Hey, there! Log in / Register
T figures it can boost Red Line capacity by replacing all the cars on the Red Line, not just half of them
By adamg on Mon, 09/19/2016 - 8:34pm
The Boston Business Journal reports T officials are musing aloud about how wonderful it would be if they could replace all the cars on the Red Line with new cars with better brakes, which would let them run trains more often. No cost estimates yet, and, of course, we won't even start seeing the new cars already on order until 2019, if everything goes according to schedule.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Sounds great
This is just the sort of forward thinking, advanced planning, and long term solution to get cut by the governor's office.
This is the kind of thinking
This is the kind of thinking the control board was established to facilitate. Find the low hanging fruit and feast on it. Wouldn't surprise me if the green line fleet gets the same treatment and the type 7/8s wind up in Mattapan or restricted out of the central subway.
Type 7/8s are the Green Line.
Type 7/8s are the Green Line. This is about replacing the 1800 fleet for the Red Line. The Type-7 "kinki" cars are all being completely rebuilt/overhauled as we type.
You clearly didn't understand anon's post...
I'm confident anon (who you replied to) is well aware the primary topic is about the "what ifs" of replacing the 01800-series.
What they're saying is if this frame of thought is being applied to the 01800 Red Line series, it wouldn't surprise them if the same mindset was applied ALSO to the Green Line's Type 7 & Type 8 fleet (due to the planned Type 9 development/deployment).
To anon, I would think that would be the preferred way of thinking, though I'm not sure how financially possible it would be. With the Type 7 overhaul seemingly going so well, I would like to think the T would focus on a primary (overhauled) Type 7 & Type 9 fleet, and send some Type 8s to Mattapan & scrap the rest. There's certainly no planned overhaul for the 8's (those lemons are worth nothing long-term).
Depends how good the Pacheco boys
are at fleet maintenance. If the new cars start "breaking down" because the idiots in the yard would just as soon tie a string around the throttle control lever as fix the problem, why waste good money on stuff that's just going to get broken anyway?
I'm being only somewhat facetious.
Huh?
The T's vehicle maintenance staff seems like one of the better parts of the system. They have managed to keep the Orange and Red lines operating well beyond what should be expected of a fleet that old. By having the entire fleet be the same it makes maintenance *easier* since the mechanics don't need to learn two separate systems and it cuts down on the number of spare parts needed.
The Blue Line which replaced the entire fleet not long ago has been operating largely without major problems.
Cost is cost
I'll admit I only know what I read in the news about the specifics of the T operations. However: there's no reason a train car that's been running for thirty years can't run for sixty. In many places they do, because they're maintained by people who know their ins and outs better than those who built them.
Unless there are massive structural failures, there is no reason you can't make new parts to replace worn-out equipment. Yes, it costs more money than if the factory were still cranking them out. Yes, you need a whole engineering staff to do it for you. But: is that more or less expensive than than new cars entirely?
I ask because what I took away from the incident with the runaway Red Line train was that the cars are still using their original 40 year old motor controllers. Motor controllers are cheap(er than new trains). They can be replaced with brand new equipment if you know what you're doing. The fact that the Red Line cars still have their old power electronics and they're breaking down (as we know from all the other dead train stories) means that vehicle maintenance guys may not know enough about the trains to replace them, or even to recommend replacing them them to the higher ups.
New cars will be more uniform, and they won't be on borrowed time, but that won't be forever. In ten or twenty years, it'll be the same story. Is the cost of new cars lower than the refurb cost of the old cars?
Maintenance Cost Money
In most cities with long running fleets they still take them out of service every 10-15 years for a major overhaul. The T is doing this with some of the green line fleet and the trollies that are being returned to service are in good shape.
You can't expect the normal maintenance crews to be undertaking major overhauls like the ones you mentioned. Perhaps the T could create a separate in-house division to do major modifications like the ones you propose but that's one place where outsourcing makes a lot more sense.
Headspace
Roman's rule of engineering management no 13254.1: outsourcing something you have no idea about yourself is a good way to part with your money.
Reason being, if you have the internal expertise to oversee a contractor doing something specialized like a power electronics and control system upgrade, then you don't need to outsource the engineering. If you don't have that expertise in-house, you might not ask for the right thing (if you know to ask at all) and you open yourself up to be fleeced.
The fact that Charlie cards can't be modified for out-of-system subway transfers is an example. The original contract didn't specify that system source code should be supplied. And the system was trivially hackable. Because the T didn't have in-house software expertise, I'm guessing.
The solution that's in the long run cheaper, but in the short run rubs a lot of cost-cutting MBA types the wrong way is that you need to have that sort of knowledge in-house and it needs to be well-fed and empowered to undertake these sorts of efforts. Done right (which is hard), a good in house team can pay for itself inside of one overhaul cycle.
It might not be about a lack of expertise
When the work required isn't steady, outsourcing often makes sense. When the work required requires additional, unowned work space -- and connections by rail to the existing track -- outsourcing may make sense. When outsourcing allows an end-around of expensive labor contracts, outsourcing may make (bean counting) sense.
