CTA Tattler

I think it's a great idea, as long as there are enough poles/straps for people to hang onto. The problem with the seatless area of the current cars on the red line is that there are fewer points for people to hold on than on a car with seats, so you end up with people crowded together around the edges and the people who are unfortunate enough to be in the middle get bounced around making it a miserable ride for everyone.

I second the first comment. Also, it would be best if the two seatless cars were always in the same relative position in the train -- probably first two or last two -- so that you could consistently prefer or avoid them.

Seems fine to me. I thought the first cars to be taken out of service were the ones with the blinker doors that I see on the pink and blue lines.

I'm with both foreman and Rhett. If the two cars are in the same position, and there are adequate straps/poles/whatever to hang on to, that would be great. It would be great if the poles could be arranged in such a way that a natural aisle would still fall, for the ease of debarking passengers in the middle -- it would be a major improvement over when you're stuck standing in the middle of a packed SRO car and have to squeeze past 20 people to get to a door.

Also, it might be worth posting cardboard signs ("Board here for Rush Hour Standing Room Only cars!") in the busiest stations as well, so people who usually wait for a particular car (and who don't pay attention to announcements) don't get a nasty surprise.

Although I always prefer having the opportunity to sit down (I look perfectly able-bodied but have arthritic knees that, on some days, make standing for my train ride quite awful), I think it would be worth seeing what happens with the addition of a couple of test cars. I have to agree with the first comment, though, regarding places for people to grab onto. It's frustrating to have floors space but no grabbing space. I'd also hope that when outfitting these cars as "standing room only," Huberman et al take the fact that some folks are short and are facing a 30 minute plus commute with their arms extended fully over their heads. Quite uncomfortable!

Sounds like it's a Brown Line-only idea, so I don't really care. The Red Line's losing 32 cars of weekday morning service and the Brown Line's staying constant, but that's where he wants to create the extra space?

Before I really realized it was a Brown Line thing, I did vote no, but it didn't seem to work with my browser (IE 7, XP 2). The first day of southbound three-track hell is too early to really say, though.

"Huberman said the CTA was toying with the idea of stripping the old 2200 series El cars of all seats and dropping two of them into a set of eight cars .....
These cars are currently used only on the Brown Line, and would be the first taken out of service when the new tains cars are delivered in 2010."

Either he has no clue what he is talking about or he did a really poor job explaining it to you at the breakfast.

While the 2200-series cars are definitely the first to be replaced when the new cars arrive, they are currently used only on the Blue and Pink Lines (in conjunction with other accessible cars). If he really thinks these non-accessible cars are currently being used (or should be used) on the almost completely accessible Brown Line, then he really is a lot dumber than he is pretty.

I think you meant to say the 2200s are only used on the Blue Line, not the Brown Line. Huberman said this was a Blue Line idea to help ease overcrowding on the O'Hare branch.

If the idea is, "how about instead of scrapping these old cars, we keep them so we can have extra cars in service during rush hour", then I'd like to know where the storage space is going to come from, where the money to maintain these extra cars is going to come from, where the extra money for the extra TO's will come from, and where the extra money to pay for the additional yard opperations will come from.

I'd also want to know that if you're keeping them to run extra trains, which add extra capacity, why you'd also feel the need to strip the seats out of them!

On the other hand, if the plan is, "how about we take out some nicer, newer cars during rush hour, and replace them with these old cars", I'd still have all my questions about storage, and money. You might not need as many extra TO's (you'd still need some so you can take trains briefly out of service to swap cars), but you'd still have a lot of additional operational costs.

So essentially I'd say that if you've got the space and money to keep those old cars in service, I'd rather you scrape together a couple extra bucks for a few more TO's so these cars will mean extra cars/trains in service instead of replacements for more efficient equipment.

All in all, this sounds like an idea someone who knows nothing about running a transit system would ask before running it by anyone who knows what they're doing. Or it sounds like one of those brainstorming ideas from a session where you get points just for participation even if your idea is obviously fatally flawed, and you only have to take it a single step beyond to find those flaws.

