Green Line Type 9 Thread

orange1234 wrote:It looks like the Type 9 contract will be awarded to CAF USA. Does anyone know what their track record is in the USA besides building the WMATA 5000 series vehicles?

Within the USA, they have also built some of Sacramento's light rail vehicles, and are contracted to provide rolling stock for the Kansas City and Cincinnati streetcars. Internationally, they have a long track record of both low floor and high floor light rail vehicles, as well as heavy rail metro trains.

Those 24 CAF Type 9's will come in at $ 4.923 Mil a piece ...

nomis wrote:Those 24 CAF Type 9's will come in at $ 4.923 Mil a piece ...

Assuming they last 25 years, that's about $540 a day, every day, for each car.

Only 24 cars? I wonder what happened to the plan to replace the Type 7s with Type 9s? (Not that I'm complaining about the 7s getting a reprieve for a few more years)

MBTA3247 wrote:Only 24 cars? I wonder what happened to the plan to replace the Type 7s with Type 9s? (Not that I'm complaining about the 7s getting a reprieve for a few more years)

As I recall there's an option for 30 more cars on this procurement, but this is for expansion. The next generation, the Type 10, would replace the Type 7s and Type 8s.

MBTA3247 wrote:Only 24 cars? I wonder what happened to the plan to replace the Type 7s with Type 9s? (Not that I'm complaining about the 7s getting a reprieve for a few more years)

This order is to supplement the fleet for the expanded service and not to replace(well maybe the wrecked cars)... The Type 7s are being rebuilt and are not going anywhere soon. I can see a Type 10 order down the road to replace the 8s as I do not see them being rebuilt...

While I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong, I feel like CAF might not be the best choice. A few of their recent (10-15 years) US projects have been a little messy (notably WMATA 5000 cars and Amtrak Viewlier IIs), and the Type 9's won't be a simple build.

I'm curious as to who the other bidder is. Hopefully the decision isn't being made solely on price...

Also, it sounds like there isn't a "Buy Massachusetts" requirement in this contract. I'm guessing they would be built in the Elmira, NY plant that is currently building the Viewliner IIs.

ns3010 wrote:Also, it sounds like there isn't a "Buy Massachusetts" requirement in this contract.

Someone must've wised up and realized that either no one would bid or the cost would be outrageous if that were required.

Diverging Route wrote:

MBTA3247 wrote:Only 24 cars? I wonder what happened to the plan to replace the Type 7s with Type 9s? (Not that I'm complaining about the 7s getting a reprieve for a few more years)

As I recall there's an option for 30 more cars on this procurement, but this is for expansion. The next generation, the Type 10, would replace the Type 7s and Type 8s.

They should exercise the option for atleast another 10 - 15 cars, the way they have been wrecking Type 7's lately the 24 cars wouldnt be enough for expanded service.

sery2831 wrote:

MBTA3247 wrote:Only 24 cars? I wonder what happened to the plan to replace the Type 7s with Type 9s? (Not that I'm complaining about the 7s getting a reprieve for a few more years)

This order is to supplement the fleet for the expanded service and not to replace(well maybe the wrecked cars)... The Type 7s are being rebuilt and are not going anywhere soon. I can see a Type 10 order down the road to replace the 8s as I do not see them being rebuilt...

I was just thinking over this order and what I don't quite understand is why the T is placing these two separate orders, which will essentially force them to keep the current system of ~70' trolleys working in 2- and 3-train sets for the next 30 years and beyond. With all of the capacity issues plaguing the Green Line, you would think that they'd be looking towards something like the much more modern all low-floor trolley systems like the Bombardier Flexity/Alstom Citadis that could better handle the higher passenger loads. The increased number of doors alone on those newer designs looks like they'd do wonders for station dwell times.

It just seems short-sighted to me that the T would lock themselves into their current system of 70' Boeing LRV-derived hardware to fix short term equipment capacity issues, when they could have placed a major order of 100' Flexitys like Toronto did and run them as 1- and 2-train sets alongside the current hardware, phasing the type 8's and type 7's out as the new hardware arrives. You lose the operational flexibility of every tram being compatible with any other train on the line, but you'd think the drastic increase in passenger capacity/decrease in dwell times would more than make up for the loss.

