5000-series - Updates

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, strictures said:

I want the 5000s rebuilt with forward/backwards seats, not the bench style crap we now have!  That jerk that put that in them then retired immediately & no one at CTA had the common sense to override that!

...and they won't. The roster posted by someone had footnotes that the lower numbered ones have already been overhauled.

[Bus1883]

Why is #5271-72 on LTH? I’ve seen almost every other car between the 5200-5700s on the red line and those two been on hold for a while.

[Bus1883]

19 hours ago, strictures said:

I want the 5000s rebuilt with forward/backwards seats, not the bench style crap we now have!  That jerk that put that in them then retired immediately & no one at CTA had the common sense to override that!

Unfortunately that can’t be done as the seats are built onto the frame. Since CTA wasn’t careful enough for chicagoans with the bowling alley seating of the 5000s, we will have to continuously deal with the homeless lying down across the seats like bleachers throughout the car.

[strictures]

3 hours ago, Bus1883 said:

Unfortunately that can’t be done as the seats are built onto the frame. Since CTA wasn’t careful enough for chicagoans with the bowling alley seating of the 5000s, we will have to continuously deal with the homeless lying down across the seats like bleachers throughout the car.

That's absurd!  They could easily mount new seats to the frames with a angled cross brace from the outside of the seat frame to the bottom of the L car.  That's just classic CYA BS from CTA management to avoid making the change the public wants!  After all, the two fold up seats per car manage to do that, so the rest of the car could also be done!  Any competent engineer could figure it out, but does the CTA actually have competent engineers?

[Busjack]

3 hours ago, strictures said:

That's absurd!  They could easily mount new seats to the frames with a angled cross brace from the outside of the seat frame to the bottom of the L car.  That's just classic CYA BS from CTA management to avoid making the change the public wants!  After all, the two fold up seats per car manage to do that, so the rest of the car could also be done!  Any competent engineer could figure it out, but does the CTA actually have competent engineers?

...And what are your  credentials as a mechanical engineer? And if you have them, why did you wait at  least 10 years to raise your insights in a place where they will not have any effect? If you really have any insight about what a competent engineer would do, take your drawings down to 567.

[strictures]

8 hours ago, Busjack said:

...And what are your  credentials as a mechanical engineer? And if you have them, why did you wait at  least 10 years to raise your insights in a place where they will not have any effect? If you really have any insight about what a competent engineer would do, take your drawings down to 567.

I was complaining about those crappy seats since before the 5000s went into service!  And I don't need an engineering degree to know that an angle brace can be mounted from where the floor of the car & the car body meet, could easily support a seat , because that's exactly how they support the seats on the buses & the bus frames & bodies are definitely weaker than those of the L cars.  The sad facts are the CTA lies about many things & this is one of them!

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, strictures said:

And I don't need an engineering degree to know that an angle brace can be mounted from where the floor of the car & the car body meet, could easily support a seat , because that's exactly how they support the seats on the buses & the bus frames & bodies are definitely weaker than those of the L cars.

You just proved you don't have the necessary expertise. If you did, you would have said something direct about the frames in 5000s, not something diversionary about buses.

And complaining here and whoever complained then on the CTA  Tattler are totally ineffective. Rant all you want, but I predict that the status quo remains for another 30 years.

[strictures]

4 hours ago, Busjack said:

You just proved you don't have the necessary expertise. If you did, you would have said something direct about the frames in 5000s, not something diversionary about buses.

And complaining here and whoever complained then on the CTA  Tattler are totally ineffective. Rant all you want, but I predict that the status quo remains for another 30 years.

Comparing the bus seats to the L car seats is appropriate, because if you can do it on the buses, you can certainly do the same design on the far stronger L cars!

Why on Earth are you sticking up for the jerk who inflicted these atrocious eats on to the L cars?

[Busjack]

8 hours ago, strictures said:

Comparing the bus seats to the L car seats is appropriate, because if you can do it on the buses, you can certainly do the same design on the far stronger L cars!

Why on Earth are you sticking up for the jerk who inflicted these atrocious eats on to the L cars?

I'm not sticking up for him. I'm saying you proved you aren't competent to make that decision. Also, even if you were, you can't figure out where an effective place to voice your complaint is.

If you are so reliant on the bus diversion, what about the 40' and 60' buses with longitudinal seats?

What about the new MTA and MBTA CRRC cars?  At least CTA specified something like the 3200s for the 7000s. But I doubt that you know more than those who run those transit agencies, too.