This might be a good idea if the system was expanding faster than new equipment could be obtained. It might even be a workable idea without growth if new equipment can't be obtained fast enough. (Like leasing Seattle artics because you can't buy new artics fast enough.) But that's not the case here.

Sorry, but this idea is too expensive of an experiment. If you've got the money, capacity and need to keep these junkers running, don't strip the seats from them.

I think it is also for the Blue line as well. Anyone I've talked to that rides the O'hare line during rush hours insists the overcrowding is far worse than on Red or Brown. The few times I have rode Blue towards O'hare at rush hour, it is indeed extremely crowded to at least Damen or Western. Most people at Clark/Lake have to wait at least 2-3 trains to board at 5:15pm.

Anyone want to comment on this mornings 3-tracking? I didn't go into the office today, so I'm curious how it went.

Well, as someone who suggested this idea to the CTA just before the first phase of three-tracking began, I think the idea has merit but only if it's on a rail line that people truly are having difficulty boarding. Just before three-tracking began, the air was abuzz with forecasts that hordes of people would stranded on platforms, unable to board already-full rail cars. By and large, of course, those forecasts were wrong.

However, I have heard several people on here say that on the *red* line, there are times when people simply cannot fit on the train. So it seems to me that the idea would have some merit on that line, since it's rush hour capacity is decreasing further today, while the brown line's is not (since the lower frequency of trains is compensated by the increase from 6 to 8 cars).

If the suggestion was in actuality for the blue line, then I have no opinion, but would suggest that the same guiding principle should be applied: since this is not creating more seats for people, it's only really useful if it's getting people onto trains that otherwise were entirely unable to board.

This morning's commute wasn't that bad for me, but that may have just been luck on my part. I left home about 15 minutes earlier than usual, the Montrose bus was at my stop when I got there. The Brown line was just pulling into Montrose when I arrived as well, so right there is a savings of up to 10 min vs. a normal day where I just miss everything. The 8 car trains definitely make a difference, as there were a number of empty seats; which haven't been the case lately.
It took about ten minutes to get from Southport to Belmont on the brown with frequent stops, and frequent announcements that we were waiting for trains/signals ahead.
The platform at Belmont wasn't as crowded as I had expected and there I saw at least 5 CTA employees explaining what was going on. I was actually surprised at how many passengers seemed clueless. The red line was right behind my brown line train, so I didn't wait long, and the train was less crowded than the average Red line at Belmont. Things were slow-moving from Belmont to the subway, but I still ended up getting to work about 25 minutes earlier than usual on a day that I was expecting to be late.

Like I said, it's probably a combination of my good timing and people staying home to go to the Cubs game, but It wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting. Hopefully it stays this way.

The lines with the most peak crowding are Brown (worst) and Blue (second worst), but we'll see what happens to Red in the AM with this next phase of 3-track. I think it's a great idea.

"The lines with the most peak crowding are Brown (worst) and Blue (second worst)"

source?

2200 series (oldest in the fleet '69/'70) are only used on the blue/pink, not brown. Brown has the the newest series with the orange..

So before everyone gets all up in arms, it needs to be clarified which lines these test cars will be used on.

Josh asks which line these test cars will be used on.

Well, remember, this is not a done deal yet, so I really don't think they know. This idea is merely under consideration at this point.

Instead of stripping all the seats on these cars - can they rearrange the seats in NYC style, facing the aisles? Then there'd be *some* seating - but a lot more room.

Obviously they'd have to add more handrails and straps - but that goes for every train ... there's a lot of awkward spaces on trains where people can stand, but not easily hold onto anything ...

This would likely be more palatable if at least a few seats were left (rather than having no seats at all). That way, people who have a longer trip to the end of the line will have an opportunity to sit for at least part of the journey (either when they get on an empty car heading in or as the car empties while heading out). Also, don't forget the handicapped who might still be able to walk through the blinker doors but may have difficulty standing while the train is in motion.

