Public meeting on Green Line issues on 1/17/13

Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Re: Public meeting on Green Line issues on 1/17/13

Postby Disney Guy » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:03 pm

Have two trains in a station at the same time when possible or applicable. May require additional operator training.

This will not always happen but whenever it does, some dwell time is saved.

Example with some refinements:

First train pulls all the way to the end of the platform.

Second train pulls in and stops a carlength before the first train (Seashore rule) but does not unload quite yet. It then slowly moves up to the first train and then unloads. If first train moves on before second train reaches it then second train goes all the way to the end of the platform.

(Not done if one of the cars is a 3 car train since the platform can't hold both.)
(To the theater stage manager) Quit twiddling the knob and flickering the lights while the audience is entering and being seated. (To the subway motorman) Quit twiddling the knob and dinging the doors while passengers are getting off and others are waiting to board.
User avatar
Disney Guy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:10 am
Location: Nashua, NH

Re: Public meeting on Green Line issues on 1/17/13

Postby Patrick Boylan » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:33 am

Or do as San Francisco does, or did when I was there, combine and split trains from different routes. Or, depending on backups, combine and split trains from THE SAME ROUTES. I imagine there may be times they run convoys. If you have 2 fully staffed same route trains one behind the other, what's the advantage of not putting them together?
User avatar
Patrick Boylan
 
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:44 pm
Location: Here is a stupid picture, pay attention to me. Burlington Township, NJ 08016

Re: Public meeting on Green Line issues on 1/17/13

Postby Red Wing » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:07 am

Patrick Boylan wrote:Or do as San Francisco does, or did when I was there, combine and split trains from different routes. Or, depending on backups, combine and split trains from THE SAME ROUTES. I imagine there may be times they run convoys. If you have 2 fully staffed same route trains one behind the other, what's the advantage of not putting them together?


The power supply can't handle too many 3 car trains let alone 4 car trains as most Green line run as 2 car sets.
Red Wing
 
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:55 pm
Location: On the B&B

Re: Public meeting on Green Line issues on 1/17/13

Postby Patrick Boylan » Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:25 am

I keep forgetting Boston's hamster supplied power can't let them operate too many trains at once. Ok, besides that, and inertia, why can't they combine and split trains, as San Francisco does, where I had seen 4 car trains composed of 2 cars from different lines?
Every time I've visited Boston just about any time of day I've frequently seen 2 car trains on the branches waiting for another 2 car train to clear the street level platform, and sometimes follow that 2 car train into the tunnel, where again they'd have to stop frequently because they caught up to that leader.
User avatar
Patrick Boylan
 
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:44 pm
Location: Here is a stupid picture, pay attention to me. Burlington Township, NJ 08016

Re: Public meeting on Green Line issues on 1/17/13

Postby GP40MC 1116 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:41 am

CircusFreakGRITZ wrote:Here's another idea, three car Breda trains all the time from Lechmere to Kenmore with OPTO. The Bredas are already equipped for OPTO.


No need for OPTO on the Green Line. It's bad enough on the heavy rail lines with one operator and a entire train he or she would have to manage in an emergency.

Hopefully before the next accident the T will wake up and realize what is going on....
User avatar
GP40MC 1116
 
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 9:38 pm

Re: Public meeting on Green Line issues on 1/17/13

Postby CRail » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:56 pm

I very much like Pat Boylan's idea and think it should be done. It used to be a fairly common practice to break and make up trains in service. I remember watching trains split at Park Street so one could loop at Govy and the other could continue. Unfortunately, because of safety and instruction concerns, the T won't allow coupling movements to in service cars at this time.

As far as OPTO, the Type 8s have the provision however it does not work. While the 7s probably have some provision for it as a result of the compatibility project, there isn't any way to activate such a feature to my knowledge. Add to that, from what I've heard from people within operations management, the 9s are not being ordered with this capability.

Type 7s aren't going anywhere fore some time, however a drive to replace them is existent because they aren't Sport-Utility-Chair friendly. DART (Dallas) took their jumbo LRVs and added a middle low floor section to those cars making the fleet 100% accessible without buying or replacing any cars. I think that is a perfect solution for the 7s. Increase capacity per car, make 2 car trains the equivalent of a current 3 car, eliminate the mix-matched consist nonsense (improving aesthetics and operation of the trains), and make the fleet entirely accessible. There will then be no reason whatsoever to want to replace that fleet.
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).
User avatar
CRail
 
Posts: 2122
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 8:27 am
Location: Eastie

Re: Public meeting on Green Line issues on 1/17/13

Postby CircusFreakGRITZ » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:56 pm

CRail wrote:I very much like Pat Boylan's idea and think it should be done. It used to be a fairly common practice to break and make up trains in service. I remember watching trains split at Park Street so one could loop at Govy and the other could continue. Unfortunately, because of safety and instruction concerns, the T won't allow coupling movements to in service cars at this time.

