It was great to chat with you, Bill, and Nicole this morning about the Type 10s. Both of you were overflowing with excitement about the mockup, the improvements achieved in the Type 10s, and getting these new vehicles out to serve the public. Thanks for the conversation and for your work!
Although I will personally miss the older model (since it was something that I grew up on for many years before I moved to Florida), the Type 10 mock-up looks quite fantastic in my opinion. I specifically like the ramp for disabled persons and how it comes out. Nice and efficient for travelers of all kinds. Very beautiful.
god it looks like its from the 90s already. Its great that new stock is coming, and that its 100% low floor and everything else, but why does everything on the green line have to look so dated. it looks worse than the type 9s even
it's annoying because if you use the T you know that it's much more helpful than the online train circlejerk would suggest. and of course it would be great to spend money on it and build the dream subway from said online circlejerk. but we always get somewhere in between - we spend a ton of money, and it stays average. :/
@@purplelord8531 Great comment! Public transit should serve the basic needs of the riders, not the online circle-jerkers. The circle-jerkers' weird obsession with exterior appearance shows how detached from reality their little cult is.
Been riding public transportation for over 35 years one problem with all these transit companies is new stock rolls out but the infrastructure it runs on still remains out dated which still causes delays in the long run but still I like the new design and hope everything works out for the MBTA ❤
Infrastructure isn't something that can be fixed overnight, especially when it's constantly active and in tight physical constraints. Easier to get the equipment and gradually improve the infrastructure.
This looks amazing, and the reliability improvements are surely welcome, but I hope the map diagram above the doors are actually dynamic instead of static like they are on the new Red and Orange Line trains!
Not much notice of when this was going to be available to the public, so I already missed it. At least this video does a MUCH BETTER job of showing what the inside AND outside actually looks like (compared to the CBS Boston video). I can see right away the windows are rather small for the size of each segment. I also see that the Type 10s are going to have hard and uncomfortable seats similar to what the Type 9s have. It is also concerning that the manufacturer is the same (CAF) as for the Type 9s, which have not exactly had prize-winning reliability.
I'd rather they stick with the existing manufacturer than jump ship to a new one to undergo a new wave of integration hell. At the very least, this gives CAF to learn from the shortcomings of the Type 9 and produce a more reliable product.
CAF products generally are fine. The problem with the vehicles come when the MBTA try to "customize" their trains. They're just not good at it. It's the only explanation of how these vehicles (and everything else new) on the Green Line looks 30 years dated by the time it comes online.
@@MrAronymous Problem is: You can't avoid customizing trains to run on the Green Line -- anything off the shelf of more recent vintage than the PCCs (or at most Euro-PCCs) simply won't fit.
@@ClariNerd This kind of bare-minimum thinking is for losers. Any new train that gets ordered should at a bare minimum be functional, of high build quality and perform well. Literally no one here is advocating against any of that, in fact, most seem to agree that the engineers have done a good job overall with the demo model that was publicly presented. All that said, if a train looks old from the day it hits the track, just imagine what it will look like in 20-30 years as it will still be on the tracks. If you go to buy a brand new car, just imagine your reaction if the salesman trots out a model from 1995 with zero miles, but then tells you, ""don't worry how it looks, it will still reliably get you where you want to go, and it has big heated seats for winter, and ice cold A/C for those hot summer days". Sorry nerd, modern looks on transit vehicles matter, and thankfully it's something that will cost very little. It also makes a public statement that transit riders are important and not just a crowd of poor folks who don't deserve better. It also makes a bold statement about the city and region. Plus, people just prefer to ride on newer, modern vehicles. Just ask Caltrain with their new Stadler EMUs, seeing a big surge in ridership, in large part due to new modern vehicles (both inside and out).
US Transit Agencies are constantly strapped for cash, and tend to be a bit hidebound culturally regardless. The result is that they want as much parts commonality as possible with their existing fleet, and don’t want to retool or retrain to maintain different styles of windows - so they often spec the same sizes and styles of windows across rail and bus fleets to make maintenance easier. Not all of them do this: for example SFMTA’s rail feet has nicer frameless windows compared to their bus fleet. But a LOT of agencies do, and yes, it’s annoying.
Not sure why they didn’t just go with a standard Urbos design like everyone else who buys from CAF. If you want to look at good design, look at the cars Luxembourg has from the same manufacturer.
