"Trains with mixed cars run more jerkily." Hmm.

As a regular rider, I have noticed that certain operator voices emanating from the ceiling never correspond to whiplash rides, even though all trains seem to be of mixed consist nowadays.

It may well be that a *smooth* ride can only be provided by a uniform consist, but a *jerky* ride is mainly a result of bad driving.

by Turnip on Mar 15, 2010 11:48 am • link • report

Can they retrofit the 1000 series to be safer, and while they're at it, less dingy and smelly?

by David on Mar 15, 2010 11:52 am • link • report

I agree. I don't like seeing a 6-car set made of 3 different series, ie. 5000, 1000, 3000. That is the wrong. They weren't designed to be mixed up and the led signs in the cars don't work properly when mixed. When a door breaks on a 1000 series car, the whole set has to be taken of service.

The 1000 series should be retired ASAP, not 4 years from now. They have enough 2000 and 3000 series to put the 1000 series in between them. The 5000 series and 6000 series should stay together in one set and not be mixed up.

by Davin Peterson on Mar 15, 2010 11:54 am • link • report

I've noticed most trains have cars that are at least paired by number. 2024 and 2025, as a hypothetical example. Anybody know why that is?

by Lou on Mar 15, 2010 11:57 am • link • report

The cars are permanently connected together into pairs. Metro can rearrange the pairs into trains of varying sizes, but the pairs always have to stay together. Therefore, 2024 will always be next to 2025, and there can't be trains with odd numbers of cars.

by David Alpert on Mar 15, 2010 11:58 am • link • report

Lou, trains 2024 and 2025 are what's called a married pair. Married pairs are numbered in sequential order. Even though Metro refers to trains by their length in cars, the reality is that two cars make up one train which will never be separated. Hence the talk of 4-car, 6-car, and 8-car trains but never any discussion about that pesky 7-car train.

by Erik W on Mar 15, 2010 12:01 pm • link • report

Ultimately the real issue is that to replace the 1000 series cars, someone will need to come up with money so that they can order replacements.

by Jack Russell on Mar 15, 2010 12:10 pm • link • report

"But a November crash in the West Falls Church rail yard suggests the opposite. The cars that sustained the most damage in that accident were the 1000-series cars in the center of the train. And that crash was probably at less than 20 miles per hour."

This is a fallacy. Care to speculate how much MORE damage the cars would have incurred had they been on the ends? The could have received the same, less, or more. The cars on the end sustain the most impact. Bet those 1000 series would have crumpled like a tin can. But that's the point. I don't know. YOU don't know. But you can't just say that because they sustained damage situated in the middle of the car, they shouldn't have been moved there.

by Liz P on Mar 15, 2010 12:11 pm • link • report

I thought the November railyard crash didn't prove anything about the car order - the 1000 series in the middle did not necessarily get more damage, they were just damaged beyond repair. Because the age of the cars, it's not worth putting more money in to fixing them. Inflict the same amount of damage on a 6000 series car, and you'd definitely pay to fix it.

Ergo, the fact that they were totaled in that incident doesn't prove anything about safety.

by Alex B. on Mar 15, 2010 12:20 pm • link • report

Liz P, Alex B: What the November accident proves is that putting the 1000-series cars in the middle won't prevent them from getting damaged. And why would they? All train cars have to come to a stop when the lead car hits an obstruction. Cars closer to the front would absorb some of the shock, true, but not all of it (unless they crush, right?).

by michael on Mar 15, 2010 12:24 pm • link • report

I don't think anyone claimed that putting the 1000-series cars in the middle of trains would prevent them from sustaining any damage. The thought was that by putting sandwiching them, the 1000s would sustain less damage than if they were used as lead cars. Therefore, Liz P & Alex are correct, the November crash didn't do anything to refute Metro's "common-sense" move. Just because the 1000-series train in the center sustained more damage than the front or rear trains doesn't mean that it sustained more damage than it would have if it had been the front train. Or if the entire train had been 1000-series cars.

The only thing the November crash continued to prove is what we already know: the 1000-series cars are not particularly safe or crash-worthy.

by Erik W on Mar 15, 2010 12:57 pm • link • report

I was under the impression that the yard crash and the ensuing damage had more to do with derailment of the cars involved and damage to the electronic and mechanical systems beneath the cars, rather than any damage to the passenger space above.

