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

Disney Guy wrote:This could be a loss leader for the manufacturer to feel out doing business in the U.S. and then determine whether it is worth going after more contracts.

We already know that it's a loss leader. Looking at how much cheaper CNR's bid was versus the others the T got, there's no way they're charging the full cost of building a factory on this order.

MBTA and MASSDOT have atrocious record of supervising contracts. Having the factory local MIGHT help. MAYBE they can hire qualified older workers since there is little other manufacturing remaining. CNR or whatever it is called now will probably bring over some skilled workers under visa as they have "critical" skills that "aren't available" here and hire the "coolies" locallly

Since they are making the shells in house (I assume), they can manipulate the price artificially low and sell it to themselves. But that will inflate their US Tax bill. Most of the foreign co. with US assembly plants manipulate the other way to minimize their US tax bill.

The MBTA is considering ordering another 110 new Red Line cars to replace the #3 fleet (instead of overhauling it) and boost the total fleet size. They claim that between additional cars and higher speeds permitted by modern braking systems, that would boost the Red Line's capacity by 50%. Strangely, they claim that upgrading the signal system (which we all know is a more significant factor in limiting train speeds) would not improve service as much.

Here's the link to the FCMB's presentation (PowerPoint file): http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About ... %2019.pptx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Some confusing detail left unsaid in there.

They say that improving dwell times at the primary Park + DTX traffic clogs would improve performance by up to 20% with minor signal tweaks, allowing for +30 cars to be put in use. OK...that's pretty academic. We can see today that Red operates on better headways at the beginnings and ends of peak periods when crowding is lower vs. the height of peak when the platform dwells are taking their toll, inducing bunching, and actively harming achievable headways. The dwells chart on p. 17 shows pretty starkly how the extreme variability of peak crowding harms headways at the station dwells. And the line graph on p. 16 comparing signaling tech shows a performance convergence between current ATO and future CBTC at those dwells, grinding the entire line's performance down to the limiter imposed by those dwells (i.e. any signal system is going to be FUBAR'ed Park-to-South Station by a negative feedback response because the peak-period crowding is just that overwhelmingly awful). This conclusion also makes sense.

What doesn't make any sense is how they expect to come up with 20%'s worth of dwell improvements when the crowding is physical: too many bodies smooshing down too-narrow stairs and too-narrow platforms at very old stations, and year-to-year ridership increases smooshing more bodies through those same egresses and platforms already at their limit. There's nothing small-scale or on the ops side that'll organize those crowds well enough to net a 20% improvement. Or a 20% improvement that won't immediately decay back to par...then further erosion...as ridership continues to increase and/or skew heavier to these stops. Taping those door hashmarks to the floor, more cameras, more staff assistance during peak, smarter door sensors, better customer service announcements...none of that adds up to the necessary streamlining. The improved braking on the CRRC cars doesn't have any impact either on dwells because the signal blocks are already clogged and running restricted speed before hitting the stations of max congestion. So either this is a prelude to a breathtaking amount of capital $$$ enlarging station egresses, or they're setting this up to disprove itself when the follow-up presentation on dwells can't add together anywhere close 20%'s worth of savings from small tweaks at Park and DTX.


What it looks like is that the unit price they got quoted by CRRC for replacing rather than rebuilding the 01800's was so spectacularly good they had to do due diligence to dig up any performance reasons to sell the FCMB on padding the order by up to 30 more. And if their bag of tricks started with customer service initiatives and resiliency-related track/signal work they were already considering...what's the minimum in extra tweaks they would have to roll all that up into a package pushed as service increase optics? They'll squint harder at the dwells and hold off that presentation to a later meeting because they don't feel confident enough releasing those numbers to the Board today. But in all likelihood the math is exactly as difficult as we fear and they won't come up with anywhere close to 20%'s worth of dwell improvements without major station capital $$$ an order of magnitude higher than the FCMB is willing to spend. If their claim is that dwells are the cause of service-decaying bunching and not vice versa or a little from Column A and a little from Column B, and If there can be no dwell improvement without invasive station mods...then they have a ready exit for considering the fleet padding or the bucket list of major lineside upgrades. Or pivot to the less-convincing (but potentially still viable) "any fleet padding is good over life-of-fleet" argument re: spares without service increases.


Personally, I wonder if +30 supplemental Orange cars on top of the 152 already ordered would require less in the way of bags-o'-dwell-tricks to put to good use if those 30 extra units on the 01800 replacement order were switched into the Orange tincan size instead. But since the FCMB seems to be going out of their way to pour dirt on any thoughts of replacing the ATO signals with something better that's probably not going to look any more feasible under their assumptions for Orange either.

I'm assuming adding more doors would reduce dwell. And allowing passthru might allow a car to hang off beyond the end of the platform. But those aren't part of this order.

But the Red Line order, at least, DOES have more doors. Those 64" wide doors that seemed like a silly attempt to achieve ADA compliancy even when only one leaf is functioning add enough pass-through area that it's almost as if they added a 5th set of doors over the 1800s.

I think BandA meant pass-through between cars.

Why not make the center platform at Park St. Under only for getting off, and the others only for getting on? Enforce this for the center platform by installing some kind of one-way device at the top of the stairs, like these little gates in the Metro in Santiago, Chile: https://66.media.tumblr.com/75c50bb0fdd ... qecv8m.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. They are not foolproof, but they would definitely deter people from going down the up stairs. (Or just replace all the stairs with up escalators.) Don't bother enforcing it for the outside "off" off platforms, but have the station announcement say "Park St. Please exit on the left."

Do you think this would reduce dwell times by reducing the salmon effect? Or increase dwell times by reducing the space available to wait on the platform?

