GGW: "7000 series designs sacrifice capacity for vague safety"

[Scrabbleship]

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=6640

The first and last paragraphs are enough to create more cynicism and hatred towards WMATA:

"The team working on the 7000 series, the next generation of Metrorail  railcars, has chosen to keep the current "transverse" seating instead  of switching to a "longitudinal" arrangement based on unquantifiable  safety benefits. In doing so, they've given up the opportunity to  substantially increase Metro's capacity as overcrowding gets worse....Hopefully [the board] will [take a broader view of logistics over perceived "safety"], asking staff to go back to the longitudinal  seating as well as evaluating whether it would bring additional cost to  build railcars with 4 doors. Riders in 2030 would be glad they did."

It also lashses into the FTA for trying to regulate transit safety and warns that they might become over-safe like the FRA does and not see the big picture. Never does it once mention that many further-out commuters may not want to sacrifice comfort for convenience. Once again, GGW seems to take the view that all but WMATA sees Metro as: a subway being made to do commuter rail duties.

[SchuminWeb]

If it were that big of a safety benefit, every rapid transit system would have adopted it.  It seems that WMATA is too set in its ways to design cars that will come into the new century and carry more people more efficiently.

[Tritransit Area]

Twenty First Century Transit means that people sit sideways....?

I may be in the minority, but I'm quite glad they are sticking with the "old fashioned" seating arrangement.  I personally hate with a passion longitudinal seating.  It's uncomfortable both when the train starts moving as well as when it's coming to a stop.  It's awkward to look comfortably forward as some stranger looks right back at you...I'd rather look out the window comfortably!  Plus, with the angle of the walls of the Metrorail cars, sideway seating is VERY uncomfortable, unless they move the seats inward.  Of course, that allows for trash, etc, to accumulate behind the seats.

Already bad enough they are "downgrading" the seats.  At the same time, it would have been interesting to see what would happen if they considered 4 doors per car.  It may have helped with the delays in boarding and such at crowded stations like Metro Center.

[Sand Box John]

I have said it multiple times. The solutions to over crowing on metrorail is to procure rolling stock in sufficient numbers to be able to run longer train at closer headways.

The advertised 6 trains per hour on the branches during peak ain't cutting it, 10 would be better. Ultimately WMATA should have rolling stock in sufficient numbers to operate the system to the designed specifications of 20 trains per hour on the branches.

Loads would be lower because those loads would be spread between a greater number of trains. The lower loads will facilitate quicker boarding and discharging. Quicker boarding and discharging will allow shorter dwell times. Shorter dwell times will reduce trip time lengths.

By having a fleet that large average annual mileage will go down as more then half of the fleet will be idle during off peak allowing more time to perform preventive maintenance reducing delay causing break downs.

The only problem WMATA might have when it achieves the designed specified headways is getting passengers in and out of the stations. But then I don't see that as being that big of an issue as passenger flow will be spread out more evenly.

[Tritransit Area]

John, you are quite right.  One would argue that it's the obvious solution.  I just can't understand why WMATA keeps expanding without having adequate rolling stock to address its current ridership needs.  I've seen the crowding at Metro Center first hand.  It's ridiculous and is a potential safety hazard!

[Scrabbleship]

The only problem with longer trains at shorter headways is that it doesn't really solve the problem of congestion on the Red and Orange Lines. If the Red Line can't handle what it has now, how would it handle it under a theoretical maximum?

[Sand Box John]

Tritransit Area
John, you are quite right.  One would argue that it's the obvious solution.  I just can't understand why WMATA keeps expanding without having adequate rolling stock to address its current ridership needs.  I've seen the crowding at Metro Center first hand.  It's ridiculous and is a potential safety hazard!

One of the things that has puzzled me for more the 20 years is WMATA has had enough funding to procure buses to have fleet that big enough to have surplus busses for backup purposes. Why the folks that run rail operation are not using the same thinking is beyond me.

The only reason I can think of is the up front cost of procuring rail cars. The folks charged with deciding  how many they need are basing their numbers on what they need to run 8 car trains at the headways they are running today. Shorten the headway by any amount and that number will obviously go up.

Scrabbleship
The only problem with longer trains at shorter headways is that it doesn't really solve the problem of congestion on the Red and Orange Lines. If the Red Line can't handle what it has now, how would it handle it under a theoretical maximum?

You are not getting it, the Red and Orange lines can not handle the loads because there are not enough trains to carry those loads. You can't put 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag, however a 15 pound bag will have no problem carrying that same 10 pounds of shit. Put 8 car trains at the platforms every 90 seconds to 2 minutes the crowds will not have enough time to accumulate.

[Scrabbleship]

Scrabbleship
The only problem with longer trains at shorter headways is that it doesn't really solve the problem of congestion on the Red and Orange Lines. If the Red Line can't handle what it has now, how would it handle it under a theoretical maximum?

You are not getting it, the Red and Orange lines can not handle the loads because there are not enough trains to carry those loads. You can't put 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag, however a 15 pound bag will have no problem carrying that same 10 pounds of shit. Put 8 car trains at the platforms every 90 seconds to 2 minutes the crowds will not have enough time to accumulate.

My main concern is running trains so close together might lead to more backups throughout the system and more holding (especially in the downtown core) because the next train is servicing the next station. Could such headways be sustained with such conditions? Or would we have a conga line downtown and multiple trains between the same station on long stretches (King St-Van Dorn St-Franconia for example).

If Metrorail could go and stay fully automatic, this could be feasible. If ATO gets suspended for a prolonged amount of time and/or doors randomly open on the wrong side/in tunnels again, it all goes out the window. Look at the Red Line in its current state for example, it can barely handle 2.5 minute headways during rush hour because manual door opening and manual operation are killing the headways.

