• Green Line Type 9 Thread

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

Moderators: sery2831, CRail

  • 758 posts
  • 1
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  by jwhite07
 
Yes, cut and cover is hugely expensive and has been suggested and rejected many times over.

Getting way off the Type 9 topic now (I apologize, I've been a part of that), but in an attempt to bring it back, I'll just say that the fact that Type 9s are equipped with plug doors is not a particularly compelling argument for not running these cars in street running service. Such cars are operated in street running all over the world every day - in fact it has been done in Boston before, with the Boeing LRVs, although that era was somewhat brief since another thin argument was made "The Boeing cars have a high voltage equipment cabinet under the floor and if an auto T-boned a streetcar at that exact spot..."
  by The EGE
 
Mission Park could very easily be built with separated platforms by taking the scarcely-used parking/dropoff lane of the apartment complex on the north side. I imagine that "you'll get a real station with accessible platforms" would make it pretty easy to convince them to give up their dropoff lane. Fenwood Road can be axed with some basic improvements to Brigham Circle (move the inbound platform across from outbound - or make it an island platform for easier short turns - and make crossing the intersection on foot easier). That eliminates street-running stops on Huntington. Riverway can probably get separated platforms by taking a few spots (the adjacent residences have a private parking alley behind them). I'd certainly like to see dedicated lanes, but even street running, platforms are still possible. San Francisco has dozens of them.
  by bostontrainguy
 
Kill Back of the Hill too. Totally unnecessary stop.
  by rethcir
 
They will need to figure some things out for the “Green Line Transformation” project, if that gets taken on in earnest.
  by typesix
 
jwhite07 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:53 pm ...with the Boeing LRVs, although that era was somewhat brief since another thin argument was made "The Boeing cars have a high voltage equipment cabinet under the floor and if an auto T-boned a streetcar at that exact spot..."
Yes, since most of MBTA's PCCs have the motor generator/(air compressor) set on the operator's side that could also be T-boned and cause high voltage havoc.
  by Arborwayfan
 
The EGE wrote:but even street running, platforms are still possible. San Francisco has dozens of them.
So do Oslo, Stockholm, Amsterdam... And low-floor cars mean that such platforms would not have to be that high to give level boarding, right?
The EGE wrote:Brigham Circle (move the inbound platform across from outbound - or make it an island platform for easier short turns - and make crossing the intersection on f
IIRC the current Brigham Circle station, when originally opened in the early 80s and when used as the end of the line from 1985 to 1989 (ish?), had the crossover between the platforms, with spring switches, so that a car (or really an operator) would drop off the last passengers at the outbound platform, change ends, and run a short distance to the inbound platform to pick up its first passengers for the next run. I don't know if the T was already planning to eliminate the rest of the line, or if it was just planning to run Brigham Circle short turns in LRVs. I assume that was part of the reason for the offset platforms, but since then the T moved the crossover inbound of the inbound platform. Anyone know why?
  by The EGE
 
Thanks, that's a fascinating piece of history I'm too young to know. My suspicion would be that the raised platforms added in 2003 would have posed a collision risk when trains were crossing over.
  by theMainer
 
I just caught an OOS 2-Car Type 9 train that had come down the E line, hopefully a sign of good things to come.
  • 1
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51