As far as OPTO, the Type 8s have the provision however it does not work. While the 7s probably have some provision for it as a result of the compatibility project, there isn't any way to activate such a feature to my knowledge. Add to that, from what I've heard from people within operations management, the 9s are not being ordered with this capability.

Type 7s aren't going anywhere fore some time, however a drive to replace them is existent because they aren't Sport-Utility-Chair friendly. DART (Dallas) took their jumbo LRVs and added a middle low floor section to those cars making the fleet 100% accessible without buying or replacing any cars. I think that is a perfect solution for the 7s. Increase capacity per car, make 2 car trains the equivalent of a current 3 car, eliminate the mix-matched consist nonsense (improving aesthetics and operation of the trains), and make the fleet entirely accessible. There will then be no reason whatsoever to want to replace that fleet.


Ok. So if the type 9's will not have this capability, why not make the cars twice as long, so that one operator can operate a train basically the size of a two car train? I can't really think of a reason not to do that.
User avatar
CircusFreakGRITZ
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:44 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Public meeting on Green Line issues on 1/17/13

Postby BostonUrbEx » Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:24 pm

CircusFreakGRITZ wrote:
CRail wrote:I very much like Pat Boylan's idea and think it should be done. It used to be a fairly common practice to break and make up trains in service. I remember watching trains split at Park Street so one could loop at Govy and the other could continue. Unfortunately, because of safety and instruction concerns, the T won't allow coupling movements to in service cars at this time.

As far as OPTO, the Type 8s have the provision however it does not work. While the 7s probably have some provision for it as a result of the compatibility project, there isn't any way to activate such a feature to my knowledge. Add to that, from what I've heard from people within operations management, the 9s are not being ordered with this capability.

Type 7s aren't going anywhere fore some time, however a drive to replace them is existent because they aren't Sport-Utility-Chair friendly. DART (Dallas) took their jumbo LRVs and added a middle low floor section to those cars making the fleet 100% accessible without buying or replacing any cars. I think that is a perfect solution for the 7s. Increase capacity per car, make 2 car trains the equivalent of a current 3 car, eliminate the mix-matched consist nonsense (improving aesthetics and operation of the trains), and make the fleet entirely accessible. There will then be no reason whatsoever to want to replace that fleet.


Ok. So if the type 9's will not have this capability, why not make the cars twice as long, so that one operator can operate a train basically the size of a two car train? I can't really think of a reason not to do that.


My guess is because they'd have to alternate between ordering double length trolleys and the current length of trolley. Otherwise you can only have "two length" trolleys or "four length" trolleys. Alternating would be the only way to allow single length and triple length. Not a big deal, but possibly enough to just say "keep things the way they've always been".
User avatar
BostonUrbEx
 
Posts: 3587
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Winn to MPT 8, Boston to MPN 38, and Hat to Bank

Re: Public meeting on Green Line issues on 1/17/13

Postby Disney Guy » Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:54 am

I notice varying degrees of rusting on the Type 7s. (Also on the Orange Line cars particularly around the windows.) Don't the T and other transit experts size up a fleet and estimate the remaining lifetime from that point forward and then make the decision to do a mid life overhaul or draw up plans for a new fleet?

The concept of adding a low floor middle section to the 7s is intriguing but it would be a question of "throwing money at it" or"trying to make a new one out of it". I saw one report on the Internet describing the large amount of engineering needed to better protect passengers in collisions comparable to the recent Green Line Waban rear end crash (engineering for the Dallas LRV center section project). Do all this work for cars that may rust out after not too many years?

Otherwise it looks easy to add a center section. All the mechanical and electrical parts could be the same as what already exist -- wheels and undercarriage, brakes, doors, articulation joints, etc. No electronics or propulsion components are needed.
(To the theater stage manager) Quit twiddling the knob and flickering the lights while the audience is entering and being seated. (To the subway motorman) Quit twiddling the knob and dinging the doors while passengers are getting off and others are waiting to board.
User avatar
Disney Guy
 
Posts: 785
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:10 am
Location: Nashua, NH

Re: Public meeting on Green Line issues on 1/17/13

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:13 am

Disney Guy wrote:I notice varying degrees of rusting on the Type 7s. (Also on the Orange Line cars particularly around the windows.) Don't the T and other transit experts size up a fleet and estimate the remaining lifetime from that point forward and then make the decision to do a mid life overhaul or draw up plans for a new fleet?

The concept of adding a low floor middle section to the 7s is intriguing but it would be a question of "throwing money at it" or"trying to make a new one out of it". I saw one report on the Internet describing the large amount of engineering needed to better protect passengers in collisions comparable to the recent Green Line Waban rear end crash (engineering for the Dallas LRV center section project). Do all this work for cars that may rust out after not too many years?

