🚀 go-pugleaf

"John R Cambron" <*cambronj@chesapeake.net*> wrote in message news:tjshpfbufkjt63@corp.supernews.com...
>
> http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/red-bird.htm

New York's lengthwise seating makes so much more sense than
WMATA's when it comes to crush capacity.  WMATA aisles are an
annoying 1.5 people wide.  New York's aisles are 2.5 people
wide -- which allows for people to get on/off quickly, which in
turn allows for shorter dwell times.  The lengthwise seating is
more flexible, allowing large people to be comfortable while
children can take up less width.  And there's space for packages
-- the lengthwise seats and the wide ailes provide for this.

--
Michael Malak
malak@claygency.com

In article <g1t%6.45613$Md.14357941@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Michael Malak
wrote:

> "John R Cambron" <*cambronj@chesapeake.net*> wrote in message
> news:tjshpfbufkjt63@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/red-bird.htm
> 
> New York's lengthwise seating makes so much more sense than
> WMATA's when it comes to crush capacity.  WMATA aisles are an
> annoying 1.5 people wide.  New York's aisles are 2.5 people
> wide -- which allows for people to get on/off quickly, which in
> turn allows for shorter dwell times.  The lengthwise seating is
> more flexible, allowing large people to be comfortable while
> children can take up less width.  And there's space for packages
> -- the lengthwise seats and the wide ailes provide for this.

I still maintain that the seating and door configurations are one important
reason why people cluster near the doors on the Washington Metro.  There are
too few doors per car (three on each side, 75-foot cars), and as you point
out, the aisles are narrow, hindering people from getting on and off
quickly.  I've ridden on many rapid rail systems, and Washington's is the
only one where I've ever felt that I might not be able to fight my way off
the train at my station.  And that includes riding the New York subway at
rush hour.

-- Tim

Tim Kynerd wrote:
> 
> In article <g1t%6.45613$Md.14357941@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Michael Malak
> wrote:
> 
> > "John R Cambron" <*cambronj@chesapeake.net*> wrote in message
> > news:tjshpfbufkjt63@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/red-bird.htm
> >
> > New York's lengthwise seating makes so much more sense than
> > WMATA's when it comes to crush capacity.  WMATA aisles are an
> > annoying 1.5 people wide.  New York's aisles are 2.5 people
> > wide -- which allows for people to get on/off quickly, which in
> > turn allows for shorter dwell times.  The lengthwise seating is
> > more flexible, allowing large people to be comfortable while
> > children can take up less width.  And there's space for packages
> > -- the lengthwise seats and the wide ailes provide for this.
> 
> I still maintain that the seating and door configurations are one important
> reason why people cluster near the doors on the Washington Metro.  There are
> too few doors per car (three on each side, 75-foot cars), and as you point
> out, the aisles are narrow, hindering people from getting on and off
> quickly.  I've ridden on many rapid rail systems, and Washington's is the
> only one where I've ever felt that I might not be able to fight my way off
> the train at my station.  And that includes riding the New York subway at
> rush hour.

I don't know if you know this, but when WMATA started up the
procurement process for the CAF cars there was talk of putting 4 
door openings on each side of the cars. This proposal was shot
down by the WMATA board, I don't recall who's recommendation was
used shoot it down or what was in the recommendation, my best
guess is it had something to do with the structure of the car
body. I will also note that the box that the seat pairs that
are back to back rest on contain various components of the on
board train control system, The hinges on these seat pairs are
on the aisle side of the box allowing easy access for surviving.

Frankly I prefer the Rohr seating configuration to the Breda, CAF
configuration. I think the real answer to overcrowding is to
procure an adequate supply of rolling stock and run trains at
shortest headways possable during peek times.

-- 
======================================================================
NT Geek, MCP
Transit Geek
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/	
Model Railroader HO N                                   John R Cambron
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/sunbelt/        North Beach MD USA
Railroad Geek                                  cambronj@chesapeake.net
======================================================================

"Tim Kynerd" <tim@tram.nu> wrote in message
news:slrn9jv4jl.hs.tim@linux.local...

