5000-series - Updates

[4CottageGrove95th]

 

It makes me happy because at the end of the day, the CTA can pat themselves on the back knowing they've got 714 new high tech cars at their disposal. And they're on track to completing the job without proper links to Skokie Shops. Impressive!

Well, that's a good point when you reason on it that way! 

[garmon757]

It's going to be weird seeing #5700 on the red line, but it might be on the blue/pink in 5 years. But i guess it will be weird to see #7001 - #7400 on the blue if it does happen that way also. On the #5000 scenario, if they kept the blue interior cars together they could actually do #5271 - #5670 to blue and #5671 - #5714 to pink. Isn't that strange how that comes out 400 cars for blue and 44 for pink? I think they will be segregating these tan interior cars, so they probably wouldn't send those to blue if it happened that way. But 90 tan interior cars is tempting to put on the Orange line.

Are you trying to give Bombardier a pain in the butt???  

[Busjack]

It's going to be weird seeing #5700 on the red line, but it might be on the blue/pink in 5 years. But i guess it will be weird to see #7001 - #7400 on the blue if it does happen that way also. On the #5000 scenario, if they kept the blue interior cars together they could actually do #5271 - #5670 to blue and #5671 - #5714 to pink. Isn't that strange how that comes out 400 cars for blue and 44 for pink? I think they will be segregating these tan interior cars, so they probably wouldn't send those to blue if it happened that way. But 90 tan interior cars is tempting to put on the Orange line.

I don't see any point to that. The only reason for the blue seats is whoever what the chief railway engineer then didn't like the dusky interiors. Unless stocking shells is a real problem (unlike stocking mechanical equipment), there would have to be another rationale. Also, if the 7000s are incompatible with the 5000s, they sure aren't going to be mixing them unless they really have to. As I said long back, you aren't seeing any 5000s on the Orange Line, and with only 12 more to go, it is unlikely you will.

[BusHunter]

I don't see any point to that. The only reason for the blue seats is whoever what the chief railway engineer then didn't like the dusky interiors. Unless stocking shells is a real problem (unlike stocking mechanical equipment), there would have to be another rationale. Also, if the 7000s are incompatible with the 5000s, they sure aren't going to be mixing them unless they really have to. As I said long back, you aren't seeing any 5000s on the Orange Line, and with only 12 more to go, it is unlikely you will.

No they won't mix them, but they will have to mix them with #3200's on the orange. They have a contract out for 200 #2600 scrappings. What do you think is going to run the orange once those 200 cars are gone? This is just another example of CTA dragging it's feet just like there are no #1000's at fg, only in the case of fg they have a good chance they will not see any #1000's anytime soon.

[Busjack]

No they won't mix them, but they will have to mix them with #3200's on the orange. They have a contract out for 200 #2600 scrappings. What do you think is going to run the orange once those 200 cars are gone? This is just another example of CTA dragging it's feet just like there are no #1000's at fg, only in the case of fg they have a good chance they will not see any #1000's anytime soon.

It is UP To 200 scrappings, and unless there is some real demand for more cars, about 60-70 2600s and 100 3200s. Otherwise, fewer scrappings.

As I said before, if they were going to the Orange Line, they would have by now. 20 cars aren't going to make that big of a difference.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Busjack

[BusHunter]

Yeah but why draw up a scrap contract for 20 cars, that's barely worth the time? You understand that's all the #2600's they could afford to retire under your proposal. Besides it has been stated many places that we would drop down to 400 #2600 cars remaining. Once these final #5700's come in to skokie south it should get interesting, because then they will have nothing to transport. Maybe we can finally see what's the hype with the #3200's rehab and we can finally bid farewell to some of the #2600's. Retiring red line #2600's is just as likely as retiring orange line. They are still using the cars, they must need them.

