CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[chicagopcclcar1]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It's all been said before at some point. IIRC a train with longer rolling stock could run from Howard to 63rd after curve easings at Sheridan, Indiana and 63rd, plus modifications to yards and turnaround facilities.

He had already talked about running from Howard. Trains from Howard DO pass Sheridan but they don't pass Indiana and there is no problem at 63rd St. You wonder, do they really still live in Chicago.

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm not insisting on anything, just discussing possibilities to increase capacity without the expense of a whole other line. It's not like CTA has the runaway ridership growth of BART or the DC Metro, so these improvements aren't immediately necessary. Chicago hasn't expanded the system in 30 years, so growth only comes from existing stations. But it will need additional capacity in the future. How should CTA achieve this without spending mega-billions on a new subway?

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I thought the Orange line was built in the 90s?

Thanks Vlajos. He's forgotten the Pink Line too. Maybe it's just trying too hard to get a point across.

Originally Posted by ardecila

Regarding the conductors; isn't there a technological solution? They're just monitoring doors, right? Issues with disabled access should be solvable through platform reconstruction.

Conductors opened the doors, monitored, and then closed the doors and checked that all doors are closed. The distances both forward and rearward are critical. For OPTO, the end of a ten-car train would be 500 ft back.

David Harrison

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I thought the Orange line was built in the 90s?

30 years, 20 years... same difference

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by chicagopcclcar1

Thanks Vlajos. He's forgotten the Pink Line too. Maybe it's just trying too hard to get a point across.

The Douglas Branch has existed for 100 years, so they dropped in a short connector and renamed service, the service has still existed since the late 19th century.

Stop with the attitude.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by chicagopcclcar1

He had already talked about running from Howard. Trains from Howard DO pass Sheridan but they don't pass Indiana and there is no problem at 63rd St. You wonder, do they really still live in Chicago

This is rapidly becoming pointless, but IIRC the Howard-Dan Ryan subway between Roosevelt and Cermak-Chinatown was built with tighter clearances than the original State St Subway. Therefore, a hypothetical train made of longer/wider cars would need to take the 16th St incline as trains did before 1993, and like the Red Line will do again this spring during track reconstruction. That would send the longer/wider train past tight curves at Indiana and 63rd.

I'm not arguing for wider or longer cars, but I don't think we should keep using the same basic PCC design forever into the future. Articulated cars will force CTA to change yards and operating practices, but the benefits might be worth it. The Paris Metro has the same tight curves, narrow clearances, and short rolling stock of the 'L' but RATP has been unafraid to try new ideas.

[denizen467]

Does "PCC" refer to configuration/layout, to aesthetics, or to both?

Generally speaking it is absurd that in 2013 the CTA would still be having railcars manufactured with almost exactly the same look as they had decades earlier, where transit systems around the world have successfully explored myriad different railcar design futures. There certainly is something to be said for tradition -- maintaining a beloved icon (like many desire for the semi-dysfunctional Wrigley Field) -- but change can be a good thing too (like the Yankee Stadium replacement being embraced by diehard fans, though I'm kind of speculating on that one). I get the feeling that a contemporary el look would be accompanied by rider expectations for higher levels of service, and the CTA would rather have rider expectations stay exactly where they are.

[chicagopcclcar1]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Does "PCC" refer to configuration/layout, to aesthetics, or to both?

Generally speaking it is absurd that in 2013 the CTA would still be having railcars manufactured with almost exactly the same look as they had decades earlier, where transit systems around the world have successfully explored myriad different railcar design futures. There certainly is something to be said for tradition -- maintaining a beloved icon (like many desire for the semi-dysfunctional Wrigley Field) -- but change can be a good thing too (like the Yankee Stadium replacement being embraced by diehard fans, though I'm kind of speculating on that one). I get the feeling that a contemporary el look would be accompanied by rider expectations for higher levels of service, and the CTA would rather have rider expectations stay exactly where they are.

Well all the arguments ever mounted for wider and longer cars on Chicago's CTA are null and void....Personal anguish will probably continue for decades, but the CTA has advertised for bids on the 7000 series of rail car that would begin going into service at the conclusion of the receipt and acceptance of the 706 car order of 5000 series cars. The 7000 series car order with exercised options could total 846 rail cars, completely re-equipping the CTA rail car fleet with only two series of new technology cars by 2022.

The 7000 series rail cars will be 48 ft. in length, 8 ft. 8 in. width at platform, 9 ft. 4 in. maximum, coupled as married pairs, capable of twelve car train operation, able to trainline with 5000 series, able to negotiate 85 ft. minimum curve radius. and finally operate at a balance speed of 70 MPH. In other words the 7000 series will be almost identical to the 5000 series.

David Harrison

[Mr Downtown]

"PCC" primarily refers to the truck design and propulsion equipment. I'm not sure how much of that is actually left in the 5000s.

Most other metro systems use equipment that's akin to mainline railroad cars, particular the use of air brakes. By contrast, Chicago's modern (since 1948) cars are in some respects descendants of all-electric streetcars, particularly the innovations developed in the 1930s for PCC cars.

[CTA Gray Line]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

"PCC" primarily refers to the truck design and propulsion equipment. I'm not sure how much of that is actually left in the 5000s.

Most other metro systems use equipment that's akin to mainline railroad cars, particular the use of air brakes. By contrast, Chicago's modern (since 1948) cars are in some respects descendants of all-electric streetcars, particularly the innovations developed in the 1930s for PCC cars.

Remember the Electroliners were articulated trains that ran on Chicago's 'L', and served in Rapid Transit type service on the Red Arrow Lines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrZzv4CdyQo

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The Paris Metro has the same tight curves, narrow clearances, and short rolling stock of the 'L' but RATP has been unafraid to try new ideas.

The demand profile on RATP's shorter routes also allows them to adjust capacity solely on frequency --- most routes run with 5-car consists at all times. CTA needs the ability to cut/combine consists to operate cost-efficient service at acceptable frequencies.

Supporting infrastructure costs (yard/shop reconfigurations) would be very substantial, and besides, for heavy maintenance and overhaul purposes, all cars need to be able to get to Skokie Shops.

Significant increases in peak throughput --- as much as +30% or so --- could alternatively be obtained through signal, power, and track investments.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

I can't believe they went with a full map indicator in the first place, what a terrible idea. No flexibility whatsoever.

Wise up already and adopt the same signage that MTA has on their new cars.

I'm fairly certain that NYCT/MTA custom-spec'd their strip map signs to fit their exact requirements (both physical installation/mounting and the integration with their proprietary trainline communication systems).

It's not exactly plug and play, and there's always the practical cost-benefit consideration of whether the costs of a change order to retrofit cars on the assembly line is worth it, depending on the labor and engineering expenses involved. IT advancements have come a long way since the Technical Specs for the 5000s were written in 2004 and codified by contract in 2006, e.g. the availability of affordable full color LED signs which are being retrofit to replace the original amber LED destination signs.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

The demand profile on RATP's shorter routes also allows them to adjust capacity solely on frequency --- most routes run with 5-car consists at all times. CTA needs the ability to cut/combine consists to operate cost-efficient service at acceptable frequencies.

Supporting infrastructure costs (yard/shop reconfigurations) would be very substantial, and besides, for heavy maintenance and overhaul purposes, all cars need to be able to get to Skokie Shops.

Significant increases in peak throughput --- as much as +30% or so --- could alternatively be obtained through signal, power, and track investments.

Thanks. What do you mean by demand profile? The ratio between peak demand and off-peak?

I don't mean to imply that CTA is calcified or un-innovative; the rapid rollout of Bus/Train Tracker was revolutionary, especially with regard to the numerous ways to access the information (web portals, apps, LCD/LED screens, text service). BRT and Ventra will probably launch another revolution. It just seems odd that the railcar design has gotten so formulaic.

Forgive me if I am over-eager to import ideas from other cities; the 'L' network is unique among metro systems in a lot of not-so-obvious ways. I'm glad people like you and Mr. D have a sense of the big picture.

[CTA Gray Line]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

I'm fairly certain that NYCT/MTA custom-spec'd their strip map signs to fit their exact requirements (both physical installation/mounting and the integration with their proprietary trainline communication systems).

It's not exactly plug and play, and there's always the practical cost-benefit consideration of whether the costs of a change order to retrofit cars on the assembly line is worth it, depending on the labor and engineering expenses involved. IT advancements have come a long way since the Technical Specs for the 5000s were written in 2004 and codified by contract in 2006, e.g. the availability of affordable full color LED signs which are being retrofit to replace the original amber LED destination signs.

Is there some reason that they can't use plain old Flat Screen TV's (well protected) which can display ANY type image or color at will.

[Busy Bee]

I've posted it here before and I'll post it again: the only thing the CTA or any system for the matter NEEDS can be perfectly illustrated with the model countdown clocks on the Paris Metro:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ers_-_SIEL.jpg

Forget full board monitor-like displays that lead programmers to feel the need to fill and flash it with more than the necessary information (think Happy Earth Day!) and in which financially strapped systems like CTA will inevitably be tempted to sell out and flash advertisements at you in between intended information. I can also see full size monitors burning up quickly (Chicago climate being a variable) costing the CTA money they don't have to be constantly replacing them, or worse yet leaving half burnt out or "dimmed" boards for the public to decipher (think 1st generation "flip-dot" bus blinds. KISS, keep - it - simple - stupid. Avoid more than is necessary. And the Paris signage just looks badass, anyone care to differ?

[chicagopcclcar1]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't mean to imply that CTA is calcified or un-innovative; the rapid rollout of Bus/Train Tracker was revolutionary, especially with regard to the numerous ways to access the information (web portals, apps, LCD/LED screens, text service). BRT and Ventra will probably launch another revolution. It just seems odd that the railcar design has gotten so formulaic.

Forgive me if I am over-eager to import ideas from other cities; the 'L' network is unique among metro systems in a lot of not-so-obvious ways. I'm glad people like you and Mr. D have a sense of the big picture.

