New Orange Line cars like these can't get here soon enough.
MBTA General Manager Frank DiPaola says an exterior metal panel fell off a southbound Orange Line train at State Street last night and then a second train ran over it, leading to a chaotic scene that involved passengers kicking out windows to escape the second train when it and the station began filling with smoke. In a statement, he says:
It is believed that last night a body panel fell off the side of an Orange Line car and onto tracks near State Street Station because the panel's fastening fixtures had deteriorated.
Specifically, he says, a body panel 12 feet by 12 inches near the bottom edge of one car fell on the tracks:
The train ran over this panel, causing the train to become disabled as it entered State Street Station. It is believed the body panel struck a wall and then the third rail, causing an arcing event, which led to a residual smoke situation.
Officials didn't realize the panel had fallen off, let alone fallen against the third rail, causing smouldering and smoke that at least one person on the platform videoed. Then another train entered State Street:
As Train 1217 traveled toward State Street Station, it also struck the piece of body panel that was still on the tracks. The impact caused an arcing event leading to another smoke situation. Train 1217 became disabled and was not yet properly berthed at the platform area at State Street Station when smoke was seen by passengers. Several emergency alarms were pulled by passengers onboard who became rightfully concerned. Because Train 1217 was not fully to the platform, the doors were automatically in the lock position, causing some concerned passengers to disembark by using doors at the end of some of the train cars and by kicking out windows and crawling out of the train.
Following the incident, T workers checked body panels on all 120 Orange Line trains - and found 13 that needed to be better secured. He adds:
The MBTA is immediately incorporating a more thorough exterior check of body panel hardware as part of regular maintenance work on Orange Line cars. Bolts and rivets of body panels will now be examined every 12 thousand miles, which is approximately every 8 or 9 weeks, when Orange Line cars are taken into a garage for scheduled comprehensive maintenance. This maintenance already includes checks of the safety system, evacuation equipment, propulsion system, brake system, suspension system, communication system, doors, wheels, lights, seating, and other interior compartment items.
DiPaola says permanent relief should come when the T starts rolling out an all new fleet of Orange Line cars in 2019, assuming nothing goes wrong with the factory the winning bidder recently started building in Springfield.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
And why isn't the review board
By roadman
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:21pm
working to accelerate the delivery of the new equipment? Because it NEEDS to be constructed in Springfield?
BS, and shameful that the media and others aren't calling out Baker on this SHAM he calls a 'review board'.
Baker wasn't the one
By anon
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:06pm
Baker wasn't the one insisting on the stupid 'made in Mass' requirement which is delaying production of the new rolling stock by YEARS and increasing costs by millions. Blame the legislature for that.
But Baker has the power
By roadman
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:17pm
to override that silly requirement. Haven't you heard of an executive order?
And if he refuses to do that, he's no better than the members of the Legislature who demanded that clause.
When Kersaiotes was head of the Turnpike Authority, one of his first actions was to suspend work on all active and pending construction contracts for a comprehensive review. In several cases, he had the contracts re-negotiated to accellerate construction and/or reduce costs. This sort of thing is precisely what Baker's "review board" should be doing at the T. And a "build in Massachusetts" clause is the perfect target for elimination, especially if removing it means we'll get the much needed new trains much sooner than presently scheduled.
You do know you can be sued for violating a contract
By anon
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:21pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmNeuAUc2oo
Note that Roadman said
By anon
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 3:00pm
re-negotiate the contract. And there's plenty of legal precedent for doing so.
Nothing can be done now
By BostonDog
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:31pm
Sadly, the only tool in Mr. Fix-It's bag is a dull pair of scissors.
True enough
By roadman
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:36pm
But see my previous comment about the media.
There's actually a federal
By anon
Thu, 02/18/2016 - 10:09am
There's actually a federal law, not just a contract clause or state law, that puts this kind of rent-seeking in transit contracts. Baker can't do anything about that.
Correct
By roadman
Thu, 02/18/2016 - 11:09am
But Buy America allows for certain exceptions. And if it means getting much-needed new subway cars sonner than later, Baker's review board should be looking at ways to invoke those exceptions. It's called "thinking outside the box."