[andrethebusman]

Yeah but why draw up a scrap contract for 20 cars, that's barely worth the time? You understand that's all the #2600's they could afford to retire under your proposal. Besides it has been stated many places that we would drop down to 400 #2600 cars remaining. Once these final #5700's come in to skokie south it should get interesting, because then they will have nothing to transport. Maybe we can finally see what's the hype with the #3200's rehab and we can finally bid farewell to some of the #2600's. Retiring red line #2600's is just as likely as retiring orange line. They are still using the cars, they must need them.

Sometimes INDIVIDUAL CARS are sold for scrap. Depends on the situation. It is simpler to put a "maximum" number out, if you reach it, fine, if not, no problem. The important part is price per car they get. This is what the contract's most important section is, not a specific number of cars. Scrappers will take a single car if it is offered, note how Acme Refining took 3177 off CTA's hands.

[garmon757]

Just spotted #5695-96 @ 63rd heading southbound.

[Guest]

It's going to be weird seeing #5700 on the red line, but it might be on the blue/pink in 5 years. But i guess it will be weird to see #7001 - #7400 on the blue if it does happen that way also. On the #5000 scenario, if they kept the blue interior cars together they could actually do #5271 - #5670 to blue and #5671 - #5714 to pink. Isn't that strange how that comes out 400 cars for blue and 44 for pink? I think they will be segregating these tan interior cars, so they probably wouldn't send those to blue if it happened that way. But 90 tan interior cars is tempting to put on the Orange line.

Would be nice to experience riding these cars!!  CTA being the pig headed agency that it is, has more than enough of these cars to equip every single line and to work alongside 2600s. 

[chicagopcclcar]

Would be nice to experience riding these cars!!  CTA being the pig headed agency that it is, has more than enough of these cars to equip every single line and to work alongside 2600s. 

CTA is NOT PIG HEADED.   No need to run DC cars with AC cars on a line just the suit a few dissatified citizens and railfans. Most riders can't tell one series from another.  Most know about the "pig headed seating the 5000s have.  If it wasn't for the Howard Terminal and yard, the Blue line might have got the 5000s and be blessed with them for decades.  Be careful what you wish for.

[juelzkellz]

CTA is NOT PIG HEADED.   No need to run DC cars with AC cars on a line just the suit a few dissatified citizens and railfans. Most riders can't tell one series from another.  Most know about the "pig headed seating the 5000s have.  If it wasn't for the Howard Terminal and yard, the Blue line might have got the 5000s and be blessed with them for decades.  Be careful what you wish for.

Exactly, 99% of CTA riders don't care what kind of equipment shows up as long as it shows up in a decent amount of time and doesn't smell like booze or human waste.

[Pink Jazz]

Enough with the talk about the Blue Line getting 5000s; it isn't happening no matter how much its riders complain.  CTA always does what is best for the system in terms of operating costs and efficiency, not what is best for the riders of a single line.

As for the Orange Line, I have doubts as well, however, with CTA having a contract for up to 200 2600-series cars being scrapped, the Orange Line would have to get cars from somewhere.

[Busjack]

Enough with the talk about the Blue Line getting 5000s; it isn't happening no matter how much its riders complain.  CTA always does what is best for the system in terms of operating costs and efficiency, not what is best for the riders of a single line.

As for the Orange Line, I have doubts as well, however, with CTA having a contract for up to 200 2600-series cars being scrapped, the Orange Line would have to get cars from somewhere.

As Andre pointed out, that doesn't mean that 200 will be scrapped, and some of those, like in the O'Hare wreck have already been scrapped. In any event, it hasn't been established why CTA would need more than 1370 cars, which is the projection in the specs (714 5000s, 400 2600s and 256 3200s). Demand for cars on the Blue Line is probably down, with all the short terminals.

[andrethebusman]

If you think ac and dc-motored cars are so different that they can't be on the same route, why is it that railroads frequently use ac and dc-motored locomotives on the same train? Because unlike CTA, the railroads insisted the builders design a control system that would work together. The only limitation is that the ac locomotive must lead a mixed consist, because dc motors can be overheated and destroyed in they are operated at too slow a speed at too high a current for too long, whereas an ac motor can draw full amperage while standing still and not overheat. Now why CTA did not insist on a compatible control system is hard to figure.

