hope, the blue line upgrade ATO, and they should program to stop at the same place every time, and install signs on the floor to show where the train stops, so people won't guess "hum, where is the doors" So people would wait where ever it has line that said the doors are here.

First: The 01600s and 01500s are the 01700s reason for being. Why have 9 trains of a different technology to the rest of the fleet?

Second: As for open gangway the Blue Line cars are at maximum length now. Why shorten them to articulate them. Two 48 foot cars articulate into two 42 foot body sections. That is a loss of 6 feet per car. Take 12 feet off each middle unit shortens a 6 car train by 60 feet. Doing that gives you a seventh unit in the train, but then you have to modify the shop to be able to deal with units of that length!

Third: As for ATO it should be outlawed. It has never worked right on the Red Line and has been at best mediocre on the Orange Line. The great promise was closer headways, in reality they have gotten longer. The Blue Line signal system works fine as it is. Let's start discussing things which can improve these lines - not make them worse.

How about bringing back colorful interiors, standee friendly layouts and simple cars. It is said that "To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer." The original Red Line cars carried more people, and ran more reliably than the cars of today do. Can we avoid cars which use more power standing still than the originals did at balancing speed? Can we avoid cars which dump more heat into the tunnels in the summer than the sun does? Can we put control of the cars back in the operator's hands, instead of a blind computer, and give him the proper tools to do his job?

[itszjay]

Wow, ATO is pretty bad, I was reading something about a different system with around the same train hook up in 6 train config. same amount of station, around the same length. And their headway was around 7 min for off-peak and 2-4 min for rush. Does anyone rather have shorter headway then better looking station and train? How built the ATO for the MBTA for orange and red line anyway? They did a bad job, if it was done right it should of work, and had much better headway.

[3rdrail]

Can we put control of the cars back in the operator's hands, instead of a blind computer, and give him the proper tools to do his job?

No.


http://www.metrobostonnews.com/_interna ... cmhy2xoukn

[Gerry6309]

That operator was distracted in some way, we don't know the whole story. Telephone booth cabs eliminate that possibility. along with a quality dead-man device. Trips at wayside signals resolve that problem and are more reliable than random ATO stops. The most delayed line in NYC is now the "L", the only one with cab signalling. (and they kept their waysides so they can run safely on bypass and with R-160s (no in-cab))

[3rdrail]

I believe that the truth of the matter is that we're dealing with an entire system that was designed with primitive (by today's standards) technology and trying to apply modern approaches. These modern approaches have to be made, for without them, we're right back in a 1900 safety environment. They certainly aren't perfect - far from it, but necessary. No matter what distracted that Highland Branch operator, if she had had a system which would have kicked in to brake her car automatically, we would not have had that tragedy. This concept must be understood in Boston. We're not BART in San Francisco, which was built in the 70's - lightyears ahead in technology and installation. (A BART train left a station as it's "attendant/operator" was out on the platform speaking with another employee. It safely proceeded on it's route as if nothing had happened ! hahaha!!!) I guess it's sort of like having your appendix rupture in Darfur (really happened to a R.N. friend of mine setting up clinics). Do you want to die or go to a local hospital ?

[Gerry6309]

Paul:

I have become a strong opponent of ATO in Boston, based on the fact that after 40 years or more it has done nothing to improve the safety reliability or service on the Red Line. Thenkfully we are not in a situation like BART or WMATA where the train runs in complete automatic mode. Without the operator there to figure out the situation, the Red Line wouldn't run at all. The cost savings realized by taking that hard right at Harvard Square instead of deep tunneling through the area have cost us the fast frequent service the line was designed to provide. If the line was designed as an elevated structire snaking its way through city streets, that would be fine, but for the MBTA's premier line - NO. The Orange Line has only a single routing, relatively straight track and low tech cars - so far. Still trains stop where they shouldn't and proceed as if nothing happened. And to my knowledge the sudden emergency stops we get on the Red Line don't happen on the Orange Line. Admittedly, the Blue Line has its own set of problems, but there are few signal related delays. I don't want to see major changes in this line if it is extended in either direction. The KISS principal applies, "KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID" That being said, I have no problem with some sort of automatic stop system in place on the Green Line, as long as it is activated ONLY by passing a red wayside signal. Don't deprive the operator of the power to read the signals and control the train accordingly.

[3rdrail]

Paul:

I have no problem with some sort of automatic stop system in place on the Green Line, as long as it is activated ONLY by passing a red wayside signal. Don't deprive the operator of the power to read the signals and control the train accordingly.

I don't agree, as without ATO, you are not going to be able to control incidents which happen between waysides. Hypothetically, a slower moving car could be rear-ended by a faster moving one, a car can take a curve or switch too fast, an operator can become disabled and still keep the "deadman" activated. The famous Atlantic Division motorman screeching to a halt upon seeing a wave of molasses buckling his girders aside, it seems that most, if not all, major Boston transit tragedies would not have happened if it had been for a form of automatic control, be it the Summer Street Bridge tragedy or the Riverside Line's last year. Beach Street, Motte Street, City Square- all, it seems, would have been prevented. As I stated, I have no illusions about Boston being a "Jetsons" type of super-futuristic flying rapid transit system, but I think that we have reached a point in technology where we have to use what is available. BERy did it and we have to too. (Not only did they do it, but they were pioneers.) I'm a proponent of ATO in all forms of railed vehicles, and if the system of total automation could be tested and proven to be safe and dependable, I would be for that as well. I like the idea of human "attendants" in trains, as they are not only there for mechanical emergencies which might arise, but for illnesses, crimes, criminals, and general public assistance. If a train can operate itself safely, why not ? I have heard of one minor incident in DC and none in SF. Again, Boston would be a different challenge - I know, but I don't think that either one of us are able to definitively say that straight automation wouldn't work. As far as ATO on the Red is concerned, it's a line that has never had a serious wreck, in spite of it's extended route miles. Historically, there can be little doubt that the Green Line desperately needs ATO, in my opinion. I say improve and install ATO and look at technological advances for implementation.