They probably leave the design aspects to the interns, that could be the only explanation. CAF is perfectly able to produce fantastic looking rolling stock if the customer wants. It seems the customer doesn't know better...
Too many people in this comment section worrying too much about the looks. As long as the thing runs and does the job properly, who cares what it really looks like? Ok, it's not perfect, but it's clearly not the end of the world. Get over it and move on and be glad you're getting new equipment and not running old, beat up and financially outdated cars that are struggling to make service. Such an ungrateful lot.
Looks matter. Perception matters. Nobody is saying its the end of the world. However, this is a once in a 30 year opportunity, so why not get it right? Especially when it is so odd that the looks are notably worse than you know.. standard vehicles from manufacturers that this vehicle is based on. It's like the MBTA tried their hardest to uglify a sleek new train as much as they could. Can't have it look too nice I guess, or it might make people feel too valued as customers. It makes no sense! It isn't even a cost issue! Asking for best practise is not being ungrateful, it's looking out for the transit system's and region's best interest. This mentality of yours "eh good enough at least it's not actively dangerous" is how public transit has become so much worse in the US than other places around the world. Cities with awesome transit didn't get it falling from the sky, people actively worked on every detail. Always strive for better.
Somehow between the renders and this mock-up, the design went from bland to outdated and uncomfortable, aka even worse. The front fascia looks like an old Siemens Combino from the early 2000s, totally behind the times. The strictly longitudinal seats mean that the aisle will be almost impassable if many people are sitting down, which they will, and combined with the plastic seats people will likely be thrown about a lot. If you had looked properly at modern tram systems overseas, you would've seen that most of those use primarily transverse seating to mitigate both of those problems. Why don't you?
At least re: plastic, in the US we tend to…distrust…fabric seating. It’s harder to keep clean, harder to tell if it’s been soiled or not, and more expensive to replace. Plastic seating definitely has downsides, but those are generally seen as tolerable compared to the downsides of fabric.
The longtitudinal seating is probably because these cars come with quite tight track constrains these cars must meet. They probably use swiveling bogies, leaving little room for seating on top and also adequate leg room. It's the best most efficient use of the space. On every other point you are right. Like, if you're doing longtitudinal seating then why the smooth (slippery) hard plastic? It's just dumb.
While a long overdue update is def. good news, I feel like Bill’s mind would explode if he tried out the trains in Asia + the EU. But per usual, baby steps toward progress ... 😩
@@qjtvaddict Are you talking about trains or trams? Perhaps the specs hold up, but HK + JP subways smoke the US in aesthetics + reliability. I'm sure UK is at least on par if not better than the US. 🤔 I'm not hating on the effort to improve the T. But in contrast w/ other top subways, we still got a long way to go. 😲
@@WildWildWeasel It doesn't. They make products all over the world that look just fine. But somehow the products for MBTA tend to look the worst... wonder why...
@@Jon.MorimotoWhat’s in a name anyway? In the case of the engineering company, it came from the first man to demonstrate an electric locomotive. Besides, there’s plenty of words we have in English that are fine but other languages would take offense to those syllables of pronunciation…
It already looks outdated. Seriously, what’s with the ugly front-end and framed windows? Why do all of MBTA’s trains look outdated before they’re even put into service? I want to see something from Stadler. Their trains are bound to be better-looking and more modern than anything CAF will ever produce for the US market.
If you want to "see something from Stadler," ride Caltrain's new electric trains from San Jose to San Francisco. MBTA chose CAF because they had the best bid. Do you condone overpaying for taxpayer-funded contracts?
CAF is likely not to blame...they do offer very modern trams, unfortunately the T and other US transit ops saddle themselves with outdated specs that keep even their newest vehicles stuck in the 1970s.
Oof the front fascia has been MBTA-ized, again! In other words made unnecessarily ugly compared to the renderings (and most other light rail vehicles on the globe).
This Type 10 tram/LRV looks terrible with its small windows; modern trams and LRVs have continuous surface mounted windows. Get it together, 'T' and make a Type 10 worthy of its name!
What about adding accommodation for bikes? All other light rail systems in North America (except MUNI) have designed and implemented modern light rail/streetcar vehicles with accommodations for bikes.