One word: Boylston.

I doubt the Flexitys could handle Boylston curve.

They're turning street corners in Toronto, what about the Boylston curve is so prohibitive? It's not even the tightest radius in the system.

Longer cars would require a shop retrofit. Unless, of course, you make the new shop for the long cars. Then you have two incompatible shops for two incompatible fleets. You'd have to change everything over in one fell swoop like Toronto is doing. We also, in the last 10 years, spent $97 million on a new fare system. All those doors are useless if you have to come in by the farebox (having two cars with two fareboxes and two open doors is better than just the front door on your fancy wheelworm). Eliminate the current system for proof of payment and all that complain about the dated infrastructure would be complaining about the money wasted on the 2007 fare system. Can't have it both ways, guys.

What I think they should do is what Dallas did with their Kinki-Sharyo cars. They had 2 section articulated LRVs (much larger than but) similar to our LRVs. In order to both increase capacity and meet ADA requirements they had Kinki add a third section to the cars. That section is low floor, it doesn't require any super modern/super temper-mental low floor "trucks" and it doesn't require expensive procurements and fleet replacements, although it still would require the shop retrofit. The best part is we'd get to keep the 7s for another 30+ years.

Anyhow, the capital investment plan has the Type 10 replacing the entire existing fleet in 6 years. I think there's a better chance of establishing residence on the moon by that time.

Stripped-down, read-only fare boxes could be installed at every door. That's what they do in Hiroshima.

CRail wrote:They're turning street corners in Toronto, what about the Boylston curve is so prohibitive? It's not even the tightest radius in the system.

I'd say the tunnel walls/pillars. Sure you can make a 100' trolley that takes a curve tighter than Boylston's without derailing, but the body of the trolley in between the wheels is going to swing into the curve. This is fine outdoors, but underground, it gets much tougher.

I have read here in the forums before that the Park Street loop and associated S-curves leading into and out of the loop are the tightest curves on the system and the limiting factor overall. From what I recall of a few wheel-screeching trips around the Kenmore loop, it's pretty tight up there too.

Not to shift focus, but since Toronto was mentioned, they have their share of close clearances underground as well. The underground curve at Queens Quay is very tight both in radius and wall clearance, and the Union Station loop is so tight that there are warning marks and tactile on the station platform (which is right on the curve!) extending several feet out from the rail to keep people away from the wide swing of the cars around the loop. My photo:
http://photos.cityrails.net/showpic/?ph ... y=jwhite07" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the things that is a design challenge for Boston is that the Green Line is neither what can be called true, modern light rail (which at its most evolved is not much less than full rapid transit), or a traditional streetcar system (like Toronto still is). The Green Line straddles both worlds, and that's where the trouble starts when it comes to equipment design. Fully low floor, multiple-articulated streetcars like what TTC has acquired might fit in the clearance diagram of the subway and negotiate the snaking curves easily, but they are not well suited for high speed private rights of way such as the Riverside Line, or presumably the Mattapan Line and Somerville/Medford extensions. You think a Type 7 has a lot of lateral motion? Add a few extra articulations!

Cars that are designed for higher speed operation are typically single or at most dual articulated for greater stability at high speeds, and are often equipped for multiple unit operation. Pretty much every city in the US which has high speed light rail, including Boston, has followed that model. But when you account for the other side of the physical characteristics spectrum of the system, the relatively slow speeds of the subway and its curvature and clearances, suddenly you find you're in between the two equipment types. Throw in the holdover quirks like on board fare collection via farebox and one man per car staffing, and oh by the way the astronomical ridership that we "enjoy" on the Green Line, and you find that the vehicle that does it all simply cannot be bought off the shelf.

San Francisco has pretty much gone its own way and needn't be constrained by what Boston needs, but I still think Boston and Philadelphia need to do some collaboration. A joint order for Type 9s for both cities sure would bring the unit cost way down, and Philadelphia's Kawasakis, though apparently still solid, are getting very old and are still not accessible.