Otherwise it looks easy to add a center section. All the mechanical and electrical parts could be the same as what already exist -- wheels and undercarriage, brakes, doors, articulation joints, etc. No electronics or propulsion components are needed.


Kinki actually proposed just such a concept over a decade ago that involved remating the ends to an unpowered center truck. Hell...if the 8's are destined to an early retirement from being too damn hard to rebuild another overhaul of the 7's with the center 'sandwich' truck would easily do the trick. It's not like low-floor trucks on the Green Line are inherently a bad design. Breda was just way, way over its head trying to do it.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7115
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Public meeting on Green Line issues on 1/17/13

Postby MBTA3247 » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:31 pm

F-Line: you're referring to a proposal to add a whole new center section to the Type 7s, which would give the cars 4 trucks. Simply replacing the existing center truck with a low-floor truck wouldn't work, because the entire car would have to be rebuilt to use it.
"The destination of this train is [BEEP BEEP]" -announcement on an Ashmont train.
User avatar
MBTA3247
 
Posts: 2594
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:01 pm
Location: Milton

Re: Public meeting on Green Line issues on 1/17/13

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:01 pm

MBTA3247 wrote:F-Line: you're referring to a proposal to add a whole new center section to the Type 7s, which would give the cars 4 trucks. Simply replacing the existing center truck with a low-floor truck wouldn't work, because the entire car would have to be rebuilt to use it.


I'm just saying Kinki pitched it to the T in the late-90's. Whatever they discussed didn't get far enough to get committed to paper, but they thought they could do it.

If they thought they could do it way back then when nobody was sure how low-floors would work on the GL, then they probably can do it better/cheaper/more-reliable today with nearly 15 years of performance data on the Bredas and several generations of Kinki low-floor product built off 7's tech. If it's going to be sticker supershock to try to midlife rehab the 8's, and (we hope) Kinki gets the 9's order...why wouldn't they consider this instead of junking the 7's? Unless they simply want to retire everything in favor of a gazillion-dollar Type 9/Type 10 fleet, which would be kind of silly.

I don't think it's so much about "let's see if we can stretch the 7's into PCC longevity" so much as I doubt they can stomach the prospect of rebuilding the Bredas when stuff starts wearing out. They'll be on a Boeing hurry-up timeframe for getting phased out.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7115
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Public meeting on Green Line issues on 1/17/13

Postby boblothrope » Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:33 pm

If I'd made it to the meeting, I would have suggested they get rid of the always-stop signals in the central subway.

There are a whole lot of signals which are always red, and only turn green after the train gets there and stops, even if there isn't another train ahead. They installed them to enforce speed limits before curves and stations.

It's a big waste of electricity and time, as well as uncomfortable for passengers. If the train can safely go 10 mph, they need to find a way to enforce that, not make the train go 30 to 0 to 10.
boblothrope
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 11:43 am

Re: Public meeting on Green Line issues on 1/17/13

Postby CircusFreakGRITZ » Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:36 pm

boblothrope wrote:If I'd made it to the meeting, I would have suggested they get rid of the always-stop signals in the central subway.

There are a whole lot of signals which are always red, and only turn green after the train gets there and stops, even if there isn't another train ahead. They installed them to enforce speed limits before curves and stations.

It's a big waste of electricity and time, as well as uncomfortable for passengers. If the train can safely go 10 mph, they need to find a way to enforce that, not make the train go 30 to 0 to 10.

I think that gets back to the issue of automatic train control and crash prevention technology. For whatever reason it was never implemented on the green line despite being on all the other lines.
User avatar
CircusFreakGRITZ
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:44 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Public meeting on Green Line issues on 1/17/13

Postby CRail » Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:48 pm

There are a number of operational differences between light rail and heavy rail which are the reason for the issue last mentioned. It's been brought up, discussed, turned down, brought up again, beaten, killed, pulverized, tired, retired, and exhausted. Many of the delays, slow downs, and hold ups on the red and orange lines are caused by automatic operation. We're talking about trying to speed up the green line and increase its efficiency, not turning it into an MIT student's wet dream.

As far as the red signals and "safety stops," I completely agree. They slow down the line, cause discomfort to passengers, and simply contribute to the peace of mind to safety officials because as we've seen, collisions still occur (and I don't believe less frequently because of these extra stops). The signals at junctions, however, are set up to detect the first train which arrives at the junction and set its route before giving a good indication. A train must first arrive, establish priority, and have its AVI read before the signal can clear up. In lieu of tower operators and/or centrally controlled switches and signals, I think this is pretty much the only way to do it.
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).
User avatar
CRail
 
Posts: 2122
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 8:27 am
Location: Eastie

PreviousNext

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests