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

CRail wrote:

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.

I don't like the idea of expecting all disabled passengers to swim upstream against everyone getting off a train. I'm sure it would also create a fair bit of confusion, especially for non-regular users.

Additionally, the issue I personally have with the idea of relegating boarding passengers to the side platforms and exiting passengers to the center platform is the differences in egress between them. If you're going from southbound red to either direction of green, for example, you do NOT want to exit on the center platform - you want to exit onto the side platform, so you can then go straight up the wide stairs onto the green line platforms - not squeeze your way up a narrow staircase, and then through the narrow passages around the faregates. That would seriously slow down the transfer process, and the center platform staircases CANNOT handle the crush loads of people.

This. All roads lead to the physical dimensions and egress placement at Park Under. And it becomes very hard to tally up to a cumulative "20% dwell time improvements" before scraping up against the limits of those physical dimensions.

It's not unsolvable. They can undertake an engineering feasibility study about building a Red-only headhouse at the site of the current emergency exit on the Common. With goal of crowd-spreading the full length of the platform to separate the bodies who are entering/exiting straight to the street vs. those who are transferring. Ballpark costs for shafting wider revenue stairs and new elevators from the far end of the center platform at site of the current emergency stairs, cutting elevators + stairs into the side walls on the 6-car platform extension, slotting a small mezzanine level just above the station cavern to collect the 3 egresses, then shaft up a combined exit to the surface at a headhouse absolutely no larger than the far-end Park St. GL exit that has 2 or 3 Charlie gates. It won't foul anything structural on the Green level because it's far away, and all load-bearing impacts stay away from the Red tunnel with exception of that small collector mezzanine.

Use those minimal parameters to establish 1) basic build feasibility, 2) ballparked costs, and 3) calculated effects on dwells from pedestrian traffic-spreading. It'll either look like A) a good deal worth pursuing, B) a non-immediate solve that may be worth revisiting in parts or whole later, or C) flat-out infeasible/unbuildable or ineffective. But at least we get conclusive, data-backed answers on what the structural possibles are with those platforms and establish some boundaries for what relief can occur at the station vs. feeding into the station. Those answers alone make it well worth the effort to hire the engineering firm to prepare the study.


This clearly isn't what the FCMB is thinking about right now as it's placing a small-money target on scraping together a "20% improvement" bag of tricks, and has firm limits in mind in how much extra it's willing to spend to hit 20% if collected miscellany falls a little bit short. Doesn't mean structural surveys shouldn't be on the table if the studies themselves are cost-controlled enough (and I would think an engineering survey with project limits confined to only the 6-car extension area of the Red platforms and all earth up to the surface can be done within cost control). Actionable information by its lonesome can inform future spending decisions on the CIP, even when it's out-of-scope for current funding.

While they're at it, the engineering study should also look at widening the side platforms.

Boston Magazine has photos of the 2/3rds scale mock up of an Orange line car. According to the article, this mock-up won't be sent to the MBTA for evaluation until next December (as in 13 months from now) though.

MassLive has even more photos of the mock-up.

NaugyRR wrote:The nose looks almost similar to the new London Underground Stock

Need to ditch the orange color decals that are so hard to read. For pure safety purposes in an emergency you must have all exterior instances of the car number in maximum contrast for ID'ing the car in an emergency. That means bold white text on a dark surface like those graphite-color ends or a window, bold black when it's against the stainless steel by the doors. That's going to be a non-negotiable when it's time to apply decals on the production cars...though I wouldn't expect the graphic designer on a render or mock-up to remember such minutia this far in advance.

The car interior has a London-like appearance too with yellow poles, like the London Underground has. And was that a solid-wall in the full-width cab I saw or just a covered up window on the left side?

Someone please tell me the final product will have more than 2 doors per side...

danib62 wrote:Someone please tell me the final product will have more than 2 doors per side...

It will. Specs call for 3 doors per side for the Orange cars, and 4 per side for the Red.

Why only 3 doors for the Orange Line? Wouldn't it make more sense to standardize on one design, like 4 doors per side?

I didn't see the pictures of the interior, but I understand they are no longer going to have "carpet" seats but orange plastic instead. I like the carpet seats as you stay in place when accelerating and braking. With plastic seats there will be too much assliding.

Head-end View wrote:Why only 3 doors for the Orange Line? Wouldn't it make more sense to standardize on one design, like 4 doors per side?

The Orange Line cars are shorter by almost 5 feet.

highgreen215 wrote:I didn't see the pictures of the interior, but I understand they are no longer going to have "carpet" seats but orange plastic instead. I like the carpet seats as you stay in place when accelerating and braking. With plastic seats there will be too much assliding.

Hopefully they can use textured plastic like the seats on the new buses the T is getting. I slide around a little less on those seats than the smooth seats older buses have.

DaWolf85 wrote: Hopefully they can use textured plastic like the seats on the new buses the T is getting. I slide around a little less on those seats than the smooth seats older buses have.

Sculpted plastic like the old RTS busses had would also work wonders (as long as there are drainage holes, this being the Orange Line and all...)

These new units are shaping up to be sharp looking, I may have to eat some MAJOR crow about CNR if they're built as good as they look.

Bramdeisroberts wrote:
These new units are shaping up to be sharp looking, I may have to eat some MAJOR crow about CNR if they're built as good as they look.

You won't be dining alone at McCrow's. I'll be there, and many others. Actually, I could live with that -- let it happen.