Obviously, protecting the passenger space is important, but the mechanical systems are certainly more expensive to repair than just seats, windows, carpeting, etc.

Anyway, I think it's time for the 1000 series bellying to end, as well.

by Alex B. on Mar 15, 2010 1:01 pm • link • report

Unrelated question: I never really take Metro out to the suburbs much, and when I do, I almost never go through the garage. Recently, however, I noticed that a parking attendant was actually in the booth. I was under the impression that part of the rationale to moving to SmarTrip and credit card-only that the garages wouldn't need to have attendants.

Why on Earth is Metro still paying for parking attendants?

by Adam L on Mar 15, 2010 1:10 pm • link • report

One more reason I'm glad that I started bike commuting.

by BlindPilot on Mar 15, 2010 1:22 pm • link • report

Adam L: My understanding is there's 1 attendant per station to deal with issues (like people whose SmarTrips aren't working properly, people who get confused, etc.) but the automated gates allow them to have just 1 person who can float around the lot as needed instead of 1 per gate.

by David Alpert on Mar 15, 2010 1:25 pm • link • report

Putting 1000 cars in the middle of consists was simply a PR move. And I don't blame Metro for doing it. The board, the union and the public all screamed that putting 1000 cars in the middle was an obvious move that would immediately improve safety.

So Metro did it. And a few months later, people found out that Metro only did it as a PR move. And they're outraged now.

by Tim on Mar 15, 2010 1:38 pm • link • report

My understanding is that the 1000 series cars do not have the rail version of a black box. By putting them in the middle, they are never used as a driver cab, and thereby every train now has a control cab with recording equipment. Does anyone know if that is a true statement?

by Brad Z on Mar 15, 2010 2:55 pm • link • report

I'm not convinced that it's just the train sets. In fact, the only time I've seen someone fall on the train was in fact on a 6000-series only Orange Line, because the driver was having an epileptic fit or something. The eight car that I often end up riding in the morning that has a 5000-1000-2000-6000 has a driver who drives smoothly, tells people that we're going to stop and so on. Much different experience, despite the ostensibly problematic trainset.

Also, the 6000-series needs more bars you can hold. The lack of bars near doors causes a lot of grief.

by varun on Mar 15, 2010 3:04 pm • link • report

In last month's NTSB hearing, experts concluded that moving the 1000-series cars to the center of train consists probably offered no safety benefit.

The references cited don't support this claim. What the references show is that Metro has no engineering studies or data that would support the conclusion that putting the 1000 series cars in the center is safer. But neither do I see any engineering studies or data that say that it doesn't improve safety. The matter is unclear. You might say that they shouldn't do it without data to prove that it is effective, but that is a different claim than that the data shows it's not effective.

by David desJardins on Mar 15, 2010 3:06 pm • link • report

I'll take an unpopular opinion, and state that the 1000-series cars are safer in the middle, *and* should be kept in service for a few more years.

Although I have no doubt that a 1000-series sandwich isn't as safe as a 6000-series consist, putting the 1000s in the middle would appear to prevent the cars from telescoping in the event of a collision, provided that the couplings between cars don't fail completely.

Telescoping is the scary phenomenon that the 1000s are prone to, in which the flimsy body shell and passenger compartment separates from the "stuff underneath", and the incoming train jumps on top, plowing directly through the passenger compartment.

Also, Metro's broke. There's no money to replace the trains, let alone keep up the current level of service. We need to keep the 1000s in service until we can get the Silver line running, correct the safety problems, and achieve a positive cashflow.

by schmod on Mar 15, 2010 3:21 pm • link • report

All you have to do is look at Woodley Park and Red Line crashes to understand why the 1000 Series are in the middle of the train. The technology used to build those cars as opposed to the cars they build today (5000/6000 Series) are night and day. Eric W is right on the money. Black boxes or lack thereof have nothing to do with it. Interesting comment re the vertical stanchions (bars). WMATA got rid of them to keep folks from crowding the doors and quite frankly, it is more difficult to exit and enter the older cars due to the forest of stanchions by the doorways and the propensity of folks to hang onto them.

by Ray on Mar 15, 2010 3:21 pm • link • report

@David

People who are confused? I'm sorry, but that's a bit ridiculous. Let them park their cars and go ask the station manager. What is a "confused" person supposed to do, anyway? If they don't have a SmarTrip, I imagine the driver will have to go back to the station to purchase one, right?

by Adam L on Mar 15, 2010 3:21 pm • link • report

Rail cars won't have any issues with telescoping if they're not involved in crashes to begin with.