[artthouwill]

From when I was a kid, I always remembered MTA buses and trains to have longitudinal seating.  That was a starj contrast to what CTA had.  The primary reason for longitudinal seating is to increase or maximize standing room for passengers.   Anyone who has been on the L in Chicago knows that most standees congregate near the doors and will rarely stand in the middle of the cars except as a last resort.   That's not a problem in New York.   Maybe it's because the cars are longer and there are more doors or they are just used to it.  With a lot of subway trackage, there isn't really anything to look at outside.  Most of Chicago trackage is not in subway tunnels and people are used to looking out the windows.

I think the seats CTA uses are not ideal for longitudinal seating, but they may fear that bench seats ( like in New York ) make it more inviting for the homeless population to make these seats their beds.  As we can see, it doesn't matter.

Honestly if CTA could or wanted to change the seating on the 5000s, they would have already done so.   Since they haven't,  my game plan is to always search out the forward or backward facing seats on the 5000s or sit close enough to one where I can move when one becomes available.   Best chances are at 54/Cermak,  Harlem Green Line, Howard or 95th Red Line,  63rd branch Green Line,  Linden, and Dempster Yellow Line  

[Busjack]

53 minutes ago, artthouwill said:

The primary reason for longitudinal seating is to increase or maximize standing room for passengers.   Anyone who has been on the L in Chicago knows that most standees congregate near the doors and will rarely stand in the middle of the cars except as a last resort.   That's not a problem in New York.   Maybe it's because the cars are longer and there are more doors or they are just used to it. 

In addition, NY has grab poles in the aisles. Also, the video I cited made a deal that the R211 cars are articulated. Neither the R211s nor the MBTA cars seem to have cushions. The "primary reason" you cited was why it  was commonly done. This was following the CTA experiment with the Max Capacity cars, where they took out as many seats as possible without exceeding the GVWR. I'm sure @strictures enjoys riding those cars.?

[strictures]

17 hours ago, Busjack said:

In addition, NY has grab poles in the aisles. Also, the video I cited made a deal that the R211 cars are articulated. Neither the R211s nor the MBTA cars seem to have cushions. The "primary reason" you cited was why it  was commonly done. This was following the CTA experiment with the Max Capacity cars, where they took out as many seats as possible without exceeding the GVWR. I'm sure @strictures enjoys riding those cars.?

1.  The buses with the sideways seats are also awful.  In fact, they have less seating capacity that a bus with forward facing seats, as in the 4150 & up group.   In the trailer section, there are three sideways seats in the space where all other artics have two sets of forward facing seats for four people!

2.  I remember when some fool at the CTA decided to take out seats on some buses from Forest Glen, because they were on a route that got very crowded.  In fact, then the buses got so crowded, they couldn't move because they were over weight & the bus body settled onto the tires & the bus couldn't move!

3.  Once again, I don't need to be an engineer to know how to build things, since building things is what I've done my whole life.  And anyone who does build knows that a triangle is the strongest building form, which is exactly how the seats are cantilevered out from the frame with a angled brace which makes the triangle!

4.  The seats are also too narrow for today's bodies, as they are 18" wide, but few people are 18" wide.  Most women have bottoms wider than that & my shoulders are 23" wide.  And if you look at how they did do the seats in the 5000s, there's  actually room at the ends to have had wider seats, but again, some idiot at CTA HQ decided against it!

5.  The sad & pathetic part is that the CTA isn't run for the convenience of the riders, but to employ people who will then vote for the people the powers that be want them to vote for.  And now they can't even get enough employees to run the system, why I don't know!

[artthouwill]

16 minutes ago, strictures said:

1.  The buses with the sideways seats are also awful.  In fact, they have less seating capacity that a bus with forward facing seats, as in the 4150 & up group.   In the trailer section, there are three sideways seats in the space where all other artics have two sets of forward facing seats for four people!

2.  I remember when some fool at the CTA decided to take out seats on some buses from Forest Glen, because they were on a route that got very crowded.  In fact, then the buses got so crowded, they couldn't move because they were over weight & the bus body settled onto the tires & the bus couldn't move!

3.  Once again, I don't need to be an engineer to know how to build things, since building things is what I've done my whole life.  And anyone who does build knows that a triangle is the strongest building form, which is exactly how the seats are cantilevered out from the frame with a angled brace which makes the triangle!

4.  The seats are also too narrow for today's bodies, as they are 18" wide, but few people are 18" wide.  Most women have bottoms wider than that & my shoulders are 23" wide.  And if you look at how they did do the seats in the 5000s, there's  actually room at the ends to have had wider seats, but again, some idiot at CTA HQ decided against it!