> Overcrowding will always be a problem on any rapid transit system from
time
> to time, even if there is plenty of rolling stock and frequent service in
> the peak.  It's even the case that on any given day, some trains are going
> to be quite crowded, while others will have relatively few people.  As
long
> as that's true, the only solution to the problem of people clustering
around
> the doors is to provide more doors.  (Note that this is a much narrower
> problem than overcrowding in general, even though crowding on the cars is
a
> contributing factor to this problem.)

With the R 110 demonstrators NYCTA tried having nothing to hold on to near
the doors to encourage people to move in.  This was not too popular and the
production R142 cars have hand holds near the doors.

John Mara

In article <tjuvqjmubl1l6b@corp.supernews.com>, John R Cambron wrote:
> 
> 
> Tim Kynerd wrote:
>> 
>> In article <g1t%6.45613$Md.14357941@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Michael Malak
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > "John R Cambron" <*cambronj@chesapeake.net*> wrote in message
>> > news:tjshpfbufkjt63@corp.supernews.com...
>> >>
>> >> http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/red-bird.htm
>> >
>> > New York's lengthwise seating makes so much more sense than
>> > WMATA's when it comes to crush capacity.  WMATA aisles are an
>> > annoying 1.5 people wide.  New York's aisles are 2.5 people
>> > wide -- which allows for people to get on/off quickly, which in
>> > turn allows for shorter dwell times.  The lengthwise seating is
>> > more flexible, allowing large people to be comfortable while
>> > children can take up less width.  And there's space for packages
>> > -- the lengthwise seats and the wide ailes provide for this.
>> 
>> I still maintain that the seating and door configurations are one important
>> reason why people cluster near the doors on the Washington Metro.  There are
>> too few doors per car (three on each side, 75-foot cars), and as you point
>> out, the aisles are narrow, hindering people from getting on and off
>> quickly.  I've ridden on many rapid rail systems, and Washington's is the
>> only one where I've ever felt that I might not be able to fight my way off
>> the train at my station.  And that includes riding the New York subway at
>> rush hour.
> 
> I don't know if you know this, but when WMATA started up the
> procurement process for the CAF cars there was talk of putting 4 
> door openings on each side of the cars. This proposal was shot
> down by the WMATA board, I don't recall who's recommendation was
> used shoot it down or what was in the recommendation, my best
> guess is it had something to do with the structure of the car
> body. I will also note that the box that the seat pairs that
> are back to back rest on contain various components of the on
> board train control system, The hinges on these seat pairs are
> on the aisle side of the box allowing easy access for surviving.
> 
> Frankly I prefer the Rohr seating configuration to the Breda, CAF
> configuration. I think the real answer to overcrowding is to
> procure an adequate supply of rolling stock and run trains at
> shortest headways possable during peek times.
> 

Hi John,

Another problem is, of course, that adding another set of doors reduces
seating capacity.

Overcrowding will always be a problem on any rapid transit system from time
to time, even if there is plenty of rolling stock and frequent service in
the peak.  It's even the case that on any given day, some trains are going
to be quite crowded, while others will have relatively few people.  As long
as that's true, the only solution to the problem of people clustering around
the doors is to provide more doors.  (Note that this is a much narrower
problem than overcrowding in general, even though crowding on the cars is a
contributing factor to this problem.)

Regards,
Tim

Tim Kynerd <tim@tram.nu> wrote:
> John R Cambron wrote:
> > Tim Kynerd wrote:
> >> Michael Malak wrote:

> >> > New York's lengthwise seating makes so much more sense than
> >> > WMATA's when it comes to crush capacity.  WMATA aisles are an
> >> > annoying 1.5 people wide.  New York's aisles are 2.5 people
> >> > wide -- which allows for people to get on/off quickly, which in
> >> > turn allows for shorter dwell times.  The lengthwise seating is
> >> > more flexible, allowing large people to be comfortable while
> >> > children can take up less width.  And there's space for packages
> >> > -- the lengthwise seats and the wide ailes provide for this.