Just further proof the "review board" is really an elaborate farce.
Kersaiotes
By A.S. Merrimac
Thu, 02/18/2016 - 12:58pm
You mean James Kersaiotes the convicted tax fraudster? The same Kersaiotes who was asked to step down after federal auditors denounced him for staying deceptively mum for months about $1.4 billion in looming cost overruns. That James Kersaiotes?
MA requirement was all Patrick
By eddiil
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:07pm
The contract was awarded in the fall of 2014, when Patrick was still governor.
Baker?
By anon
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:11pm
You do know this was a contract which went out to bid and was won by a Chinese firm.
http://www.boston.com/business/news/2015/09/02/the...
Additionally, this firm was recommended by, wait for it......... DEVAL PATRICK in 2014.
http://commonwealthmagazine.org/transportation/007...
And in Deval fashion (especially in his last 2 years) he turned this into an opportunity to travel on our dime. Further, per the above link it was DEVAL helped get the plant built in Springfield.
Bet you think it a great idea now that a uber progressive guy like Deval helped negotiate the deal, not a right wing maniac like Charlie!
Nope
By roadman
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:29pm
Unnecessarily restrictive clauses like "Buy America" and "Build in Massachusetts" are bad ideas, regardless of who's in charge.
For that matter, so are bidding laws and procurement restrictions that preclude agencies from going to a previous equipment supplier for new rolling stock.
Nope what?
By anon
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 2:36pm
A restrictive clause doesn't make the contract void!
My "Nope"
By roadman
Thu, 02/18/2016 - 4:24pm
was in response to this:
I'd agree with you, but I'm conflicted
By Roman
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 9:23pm
It'd be good to have a train factory in the US making subway cars again. And if it's Mass, that's more potential tax revenue for when other cities start ordering new subway cars to renew their fleets and Made In US would be a nice bonus. My understanding was the Chinese firm in question agreed to build it here out of exactly those considerations.
In 2014, the fact that the T was falling apart was honestly not on my radar one bit, so I would've been OK with paying a little more and waiting a little longer if it meant there was a train factory in the state that wasn't there before. And I'd even be OK with Deval giving away factory jobs to his friends' constituents with taxpayer dollars as just a cost of getting things done...if it meant a Made In US sticker on some big heavy moving machinery.
Given what I know now, I might be inclined to agree with you, but not 100%. Like I said...conflicted.
There ARE train factories in
By anon
Thu, 02/18/2016 - 7:38am
There ARE train factories in the US making subways. There's a plant in New York. The 'Built in Mass' requirement kept some companies from bidding because they didn't want to build a second plant.
Granted, the bid we got from the Chinese was lowballed because they're hungry to get into the US market and are using the Springfield plant as a stepping stone, so in the end it'll probably be a net positive for the state, but there were definitely made in USA options that would've been faster turnaround if not for the inane MUST BE MADE IN MASS rule
Unfortunately...
By octr202
Thu, 02/18/2016 - 7:47am
...there's:
A) Already several plants in the US building railcars. Kawasaki has at least two, and Alstom, Seimens, and others also have plants here.
B) This was the same argument that sold Philadelphia's SEPTA that they had to go with Rotem for their commuter rail EMUs - we're going to build a new plant which will build cars for the whole country. To date, the MBTA's commuter rail cars (which we're still trying to get to work properly) are the only other order that plant in South Philly has produced. You're probably only looking at 50/50 odds the Springfield plant ever builds cars for out-of-state, and Massachusetts won't supply enough orders to make the plant viable in the long-term.
Pfft. Baker's in office now;
By anon
Thu, 02/18/2016 - 10:10am
Pfft. Baker's in office now; everything is his fault. Don't you know how politics works around here?
It is not slowing down the
By anon
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:22pm
It is not slowing down the deliveries, the Blue Line cars were ordered in 2001 and the first ones didn't enter service until 2007-2008. The first two pilot cars for the MBTA order are being built in China and their delivery will be in January 2018, the plant in Springfield will be ready by then to assemble the production cars. They are still finishing up the final design engineering work, there is no real way to get them here any faster,
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Boar...