Since there would only be two such cars per train, I don't think accessibility by the persons with disabilities is that much of an issue; if we're talking about a situation in which the alternative is not being able to board at all because the train is too full, then doing this will not disadvantage the disabled, since they wouldn't have been able to get on the train in the first place. (Certainly someone should give up a seat for a person with a disability who needs it, but I doubt anyone seriously thinks someone with a seat should or will get off the train entirely to make space for a new passenger, disabled or no.)

I think for PR purposes the CTA also needs to make it abundantly clear that this is a TEMPORARY measure done to alleviate the effects of the single-tracking and the more compressed morning rush period. While I think the idea is a good one, if it's not announced the right way there's a risk it will just come across as a deterioration of service: ("CTA eliminates seats on red line").

Also, the CTA should take care to arrange the poles and whatever else there is to hang onto in such a way as to encourage people to move toward the center of the car.

If people were packed in as tightly as physically possible, there wouldn't even be a need for any poles or straps.

agreed on most of above:

1) the "no man's land" as i like to call it on the cars that are not the 2200s on the blue line are awful. i understand the need for the space to access the handicapped seat there by hobo corner, but why no pole on the seats facing inward just across from it? i hate when i accidentally walk this way into the car.

2) since this is for the 2200 series cars, why not leave the seats on the ends and eliminate all seats in the middle with an overhead grab pole? really, anything to get people out of the doorways on these cars...

3) putting these cars in the middle, while i understand why, is not where the blue line is the most crowded. i used to enter the logan stop from the logan end and get on the first or second car. i moved, and now enter the spaulding end and try and get on the 3 or 4th car (from the front). makes all the difference in the world. i can get a seat at least half of the mornings i get on now. all the bunching is in the first two cars because 50% of the riders depart at clark & lake. i understand these are also the handicapped-accessible cars, but still.........

Regarding the accessibility for wheel chairs on the 2200s with no seats. Those trains cant handle a wheel chair as it is due to the folding doors, and not enough space for them to get threw. They are not ADA compliant due to their age. This explains why you will never see an all 2200 series 8 car train. Its generally always buddied up with a 2600 on either end on the blue.

Personally i think its a great idea to do it new york style with arm straps everywhere.

Actually, I don't think that the folding (or blinker) doors are the reason that the 2200 cars are not ADA compliant. The trains in St. Louis have folding doors and I've seen people on wheelchairs board without a problem.

Kevin, the issue I was referring to is that there are currently no 2200 cars assigned to the Brown Line, as mentioned in your post. So if these trains would be NEWLY assigned to the Brown Line, this would require a pretty series non-revenue move, and where would they be stored, as Kimball is at capacity?

For the record, I think it's a good idea, but there's a lot of questions relating to the use of 2200 series cars on lines other than Pink and Blue.

There are disabilities that do not require the use of a wheelchair, so simply being able to get a wheelchair on board does not make a rail car ADA compliant. That said, I suspect the cars with the folding doors are non-ADA compliant not because of how the doors open (although who knows) but because the doorways are way too narrow.

As for moving the rail cars from one part of the system to another: it would be a one-time move; hard to see why that would be a barrier. As for storage, presumably the cars would be swapped with cars currently operating on the destination rail line, so the amount of storage needed in different parts of the system would remain constant. I don't think the idea is to add *extra* cars to the brown or red line trains, since at least during rush periods, they are already as long as they can get.

I am curious, though: what are some of the "questions" about using the 2200 series on lines other than pink/blue?

Irk wrote: "I think for PR purposes the CTA also needs to make it abundantly clear that this is a TEMPORARY measure done to alleviate the effects of the single-tracking and the more compressed morning rush period."

Let me repeat: IF the CTA does this, it won't happen until 2010 at the very least -- after they take delivery of the new train cars. So this would NOT happen this year to "alleviate the effects of the single-tracking."

Let's try this again...

Since this won't happen until all the new cars have arrived,

1. The system will have enough cars without having to keep obsolete junk.

2. If they have enough cars to operate the schedule, but swap out the new cars to insert these pieces of junk, you aren't gaining much after you pay for the new storage areas, as well as yard personnel to facilitate the swaps, and you'd be taking trains briefly out of revenue service to swap out perfectly good cars for this junk.

