DENVER | Transportation Thread - Page 391

Cirrus · #**7801** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 5:27 PM**

Denver's ugly light rail cars (and I agree; they're ugly) are the standard Seimens LRV from the 90s. Everybody who bought from Seimens in the 90s (which was just about everybody) got LRVs that look like that. But the thing is, Seimens has updated since then.

In the 2000s the standard interchangeable Seimens changed to look like this (San Diego):

And now more recently, it's changed again to look like this (Portland):

Most of the cities that use Seimens LRVs have multiple models. You can see in the background of the Portland photo there's a '90s model just like Denver has. Here's a photo I took in San Diego on the same day as that first photo showing that same '90s model plus the even older '80s model:

So it's a little weird that with every new LRV order, RTD keeps buying the '90s model over and over. The railcars they bought for the West line theoretically could've been one of the newer models. I don't know why they opted to go for the older model, but it must have been a conscience decision. I assume there was a reason.

RyanD · #**7802** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 7:09 PM**

Because we needed to keep consistent with the Colotecture equivalent of our trains... Duh...

wong21fr · #**7803** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus

So it's a little weird that with every new LRV order, RTD keeps buying the '90s model over and over. The railcars they bought for the West line theoretically could've been one of the newer models. I don't know why they opted to go for the older model, but it must have been a conscience decision. I assume there was a reason.

RTD seems to like going with one vehicle model whenever possible for all transportation modes. One standard bus, one articulated, one express bus, one LRV, one commuter rail car, etc. While this makes maintenance a lot easier, there has to some sort of capital strain in having to do large vehicle purchases every 10-15 years as the fleet gets worn out versus smaller purchases as well as an O&M budget that has a large tail. There's also the risk of a manufacturer going out of business and RTD having to get creative with parts given this long-cycle vehicle replacement policy.

TakeFive · #**7804** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 8:12 PM**

^^ I would think that parts inventory control would be an expensive nightmare oftentimes along with maintenance and repairs costs.

I think historically most cities have relied on Federal Grants for a lot of their capital replacement needs. Whether that continues as an option is anybody's guess.

BTW, I happen to know plenty of people that like the looks of the light rail cars. There's my mom, my step-mom, my children, my step-children, my half brothers and sisters.... quite a long list actually.

bunt_q · #**7805** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 8:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I don't know why they opted to go for the older model, but it must have been a conscience decision. I assume there was a reason.

How many of the newer Siemens options come in a high floor variant?

wong21fr · #**7806** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 8:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

How many of the newer Siemens options come in a high floor variant?

The newest model, the S200, comes in both a high-floor and low-floor option. Recently, Calagary has purchased the high-floor model and San Francisco purchased the low-floor model.

Cirrus · #**7807** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 8:41 PM**

Edmonton and Calgary have high-floor versions of the modern LRVs. But that could still be the explanation, because I *think* the Edmonton & Calgary stations are all 100% high-floor too, so they have level boarding. Not quite the same as Denver's step-up trains.

edmonton photo from jakub limanowka via wikipedia

calgary photo from sean marshall via flickr

CharlesCO · #**7808** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 10:16 PM**

I think it's arguable that Siemens is one of the better LRV manufacturers in the world. Here, Muni has a history ordering terrible LRVs, from the Boeing order, which was the first and last time Boeing ever made something on rails, to the Breda cars that they use today that are so overweight and oversized that they can't use them in more than 2-car consists. It wasn't a surprise that Siemens just won their contract for a new fleet, as I remembered them being reliable in Denver and have never really heard of any major issues with then in any other city.

jubguy3 · #**7809** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 10:21 PM**

The ones in SLC are great. The old ones have 700,000 miles on them (or some multiple of that - can't remember ) and they are encountering issues but otherwise both of the kinds of trains in SLC are great. No issues.