Mr. "a"..I know you will agree that everyone cannot be expected to like everything. Any particular design, no matter what its source was, will have its supporters and have an equal number who despise. To me, the glass front railcar is definately "not Chicago." But while I can appreceiate your personal lists of likes and dislikes, I must admit a personal disdain whenever I hear that the Chicago 'L' should change...just to change. No, no...you find what works, you refine it, you tweek, but you keep what works. That becomes your style, your tradition. I've ridden the European systems from Spain to London, Germany, Amsterdam, Paris. I have not found anything that could out perform or be as distinctive as our PCC 6000s from the day or our present HP rail cars. We don't need any doors on the outside or coupled trainsets with no bulkheads. Maybe I can better portray my viewpoint by sharing some of my personal photography of our CTA L/Subway.


SB Brown Line coming off the branch at Clark Tower.


SB Brown Line crossing Francisco Ave. on the surface running portion of the line. The "L" was constructed even before streets were laid out. In fact the land was owned by officers of the elevated company.


24 cars of 3200 series rail cars on the Wabash Ave. side of the Loop 'L'. The 'L' was a great fit on this wide street in the downtown area.


Inbound meets outbound as two Orange line trains go through the "fly-over" junction with the Green Line at 17th Street Junction.


The telescope lens compresses a NB Blue Line train along Milwaukee Ave. with the city skyline four miles in the distance.


A NB Blue Line train stops at Damen Ave. station in a very busy and crowded area of the city.


Two trains at the north end of the modern replacement of the original Harrison St. "S" curves. 6 MPH replaced by 35 MPH.

David Harrison

[Mr Downtown]

I think CTA's conservatism in car design has served them quite well over the last 60 years. Attention to the fundamentals of mechanical and propulsion systems, and incremental adoption of proven concepts, kept CTA from having the problems encountered by other US systems who were romanced by aerospace contractors showing flashy body designs. No CTA car series has ever needed to be retired or rebuilt early because of performance issues; in fact, most have served two decades longer than initially intended.

That said, I'm also of the opinion that good design costs nothing, and hope that the carbuilders will hire some outside design help to create handsome integrated designs for the bodies and end caps that don't compromise operating or passenger comfort issues. I cringe every time I see one of the new Metra Electric or South Shore bilevels. That's design by engineering committee, and a good reminder of why the Japanese auto companies finally had to set up design studios in Southern California.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I cringe every time I see one of the new Metra Electric or South Shore bilevels. That's design by engineering committee, and a good reminder of why the Japanese auto companies finally had to set up design studios in Southern California.

Here here, and to think that the 40+ year old Pullman IC Highliners look more modern than their replacements is a shameful and depressing statement on how American transit agencies, specifically CTA and Metra, view the importance of good industrial design. Don't get me going on how Metra's legacy operators (CNW, IC, RI...and having so much to "work with") liveries' where soooo much better to look at than Metra's cheeseball red, white and blue or their terrible logo. And ditto for the CTA. Bring back the greens please!

Oh Yeah!


Flickr user Cylon8: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38131534@N03/

[chicagopcclcar1]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Here here, and to think that the 40+ year old Pullman IC Highliners look more modern than their replacements is a shameful and depressing statement on how American transit agencies, specifically CTA and Metra, view the importance of good industrial design. Don't get me going on how Metra's legacy operators (CNW, IC, RI...and having so much to "work with") liveries' where soooo much better to look at than Metra's cheeseball red, white and blue or their terrible logo. And ditto for the CTA. Bring back the greens please!

Oh Yeah!


Flickr user Cylon8: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38131534@N03/

You mean there's some shortcoming to this design? I'm sorry, I love this design and the single level South Shores too.


Must also be why I like General Electric locomotive designs too. Here's a UP C40 Dash 8 smoking it up at Rochelle Railway Park, IL proving that inside every GE there's an ALCO trying to get out.


And yes I love the two level NJT commuter cars too. I seem to take to angular, muscular, techno shapes. Maybe you folk will admit that you find centered storm doors to be the most troublesome feature that you can't live with. Post pictures of what you like and see if the storm door test proves out.

David Harrison

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by CTA Gray Line

Is there some reason that they can't use plain old Flat Screen TV's (well protected) which can display ANY type image or color at will.

Well, they wouldn't use a plain old screen. The type of display you say...have in your home cannot be left on more than 14-15 hours straight. It will break, and the manufacturer will blame you. That's why companies like Samsung and LG offer commercial grade displays that can run for countless hours in extreme conditions. They are very, very expensive.

[Alon]

What's the minimum curve radius on the L? In both New York and Paris the minimum is 40 meters (the City Hall loop in New York, the curves next to Bastille in Paris). I get the feeling it's tighter in Chicago on the Loop, though.

[chicagopcclcar1]

Originally Posted by Alon

What's the minimum curve radius on the L? In both New York and Paris the minimum is 40 meters (the City Hall loop in New York, the curves next to Bastille in Paris). I get the feeling it's tighter in Chicago on the Loop, though.

Minimum radius to be negotiated by contract is 85 ft. Radius in the Loop is probably 90 -95 ft. Radius in Loop are made more critical because the turning rails go through switches and crossovers and cannot be banked (superelevated).

David Harrison