This looks clean ngl. Way better than the rough draft.
It was great to chat with you, Bill, and Nicole this morning about the Type 10s. Both of you were overflowing with excitement about the mockup, the improvements achieved in the Type 10s, and getting these new vehicles out to serve the public. Thanks for the conversation and for your work!
Although I will personally miss the older model (since it was something that I grew up on for many years before I moved to Florida), the Type 10 mock-up looks quite fantastic in my opinion. I specifically like the ramp for disabled persons and how it comes out. Nice and efficient for travelers of all kinds. Very beautiful.
Looks Awesome! Can't wait to see it on the rails!
Looks nice!
The paint looks way better than the original design!
That train is really nice & dope it looks very detailed ime :D
I wish the windows were bigger!
That would compromise the structural integrity
Nice looking tram 👍
This is a cool concept! Would be cool to see in person once it’s up and running.
Looks so nice 🥹
These + level boarding? dreamy.
god it looks like its from the 90s already. Its great that new stock is coming, and that its 100% low floor and everything else, but why does everything on the green line have to look so dated. it looks worse than the type 9s even
I think it’s because of the clearances from the Tremont Street Subway which the green line derives from.
it's annoying because if you use the T you know that it's much more helpful than the online train circlejerk would suggest. and of course it would be great to spend money on it and build the dream subway from said online circlejerk.
but we always get somewhere in between - we spend a ton of money, and it stays average. :/
And
The type7 looks the best
@@Kingaverylovesgaming Indeed it does!
@@purplelord8531 Great comment! Public transit should serve the basic needs of the riders, not the online circle-jerkers. The circle-jerkers' weird obsession with exterior appearance shows how detached from reality their little cult is.
Been riding public transportation for over 35 years one problem with all these transit companies is new stock rolls out but the infrastructure it runs on still remains out dated which still causes delays in the long run but still I like the new design and hope everything works out for the MBTA ❤
Infrastructure isn't something that can be fixed overnight, especially when it's constantly active and in tight physical constraints. Easier to get the equipment and gradually improve the infrastructure.
Love it
Yoo
@MBTARailFan2.0_YTchristmastime hello
I went there and it was good and it had great interior
Hey!
I like it.
This looks amazing, and the reliability improvements are surely welcome, but I hope the map diagram above the doors are actually dynamic instead of static like they are on the new Red and Orange Line trains!
Looks a little cramped in the middle seating sections, but not too bad.
Make sure you get some feed back from the operators, who drive these vehicles every day.
Uhmmmm Thank you
The headlights designs makes it look like 2010s or older cmon guys
Not much notice of when this was going to be available to the public, so I already missed it. At least this video does a MUCH BETTER job of showing what the inside AND outside actually looks like (compared to the CBS Boston video). I can see right away the windows are rather small for the size of each segment. I also see that the Type 10s are going to have hard and uncomfortable seats similar to what the Type 9s have. It is also concerning that the manufacturer is the same (CAF) as for the Type 9s, which have not exactly had prize-winning reliability.
I'd rather they stick with the existing manufacturer than jump ship to a new one to undergo a new wave of integration hell. At the very least, this gives CAF to learn from the shortcomings of the Type 9 and produce a more reliable product.
@@LimitedWard I understand, but you may be too optimistic about a manufacturer doing better the second time.
@@Lucius_Chiaraviglionot the first time so give them a chance.
CAF products generally are fine. The problem with the vehicles come when the MBTA try to "customize" their trains. They're just not good at it. It's the only explanation of how these vehicles (and everything else new) on the Green Line looks 30 years dated by the time it comes online.
@@MrAronymous Problem is: You can't avoid customizing trains to run on the Green Line -- anything off the shelf of more recent vintage than the PCCs (or at most Euro-PCCs) simply won't fit.
Is it going to drive two trains or ons
I think it's going to be one tram but they are a lot longer than the older ones
One
They will be as long as 2 regular cars so there won't be any need to couple them up.
My one worry is walkway obstruction at the longitudinal seating section. Great vehicle!
What about Red Line?
Why does this tram look like it was built in 2004? This LRV is already 20 years out of date.
The propulsion, braking, and temperature control systems are modern. Why does the exterior matter to you?
@@Jon.MorimotoFor all pasengers exterior is important, not for technicians. This tram looks bad.