The downside of such seating is that it is (at least IMO) much less
comfortable for seated passengers, and provides much less seating
at times of moderate loading.


> >> I still maintain that the seating and door configurations are one important
> >> reason why people cluster near the doors on the Washington Metro.  There are
> >> too few doors per car (three on each side, 75-foot cars), and as you point
> >> out, the aisles are narrow, hindering people from getting on and off
> >> quickly.  I've ridden on many rapid rail systems, and Washington's is the
> >> only one where I've ever felt that I might not be able to fight my way off
> >> the train at my station.  And that includes riding the New York subway at
> >> rush hour.

Have you ridden the Chicago subway?  Very narrow aisles and only two
doors per car (though the cars are smaller than most).  People avoid
moving in because it can be very difficult to get out again.

[...]

> Another problem is, of course, that adding another set of doors reduces
> seating capacity.

> Overcrowding will always be a problem on any rapid transit system from time
> to time, even if there is plenty of rolling stock and frequent service in
> the peak.  It's even the case that on any given day, some trains are going
> to be quite crowded, while others will have relatively few people.  As long
> as that's true, the only solution to the problem of people clustering around
> the doors is to provide more doors.  (Note that this is a much narrower
> problem than overcrowding in general, even though crowding on the cars is a
> contributing factor to this problem.)

I think I've mentioned this before, but I think that the best 
configuration is that used on the Paris Metro:  very wide doors
with 'strapontins' -- folding jumpseats -- in the doorways.  These
provide a significant number of additional seats when the trains
are moderately loaded, while providing lots of standing room near
the doors (along with extra-wide door openings to speed boarding)
during periods of very heavy load.


-- 
greg byshenk  -  gbyshenk@byshenk.net  -  Leiden, NL
hate spam? <http://www.cauce.org>
           <http://www.byshenk.net/ive.been.spammed.html>

In article <slrn9jtqf4.61q.tim@linux.local>, Tim Kynerd <tim@tram.nu> wrote:
>I still maintain that the seating and door configurations are one important
>reason why people cluster near the doors on the Washington Metro.  There are
>too few doors per car (three on each side, 75-foot cars), and as you point
>out, the aisles are narrow, hindering people from getting on and off
>quickly.  I've ridden on many rapid rail systems, and Washington's is the
>only one where I've ever felt that I might not be able to fight my way off
>the train at my station.  And that includes riding the New York subway at
>rush hour.

But wouldn't BART be worse, since it only has two doors for the same 
length car? And those trains can get quite crowded at times.



-- 
Hank Fung                                          fungus@ocf.berkeley.edu
University of California, Berkeley				 Go Bears!
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~fungus
      From the Great State of Washington (despite what you see above)

On 1 Jul 2001 13:01:22 CET, in article <slrn9jtqf4.61q.tim@linux.local>,
tim@tram.nu stated...

>I still maintain that the seating and door configurations are one important
>reason why people cluster near the doors on the Washington Metro.  There are
>too few doors per car (three on each side, 75-foot cars), and as you point
>out, the aisles are narrow, hindering people from getting on and off
>quickly. 

The (Boston) MBTA deliberately chose "more doors" (4, instead of 3)
rather than "more seats" when ordering the latest set of MBTA Red Line
cars, the 01800 series.   They even said this was the result of a
rider survey.

