Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
No, Your Subway Train isn’t “Too Old”
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 авг 2024
- Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/vide...
How long can subway trains last? Toronto's oldest subway trains are approaching 30 years old and plans to replace them have recently been scrapped, but is that a bad thing, or should we reconsider how we can keep old trains going?
As always, leave a comment down below if you have ideas for our future videos. Like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon so you won't miss my next video!
=PATREON=
If you'd like to help me make more videos & get exclusive behind the scenes access and early video releases, consider supporting my Patreon! Every dollar goes towards helping my channel grow & reach more people.
Patreon: / rmtransit
=ATTRIBUTION=
Epidemic Sound (Affiliate Link): share.epidemic...
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
Map Data © OpenStreetMap contributors: www.openstreet...
=COMMUNITY DISCORD SERVER=
Discord Server: / discord
(Not officially affiliated with the channel)
=MY SOCIAL MEDIA=
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Website: rmtransit.com
Substack: reecemartin.su...
=ABOUT ME=
Ever wondered why your city's transit just doesn't seem quite up to snuff? RMTransit is here to answer that, and help you open your eyes to all of the different public transportation systems around the world!
Reece (the RM in RMTransit) is an urbanist and public transport critic residing in Toronto, Canada, with the goal of helping the world become more connected through metros, trams, buses, high-speed trains, and all other transport modes.
In Germany we still use refurbished trams from the 70s and majority of people prefer the look and seating of those
Edit: Subway trains too and the trams are high floor but so are most platforms on the lines they operate on so they have level boarding
Jes like the BR420
tatras :3 I mean, I do agree it is kind of annoying that they aren't low floor vehicles though, still really good tram sets...
also look at high speed rail: development began in the mid 80s, they started service early 90s and now ice1 (and ice2) have been receiving traction technology upgrades and it is planned to keep them running until (into) 2030s... (not the biggest fan of the ice1 and 2 but they stil do their job.... considering the state of DB fernverkehr etc^^)
Milan still has trams from the 1920, 1950s and 1970s in regular service. The 1920s trams are single car and used for small routes. They're lovely. The 1970s trams are the best for me at least, because they're big and high floored, so extremely spacious. The 1950s ones suck.
Like Berlin Subway use some really old trains without big problems
I always get excited when I need to take Hannover's line 9 or 11, because those still use the old TW6000 trains with comfy, ergonomic seats in a 2+1 configuration instead of the 2+2/longitudinal, cheap-feeling seats of newer ones. Not so great in summer due to the lack of AC, or for people with bikes/wheelchairs/strollers though.
My first thought here is remembering how Perth decided to get rid of their old trains, and they almost scrapped them... but then agreed to instead sell them off for cheap to Auckland, where they were still perfectly functional vehicles and they became an affordable way to revitalise our train network and save it from closure.
They served in Auckland for another 30 years until the last segment of diesel line closed for electrification last year.
Some of them have been sold off to Mozambique but I don't know if they've entered service again over there.
This is definitely the way to handle rolling stock replacement, before scraping something for negligible value (iron is dirt cheap), try and sell it.
Best case someone with a tight budget gets a perfectly functional train for cheap so their budget can be better spent elsewhere. And the seller actually gets some money injected back into their budget, not enough to completely cover the cost of the new rolling stock but enough to maybe get a slightly better package.
People do this with cars all the time, when their current one is getting old you trade it in while the dealership will still give you something for it and use that money to help pay for the new car. Then the dealer ship refurbishes your old car (hopefully) and then sells it at a discounted rate in the used lot.
Some Underground trains are designed for resale - with Open buttons for networks where automatic doors aren't normal.
Here to say just this, including the bit about Mozambique, but you beat me to it.
Now I wonder if something special is going to be done with the A series (though I hope they change tack and stay in service even after the C series order comes in)
Yep, old trains can often have second lives in other cities! Theres a lot of examples of this!
Sadly this story is not new for Toronto’s. we seem incapable of following through in an efficient and reasonable way. For example montreal has a subway system with no air conditioned trains. The unreliable t1 train air conditioning therefore is not a reasonable reason to scrap a type of train set the powers to be seem set on building new things resulting in never keeping things in good repair. The last head of the ttc who recognized the need to focus on good repair was Mr Gunn. He for a while fixed the TTC but then was pushed out. His next job was to fix the New York transit system where he fixed an aging decrepit system by repairing the vehicles and remade the system at a fraction of new train sets. 😢this will be torontos legacy to never get it right
X: "This train is 30 years old! It's ancient!"
Buenos Aires: "Hold my 1913-stock that ran until 2013. 30?! That's brand new!"
Haha, I think it would blow peoples minds
Japanese stock in Buenos Aires: "I'm still useful here!"
Dang 100 year old trains.
Now thats quallity engineering.
*The Bakerloo Line has entered the chat*
An old timer is ever there was one.
*Piccadilly Line has joined the chat*
Munich 1967-86 A cars
@@heidirabenau511Bakerloo trains are older
Lol
There’s a fascinating story about trams in Switzerland which were being replaced but were so well maintained that they were usable for many more years, so rather than scrap them, many were donated to a city in Ukraine. Many years before the war. They were so beloved that the city that the transportation modes for the entire city use the old trams color scheme and even the stylish ads were kept
They also recently shipped the slightly newer model of the Zurich trams to Ukraine because they are replaced with the brand new Bombardier Flexity.
Zurich is just lucky that they have to possibility to ship them off somewhere else, it's better pr
Thats pretty cool!
At the other end of the scale, the Glasgow Subway is only on its third generation of rolling stock since it opened in 1896.