[Sand Box John]

Scrabbleship
My main concern is running trains so close together might lead to more backups throughout the system and more holding (especially in the downtown core) because the next train is servicing the next station. Could such headways be sustained with such conditions? Or would we have a conga line downtown and multiple trains between the same station on long stretches (King St-Van Dorn St-Franconia for example).

If Metrorail could go and stay fully automatic, this could be feasible. If ATO gets suspended for a prolonged amount of time and/or doors randomly open on the wrong side/in tunnels again, it all goes out the window. Look at the Red Line in its current state for example, it can barely handle 2.5 minute headways during rush hour because manual door opening and manual operation are killing the headways.

You are still not getting it. Longer train at closer headway = less crowded platforms = less crowded trains = shorter dwell times = faster trip times.

More rolling stock = less annual mileage = more time to do preventive maintenance on cars during off peak = fewer in service malfunctions.

[SchuminWeb]

Meanwhile, Chicago seems to "get it" when it comes to longitudinal seating:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjugL-wCYTg (skip to around 1:45)

Chicago just said exactly what we've been saying about longitudinal seating for years.  You'd think WMATA would get this, but then again, this is Metro we're dealing with...

[WMATAGMOAGH]

Scrabbleship
The only problem with longer trains at shorter headways is that it doesn't really solve the problem of congestion on the Red and Orange Lines. If the Red Line can't handle what it has now, how would it handle it under a theoretical maximum?

You are not getting it, the Red and Orange lines can not handle the loads because there are not enough trains to carry those loads. You can't put 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag, however a 15 pound bag will have no problem carrying that same 10 pounds of shit. Put 8 car trains at the platforms every 90 seconds to 2 minutes the crowds will not have enough time to accumulate.

My main concern is running trains so close together might lead to more backups throughout the system and more holding (especially in the downtown core) because the next train is servicing the next station. Could such headways be sustained with such conditions? Or would we have a conga line downtown and multiple trains between the same station on long stretches (King St-Van Dorn St-Franconia for example).

If Metrorail could go and stay fully automatic, this could be feasible. If ATO gets suspended for a prolonged amount of time and/or doors randomly open on the wrong side/in tunnels again, it all goes out the window. Look at the Red Line in its current state for example, it can barely handle 2.5 minute headways during rush hour because manual door opening and manual operation are killing the headways.

John is right, you don´t get it.  There is a fix in the works to re-enable automatic door openings.  In theory, that fix allows trains when automatically controlled to go back to the old stopping positions, and possibly even when manually controlled, because the disabled feature effectively does what the conductor on a NYC subway train does when "pointing to the board" and prevents wrong side and tunnel door openings.  Knowing every train is 8 cars would allow passengers to spread out and use all 8 cars.  So yes, in theory, John is right and the system would run more reliably.  If dwell times were to continue as an issue, then there might be some adjustments that need to be made.  For example, select trains can be scheduled to short turn during the peaks to provide emptier trains to stations closer to the core. 

Truthfully, I don't think the 90 second headway is actually attainable simply because people will get in the way.  WMATA doesnn't either because IIRC, John posted that the Dulles Line will NOT be able to support 90 second headways.  However, the system still has not reached the point where it can't run an 8 car train on every line every 3 minutes through the core of the system, since most trains are still 6 cars long, so there is plenty of room to add capacity without increasing the frequencies at this point.  However, John's "equations" are still valid.

John:  Money has got to be the reason they don't order more cars.  They have to know what the service needs are and what is expected for the future, but railcars simply aren't cheap.  I think the bus surplus is partially a result of lower up front costs and the fact that back when Orion was WMATA's manufacturer of choice, they compensated delays in production with free buses, so the fleet was able to grow at less expense for awhile.

[Sand Box John]

WMATAGMOAGH
Truthfully, I don't think the 90 second headway is actually attainable simply because people will get in the way.  WMATA doesnn't either because IIRC, John posted that the Dulles Line will NOT be able to support 90 second headways.  However, the system still has not reached the point where it can't run an 8 car train on every line every 3 minutes through the core of the system, since most trains are still 6 cars long, so there is plenty of room to add capacity without increasing the frequencies at this point.  However, John's "equations" are still valid.

The original plan designed for 90 second headways on the Silver line. It was downgraded to 135 seconds to reduce costs. Frankly I don't see this as being that big of an issue for operations in the urban core as the Silver line is a branch off of a branch. WMATA will still be able to operate 3 minute headways on the Silver line provided at least a third of the train terminate their runs on the east side of Tysons Corner.

John:  Money has got to be the reason they don't order more cars.  They have to know what the service needs are and what is expected for the future, but railcars simply aren't cheap.  I think the bus surplus is partially a result of lower up front costs and the fact that back when Orion was WMATA's manufacturer of choice, they compensated delays in production with free buses, so the fleet was able to grow at less expense for awhile.

Your probably right but I thing that's a bogus excuse. The high up front cost is made up in longer service life. Typical service life of a transit buss 12 years, Typical service life of a rapid transit rail car 40 years. The up front cost of the 1k cars was just under $300,000. If you consider how many revenue miles WMATA got out of these cars I think it was a bargain. The up front cost of the first 64 7k cars will be something north of $4.1 million. The up front cost of the 1k replacements will be little over $2.5 million. The reason why the price of the first 64 is so high is the cover Kawasaki's development costs. In 40 years when I'm take my dirt nap I think someone else will be saying the money spent on the 7k was a bargain.