They are still finishing up
By roadman
Thu, 02/18/2016 - 11:13am
So we awarded a contract to a company that doesn't already have the design engineering capability in place to figure out how to build these cars? Preliminary design engineering is something you should have in place PRIOR to preparing a bid, not once the contract is awarded.
And yes, I agree with the posters below that is impractical to have a final design in place before the contract has been issued. However, if this company is as experienced in designing and building subway cars as they claim, there should be only a minimal timeframe between award of contract and construction of one or two prototype cars for testing.
There's no standard off-the
By verbal
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 2:04pm
There's no standard off-the-shelf subway train you can buy, especially not one that fits the MBTA. Buying new rolling stock is more like building a new building from scratch than buying a new car.
They should have dusted off
By anon
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 4:47pm
They should have dusted off the plans for the 1800-series Red Line cars, and the proposal for bids should have said "build this". Those work just fine after 23 years.
The Orange Line would be a little trickier. A scaled down version of the Red Line cars would be the best idea, since it could share an inventory of repair parts.
The 01800's on the Red Line...
By octr202
Thu, 02/18/2016 - 7:44am
...are already obsolete. They used an early type of AC traction system which is no longer produced. If they ever get enough new cars to envision a mid-life overhaul for them (which is already several years overdue), there will need to be a serious look at whether it's better to rehab (and possibly replace major components) or just buy more of the new cars.
There once was an off the
By A.S. Merrimac
Thu, 02/18/2016 - 1:19pm
There once was an off the shelf design for transit equipment designed and built right here in the U.S. and eventually all over the world. PCC.
No, final design comes after
By anon
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 2:17pm
No, final design comes after you award the contract. The builders respond to a request for proposals, they put together a basic design but not a final design. Do you expect every builder to fully engineer a final spec for a rapid transit car order that they don't even know they will win the contract for? Look at the timeline for the Blue Line car order, contract award in 2001, cars in service 2008. And the initial pilot cars will need to be tested for at least a year before production cars will be delivered. Do you want them to just start cranking out cars before they discover any bugs? The last time they did that was the Boeing LRV.
You are correct.
By roadman
Thu, 02/18/2016 - 11:17am
I was referring to preliminary design engineering, and also the time between award of the contract and developement of the prototype cars. For a company claiming to have such extensive experience in building subway cars, this shouldn't be that long. And if it is, that speaks to either poorly written specifications, or a company that really doesn't have the experience they claimed in their bid.
I have modified my inital post accordingly.
A subway car has to be built
By Bunny
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 7:38pm
A subway car has to be built to the specifications of the station. What's OK for the Green Line may not be OK for the Blue or the Orange.
Every single train has to be custom built,because of the way the stations were built. They have to fit in the stations.
Not exactly true. the chassis
By A.S. Merrimac
Thu, 02/18/2016 - 1:25pm
Not exactly true. the chassis and car body have to be "custom fit" but most of the mechanical components can stay the same. The Blue & Orange Line cars built by Hawker-Siddeley Canada were nearly identical mechanically.
literally unbelievable
By Malcolm Tucker
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:00pm
I would have thought that any public transit authority would regularly inspect its trains and buses anyway, but I especially would have thought that the MBTA should be inspecting every inch of its old-ass trains all the damn time. Was this really not standard operating procedure before now?!
Inspections cost money
By roadman
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:13pm
and involve labor - UNION labor - to accomplish. Not to mention the down time that equipment is out of service and not serving passengers.
Enough said. And if it's any consolation, private transportation companies are generally no better at performing routine inspections on their equipment. Read almost any NTSB report concerning a crash involving a tractor trailer or passenger bus, and look at the imspection/compliance information.
And that's....
By boo_urns
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:11pm
What we like to call "a distinction without a difference." If the MBTA contracts inspections out to the private sector and their resources sit underutilized without direct work such as inspections or other maintenance activities, they're wasting money on both inspection costs and employee costs.
ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure
By Malcolm Tucker
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 2:12pm
But yeah, that makes sense, according to the nightmare logic of the T. It's still awful, but it makes sense.
You seem like you would know these things: do other mass transit authorities - in New York, Chicago, etc. - also put off inspection like this?
"An ounce of prevention"
By anon
Thu, 02/18/2016 - 10:18am
"An ounce of prevention" competes in people's minds with "cross your fingers" unfortunately. Typical people would rather choose "take a chance by spending $0 where I might end up spending $1000 to fix stuff" vs. "spend $100 with certainly to maintain stuff." It's human nature to be completely irrational when dealing with chance and probabilities; if you don't believe me, go find the nearest PowerBall billboard.
human nature is one thing
By Malcolm Tucker
Thu, 02/18/2016 - 3:24pm
Government is another. The MBTA is proof of a massive failure in public policy over several decades. Policies shouldn't be based on the most cowardly tendencies of the most small-minded of us; they should be based on elected officials' ideas for how to ensure that society works as well as it can for as many citizens as possible. I'm a lefty idealist nutter, of course, so dismiss these ideas if you like.
i mean look @ the reliability of the mbta
By Scumquistador
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:17pm
and tell me you literally can't believe they suck at maintaining their shit?
Don't conflate cause and effect
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 2:01pm
You can't maintain for shit if all you have to maintain IS shit.
These cars are old enough to sleep with Yer Mom and still be older than her.
why the f
By Scumquistador
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 2:15pm
are you talking about anything sleeping with my mom
Because
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 2:20pm
YER MOM is famous. That's why.
I tell you this:
By Malcolm Tucker
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 2:10pm
No, I can believe it. I just don't want to.
We cant afford this system as
By Christie-Baker 2016
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:10pm
We cant afford this system as is, we need to cut out the highly taxpayer subsidized commuter rail and focus on the core subway and bus system. Unless of course the wealthy burbs served by the commuter rail vote republican, then Charlie should cut lines not used by "his" people, like the Mattapan line, long promised green line to somerville and Medford, and raise fares to keep buying new cars to keep the commuter rail going for his voters.
The lowest ridership commuter
By anon
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:24pm
The lowest ridership commuter rail line is the Fairmount Line, should that be cut first?
No, nothing should be cut..
By anon
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:52pm
But they shouldn't be getting reduced pricing either!
I'd agree, but
By Waquiot
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 7:02pm
If the lower fare at a single station can somehow bring up ridership significantly, without of course capturing existing ridership from nearby stations, it would make sense economically. If there is no increased ridership, or if any increases in ridership is coming at the expense of other CR stations, bringing the fares in line with the rest of the system would make sense.
Nothing should be cut
By BostonDog
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 1:33pm
It's possible to improve service without cutting anything. Enough with the stupid trade-offs.
^^^ Has cake and eats it
By anon
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 2:02pm
^^^ Has cake and eats it every day for lunch.
Got a problem with that?
By BostonDog
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 2:59pm
Every time there is a MBTA problem we're told things need to be cut. Cut late night service. Cut number of train runs. Cut the Mattapan line. Cut all plans for expansion. Cut maintenance. Cut budgets. Cut personnel. Cut entire service branches.
Except fares. Those they never cut.
Cuts don't solve problems. At best they temporary resolve budget shortfalls. But you can't cut your way to better service any more than you build a house with only a saw.
you know why?
By Stevil
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 3:05pm
We have to cut cut cut to keep giving everyone generous salary increases and bennies.
Was on the orange line sunday and it looked like the rust in the corners of the train both under and over the paint was the only thing holding the whole thing together.
Obviously the entire MBTA staff should be fired...
By Michael Kerpan
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 3:28pm
... and we should solicit volunteers to do everything for free.
look at the income statement
By Stevil
Wed, 02/17/2016 - 5:09pm
The T has roughly doubled its oncome in tha past 15 years. Almost 100% of that incremental $1 BILLION has gone to persinnel cidts and almost nothing to debt service which is effectively a proxy for capital investment.
Pages
Add comment