Also, a bit of historical trivia: Until about 1950, the old 4000 L cars were fully compatible with the older wood L cars (except the South Side cars, which had what was in fact a much more advanced control system than anything else), However, in 1950 or so, they were completely rebuild, with the most important new features being remote door control where all doors in a train can be controlled from one position, coupled in pairs thereby eliminating maintenance of half the controllers and brake stands, and most importantly, converted from trainlining 600 volt control circuits (Hi-V's in New York parlance) to trainlining 32-vold battery control circuits (Lo-V's), Afterwards, 4000's could only train with other 4000's. By comparison, this makes the differences between a 3200 and a 5000 almost miniscule compared to an unrebuilt and a rebuilt 4000!

[Busjack]

If you think ac and dc-motored cars are so different that they can't be on the same route, why is it that railroads frequently use ac and dc-motored locomotives on the same train? Because unlike CTA, the railroads insisted the builders design a control system that would work together. ..

I always thought that the theory behind MU was that each car had its own controller and so long as the master controller could communicate with it, it would work. Apparently not on the CTA, but maybe the DC control setup was too old to adapt.

But then one gets into the 7000s spec, which supposedly is premised on "we ran DC and 5000s on the same line, but not in the same train" allows incompatibilities not only in the propulsion system, but also incompatible couplers with a requirement that if an incompatible coupler is used, an adapter also has to be stored in each car, in case of emergency use.

I still think that the issue is the pattern started in about the mid-2000s that limited the number of series at each garage or yard to cut down parts inventories, such as Huberman making Archer all Nova until it closed.They don't have to maintain 5000s at 4 yards, and they don't have to maintain 2600s at Lake and soon at 98th and Howard.

[andrethebusman]

The problem with MUing 5000's and older cars is that more control functions are passed between cars. You could physically couple a 6000 with anything from a 2000 to a 2600, but because what electrical functions were passed between cars, you could not electrically couple them. As cars become more complex, more things need to be "coordinated", or so the thinking goes. For instance, a 6000 you only needed to be able to activate a heating circuit in the train, while on a newer car you have a differently configured heat/ac circuit. 6000 couplers had what, 32 pins while 2000-2600's had 48? Don't remember exact numbers, but that was the difference. Now it does not HAVE to be that way - all railroad locomotives have a 24-pin MU cable, and each pin handles the same circuit, regardless of whose locomotive it is, so any GE or EMD locomotive can be MU'd to any other GE or EMD locomotive, be it a 1950's GP9 or a 2015 ET44AC. The railroads made that decision in the 1960's. As a result, it can be claimed that there are functions that maybe should be trainlined that aren't, but it is what it is and nobody seems too upset by it. CTA made the decision in 1964 that it was not important to be able to mix types. New York, on the other hand, decided for many years it was, and as a result everything from 1930's R-1's to 1960's R-42's can and on occasion have, run together. Currently NYCTA has a "museum train" they run with an R-11, R-16, R-38, and R-42 together. CTA could never run a 6000, 2000, 2400 in the same train. But even NYCTA has now gone to incompatible tyes, with each series only able to run like with like.

[4CottageGrove95th]

If you think ac and dc-motored cars are so different that they can't be on the same route, why is it that railroads frequently use ac and dc-motored locomotives on the same train? Because unlike CTA, the railroads insisted the builders design a control system that would work together. The only limitation is that the ac locomotive must lead a mixed consist, because dc motors can be overheated and destroyed in they are operated at too slow a speed at too high a current for too long, whereas an ac motor can draw full amperage while standing still and not overheat. Now why CTA did not insist on a compatible control system is hard to figure.

 

Question from a layman: In the case of CTA, could it be that to purchase new cars with such a compatible control system would "up" the cost per car substantially?  Or could it be that because of the nature of "rapid transit", it would be difficult to always arrange mixed consists in such a way that A/C motored cars would always be the "lead cars"?  Just wondering.