3. This would mean you'd have perfectly good cars sitting in the yards during rush hour. If you can still use the 2200's, then don't order so many new cars.

4. If these will be extra cars for extra capacity, and you also plan to use those new cars as well, that means you'll have more trains operating. (And more costs, too.) If you have more trains operating, you don't need to strip the seats from some of them to gain extra capacity. Just having extra cars out there gives you extra capacity.

And that is the main point I'm trying to make. If you are adding extra cars to gain extra capacity, you don't need to also strip the seats from them. If they're not going to be extra, then you'll be leaving new equipment in the yard during rush hour.

(BTW... Having too many cars in service may put any Federal funding in jeopardy. The Federal funding is granted because you need the cars to operate, not to just sit in the yard while you operate other cars.)

wait, why are people saying that it wouldn't happen until new cars arrive in 2010?

#4 of rusty's is a very good point, however the stripped seats would alleviate the massive platform rush for a single 8 car train at crucial moment. It would expand that runs capacity with out adding more runs. There may not be enough space in the schedule to just add another 8 car train run with those extra non-stripped cars. Most likely i see them just swapping a few 3300s for 2200s on the blue and keeping them at Kimball. As others have said though would the kimball yard be equipped to service the 2200 if need be?

Also, if this would not be done until 2010 when the 5000s show up this is retarded and I dont even know why we're discussing it. :)

Ah, so this won't happen until the new cars have already arrived? In that case, I don't get it, I'm with Rusty. I wonder if this idea is rooted in the option of acquiring fewer new cars than initially announced.

If Ron was serious about making it easier to accommodate standing passengers as well as getting more people away from the doors, he would be looking into adding more poles and straps to cars. If you remove the seats on the 2200's you still have to install lots of poles and straps why not do it to the current cars on the most overcrowded lines, such as Red and Blue? The 3200's are the only cars that have poles throughout and its great. There is one area that is bad near the wheelchair flip up seats. There is one grab bar by the door, but it tends to leave a big space right in the middle of the car, since there is nowhere to grab anything.

Adding poles in the middle/aisle area of Red line trains would be my number one request for modifying train cars, well before we talk about stripping out the seats. I am tall, so it is almost impossible to grab those low bars on the backs of seats, so yes I tend to stay put near the poles by the doors.

If CTA riders knew how to pack themselves on to trains as the commuters in Tokyo do, they'd find that there is _always_ room for one more.

I ride the Blue Line every day and usually stand. I am all for this.

It occurred to me last night that I'd be all in favor of these cattle cars on the Red Line if they were used exclusively when the Cubs are playing a night game and all the Cubs fans were herded into them. They'll still make my evening commute hell, but at least they'll be out of the way.

Kevin, the new bit of information you provide about this idea being proposed for 2010 changes everything. Originlly you said that, according to Ron, the 2200 series cars were the ones that would be the first to be taken out of service in 2010; that explains why it wouldn't be the end of the world to modify these cars (i.e., they're going to be replaced soon anyway so it's not like they'll need to go to any trouble to put the seats back at some point).

It seems hard to believe that the CTA is really considering waiting till 2010 to do this, since that's when they're capacity crunch will start to subside a bit.

If they're considering doing this now, then it seems worth considering.

If they're considering doing it after three-tracking is done and after new cars are in service, then it would be pretty much pointless and the idea should be abandoned, except conceivably for occasional use on game days on the red line or something.

You should probably disregard the results of the poll, since this new bit of information changes things quite a bit. I certainly wouldn't have voted "yes" if I knew the idea was one for the distant future.

There was a incomplete thought in my last post: The fact that the cars in question are going to be taken out of service in 2010 anyway tells us that we shouldn't be bothered by their modification, but it doesn't tell us when they would be modified. It's hard to see why the CTA would wait till 2010 to do this when the ratio of demand to capacity is presumably higher now.