Let's focus on the real issue here.

by Alex B. on Mar 15, 2010 3:27 pm • link • report

All metro cars are currently semi-permanently coupled married pairs. This is the most common practice in subways because instead of having two operator booths per car, which not only takes away space for passengers, but costs more for the electronics, there can be one operator booth per car (one on each end of a two car set). In the old days, NYC had a few single cars for the lesser used branches, but as far as I know Cleveland is the only city that still uses single cars.

Nowadays, NYC's new trains use four car married consists, (five car on the former IRT, if I'm not mistaken), which comes to two operator booths per FOUR cars. This gives even more room for passengers, and of course in present day NYC, they need as much capacity as they can get. Of course, so do we, so I was hoping that the new 7000 series cars would be four car sets. Instead, what they seem to have decided is to have A-B sets.

In other words, the new trains will be two car married pairs, but one will be an "A" car, that is, with an operators cab, while the other will be a "B" car that will not have a cab. Thus, the only operational configuration will be a four car (two married pairs) in an A-B-B-A set, unless is is an eight car A-B-B-A-A-B-B-A train. I suppose this is to give more flexibility in the yards and in case of breakdowns.

by kinverson on Mar 15, 2010 4:21 pm • link • report

@kinverson,

Metro's specs for the 7000 series call for the same kind of configuration. Each 2-car married pair will only have one cab. Though they will not be officially married into sets of 4, they'll likely functionally be set up that way - A-B-B-A.

by Alex B. on Mar 15, 2010 4:26 pm • link • report

Now that I think about it, a six car train should be possible as well (A-B-B-A-B-A, for example), just not a two car train.

by kinverson on Mar 15, 2010 4:29 pm • link • report

kinverson - My understanding is that 1 cab per married pair gives a lot less flexibility & increases yard time marginally, but it adds a few seats per peak hour & reduces operator cost per peak passenger.

While we're on the subject, I'll bring up something we were talking about the other day: Connecting both halves of a married pair with an open corridor gangway using some type of add-on product for existing cars would be relatively inexpensive and could significantly increase seat utilization & customer experience.

by Squalish on Mar 15, 2010 5:07 pm • link • report

@squalish

What I meant is that having an A-B set with one cab gives more flexibility versus a married 'quartet' (A-B-B-A), not versus the current married pair. I believe, and I think that Alex B. does also, that in practice many units will be quartets that won't usually be separated. And considering that there will be older cars available as well, I guess this is a fairly good solution.

by kinverson on Mar 15, 2010 7:07 pm • link • report

I wish Metro had enough money, money, money to put 7000-series A-B-B-A trains in service right away. Unfortunately, when it comes to the capital expenditure budget, operations takes it all, with rolling stock standing small.

Can you hear the door closing chimes, Fernando?

I'll show myself out.

by Anni-Frid on Mar 15, 2010 11:15 pm • link • report

Give me (Give me, Give me) a train after midnight.

Bravo, Anni-Frid.

by Michael Perkins on Mar 16, 2010 6:28 am • link • report

The unmentioned additional advantage of married pairs and married quads is that you can share certain components so that you lower overall costs and lighten the weight of the trains. For instance, in a married quad, one car might not have a traction motor. It can operate as a trailor car. Not only does the operator's cab take up passenger room, it also has lots of expensive equipment that can be eliminated in a married pair or married quad configuration. Married quads require good maintenance facilities and operations because if you loose one car due to a mechanical problem in a married quad you actually remove 4 cars from service.

by Steve on Mar 16, 2010 9:25 am • link • report

@Anni-Frid:
Knowing me and knowing Metro, (uh-huh) there is nothing they can do...to get the money for the 7000 cars any sooner.

by Matt Johnson on Mar 18, 2010 11:32 am • link • report

Having been a train operator for thirteen years It never ceases to amaze me how people have so much knowledge about something that they have no clue as to how it operates. What is needed is dedicated funding. Most transit agencys have one.By the way dont you all have something better to do than to speculate? May be a job. I am retired and barely had time to write this. by ca. may, 19,2010

by catscan on May 19, 2010 8:40 am • link • report