-- 
Ron Newman     rnewman@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/home.html

In article <4zP%6.16789$mj7.2848161@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>, John Mara wrote:
> 
> "Tim Kynerd" <tim@tram.nu> wrote in message
> news:slrn9jv4jl.hs.tim@linux.local...
> 
>> Overcrowding will always be a problem on any rapid transit system from
>> time to time, even if there is plenty of rolling stock and frequent
>> service in the peak.  It's even the case that on any given day, some
>> trains are going to be quite crowded, while others will have relatively
>> few people.  As long as that's true, the only solution to the problem of
>> people clustering around the doors is to provide more doors.  (Note that
>> this is a much narrower problem than overcrowding in general, even though
>> crowding on the cars is a contributing factor to this problem.)
> 
> With the R 110 demonstrators NYCTA tried having nothing to hold on to near
> the doors to encourage people to move in.  This was not too popular and the
> production R142 cars have hand holds near the doors.

They've sort of tried the same thing here in Stockholm with the new C20
stock, although the idea was not to encourage people to move in, but to
provide more standing space near the doors.  There are way fewer handholds
in this space in the C20 cars than there are in the older cars, and most
significantly, the floor-to-ceiling pole in the middle of this space has
been eliminated.  This has also proven unpopular, so they are looking at
ways to try to fix it.

-- Tim

In article <9hq4al$2klk$1@agate.berkeley.edu>, Hank Fung wrote:
> In article <slrn9jtqf4.61q.tim@linux.local>, Tim Kynerd <tim@tram.nu> wrote:
>>I still maintain that the seating and door configurations are one important
>>reason why people cluster near the doors on the Washington Metro.  There are
>>too few doors per car (three on each side, 75-foot cars), and as you point
>>out, the aisles are narrow, hindering people from getting on and off
>>quickly.  I've ridden on many rapid rail systems, and Washington's is the
>>only one where I've ever felt that I might not be able to fight my way off
>>the train at my station.  And that includes riding the New York subway at
>>rush hour.
> 
> But wouldn't BART be worse, since it only has two doors for the same 
> length car? And those trains can get quite crowded at times.

Didn't know that about BART.  Yep, that sounds pretty pathetic, especially
given the posts on here over the last year or so about increasing crowding
on BART.

-- Tim

Tim Kynerd wrote:

< snipped earley comments >

> 
> Hi John,
> 
> Another problem is, of course, that adding another set of doors reduces
> seating capacity.
> 
> Overcrowding will always be a problem on any rapid transit system from time
> to time, even if there is plenty of rolling stock and frequent service in
> the peak.  It's even the case that on any given day, some trains are going
> to be quite crowded, while others will have relatively few people.  As long
> as that's true, the only solution to the problem of people clustering around
> the doors is to provide more doors.  (Note that this is a much narrower
> problem than overcrowding in general, even though crowding on the cars is a
> contributing factor to this problem.)

Tim

I under stand that more doors = less crowding and faster loading and
unloading that will = shorter dwell times. Their is one problem, the
base WMATA car design like the bart car has a flaw that will not
easily make it possible to add more door without making the cars
heavier. The flaw is the car body it an interracial part of the
structure the car. Punching more holes in the car sides for door
would require beefing up the under fram to compensate loss of body
structural integrity. You got to remember that these car were built
like cabin of an passenger jet airplane, and out of aluminium to
boot. Frankly I think the more traditional way of building of
passenger railroad car would have been a better choice. Stainless
steel car body on a an undercarriage bearing all of the loading and
buffering.

-- 
======================================================================
NT Geek, MCP
Transit Geek
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/	
Model Railroader HO N                                   John R Cambron
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/sunbelt/        North Beach MD USA
Railroad Geek                                  cambronj@chesapeake.net
======================================================================

John R Cambron <*cambronj@chesapeake.net*> wrote:

> I under stand that more doors = less crowding and faster loading and
> unloading that will = shorter dwell times. Their is one problem, the
> base WMATA car design like the bart car has a flaw that will not
> easily make it possible to add more door without making the cars
> heavier. The flaw is the car body it an interracial part of the
> structure the car. Punching more holes in the car sides for door
> would require beefing up the under fram to compensate loss of body
> structural integrity. You got to remember that these car were built
> like cabin of an passenger jet airplane, and out of aluminium to
> boot. Frankly I think the more traditional way of building of
> passenger railroad car would have been a better choice. Stainless
> steel car body on a an undercarriage bearing all of the loading and
> buffering.

I'm not sure whether this is a big issue -- how common is it to change
the door configuration of existing equipment?  It seems to me that 
doing so would be rather a large undertaking -- regardless of whether
the equipment is body and undercarriage or unibody construction -- 
and that such configuration changes would normally be made at the time
that new equipment is ordered.

Also, I suspect that adding more doors would _always_ make the car
heavier, no matter what type of construction is used, because the
doors and their associated hardware will be heavier than the simple
walls they replace.


-- 
greg byshenk  -  gbyshenk@byshenk.net  -  Leiden, NL
hate spam? <http://www.cauce.org>
           <http://www.byshenk.net/ive.been.spammed.html>

tim@tram.nu (Tim Kynerd) wrote in <slrn9jtqf4.61q.tim@linux.local>:

> Washington's is the
> only one where I've ever felt that I might not be able to fight my
> way off the train at my station.  And that includes riding the New
> York subway at rush hour.

Last night at 8:00 I was unable to fight my way off a NYC subway train 
before the doors closed, but this was due to someone parking a bike in 
front of the doors, and in front of me were two tourists with luggage.

greg byshenk wrote:
> 
> John R Cambron <*cambronj@chesapeake.net*> wrote:
> 
> > I under stand that more doors = less crowding and faster loading and
> > unloading that will = shorter dwell times. Their is one problem, the
> > base WMATA car design like the bart car has a flaw that will not
> > easily make it possible to add more door without making the cars
> > heavier. The flaw is the car body it an interracial part of the
> > structure the car. Punching more holes in the car sides for door
> > would require beefing up the under fram to compensate loss of body
> > structural integrity. You got to remember that these car were built
> > like cabin of an passenger jet airplane, and out of aluminium to
> > boot. Frankly I think the more traditional way of building of
> > passenger railroad car would have been a better choice. Stainless
> > steel car body on a an undercarriage bearing all of the loading and
> > buffering.
> 
> I'm not sure whether this is a big issue -- how common is it to change
> the door configuration of existing equipment?  It seems to me that
> doing so would be rather a large undertaking -- regardless of whether
> the equipment is body and undercarriage or unibody construction --
> and that such configuration changes would normally be made at the time
> that new equipment is ordered.

The issue is not to retrofit existing car with more door, it's
building new cars with more door using the the same car body
structural design.

> Also, I suspect that adding more doors would _always_ make the car
> heavier, no matter what type of construction is used, because the
> doors and their associated hardware will be heavier than the simple
> walls they replace.

That is quite likely to be true, but stainless steel is pound for
pound stronger then aluminium in this kind of application. 

-- 
======================================================================
NT Geek, MCP
Transit Geek
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/	
Model Railroader HO N                                   John R Cambron
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/sunbelt/        North Beach MD USA
Railroad Geek                                  cambronj@chesapeake.net
======================================================================

Tim Kynerd (tim@tram.nu) wrote:

: Another problem is, of course, that adding another set of doors reduces
: seating capacity.

: Overcrowding will always be a problem on any rapid transit system from time
: to time, even if there is plenty of rolling stock and frequent service in
: the peak.  

People stand near doors, whether it be to get off quicker, or to be able 
to lean.  They are an obstruction, and add to the amount of time it takes
for passengers to enter and leave the train, thereby delaying service,
and thereby causing more crowding.  

I recall seeing a special on A&E or the History Channel or Discovery
about the London Underground, and how they chose to install wider doors
to increase the flow of passengers on and off the train.  More doors 
would help speed up service.

And with regard to loss of seat capacity - yes, that's an issue - but I
bet that person running late doesn't give two shites about a seat.  We
aren't running the Broadway Limited here.