It could look like a shiny steel d*ck and I wouldn't care as long as it gets me to my destination reliably and on time.
Looks don't matter when you're trying to get from A to B.
Feedback: Make it look better! Ya know...something newer than the 1990s. Include designers, not just engineers on the vehicles team.
So as long as it looks good, it doesn't matter whether it works?
It allows you to not walk in a blizzard. Who cares what it looks like?
@@ClariNerd This kind of bare-minimum thinking is for losers. Any new train that gets ordered should at a bare minimum be functional, of high build quality and perform well. Literally no one here is advocating against any of that, in fact, most seem to agree that the engineers have done a good job overall with the demo model that was publicly presented.
All that said, if a train looks old from the day it hits the track, just imagine what it will look like in 20-30 years as it will still be on the tracks. If you go to buy a brand new car, just imagine your reaction if the salesman trots out a model from 1995 with zero miles, but then tells you, ""don't worry how it looks, it will still reliably get you where you want to go, and it has big heated seats for winter, and ice cold A/C for those hot summer days".
Sorry nerd, modern looks on transit vehicles matter, and thankfully it's something that will cost very little. It also makes a public statement that transit riders are important and not just a crowd of poor folks who don't deserve better. It also makes a bold statement about the city and region. Plus, people just prefer to ride on newer, modern vehicles. Just ask Caltrain with their new Stadler EMUs, seeing a big surge in ridership, in large part due to new modern vehicles (both inside and out).
Why do american train windows look like that
RM Transit talked about this. Something about how the windows are replaced. I hate it too. Looks very dated.
Ungh, it's a conspiracy to annoy America-hating extremists! The conspiracy seems very effective.
US Transit Agencies are constantly strapped for cash, and tend to be a bit hidebound culturally regardless. The result is that they want as much parts commonality as possible with their existing fleet, and don’t want to retool or retrain to maintain different styles of windows - so they often spec the same sizes and styles of windows across rail and bus fleets to make maintenance easier.
Not all of them do this: for example SFMTA’s rail feet has nicer frameless windows compared to their bus fleet. But a LOT of agencies do, and yes, it’s annoying.
Like what? Rectangles?
@@TimSeatonPainting the rounded corners. Apparently many transit agencies say they're easier to replace but most of the world has moved past them
Not sure why they didn’t just go with a standard Urbos design like everyone else who buys from CAF. If you want to look at good design, look at the cars Luxembourg has from the same manufacturer.
Could be geometric constraints. Could be they wanted to stick with a familiar design for passengers and operators. I'm just speculating though.
They won't fit in the tunnels for one.
Two, why do they need to be like everyone else?
They probably leave the design aspects to the interns, that could be the only explanation. CAF is perfectly able to produce fantastic looking rolling stock if the customer wants. It seems the customer doesn't know better...
The front face of these vehicles looks so weird….Why does it look like its from 20 years ago 😭 Can u design it to look like the ones in Utrecht?????
For what? Why does it need to look like something else?
Too many people in this comment section worrying too much about the looks.
As long as the thing runs and does the job properly, who cares what it really looks like?
Ok, it's not perfect, but it's clearly not the end of the world.
Get over it and move on and be glad you're getting new equipment and not running old, beat up and financially outdated cars that are struggling to make service.
Such an ungrateful lot.
Looks matter. Perception matters. Nobody is saying its the end of the world. However, this is a once in a 30 year opportunity, so why not get it right? Especially when it is so odd that the looks are notably worse than you know.. standard vehicles from manufacturers that this vehicle is based on. It's like the MBTA tried their hardest to uglify a sleek new train as much as they could. Can't have it look too nice I guess, or it might make people feel too valued as customers. It makes no sense! It isn't even a cost issue! Asking for best practise is not being ungrateful, it's looking out for the transit system's and region's best interest. This mentality of yours "eh good enough at least it's not actively dangerous" is how public transit has become so much worse in the US than other places around the world. Cities with awesome transit didn't get it falling from the sky, people actively worked on every detail. Always strive for better.
You are already out of the type nines do we need a type 10 are there places to type8 type 7
Huh
Somehow between the renders and this mock-up, the design went from bland to outdated and uncomfortable, aka even worse. The front fascia looks like an old Siemens Combino from the early 2000s, totally behind the times. The strictly longitudinal seats mean that the aisle will be almost impassable if many people are sitting down, which they will, and combined with the plastic seats people will likely be thrown about a lot.