[briman94]

Question from a layman: In the case of CTA, could it be that to purchase new cars with such a compatible control system would "up" the cost per car substantially?  Or could it be that because of the nature of "rapid transit", it would be difficult to always arrange mixed consists in such a way that A/C motored cars would always be the "lead cars"?  Just wondering.

The reason the CTA can't combine AC and DC is because the technology was not around when the DC systems were made to give them sophisticated-enough control systems to work with modern propulsion. The old DC cars use physical cam linkages as far as I know, so there is actually a physical electrical connection made from the master controller to each car in the set. The AC cars use an ethernet network to control and monitor each car's propulsion system, which is obviously not compatible. It's mechanical versus solid-state; they never work together, and never should work together.

Another reason why combining them would be a bad idea is obvious if you've ever paid attention to how the older and newer cars accelerate. The old ones lurch off from a stop pretty suddenly, whereas the AC systems "fade in." It would jerk the couplers a lot if there were mixed sets.

[4CottageGrove95th]

The reason the CTA can't combine AC and DC is because the technology was not around when the DC systems were made to give them sophisticated-enough control systems to work with modern propulsion. The old DC cars use physical cam linkages as far as I know, so there is actually a physical electrical connection made from the master controller to each car in the set. The AC cars use an ethernet network to control and monitor each car's propulsion system, which is obviously not compatible. It's mechanical versus solid-state; they never work together, and never should work together.

Another reason why combining them would be a bad idea is obvious if you've ever paid attention to how the older and newer cars accelerate. The old ones lurch off from a stop pretty suddenly, whereas the AC systems "fade in." It would jerk the couplers a lot if there were mixed sets.

Well, that answers that question.  Thanks .

[Busjack]

Question from a layman: In the case of CTA, could it be that to purchase new cars with such a compatible control system would "up" the cost per car substantially? ...

One would think that is the reason they threw out the original 7000s spec, which called for the cars to be compatible with the 5000s, and put out the new one where it would not have to be, supposedly to interest more "world-wide" bidders. Someone had surmised at the beginning of the topic on that procurement that other bidders might be stymied if they had to license Bombardier software.

 

On Andre's pins point, I'm sure it is only one thing if a locomotive needs 24 pins, but on CTA cars there are the additional demands for the announcement and interior sign systems, the exterior sign systems, and as Briman points out, the ethernet systems. Also, as Briman points out, the acceleration and deceleration characteristics are different, and the 5000s have regenerative braking under computer control, while the DC cars rely pretty much on the resister bank.

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

The reason the CTA can't combine AC and DC is because the technology was not around when the DC systems were made to give them sophisticated-enough control systems to work with modern propulsion. The old DC cars use physical cam linkages as far as I know, so there is actually a physical electrical connection made from the master controller to each car in the set. The AC cars use an ethernet network to control and monitor each car's propulsion system, which is obviously not compatible. It's mechanical versus solid-state; they never work together, and never should work together.

Another reason why combining them would be a bad idea is obvious if you've ever paid attention to how the older and newer cars accelerate. The old ones lurch off from a stop pretty suddenly, whereas the AC systems "fade in." It would jerk the couplers a lot if there were mixed sets.

This explains why Washington DC's WMATA made it work at a later date, as their 4000 series use DC and (as far as I know) are coupled up with the rest of the fleet, which uses AC. Same with the 2000 and 3000 series when they were first built. They used DC before getting refurbished. Before their refurbishment, the 2000s and 3000s used chopper controls as opposed to the CTA's cam linkages, and the 4000s still use chopper controls to this day.