-Doug
--
    "How would you like it if you were a business executive, and when you
       made a mistake, a red light went on and 18,000 people started
                   screaming?" - Jaques Plante, goalie
                METS = My Entire Team Sucks    GO RANGERS!!!

John R Cambron <*cambronj@chesapeake.net*> wrote:
> greg byshenk wrote:
> > John R Cambron <*cambronj@chesapeake.net*> wrote:

> > > I under stand that more doors = less crowding and faster loading and
> > > unloading that will = shorter dwell times. Their is one problem, the
> > > base WMATA car design like the bart car has a flaw that will not
> > > easily make it possible to add more door without making the cars
> > > heavier. The flaw is the car body it an interracial part of the
> > > structure the car. Punching more holes in the car sides for door
> > > would require beefing up the under fram to compensate loss of body
> > > structural integrity. You got to remember that these car were built
> > > like cabin of an passenger jet airplane, and out of aluminium to
> > > boot. Frankly I think the more traditional way of building of
> > > passenger railroad car would have been a better choice. Stainless
> > > steel car body on a an undercarriage bearing all of the loading and
> > > buffering.

> > I'm not sure whether this is a big issue -- how common is it to change
> > the door configuration of existing equipment?  It seems to me that
> > doing so would be rather a large undertaking -- regardless of whether
> > the equipment is body and undercarriage or unibody construction --
> > and that such configuration changes would normally be made at the time
> > that new equipment is ordered.

> The issue is not to retrofit existing car with more door, it's
> building new cars with more door using the the same car body
> structural design.

I'm hardly an export in this area, but I suspect that a significant
redesign would be involved no matter what body design was originally
used.  It is not just a matter of chopping a new hole in the side of
the car, I don't think.


> > Also, I suspect that adding more doors would _always_ make the car
> > heavier, no matter what type of construction is used, because the
> > doors and their associated hardware will be heavier than the simple
> > walls they replace.

> That is quite likely to be true, but stainless steel is pound for
> pound stronger then aluminium in this kind of application. 

I have no idea whether or not this is true (I suspect that it will
depend on how you define "this type of application").  More
importantly, I don't see how it is relevant; after all a unibody _or_ 
body-on-undercarriage design can each be made of aluminum _or_ steel.


-- 
greg byshenk  -  gbyshenk@byshenk.net  -  Leiden, NL
hate spam? <http://www.cauce.org>
           <http://www.byshenk.net/ive.been.spammed.html>

greg byshenk wrote:
> 
> John R Cambron <*cambronj@chesapeake.net*> wrote:
> > greg byshenk wrote:
> > > John R Cambron <*cambronj@chesapeake.net*> wrote:
> 
> > > > I under stand that more doors = less crowding and faster loading and
> > > > unloading that will = shorter dwell times. Their is one problem, the
> > > > base WMATA car design like the bart car has a flaw that will not
> > > > easily make it possible to add more door without making the cars
> > > > heavier. The flaw is the car body it an interracial part of the
> > > > structure the car. Punching more holes in the car sides for door
> > > > would require beefing up the under fram to compensate loss of body
> > > > structural integrity. You got to remember that these car were built
> > > > like cabin of an passenger jet airplane, and out of aluminium to
> > > > boot. Frankly I think the more traditional way of building of
> > > > passenger railroad car would have been a better choice. Stainless
> > > > steel car body on a an undercarriage bearing all of the loading and
> > > > buffering.
> 
> > > I'm not sure whether this is a big issue -- how common is it to change
> > > the door configuration of existing equipment?  It seems to me that
> > > doing so would be rather a large undertaking -- regardless of whether
> > > the equipment is body and undercarriage or unibody construction --
> > > and that such configuration changes would normally be made at the time
> > > that new equipment is ordered.
> 
> > The issue is not to retrofit existing car with more door, it's
> > building new cars with more door using the the same car body
> > structural design.
> 
> I'm hardly an export in this area, but I suspect that a significant
> redesign would be involved no matter what body design was originally
> used.  It is not just a matter of chopping a new hole in the side of
> the car, I don't think.