[jonnhrr]

Interesting ATO discussion. Maybe this should be split off to a separate thread.

Some observations - not sure which side I come down on:

The Green Line lacks even the most primitive automatic train stop system such as the mechanical trip that was used for so many years on the subway lines. Most likely such a system would have prevented the Riverside line collision or at least lessened the damages / casualties.

Seems there are a lot of older systems - New York (except for the L line), most of London (except for Central, Jubilee, Victoria, and DLR) come to mind - that still rely on the older trip system. Those systems have good safety records. In London at least there are issues with delays many appear to be due to the age of the system and years of deferred maintenance.

The exceptions mentioned - NYC L (14th St. - Canarsie), London Central, Jubilee, DLR - also you could throw in Philadelphia's subway surface system that went to CBTC, these have all had numerous issues and many claim have never really worked correctly. The Philadelphia situation is troubling due to the similarity to out Green Line and an indication of what we might expect is a CBTC type of system was adopted here.

Seems like the trend is inexorably going to trend towards ATO and CBTC, I just hope that a more reliable and better performing system can be developed.

Jon

[cpontani]

You're right...the Blue Line doesn't have any curves approaching Maverick Station.

[Gerry6309]

You're right...the Blue Line doesn't have any curves approaching Maverick Station.

Yep! ...and it's arrow straight between State and Bowdoin too.

[Robert Paniagua]

Interesting ATO discussion. Maybe this should be split off to a separate thread.

Some observations - not sure which side I come down on:

The Green Line lacks even the most primitive automatic train stop system such as the mechanical trip that was used for so many years on the subway lines. Most likely such a system would have prevented the Riverside line collision or at least lessened the damages / casualties.

Seems there are a lot of older systems - New York (except for the L line), most of London (except for Central, Jubilee, Victoria, and DLR) come to mind - that still rely on the older trip system. Those systems have good safety records. In London at least there are issues with delays many appear to be due to the age of the system and years of deferred maintenance.

The exceptions mentioned - NYC L (14th St. - Canarsie), London Central, Jubilee, DLR - also you could throw in Philadelphia's subway surface system that went to CBTC, these have all had numerous issues and many claim have never really worked correctly. The Philadelphia situation is troubling due to the similarity to out Green Line and an indication of what we might expect is a CBTC type of system was adopted here.

Seems like the trend is inexorably going to trend towards ATO and CBTC, I just hope that a more reliable and better performing system can be developed.

Jon

I found a thread regarding ATO here that I started several years ago:

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 99&p=80585

[itszjay]

It wouldn't be a bad idea just to take the R160 from NYC and just order them for the Red and Orange Line, each train cost about $1.3 Million, if they Order 150 Orange and 74 (let's just say 75) so 225 total. 225 x 1,300,000 = $292,500,000 Let's just say $300 Million for total. You get a much better train, better propulsion, tech inside the train ("FINE"), ASA. And these would cost less money to design, then you need to change a few interior and exterior put Red or Orange trim on the side of the train. I was reading the post from before, but the MBTA wants to save money by buying cheaper train, it wouldn't be a bad idea to get R160 and change it a bit and put it on the Red and Orange as their new train. If you do the Math each 700s Train cost about $1.85 Million. They could use the design of the R160 and make the width to fit with Red and Orange Line. And this would be much faster to be changed to MBTA spec. But can the MBTA just order R160 train from Kawasaki or Alstom or they do have to pay lots of money to MTA to do stuff like that?

[jamesinclair]

If cars and buses and (gasp) schoolbuses can run around with nothing more than badly trained drivers and visual signals....why should a subway line, with highly trained drivers, be forced to implement something like ATO?

[3rdrail]

If cars and buses and (gasp) schoolbuses can run around with nothing more than badly trained drivers and visual signals....why should a subway line, with highly trained drivers, be forced to implement something like ATO?

Ask that to the passengers in the Chatsworth or Highland Branch collisions.

[FP10]

If cars and buses and (gasp) schoolbuses can run around with nothing more than badly trained drivers and visual signals....why should a subway line, with highly trained drivers, be forced to implement something like ATO?

Ask that to the passengers in the Chatsworth or Highland Branch collisions.

Heres what I hate about this arguments. The rate of injury/fatalities on mass transit pale in comparison to those on the roads. Accidents will happen no matter how careful you are, and I dont think its worth it to sacrifice reliability and speed for a bit more safety. Granted running balls-out speed isn't a great idea either, but crippling a primary mode of transportation thousands rely on every day for a bit more safety to insure a hypothetical wreck doesnt happen seems counter-intuitive.

I'm pretty sure if you surveyed daily commuters if they would rather have a bit more chance of an accident in exchange for greater reliability and speed, they would all say yes. After all that's why people started driving cars vs using mass transit in the first place, isnt it?