Another thing about the 5000s on the CTA is that because of their AC motors they do not make a loud knocking noise when the traction motors are disengaged. When I was a kid I was once at Clark/Lake watching an Orange Line pull in at night. I'm guessing there was a train in front of it because the train operator kept disengaging the motors at a low speed. Every time he did, there was a loud knocking noise and a quick flash of light coming from the train. Back then I though it was sparks from the third rail, but later in high school I was watching a video of a Brown Line going around the curve at Tower 18 at night and I saw the flashes of light coming from the center of the train, underneath the car body. I guess that's where the magic happens. 

You can see the same flash of light in this video.

 

[Busjack]

This explains why Washington DC's WMATA made it work at a later date, as their 4000 series use DC and (as far as I know) are coupled up with the rest of the fleet, which uses AC. Same with the 2000 and 3000 series when they were first built. They used DC before getting refurbished. Before their refurbishment, the 2000s and 3000s used chopper controls as opposed to the CTA's cam linkages, and the 4000s still use chopper controls to this day.

....

Is the WMATA situation similar to that on NICTD, in that when mid life rehabs were done, NICTD rebuilt all its cars as AC? I don't know what it did while the rebuilding process was in process, but it runs a whole AC fleet now, even though many of the cars were built around 1982.

Chopper control is also an issue with CTA, in that GE experimented with it at the end of the 2400s, but it caused interference with the cab signal system then in use, and thus the cars were delivered with conventional cam control.

[4CottageGrove95th]

This explains why Washington DC's WMATA made it work at a later date, as their 4000 series use DC and (as far as I know) are coupled up with the rest of the fleet, which uses AC. Same with the 2000 and 3000 series when they were first built. They used DC before getting refurbished. Before their refurbishment, the 2000s and 3000s used chopper controls as opposed to the CTA's cam linkages, and the 4000s still use chopper controls to this day.

Another thing about the 5000s on the CTA is that because of their AC motors they do not make a loud knocking noise when the traction motors are disengaged. When I was a kid I was once at Clark/Lake watching an Orange Line pull in at night. I'm guessing there was a train in front of it because the train operator kept disengaging the motors at a low speed. Every time he did, there was a loud knocking noise and a quick flash of light coming from the train. Back then I though it was sparks from the third rail, but later in high school I was watching a video of a Brown Line going around the curve at Tower 18 at night and I saw the flashes of light coming from the center of the train, underneath the car body. I guess that's where the magic happens. 

You can see the same flash of light in this video.

 

Yeah, I remember that "pop" sound, not so much on the "high performance" (2000 - 3200 series) cars, but mostly on the 6000s. especially when the motorman would accelerate out of King Drive station; he would have to "abruptly"  cut current to the traction motors to negotiate that sharp curve leading from 63rd to the northbound stretch heading toward the Loop. Matter of fact, I noticed the same thing on the old 1926 IC electric commuter cars and on the 1972 IC/Metra Highliners.

[chicagopcclcar]

Another thing about the 5000s on the CTA is that because of their AC motors they do not make a loud knocking noise when the traction motors are disengaged. When I was a kid I was once at Clark/Lake watching an Orange Line pull in at night. I'm guessing there was a train in front of it because the train operator kept disengaging the motors at a low speed. Every time he did, there was a loud knocking noise and a quick flash of light coming from the train. Back then I though it was sparks from the third rail, but later in high school I was watching a video of a Brown Line going around the curve at Tower 18 at night and I saw the flashes of light coming from the center of the train, underneath the car body. I guess that's where the magic happens. 

You can see the same flash of light in this video.

That "POP" and flash is the line switch.  The "POP" is loud when the motors are really drawing current, like then they are starting up. In the video, the motorman applies current and quickly shuts off, that's the "POP".....and the flash you see. 

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

Is the WMATA situation similar to that on NICTD, in that when mid life rehabs were done, NICTD rebuilt all its cars as AC? I don't know what it did while the rebuilding process was in process, but it runs a whole AC fleet now, even though many of the cars were built around 1982...

It seems that the situation was similar, as almost all of the DC cars in Washington DC are now AC cars, and the 4000 series mentioned before are going to be replaced by the 7000 series.