If you had looked properly at modern tram systems overseas, you would've seen that most of those use primarily transverse seating to mitigate both of those problems.
Why don't you?
At least re: plastic, in the US we tend to…distrust…fabric seating. It’s harder to keep clean, harder to tell if it’s been soiled or not, and more expensive to replace. Plastic seating definitely has downsides, but those are generally seen as tolerable compared to the downsides of fabric.
Because they don't need to.
Why do they need to be like everyone else?
@@blue9multimediagroup Keep advocating for keeping things mediocre lol. Not striving for the best is such a fatalist mentality.
The longtitudinal seating is probably because these cars come with quite tight track constrains these cars must meet. They probably use swiveling bogies, leaving little room for seating on top and also adequate leg room. It's the best most efficient use of the space. On every other point you are right. Like, if you're doing longtitudinal seating then why the smooth (slippery) hard plastic? It's just dumb.
While a long overdue update is def. good news, I feel like Bill’s mind would explode if he tried out the trains in Asia + the EU. But per usual, baby steps toward progress ... 😩
Asia doesn’t have trams like that. Europe is not far ahead. Europe has more coverage
@@qjtvaddict Are you talking about trains or trams? Perhaps the specs hold up, but HK + JP subways smoke the US in aesthetics + reliability.
I'm sure UK is at least on par if not better than the US. 🤔
I'm not hating on the effort to improve the T.
But in contrast w/ other top subways, we still got a long way to go. 😲
congratulations you made a LRV look older than the Toronto Streetcar almost adopted 10 years before this goes in service
Outside looks dated already
That's the only drawback with CAF, their stuff always looks somewhat dated
@@WildWildWeasel It doesn't. They make products all over the world that look just fine. But somehow the products for MBTA tend to look the worst... wonder why...
@@WildWildWeasel lol check out their luxembourg tram..the best looking tram in the world
Didn't he say the public voted on the paint job?
USA and Canada vehicles rarely blend window glass with exterior, idk why. Siemens s7 series is one exception
Really CAF we want a Siemens version😭
Are you a taxpayer in Boston? Stop shilling for a corporation whose name is offensive in various ways.
@@Jon.MorimotoWhat’s in a name anyway?
In the case of the engineering company, it came from the first man to demonstrate an electric locomotive. Besides, there’s plenty of words we have in English that are fine but other languages would take offense to those syllables of pronunciation…
@@Jon.Morimoto Offensive name? It's a German name you donut and has nothing to do with a certain bodily fluid.
@@Jon.Morimotowhat is offensive about Siemens?
Then you put up the money for MBTA to get cars from SIEMENS then.
You know this goes through a bidding process, right?
It already looks outdated. Seriously, what’s with the ugly front-end and framed windows? Why do all of MBTA’s trains look outdated before they’re even put into service?
I want to see something from Stadler. Their trains are bound to be better-looking and more modern than anything CAF will ever produce for the US market.
I agree. Why didn’t they keep the standard CAF Urbos like in Amsterdam or Utrecht??? Those look so sleek!
If you want to "see something from Stadler," ride Caltrain's new electric trains from San Jose to San Francisco. MBTA chose CAF because they had the best bid. Do you condone overpaying for taxpayer-funded contracts?
CAF is likely not to blame...they do offer very modern trams, unfortunately the T and other US transit ops saddle themselves with outdated specs that keep even their newest vehicles stuck in the 1970s.
Who cares what it looks like? At the end of the day, the purpose is to move people, not to look pretty.
Oof the front fascia has been MBTA-ized, again! In other words made unnecessarily ugly compared to the renderings (and most other light rail vehicles on the globe).
Never cook again with the front. Everything else is good.
This aint it buddy 😭🙏c
This Type 10 tram/LRV looks terrible with its small windows; modern trams and LRVs have continuous surface mounted windows. Get it together, 'T' and make a Type 10 worthy of its name!
It's Ugly in my Opinion. Also, When Are They Running In Service??
What about adding accommodation for bikes? All other light rail systems in North America (except MUNI) have designed and implemented modern light rail/streetcar vehicles with accommodations for bikes.