Green Line Type 9 Thread

[BigUglyCat]

... My photo:
http://photos.cityrails.net/showpic/?ph ... y=jwhite07" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...
.

Is 4017 the CLRV that was test-run in Boston, or am I having a senior moment? Hey, folks, it was 40 years ago (or so).

[blackcap]

CLRV 4029 at Riverside, May 1980 (Bob Redden photo, from Transit Toronto web site):


4027, 4029, and 4031 ran on the Green Line in the spring of 1980.

[BigUglyCat]

Thanks, blackcap. I believe I had 4027 in mind. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[korax]

Houston has had probs with their cafs
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=9394883" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bramdeisroberts]

The really cynical part of me hopes the Type 9s end up being lemons, again to help hasten the GL's slow, arduous process of moving beyond what are essentially warmed-over derivatives of the Boeing LRV and push the T towards adoption of actual 21st-century form factors and technologies.

Toronto's finally doing it, as are plenty of European tram systems with just as demanding track layouts as the T. Just look at Alston's regio citadis line and you have the perfect ~100', mostly low-floor, high-speed solution that would be perfect for the GL's needs, and with the door densities needed to drop central subway dwell times to boot. Combine that with a simple tap-and-go prepay system like London uses on the DLR (no fare gates, just tap spots and an officer on the train for fare enforcement) and the T could finally have a GL that can actually handle its passenger loads.

But instead we're buying more Boeing LRV knockoffs from another 2nd-tier European manufacturer with a patchy history building trams. Because that worked so well for us when we tried it with Breda.

[djimpact1]

I assume this is the rendering to be revealed tonight...courtesy of Boston Magazine via MBTA:

[Arlington]

I assume this is the rendering to be revealed tonight...courtesy of Boston Magazine via MBTA:

Link to original source? (couldn't find at BostonMagazine.com)

[djimpact1]

I assume this is the rendering to be revealed tonight...courtesy of Boston Magazine via MBTA:

Link to original source? (couldn't find at BostonMagazine.com)

Here you go...
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog ... n-by-2017/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MBTA3247]

Is it just me, or do the doors on that look really narrow compared to the existing fleet?

[Bramdeisroberts]

EDIT: I was wrong, apparently those emergency exit-lookibg things up front probably ARE doors, but they still look tiny nonetheless. Every time I have ridden a type 8, its hard enough to get people up and into the high-floor segments of the cars, and that's with the big cab-end doors.

Having all of those narrow doors per train with such a large part of the interior space being essentially accessible only by a set of stairs should do wonders for dwell times.

[sery2831]

Looks like a cab door and not a door for the public. Can't imagine boarding only using two doors! Let's hope this is not accurate!

[Bramdeisroberts]

That was my first impression, but hopefully its some kind of hugely impractical maintenance nightmare of a massive plug door? Either way, I've got a bad feeling about this.

[nomis]

Well it looks hawt and European to boot.

I like the look of it, and the operator area door still could be still a normal entrance, as it looks to be at the same base height above rail. More than likely, we lost some of the upper level space to fall within the 70% low floor ADA mandate from the linked article, including the entranceway area beside and directly behind the operator.

[MBTA3247]

Well it looks hawt and European to boot.

I like the look of it, and the operator area door still could be still a normal entrance, as it looks to be at the same base height above rail. More than likely, we lost some of the upper level space to fall within the 70% low floor ADA mandate from the linked article, including the entranceway area beside and directly behind the operator.

I think the low-floor area will be the same size as on the Type 8s. Since the image suggests the car has actual trucks at each end, there's no way they can increase the low-floor area without lengthening the entire car. Essentially, it's a Type 8 with different styling (though hopefully it'll be more reliable!)

[bostontrainguy]

http://www.whdh.com/story/25522656/new- ... -and-buses" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know CAF is well behind in its Amtrak Viewliner order, so who knows when we will actually see these.

One thing I do note is that this car has a left side mirror for the operator. This is a first for "modern" (Type 7 & 8) MBTA trolleys. Also it looks like the right side mirror is more fixed instead of positioning itself only when the front door is open.

Up until now both vehicle sides are basically blind for T trolley operators. When traveling on Huntington Ave/South Huntington Ave, you are operating pretty much blindly when you turn left near Brookline Village or into the VA loop or when merging with traffic coming off of the median at Brigham Circle.

This also would eliminate the need for left side mirrors in the stations which often are miss-positioned and useless. This would be a nice improvement.