Mulligan · #**7810** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 10:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

RTD seems to like going with one vehicle model whenever possible for all transportation modes. One standard bus, one articulated, one express bus, one LRV, one commuter rail car, etc. While this makes maintenance a lot easier, there has to some sort of capital strain in having to do large vehicle purchases every 10-15 years as the fleet gets worn out versus smaller purchases as well as an O&M budget that has a large tail. There's also the risk of a manufacturer going out of business and RTD having to get creative with parts given this long-cycle vehicle replacement policy.

It doesn't make any sense to buy separate rail vehicles for separate corridors. It gives flexibility to allow RTD - or any transit agency - to run any light rail vehicle on any corridor, especially for crush events (Broncos games, downtown events, etc.).

TakeFive is right too in that parts inventory would be an absolute nightmare with two (or more) different types of trains.

Personally, I ride light rail because it gets me where I need to go - not because of how the trains look. Sure, they're 20 years old and may look outdated, but they work.

These complaints make it sound like we just have the worst trains ever. If the trains were being replaced at a huge cost (because LRTs are expensive), I'm sure lots of people - many on here included - would be complaining that RTD is wasting money. We have trains. They may not be "pretty", but they work and they work well.

jubguy3 · #**7811** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 11:11 PM**

We have the opposite issue of what you seem to think: new lines can't run the old cars, but only because the Airport, WVC, and Mid Jordan lines were designated to use the S70 trains. We can use the new ones on any line (they are fully compatible - we run in to no issues at all) and the blue ones on the blue line because they are the only line with maintained high blocks. We also use old trains for the Draper - Stadium event train because there are high blocks throughout. I'd say we have more freedom with the new cars than the old - we can stop them anywhere in the platform and use them for streetcar service. There would be no compatibility issue in Denver (high blocks throughout) and having 2 kinds of light rail vehicle is obviously not an issue in SLC. You have multiple facilities, right? Plus the new ones run in to less issues in SLC than the old ones, and they are much easier to board and have a higher capacity. They can even be purchased in the same length. Honestly, I think Denver is just being stubborn about buying newer cars because in SLC we obviously love the new ones (they operate in the snow really well) and we have a very similarly designed system that supports both kinds of vehicles. Also, the issue isn't really about aesthetics - it's that the '95 cars which we have too have essentially reached their EOL and you guys should have budgeted for that. Buying new ones is cheaper than old ones because the new ones guarantee a more compatible and better designed system than before.

wong21fr · #**7812** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 11:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jubguy3

Also, the issue isn't really about aesthetics - it's that the '95 cars which we have too have essentially reached their EOL and you guys should have budgeted for that. Buying new ones is cheaper than old ones because the new ones guarantee a more compatible and better designed system than before.

RTD is planning for, thus budgeting for, 30 year operational lifespans for their LRV's including a mid-life refurbishment. The earliest that RTD would need to budget for a capital purchase is in 2021 or so for replacement LRV's. RTD is planning to purchase 12 additional LRV's in 2015 to add flexibility to fleet operations and these will SD70's that use some of the SD160's systems as the SD70 is apparently a design that can be highly modified. But it still reflects RTD's desire to maintain a common fleet as is realistically possible.

Is it true that UTA is only planning for a 20-year operational lifespan?

TakeFive · #**7813** Posted **Dec 2, 2014, 1:54 AM**

^^ Those riders "over there" are really rough on train cars. Even worse their ultra low maintenance and repair budget leaves little hope of use beyond 20 years.

jubguy3 · #**7814** Posted **Dec 2, 2014, 2:39 AM**

We just used our train cars more..... It's like an old car. We are refurbishing them but had to use a couple of the kinki-sharyo trains we own this summer (which are pieces of shit). We also have a potential order of 180 more S70 trains so that other agencies could buy from us.