And on, and on, and on.
The run away red line car was
The run away red line car was because of a lazy operator completely breaking procedure and protocol and physically disabling a safety system. The rest of the system, in fact, worked quite well - the train was almost instantly known to be rogue, the ATC kicked in speed limiting it, the "tower" people cleared out all of the blocks and disabled the train without further incidence. BTW - nothing to do with the maintenance people at all.
Commonwealth magazine has a bit better of an article, I think: http://commonwealthmagazine.org/transportation/t-offers-plan-to-boost-re...
Here they say the midlife rebuild (also overdue at this point anyways) will be $2.2 million a car. The new rolling stock is costing $1.9 million a car. If we can extend the order in that ballpark it is pretty much a no brainier to to scrap the 1800s (which should fetch a decent price themselves). This also gives us an almost 100% compatible fleet between the Red and Orange lines.
As to your point of maintenance - rolling stock has a built in lifespan which requires midlife rebuilds to achieve them. The Orange line never received theirs, and its a miracle that the maintenance staff can even keep the them running. It is not their fault they were never sent out and rebuilt - that is squarely on the State and MBTA management for not budgeting for the rebuilds.
The red line 1500/1600/1700s did do their midlife overhauls. They are at the end of their lives - they are up to 40+ years old at this point. Hence why we are getting new/modern cars to replace them. In 20 years from now, if they follow the proper procedure and do the midlife overhauls, then things will be just fine. But that isn't on the people maintaining the rolling stock - keeping the existing on life support until 2019-2022 is a miracle.
It comes down to: if its cheaper to just replace the 1800s than do their (overdue) midlife rebuild/overhauls, then it makes sense to just replace the damn things given all of the other benefits that come with having a 100% standardized fleet.
40 years old?
The oldest cars date from 1969. They'll be 50 by the time the new ones arrive.
There are few older transit vehicles in the US. The R32s are slated to be retired quite soon in New York. The PCCs in Mattapan have been rebuilt several times (although not as extensively as the PCCs in Philly). But once the R32s are retired, the Red Line cars will be the longest-serving vehicles in the country.
Would you drive a 50-year-old car every day and expect it to be reliable?
The PATCO rapid transit line
The PATCO rapid transit line from Philly to Camden has cars from 1968 that are being rebuilt. Those are on a year older than the #1 Red Line cars, and will still be running for another 20 years after the rebuild. Have also heard that the R32s in NYC will be around for awhile even after the R179s arrive.
Well aware of that - hence
Well aware of that - hence the 'right now' and 40 '+' years old parts. Well past their prime and about damn time to replace them - although at least they did get their midlife overhaul (afaik) - I would argue the Orange Line rolling stock, while younger, is much more impressive.
Equipment Reliability 'Bathtub' Curve
Equipment reliability, say measured by failures per hour or day or week, typically follows a bathtub shape.
The failure rate is high at the beginning, when design flaws are being corrected. Then the equipment goes thru a long period of reliable service. If the service is for two or three decades, there's a mid-life 'tech refresh' involved.
But, eventually, the failure rate climes rapidly as multiple parts wear out almost simultaneously. The maintenance costs increase in tandem. When technology obsolesce is also factored in, the case for new equipment becomes a no-brainer.
MBTA in a hole
Actually, this kind of proposal would probably would have never happened unless there was this new governor. The last one (i.e. the midget) had plenty of opportunities, but instead let the MBTA run itself into the ground.
It's going to be a decades long climb out of the current hole of featherbedded labor practices and deferred maintenance.
This makes sense
But they should, if the costs are the same, get an option for the new cars. I'd like to see the new fleet tested before jumping in headfirst. If it turns out they're lemons, it would probably be nice to have the Bombardiers around (they're solid cars). Of course, they'll be pushing 30 years before the first are retired.
The Cars On Order Are Already Obsolete
When the number of trains per hour is limited, the only way to increase capacity is to have each train carry more passengers. The current design of our trains leaves a huge amount of wasted space — the virtually unused extra operator cabs at the end of each pair of cars, and the space between the cars themselves.
Modern designs have moved to articulated trains with an open design that permits passengers to occupy the otherwise wasted space and move freely between cars. They're similar to our articulated busses and Green Line cars, but for a whole subway train.
There are many advantages to this new design, but the most important is the dramatic increase in capacity — both because the trains can carry a lot more passengers, and also because of more efficient passenger boarding which reduces station dwell times.
Toronto has had articulated trains for several years, Montreal's fabulous new Azur trains began operation this year, and New York City has just ordered 1,025 new articulated cars:
Toronto
Montreal
New York
If the Ⓣ is serious about wanting to increase capacity, ordering more of the old fashioned "wasted space" subway cars doesn't make sense.
