Green Line Type 10 thread

[Adams_Umass_Boston]

Considering the Type 9s are CAF and seem problem free , I can see why the T went with them.

[diburning]

It figures the MBTA would go with CAF. Cracks were discovered in the wheel arches of the CAF Urbos 3 trams
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-06/ ... 20Thursday.

They are currently being replaced by Alstom Citadis trams used on other lines.
https://youtu.be/X1U6dvCkxLc

I hope this isn't a premonition of what's to come.

There's no need to panic. It's not the end of the world. Realize that the CAF Urbos 3 is used all around the world and that Sydney's problems are probably just related to that batch. Once they fix them, they'll redeploy them in other cities in New South Wales. Newcastle, for example, also uses those trams, and they're starting up a new tram network out of Paramatta that will also use CAF Urbos 3s, so they can use those there as well. The reason for replacing the Urbos 3 in Sydney is because the other two tram lines use Alstom Citadis cars which use the APS (Alstom Power System) which is essentially an on-demand third rail, and they'd prefer the Dulwich Hill line, which is the only line using the Urbos 3 because it is under wire the entire length, to switch to the Citadis for interoperability for demand leveling purposes.

[sb150]

So by the time Charlie Card II is ready, the culture of fare evasion should be well established.

I have bad news for you about fare recovery on the surface branches of the Green Line.

You only have to watch the number of fare evaders at unmanned entrances (even the manned gates) to get an idea of how much revenue will be lost.

[JCitron]

Thanks for that. That makes sense too to keep the power consistent across the board on the lines rather than having two different systems since that allows for interoperability and transferring of power should that be needed.

What you said, does put my mind at ease. I am aware of the other CAF Type 9s.

I've been watching a lot of Transportvlog's (Paul) videos, and he's shown some amazing things that the MBTA should use as inspiration back here.

It figures the MBTA would go with CAF. Cracks were discovered in the wheel arches of the CAF Urbos 3 trams
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-06/ ... 20Thursday.

They are currently being replaced by Alstom Citadis trams used on other lines.
https://youtu.be/X1U6dvCkxLc

I hope this isn't a premonition of what's to come.

There's no need to panic. It's not the end of the world. Realize that the CAF Urbos 3 is used all around the world and that Sydney's problems are probably just related to that batch. Once they fix them, they'll redeploy them in other cities in New South Wales. Newcastle, for example, also uses those trams, and they're starting up a new tram network out of Paramatta that will also use CAF Urbos 3s, so they can use those there as well. The reason for replacing the Urbos 3 in Sydney is because the other two tram lines use Alstom Citadis cars which use the APS (Alstom Power System) which is essentially an on-demand third rail, and they'd prefer the Dulwich Hill line, which is the only line using the Urbos 3 because it is under wire the entire length, to switch to the Citadis for interoperability for demand leveling purposes.

[type 7 3704]

A mockup will be at City Hall next Tuesday and Wednesday (10/29 and 10/30) from 7AM-7PM according to Universalhub:

https://www.universalhub.com/2024/mbta- ... lanned-new

[type 7 3704]

From the GM's report during the board meeting today:

[rethcir]

These are the ones that will require geometry changes to the tunnels to fit, right? But having more capacity will be huge.

[MBTA3247]

There can't be much of a geometry change, if any, if they're expecting the first ones to be delivered in 18 months.

[typesix]

No changes to the tunnel structure. Just like previous cars, they will have to conform to existing clearances.

[bostontrainguy]

The MBTA did a LiDAR mapping of the subway so these cars will not have any clearance issues. Greenline trolleys come within 3 inches of the wall in the Park Street Loop. The only major change I can think of within the Greenline subway was the planned eastbound crossover in the Park Street Loop from 20 years ago but I don't believe it was ever done . . . at least not yet:

[Arlington]

I think they will require some yard radius changes

[diburning]

These are the ones that will require geometry changes to the tunnels to fit, right? But having more capacity will be huge.

As others have mentioned, the "old way of thinking" was that anything larger than a PCC/Type 7 was immediately presumed to not fit and that every new vehicle needed to be completely custom. Then the MBTA embraced modern technology and LIDAR mapped the entire central subway for accurate actual clearances, and found that there are some off-the-shelf options (ie the Type 9s and Type 10s are essentially CAF Urbos 3 trams) with minimal modification needed (primarily the nose taper) to provide sufficient clearance on curves.

[CRail]

There was a time that there weren't off the shelf options as LRV manufacturers catered to areas of new construction of "light rail" verses legacy "streetcar" networks. It's why Philly has and Toronto had decades old fleets built to PCC specs for as long as they do/did. Eventually there had to be a car built for these networks.

[wicked]

The fiscal control board said years ago that the Green Line subway was going to be “modernized,” including changes to the Boylston curve, in part to prepare for the 10s. You and I know the unlikelihood of that, but the media reported it and never followed up. I reckon that’s where some of the confusion comes from re: retrofitting the subway. Good to hear that they used LIDAR to get more accurate measurements and that more off-the-shelf stock is a future option.

[type 7 3704]

I visited the mockup, and was honestly quite disappointed. There's significantly less interior room on the sections with trucks and seating (compared to Type 7/8/9) since the interior walls are significantly thicker (almost a foot thick). The aisles are narrow, and the seats are significantly shallower as a result. Compared to a CAF Urbos 3 (which these are reportedly derived from), there's simply far less interior room. Not sure what happened here.