Like I said, modernization isn't a bad thing. Enjoy your high blocks, lol

TakeFive · #**7815** Posted **Dec 2, 2014, 4:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jubguy3

We just used our train cars more..... It's like an old car. We are refurbishing them but had to use a couple of the kinki-sharyo trains we own this summer (which are pieces of shit). We also have a potential order of 180 more S70 trains so that other agencies could buy from us.

Like I said, modernization isn't a bad thing. Enjoy your high blocks, lol

Y'all have done great with transit. Still need a little help on the BB court but at least the game ended up being entertaining.

LAM · #**7816** Posted **Dec 2, 2014, 5:30 AM**

We seem to be focusing on the light rail vehicles. But, my point is that every time that Denver entities like RTD or DIA purchase transit vehicles, they find the ugliest ones available and buy them. Commuter rail, light rail, buses, DIA shuttle buses -- and they paint them with terrible livery. Although I am not too bothered by the new non-metro "MetroRide."

I also don't think it makes sense to put out to pasture previous bad choices (ugly vehicles), but really, do we really think it's that difficult to maintain a couple or a few different vehicles. Afterall, they have commuter rail and light rail. I think the mechanics are pretty talented people and they can certainly adapt. Besides, if they are from the same manufacturer, they might probably each have certain mechanical similarities.

jubguy3 · #**7817** Posted **Dec 2, 2014, 5:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

i don't like this discussion so I'm going to put a confusing conversation blocker to stop it!

no, seriously, denver should order S70 train. I checked the Light Rail design criteria and our trains are supposed to be in service until 2026, but I think they may need repairs that are more costly than placing the order for new trains and distributing them to places like Denver, San Fransisco, Norfolk, Minneapolis, etc.

On the topic of SLC, I'd like to see the interiors gutted and replaced with newer tech like doors that take less than 5 seconds to open (the old ones suck), bench seats instead of 2+2 seats, new signs and speakers (seriously if you are on the north south line you can't hear the announcements at all), new floor boards that don't get slick and dangerous during winter, etc.

bunt_q · #**7818** Posted **Dec 2, 2014, 5:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulligan

It doesn't make any sense to buy separate rail vehicles for separate corridors. It gives flexibility to allow RTD - or any transit agency - to run any light rail vehicle on any corridor, especially for crush events (Broncos games, downtown events, etc.).

TakeFive is right too in that parts inventory would be an absolute nightmare with two (or more) different types of trains.

Personally, I ride light rail because it gets me where I need to go - not because of how the trains look. Sure, they're 20 years old and may look outdated, but they work.

These complaints make it sound like we just have the worst trains ever. If the trains were being replaced at a huge cost (because LRTs are expensive), I'm sure lots of people - many on here included - would be complaining that RTD is wasting money. We have trains. They may not be "pretty", but they work and they work well.

There's the party line we've come to know and love! A shameless argument for mediocrity in all things. While we're at it, why strive for excellence (or even borderline interesting) in architecture, either. All I care about is a roof over my head and walls that keep the wind and the water out! Give me CMU and EIFS, or give me death. And I too will make an argument that it "works well."

LAM · #**7819** Posted **Dec 2, 2014, 5:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

LOL... Speaking of logic are you saying that women who don't look like your wife are ugly? No reflection on your wife but just speaking for myself I have been privileged to know a couple of airheads; not that they didn't have their positive attributes of course.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I think most people do generally appreciate a beautiful person or thing, even if they are not specifically attracted to them / it. The world is filed with beautiful people that I don't / didn't feel compelled to marry. Unlike a train car, there is more to a person's beauty than their looks.

As my friend's neighbor used to say, "if everyone liked my wife the way I do, we'd have definite problems."

LAM · #**7820** Posted **Dec 2, 2014, 5:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

There's the party line we've come to know and love! A shameless argument for mediocrity in all things. While we're at it, why strive for excellence (or even borderline interesting) in architecture, either. All I care about is a roof over my head and walls that keep the wind and the water out! Give me CMU and EIFS, or give me death. And I too will make an argument that it "works well."

Wow, well said!