Note to IRK: The reason why the CTA can't do this now is because right now, they don't have enough CTA cars to meet current needs. So to take some out of service would just make matters worse.

But when they take delivery of new cars in 2010, they will take the 2200 cars out of service. And the idea was to use some of them for standing room only.

I hope this helps, and sorry if I confused you. I realize I certainly could have been more clear in writing that this wouldn't happen till 2010.

It seems to me that adding so many extra people to the car would add a lot of weight. When the cars were designed and engineered, were they built to carry so much extra weight? I'd hate to see the things go over a bump and collapse!

I guess I still don't see why the CTA doesn't just do this now if it thinks it's a good idea. The proposal, as I understand it, is not to take the cars out of service, but simply to take the seats out of them so that more people can fit inside. So this would represent an expansion of capacity, not a contraction.

I mean, presumably they'd need to be out of service briefly for the actual removal of the seats, but one would think that could be accomplished over a weekend. And maybe it takes a day to swap the cars with some fully-seated cars from whatever line is going to get the seatless ones. They could do this two cars at a time if they want to minimize the number of cars briefly out of service.

It's hard to believe the CTA is so short on rail equipment that they can't be two cars short for a period of several days. Rail cars must break down periodically and have to get taken out of service; the system appears to be able to withstand that.

And in any event, suppose the system has no play in the joints at all and that taking two 2200 series cars out of service to remove the seats means that some line (call it the "Source Line") will have a shorter train in service during parts of the day. I maintain that it's still worth doing if there's truly a need for the seat-less cars.

Remember the problem we're trying to solve. This seat-less car idea is only useful on the premise that there is some rail line (call it the "Destination Line") on which people are physically unable to fit onto trains during parts of the rush period. If so, that's an ongoing problem that will presumably continue for months or years.

So which is worse? An indefinite capacity
shortage on the Destination Line, or a temporary capacity shortage on the Source Line? I would think the answer is clear, but if there's some piece of information I'm missing, I'd be happy to hear it.

The problem is that you'd only want these cars in service during the peak period. No carry-over into mid-day or evening hours. No using them at any other time of the day ever.

And you never want to use more than one set per train even during the peak hours.

So the problem wouldn't be the one time the cars are out of service to strip the seats out. The problem would be the extra time it would take to make sure a car pair is never used incorrectly.

Normally, some trains simply get an extra pair tacked-on to them for peak periods, but there are also completely extra trains out there, too. Shuffling cars around this much is going to cost time and money every day.

And for what benefit? People are still going to stand around the doors, and there will still be big empty spaces in the middle of these cars. And people who weren't expecting a car with no seats are going to be upset, too.

Sorry, but I still don't feel that this is a very good idea, even if it were implimented tomorrow.

And it's certainly not a good idea if they wait until all the new cars have been delivered in 2010. This isn't going to help anyone. It's going to be an expensive mess.

This is the kind of idea that is implimented when people don't think about the consequences of their actions.

On one of Rusty's points: I would have assumed that, equipment being reportedly in short supply, most of the train cars are in use most of the time. But then yesterday we learned that the brown line didn't just increase to 8-car trains -- it also decreased to 4-car trains during midday. This suggests that they actually have completely different sets of trains in use during rush periods than during other times of day.

And it sounded from Kevin's original post like the CTA envisioned only using the hollowed-out cars during rush periods. So I would imagine it's not quite as difficult as you fear.

The measure should be done sooner rather than later though, and discontinued once the brown line project is done and there are more trains again.

For Cubs games, there should be cattle cars. No windows, nothing! :)

"It occurred to me last night that I'd be all in favor of these cattle cars on the Red Line if they were used exclusively when the Cubs are playing a night game and all the Cubs fans were herded into them. They'll still make my evening commute hell, but at least they'll be out of the way."

Yes! Then they can all complain to each other about "OMG IT'S GOING TO TAKE 4EVER 2 GET 2 HOWARD!!!! UGH WHY IS THE TRAIN GOING SO SLOWWWW!!!" all together, and I won't have to hear it.