5.  The sad & pathetic part is that the CTA isn't run for the convenience of the riders, but to employ people who will then vote for the people the powers that be want them to vote for.  And now they can't even get enough employees to run the system, why I don't know!

That last statement ( #5) is one of the most ridiculous statements i  have ever seen on this forum.  There are more riders than employees  pandemic included. 

I already explained the purpose of the longitudinal seating.   We know CTA experimented with removing seats and having issues with Griss Vehicle Weight Restrictions.   They learned and moved on.  Nothing is going to change with the 5000s.   Appreciate the 2600s. 3200s  and the incoming 7000s and the future 9000s. 

[Sam92]

Also with peak crowding longtitutional seating has better "flow" vs having side by side seats taking up the aisle space. Probably why the forward facing seats in the 7000s are single seats. I can't imagine a 2600 on the red line now with the crowds it gets. A 3200 at LEAST gives a bit of extra space around the single seats ?

[Busjack]

On 9/20/2023 at 10:19 AM, Sam92 said:

Also with peak crowding longtitutional seating has better "flow" vs having side by side seats taking up the aisle space. Probably why the forward facing seats in the 7000s are single seats. I can't imagine a 2600 on the red line now with the crowds it gets. A 3200 at LEAST gives a bit of extra space around the single seats ?

After some cleanup by the moderators, I'll restate my response to your post.

Metro:

Quote

The most noticeable design change is the bench seating! The side-facing seating configuration allows for a wider walkway and more room for standing passengers. Many other metro systems around the world also use bench seating on their trains, whether exclusively or in some combination of side-facing and front-facing. These include subways in Toronto, New York City, Beijing and London.

 

Trains Magazine:

Quote

The... [HR4000s]  have 41 seats and a total capacity of 246 people, and will be used on the B and D subway lines. The cars feature an open-gangway allowing easy movement between cars, and are the first LA subway cars with bench-style, side-facing seats to allow more standing room.

On the other hand, the usual CTA car has about 40 seats and holds about 40-50 standees.

 

[Sam92]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

After some cleanup by the moderators, I'll restate my response to your post.

Metro:

 

Trains Magazine:

On the other hand, the usual CTA car has about 40 seats and holds about 40-50 standees.

 

Just my 2 cents.... I think what's been looked over is... With 5000s being half the fleet... Does CTA have the time and resources to make that conversion if it were that easy? (Which it definitely isn't due to the fact that it's being stated that you'd have to rearrange electrical components that are under some of the seats if they were moved). That's basically half the fleet. Now imo longtitutional seating does have it's place because the extra aisle space is definitely noticable on the red line. I feel like the red and blue line would benefit since at the end of the day you have to move so many people with so little resources. If the 9000s end up trainable with 7000s personally I'd make 400 them longitudinal for the red line and have those at Howard along with 7000s for the purple/yellow; blue/orange/brown 5000s, green/pink 7000s. That way you have longtitutional seating on the lines that most would benefit (orange may not be up there in ridership but if Brownage makes a return then 5000s make sense since they would be sharing with brown.) Besides if you put the rapid back in transit then having a seat or the arrangement shouldn't matter since you should get to wherever you're getting fast enough before something like that bugs someone too much ?

[Sam92]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

After some cleanup by the moderators, I'll restate my response to your post.

Metro:

 

Trains Magazine:

On the other hand, the usual CTA car has about 40 seats and holds about 40-50 standees.

 

Also thanks for reminding me to post what I found. Apparently before the max capacity trail, some 3200s were tested with essentially the 5000s series arrangement for similar reasons back in 2004. As someone that has his bike with him I can say the 5000s stop me from being a tripping hazard compared to when I have to ride a 2600 or 3200 

[Sam92]

6 hours ago, Busjack said:

After some cleanup by the moderators, I'll restate my response to your post.

Metro:

 

Trains Magazine:

On the other hand, the usual CTA car has about 40 seats and holds about 40-50 standees.

 

Are those by 5000s standards or older cars. Cause if anything we talk about how red line can use longer trains.... I'm willing to bet an 8 car 5000 train can probably hold as much as a 10 car set of 2600s.

Edit: Looked it up and did the math myself. Longtitutional arrangement allows 5000s to hold an extra 26 people per car (each seat removed allows 2 more people to fit). 5000s say they can hold 133 people total but has 33 seats vs 46 found in the older series. So 26x8 is 208 extra people accommodated and I'd say in exchange for indeed allowing 2 extra cars worth of space the seating arrangement is justified and CTA would be adding a capacity issue to the red line by making a change. 

