• Ashmont-Mattapan Trolley Line Discussion

  • 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: CRail, sery2831

  by CRail
 
TomNelligan wrote:Clever suggestion, but... As one who has made a bunch of trips to Toronto over the years to ride North America's most extensive streetcar system, I'm fond of those cars and I'd love to see CLRVs on the Mattapan line when/if PCC replacement is required. The problem, aside from the gauge difference, is that after 30+ years of service they're on their last legs and would likely need as much of a heavy overhall/rebuilding as SEPTA's PCC IIs got in order to significantly extend their service life. I have the impression that these days the TTC shops are just patching them up enough to keep them running for a couple more years until the production-delayed Flexities fully take over. Some of the CLRVs in service up there last summer looked really beat. I even saw a couple running with pieces of the side skirting or rear fender missing.
It's actually a really good idea. The CLRVs are not in bad shape and will be phased out over 10 years! Skirting panels are consumables that get wrecked in traffic on a regular basis. The rear skirt comes off for couplers (which have been removed) and if I remember correctly, none of the CLRVs had that rear skirt on them when I was there (the ALRVs did). They'd certainly be an upgrade equipment wise for the line and the gauge problem is a minor one (remember, they ran in Boston before...). The only real issue with them is that they lack a left side door, which is necessary at Butler.
  by The EGE
 
Butler should have been rebuilt for side platforms anyway in 2006-2007; I'm surprised they didn't. It was an infill station opened two years after the line; the reason for the island platform was because of the old freight tracks that flanked the trolley tracks. Now that those are long gone, there's plenty of space to build side platforms instead without impacting the trail.
  by R36 Combine Coach
 
CRail wrote:
TomNelligan wrote:Clever suggestion, but... As one who has made a bunch of trips to Toronto over the years to ride North America's most extensive streetcar system, I'm fond of those cars and I'd love to see CLRVs on the Mattapan line when/if PCC replacement is required. The problem, aside from the gauge difference, is that after 30+ years of service they're on their last legs and would likely need as much of a heavy overhall/rebuilding as SEPTA's PCC IIs got in order to significantly extend their service life. I have the impression that these days the TTC shops are just patching them up enough to keep them running for a couple more years until the production-delayed Flexities fully take over. Some of the CLRVs in service up there last summer looked really beat. I even saw a couple running with pieces of the side skirting or rear fender missing.
It's actually a really good idea. The CLRVs are not in bad shape and will be phased out over 10 years! Skirting panels are consumables that get wrecked in traffic on a regular basis. The rear skirt comes off for couplers (which have been removed) and if I remember correctly, none of the CLRVs had that rear skirt on them when I was there (the ALRVs did). They'd certainly be an upgrade equipment wise for the line and the gauge problem is a minor one (remember, they ran in Boston before...). The only real issue with them is that they lack a left side door, which is necessary at Butler.
The CLRVs (and SEPTA 1981 Kawasaki cars) are non-ADA and have steps with no accessibility provisions.
  by Disney Guy
 
A CLRV could load from a mini-high with bridge plate (front door only). A 1981 SEPTA Kawasaki cannot.
  by octr202
 
I thought about the Kawasakis from SEPTA...always forget they have center posts between the doors (both front and rear).
  by CRail
 
R36 Combine Coach wrote:The CLRVs (and SEPTA 1981 Kawasaki cars) are non-ADA and have steps with no accessibility provisions.
The 1945 PCCs are non-ADA and have steps with no accessibility provisions.
  by Arborwayfan
 
But the PCCs are existing equipment. Does buying used equipment trigger ADA requirements?
  by The EGE
 
All of the stops (except permanent-exemption Valley Road) have wooden ramps with bridge plates. That makes high-floor cars fully handicapped accessible and ADA compliant as is. ADA does not specify car design, merely that accessibility is possible. Low-floor cars are still easier for access and especially for speeding boarding with large crowds, but on the Mattapan Line they're just fine.
  by jonnhrr
 
Would a Type 7 be able to negotiate the loop at Ashmont?

JOn
  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
jonnhrr wrote:Would a Type 7 be able to negotiate the loop at Ashmont?

JOn
Yes at Ashmont. It's tight, but not as tight as inner Lechmere loop (tightest on Green, and the ruling curve the Boeings/7's/8's/to-be 9's are designed for).

Yes at outer Mattapan loop for yard access.

No at inner Mattapan loop for turnbacks. That would have to be retired for changing ends on the platforms, or some kind of very different loop configuration.
  by CRail
 
CLRVs are existing equipment.

There is only one loop at Mattapan. it's crossed by the track from the yard to the platform, but from the main line there's only one loop to take whether you're going to the station or the yard.
  by orange1234
 
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote: Yes at Ashmont. It's tight, but not as tight as inner Lechmere loop (tightest on Green, and the ruling curve the Boeings/7's/8's/to-be 9's are designed for).
Are you sure the Park St. loop isn't tighter?
  by Type 7 3684
 
Yeah, especially that curve into track 2 at Park. Add the Park loop to that and it's probably tighter.
  by Ryand-Smith
 
As someone who has worked on super old machines that should have died (S8G prototype and MARF), why not simply build a new PCC shell, put modern power electronics into the car, and then let it go. I can't imagine building a PCC like shell being more than 1 million per unit, even if it was hand built, because you could use off the shop bogies/clones of the PCC bogies, modern inverters/electric motors, new seating, and an all steel frame. After your First PCC 2016 is built, you rehab the old one with modern tech, and you build a PCC 2017. That should buy you time to expand the PCC to the Green Line/adapt it to Green Line Standard.

EDIT: Apparently we could import some PCC cars from Eastern Europe, since apparently they are still making PCC likes in Poland/Czech Republic. Also, why won't Kinki Sharyo LRVs work, Newark used them as a 1-1 swap for PCC cars.
  by typesix
 
SEPTA has already done so with their PCCII, although with existing bodies.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14