True.

> > > Also, I suspect that adding more doors would _always_ make the car
> > > heavier, no matter what type of construction is used, because the
> > > doors and their associated hardware will be heavier than the simple
> > > walls they replace.
> 
> > That is quite likely to be true, but stainless steel is pound for
> > pound stronger then aluminium in this kind of application.
> 
> I have no idea whether or not this is true (I suspect that it will
> depend on how you define "this type of application").  More
> importantly, I don't see how it is relevant; after all a unibody _or_
> body-on-undercarriage design can each be made of aluminum _or_ steel.

Definition of "this type of application" using aluminium as part
structural design of a rail car body. Another application fuel sell in
a race car, cabin of a passenger jet airplane, non structural part
of an automobile . . .

As far as I know bart and WMATA metrorail are the only rail transit
system in North America that use aluminium for there car bodies.

As far as I know there has never been any railroad cars built
for any kind of service in North America be it be a common carrier,
rapid transit (metro or subway) system, lite rail/street car
system that used aluminium in the under carriage structure.

-- 
======================================================================
NT Geek, MCP
Transit Geek
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/	
Model Railroader HO N                                   John R Cambron
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/sunbelt/        North Beach MD USA
Railroad Geek                                  cambronj@chesapeake.net
======================================================================

"John R Cambron" <*cambronj@chesapeake.net*> wrote in message
news:tkh9a2hil7ue5a@corp.supernews.com...
>
> As far as I know bart and WMATA metrorail are the only rail transit
> system in North America that use aluminium for there car bodies.

Boston's Red Line cars in the 1500 and 1600 series (Pullman Standard,
1969-70)  and very similar 1700 series cars (UTDC 1987 - 89) have aluminum
car bodies.    The more recent 1800 cars (Bombardier  1993 -  94) are
stainless steel.

Chicago's 2000 series "L" cars (Pullman Standard circa 1964) had aluminum
car bodies.  Later cars were stainless steel.

Toronto's M1 H1-H6 and T1 cars have aluminum bodies.

John Mara

John Mara wrote:
> 
> "John R Cambron" <*cambronj@chesapeake.net*> wrote in message
> news:tkh9a2hil7ue5a@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > As far as I know bart and WMATA metrorail are the only rail transit
> > system in North America that use aluminium for there car bodies.
> 
> Boston's Red Line cars in the 1500 and 1600 series (Pullman Standard,
> 1969-70)  and very similar 1700 series cars (UTDC 1987 - 89) have aluminum
> car bodies.    The more recent 1800 cars (Bombardier  1993 -  94) are
> stainless steel.
> 
> Chicago's 2000 series "L" cars (Pullman Standard circa 1964) had aluminum
> car bodies.  Later cars were stainless steel.
> 
> Toronto's M1 H1-H6 and T1 cars have aluminum bodies.

I stand corrected.

I also find it interesting and logical that later cars were built
with stainless steel.

-- 
======================================================================
NT Geek, MCP
Transit Geek
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/	
Model Railroader HO N                                   John R Cambron
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/sunbelt/        North Beach MD USA
Railroad Geek                                  cambronj@chesapeake.net
======================================================================

In article <%A527.8814$EF2.845593@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>, "John Mara"
<johnmara@nycap.rr.com> wrote:

> Boston's Red Line cars in the 1500 and 1600 series (Pullman Standard,
> 1969-70)  and very similar 1700 series cars (UTDC 1987 - 89) have aluminum
> car bodies.    The more recent 1800 cars (Bombardier  1993 -  94) are
> stainless steel.

Bringing back an earlier discussion....

The 1500, 1600, and 1700 series cars have three doors.
The 1800 cars have four doors.

-- 
Ron Newman        rnewman@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/