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Sam92 said:

Are those by 5000s standards or older cars.

I was estimating, and on average.  However, you also have to figure that you can't pack the people in like the Japanese do, and there has to be room to be able to get from the middle of the car to the exit.

The only conclusions I reached are (1) CTA isn't going to redo the 5000s, whether feasible or not from an engineering perspective, but (2) the longitudinal seating was unpopular enough to Chicagoans that CTA specified the seating arrangement for the 7000s before they went out to bid, and is unlikely to specify longitudinal seating again.

[Kevin]

Discussion regarding the November 2023 Yellow Line incident has been moved to a dedicated thread.

[Busjack]

16 minutes ago, Javi75 said:

I wish CTA would’ve landed a deal with the 5000s the way it did with the new flyer 1000s. Had another contract option of 350 more 5000s cars, that’s a really good series despite early issues. 

If you go up this thread, there were options going up to the ultimate 714, there were problems detected with the quality of the 5000s, including voids in the journal castings and insufficient welds; compared to the 7000s, the cars were behind the times on such things as seating arrangements and passenger displays, and in discussing the 7000s, it came out that Bombardier filed a meritless protest and was a year late in making deliveries on the 5000s.

If you are suggesting that CTA should have locked in a 15-year contract with one manufacturer, I don't know if that's legally allowed, nor if that would be such a good idea, given technological changes and that Bombardier Transit itself is no longer around, having been acquired by Alstom.

 

[Javi75]

12 minutes ago, Busjack said:

If you go up this thread, there were options going up to the ultimate 714, there were problems detected with the quality of the 5000s, including voids in the journal castings and insufficient welds; compared to the 7000s, the cars were behind the times on such things as seating arrangements and passenger displays, and in discussing the 7000s, it came out that Bombardier filed a meritless protest and was a year late in making deliveries on the 5000s.

If you are suggesting that CTA should have locked in a 15-year contract with one manufacturer, I don't know if that's legally allowed, nor if that would be such a good idea, given technological changes and that Bombardier Transit itself is no longer around, having been acquired by Alstom.

 

The 5000s have worked in the long run, I’m hoping that the 7000s can get those things sorted out. I’m curious about the design of the 9000s so far in my opinion the 7000s are the best looking rail cars CTA has had. The 9000s designs going to need to be creative. I would like for blue end caps to be a standard for rail cars moving forward instead of the plain look of the 5000s. 

[artthouwill]

2 hours ago, Javi75 said:

The 5000s have worked in the long run, I’m hoping that the 7000s can get those things sorted out. I’m curious about the design of the 9000s so far in my opinion the 7000s are the best looking rail cars CTA has had. The 9000s designs going to need to be creative. I would like for blue end caps to be a standard for rail cars moving forward instead of the plain look of the 5000s. 

I think the Blue end caps look vary nice, but I think the main reason for this is to make sure that they were distinguished so as not to couple them with another rail car series.  I believe the 5000s have something that is a bright orange on the coupler that distinguished those cars from the 2600s and 3200s which also have plain end caps.  Best value CTA will make sure the 9000s are also distinguished whether they have the same or different end caps or a distinction that's visible on the couplers.  

 

[Mr.cta85]

On 1/27/2024 at 3:47 PM, artthouwill said:

I think the Blue end caps look vary nice, but I think the main reason for this is to make sure that they were distinguished so as not to couple them with another rail car series.  I believe the 5000s have something that is a bright orange on the coupler that distinguished those cars from the 2600s and 3200s which also have plain end caps.  Best value CTA will make sure the 9000s are also distinguished whether they have the same or different end caps or a distinction that's visible on the couplers.  

 

I just hope the 9000’s would at least be compatible with the 7000 series. Once the 26 and 3200’s are gone it’s possible we’ll never see a mix series of rail cars again 😞.

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, Mr.cta85 said:

I just hope the 9000’s would at least be compatible with the 7000 series. Once the 26 and 3200’s are gone it’s possible we’ll never see a mix series of rail cars again 😞.

The 5000s and the 7000s NOT COMPATIBLE.   When CTA  initially put our REPS for the 7000s, they wanted the 7000s to be compatible with the 5000s.   But since there were no takers  CTA had to drop that request.   New technology alone made it not possible to make the two series compatible.   More than likely the 9000s won't be compatible with the 7000s either.