The number of trains per hour
The number of trains per hour is nowhere near the theoretical limit. Right now, the Red Line has some 13 trains per hour, while systems like the Moscow Metro run as many as 39 trains per hour, and that is without automatic train operation, and using a signal system very similar to what is found on the Red Line. Of course, there are other factors that would limit train frequency, including the split between the Ashmont and Braintree branches and the crossover at Alewife, but even taking those into account, the T is nowhere near the maximum trains per hour they could push through the tunnels with just some minor upgrades.
Ligne 1
I feel compelled to mention RATP's Ligne 1 here. Articulated and fully automated. It is amazing to ride.
http://www.ratp.fr/en/ratp/c_14465/line-1-automation-improving-service/
Sure, articulated seems great at first...
but when a major problem arises, which would make more sense:
1) an articulated car in which the entire unit likely would be completely taken out of service, or
2) a multi-car consist which can have certain cars isolated while possibly remaining in service, or if necessary, having the consist broken up in the yard while subbing an alternate car into the consist and putting back into service (while the OOS car remains in a yard)
There are indeed pros & cons for both scenarios, but I don't see this system ready to handle a complete re-working of OOS protocols, taking entire units out-of-service per each malfunction than possibly operating in-service with isolated cars.
After Years Of Operation, Toronto Still Thinks They're Great
The story linked to the Toronto picture discusses that, and some other pros and cons too:
Which Red Line station (or
Which Red Line station (or stations) would be the limiting reagent (thinking platform length) if they kept current frequency but wanted to go to 7 or 8-car consists?
Let me let Sarah Palin answer that for you
All of them
The condition of our public transportation systems is
a mirror image of the condition& quality of our elected leadership (federal, state and local).
Their approach to correcting and fixing the T is reminiscent of exactly how the Big Dig was managed by our elected officials. No one takes responsibility, Pllenty of finger pointing at who is responsible, deflecting public's attention with secondary issues such as it is the union's fault, it poor maintenance, it inadequate funding, bad weather, blah, blah, blah.
And we, the voting public, the taxpayers put up with this crap making us equally complicit.
I don't know a damn thing about how to run a train system so I can't tell you how to fix any of its myriad of problems but I do understand what problem identification, planning and prioritization entails. How about this:
1. This is a state=wide problem…how about every elected official of every governmental entity & community touched by the T get into one room and agree that we are collectively and individually responsible fr fixing our public trans system.
2. Assign "fixing the T" a priority - create a plan with measurable objectives and deadlines. Draw on our "non-profit" educational institutions to provide ongoing, free, technical guidance on best practices and problem solutions (they don't pay taxes but benefit from our infrastructure)
3. Hold these folks accountable for results…
Just a few threshold ideas.
NO Big Reds!
Whatever, so long as there are NO "Big Red" cars!! What an outrage when you're going many stops and just want to relax and you end up with a cattle car with straps and filthy poles to hold on to and only a handful of real seats. And they often run them on off-peak hours, when the cars aren't packed like sardines, as I guess they're meant to be. Horrible idea.
The "Big Red" Cars Are Clearly Marked
( if you dislike them so much, why do you keep getting on them? )
What crap. If the platform is
What crap. If the platform is packed and the Big Red happens to be in front of you that's what you get on.
Big Red is a choice at Alewife. That's about it.
You Can Always Choose To Wait For The Next Train
If it's as packed as you're describing, you probably wouldn't be able get on the train at all if it weren't a Big Red car.
There are only 2 such cars in
There are only 2 such cars in the fleet, and they're always run as a pair. That means they're on only one peak hour train each way, each day. The T says they're only run during peak hours, and I've never seen one off peak (I've only ever seen them at all twice) so I believe them.
Also, as mentioned, they're incredibly easy to avoid since there are giant "BIG RED High-Capacity Car" signs next to each door. If you want a seat, board in a different car. Most people like the Big Red cars.
Sez who??
No they don't!! Anyway, I was racing to get on before the doors slammed in my face, so didn't have time to run halfway down the platform to another car. They are horrible.
Then, Why Didn't You Simply Change Cars At The Next Station?
Oh, so you were one of those
Oh, so you were one of those people that sprints in the doors as the operator is trying to close them, holding up the train for everyone else.
If you hate the Big Red cars so much, just wait for the next train. They run frequently enough on the Red Line at rush hour that you're not gonna have to wait long.
Filthy poles but you want to sit!
Man, I only sit when I'm completely exhausted. The seats are nasty.
I use one hand to hold and wash it ASAP.
Big Red cars hold less people
Every time I get on a Big Red car, I count he number of people on the standing side vs the sitting side. The standing side always has less. Especially when packed.
Bodies are denser on the sitting side. People are forced to take their backpacks off. The standing side people naturally reserve more personal space and leave their bags on. No one dares touch each other. Seats force people denser in the middle of the car.
It sounds like you haven't
It sounds like you haven't ridden one at the peak of rush hour then.
Also, mathematically seats take up significantly more floor space than standees, at approximately a 2:1 ratio.