In any case, the T is not particularly crowded, compared to Santiago, Tokyo, or a lot of other systems. Probably not compared to 80 years ago, either. There are all sorts of ways to handle crowds, from signs and stickers that advise people which car to board if they plan to get off at a particular station and/or transfer to a particular line, all the way up to part-time platform attendants who shoo people along the most efficient paths to prevent tie-ups.

That idea is a non-starter, since Park St Under only has an elevator on the center platforms.

So let people who need an elevator board from the center. That's not most people. Would it help, or hurt, or make no difference.

Very much doubt it would make nearly enough of a difference to add up to anything close to the "20% dwell improvements" that are the mythical capacity trigger for fitting in more cars. The platforms are narrow, and the egresses are narrow and all clustered to one end. And the passengers aren't stupid: daily users of Park St. have trained themselves to board at the closest set of doors at their outbound point of origin to position themselves for the Park exit scramble, start jockeying for position on the train for center vs. side exit as early as Kendall or SS, and can usually make a split-decision on whether center vs. side is going to be less crowded. I honestly don't think better customer service guidance is going to direct any battle-hardened Boston commuter better than their own instincts have self-conditioned them to. Maybe some of the families in Sox caps changing at these stations at 5:00pm to hit Fenway for a night game, but the working schlubs' self-GPS is pretty much unimprovable.


The question isn't can you make little tweaks at dwells. You absolutely can, and everything right down to those tape hashmarks on the platform for marking door positions helps in its own little way. But can any crowd control trick in the book add up to a cumulative 20% dwell improvement at Park and DTX such that these 30 extra cars are usable? I'm straining to count up any list of short-money bag of tricks that adds up to anywhere close to a cumulative 20% and does as much for variability/unpredictability of dwells as they do for average time of dwells. I don't even see how an alternate universe where ordering open-gangway cars would've put them over the top at 20% when all the Park exits on both platforms cluster to the singular car/door positions. It's round blobs of flesh vs. square holes of concrete...you can't push people any harder to clear the stairs. The only true lasting perma-fix is to physically build a second set of egresses down at the far end of the Park Red platforms by the emergency exit to spread the exit load in two directions...which costs $$$. Or do a smattering of the same type of egress englargements at DTX...which costs $$$. Or build the Red-Blue connection at Charles MGH to siphon enough transferees off of Red that there are physically fewer riders getting on/off the train at Park Under...which costs mega-$$$ and won't happen in any universe before the time limit on exercising this +30 car contract option.


So don't think of this in terms of one thing, or one best-practice from elsewhere that Boston isn't adopting. Frame it all in terms of collective dwell tweaks that convincingly add up to "20% overall dwell improvements" before you can physically fit more trains on the line. A 20% that must tame the crapshooty variability as well as average dwells. And this punchlist has a hard deadline for showing testable math before go/no-go decision must be given to CRRC on exercising the +30 option. Or at least hard deadline on whether those +30 cars are going to be messaged to the public as for real service increases, or just a "30 extras is good for reliability even without service increases" angle (very rational, but will put the overall finances under ever more scrutiny). Tally up the bullet list. Is that 20% target met cleanly, or are we still looking about 5% short and grasping at straws for a couple remainder magic tricks that are iffier to prove? That's how the thought process for this brainstorming exercise should be organized...what collectively adds up to 20% between Park and South Station without relying on wild guesses.

I think best possible case is still going to leave us stuck and head-scratching at proving that last ~5% in dwell improvements. The exercise will have been well worth the effort because 10% or more in dwell improvements is a hell of a short-term benefit, but clearing 20% with enough uncertainty fudge factor to actually prove 5 more trainsets can be shoved into the rush hour rotation is going to be damn hard. Things just are what they are in terms of blobs of physical flesh who have to be pushed like Play-Doh through old egresses of set dimensions.

deathtopumpkins wrote:That idea is a non-starter, since Park St Under only has an elevator on the center platforms.

Nonsense. Let the 'mobility aided' and snot generator carts access the center platform and stand out of the way of the herd while the outer platforms hold the masses who will otherwise prevent smooth disembarking. Plus, by delaying the opening of outer platform doors you give everyone a chance to get to the door without being ambushed by folks who seem to think getting on the train sooner means getting home sooner. Anything that helps the flow of people helps the flow of trains.

The #1 way to improve dwell time with new equipment is the utilization of demand doors. Expecting a person at one end of 6 cars to be able to 'safely' close 24 doors at once is asinine. Once a door is closed it stays closed so the constant need to recycle 24 doors because someone else ran up to another one is eliminated. At Park Street, this also eliminates the need for one side to close at a time, since every door not being utilized will close on its own.

I also agree that the ability to move between cars would help, but since even New York has banned doing so you'll never see it allowed today unless cars like Toronto's show up (and I am very much not in favor of those).

I was in Boston this week and rode the Red Line several times. I was surprised at the poor state of maintenance of these cars. Even the twenty-year-old 1800's are starting to look old and dirty. But what's worse is even safety equipment is suffering. At least half the trains I saw had at least one (of four) red marker lights out on one or both ends of the train. On previous trips to Boston over the last 30 years, I can't remember ever seeing that before. Is MBTA in such bad shape, they can't even replace marker-light bulbs?

MBTA3247 wrote:I think BandA meant pass-through between cars.

Yes, passthru would allow a train that is one car too long for the platform.

And if the platforms are overcrowded, you could limit the number of people entering at the fare gates. That way the dwell is controlled. Let them queue up outside like a proper socialist economy. If they get tired of waiting they can walk or take an Uber.

And how many people are already within fare control at Park St. vs transferring from the green line or even uphill from the orange line? Would you gate all access to the Under platforms at the RL transfer stations.