The original sets were updated and kept in use until 1977, when they were replaced with new GEC trains. These are only now being replaced with the new walk-through driverless trains.
Having recently ridden the entirety of the Glasgow Subway I will say that while the GEC trains do feel a bit old they seemed to work without issue given the size constraints.
Glasgow was using the first generation of trams when they ended all trams services in 1962 some of them were over 80 years old
Didn’t they have gate doors
"Driverless"
They have been talking about the new trains for 5 years now and still none of them have shown up. And you know what? We don't need to replace the GECs.
An extreme example of the longevity of trains is argueably the S-Bahn in Berlin, as they used trains called "Stadtbahner" until 1996. Those trains were built in the 1920s and 1930s and were thereby around 70 years old when they were retired. The trains were obviously modified multiple times during their service life.
so I guess we can say those are war veterans...
VIA in Canada is interestingly still using train cars that are from like the late 1940s
As impressive as it is, I am actually more impressed that those trains survive WW2 in Berlin.
The 1938 Tube stock is another good example.
Here in Melbourne we had electric suburban trains with wooden bodies which were in service from 1910 to 1984 (steam hauled for the first 9 years or so). We also had some passenger cars built in the 1880s which were converted into EMUs and ran in service until 1974.
In our town in Germany, we still have trains from 1967 in regular service, and there is still a train from 1928 that is used for special occasions and still runs just fine.
yep.. Love that
In Britain class 08,20 and 37 locomotives are still in regular service despite being decades old also Cravens coaches survived until the mid 2000’s in Ireland and DART 8100 railcars are approaching their 40th birthday
FINALLY someone addressing this "new trains will solve all our problems mania"
it's easier than a systemic approach so operators will keep doing it
Its a pretty common problem that applies to other things. A simple fix is always tempting but rarely works!
@@RMTransitThe pacers lasting forty years is another example
@@OscarOSullivan We now know the meaning of temporary. 40 years.
@@RMTransit you need to look into planned obsolescence.
A typical metro trainset is designed to last up to 40 years on average (not counting refurbishments and improvements).
In Paris, the remaining MF67 stocks are about 50 yo and the last ones will be pushed out at at least 60. On Line 11, the last MP59s are about 60 years old. Their last refurbishement dated from the 90s, about 30 years ago.
But what about planned obsolescence
Good that they've lasted so long but refits should probably be a bit more frequent!
The MP59 of line 11 are from 1967. Those are currently in there last weeks or months of operation, being currently replaced by the MP14.
The MF67 on line 3 are going to have an even longer carrier. According to shedule, replacement is not going to happen before late 2020s early 2030. The issue is that the oldest MF67 of line 3 are from 1968 (heavily refurbished in late mid 2000s). That's means they will be over 60 years old.
This definitely checks out with the projected usage of the Santiago's NS74, which are neumatic derivatives of the MF67, and will be retired from service in the mid 2030s, after their last mechanical refurbishment, which is being done right now.
@@RMTransit The 2003 interior refurbishment of the 1967 MF67 is an all-new modern design that looks more modern and thoughtful than some current bland trains.
Great video! The TTC definitely risks overplaying that every capital project is essential, meaning that nothing is. However, one of the things I think you didn't cover is the lead time between "we have funding to order new trains" and "we've ordered new trains" and "we have new trains!". It's probably >5 years, maybe closer to ten given Ontario's slow and expensive procurement process. So if a train should be replaced by year 35/40, you need the funding secured by at the latest year 30. So I think the procurement for replacement T1s can only really be delayed by another couple of years before it becomes a problem in 10 years.
I don't disagree but, we can also move faster and should aim to and this still means we should be saying . . . we will need to have an order placed in 5 years, not that we need to order today!
Agencies take a lot into consideration when replacing trains. Importantly, they need to calculate when holding onto old rolling stock is no longer cost effective. This is often a complex calculation that requires forecasting well ahead of time as designing, funding and procurement can take a decade. If anything, agencies hold onto rolling stock too long as funding gets delayed. Old stock can be expensive, unreliable and have knock on effects to the rest of the network. It’s not a single dimensional issue as you are portraying it.
@@RMTransit Have you ever been involved in ordering billions of dollars of rolling stock? Rushing the decision is what creates problems.
Don't forget that lead time also needs to include cushion for resolving problems with new equipment. SEPTA didn't do that for the Silverliner V order, and paid for it by having to lease locomotives and coaches from other transit agencies. So did MBTA with the Chinesium garbage they ordered for the Orange Line.
@@GintaPPE1000 I’m sure that somewhere in the world there is an example of rolling stock entering service on time. I’m just not aware on such an example.
I remember as a child riding on the old red TTC 1950's subway trains. The lights would always flicker out for a second in the middle of the tunnel which was spooky. Like a ghost train.
The red trains ran for 35 years, not bad.
We’re currently having this problem in Dublin. They want to replace 20 year old trams that were expected to last 30 years. They asked public transport operators in Boston and Melbourne what they would do and apparently the advice was get new ones.
I don’t think they asked the right people, but no one seems to be pointing out the problem with replacing them early.
The DART trains for instance have been operating since 1984. They probably need another upgrade but they’re fine.
Is there even an issue with the trams apart from them just not being new?
@@paschallehany369 They apparently break down too much and it has recommended not to refurbish them.
I remember the disaster that was the opening of Luas cross city.
The 8100 class railcars ironically are the most comfortable seatwise.
20 year old tram? *blackpool laughing in 90 year old trams from 1934*
Wouldn’t it be more logical to ask Irish people what they thought about replacing? They’re gonna pay for it, Americans and Australians not so much. And it’s the same with all governments and government companies, if they want some, they get some. It is just a matter of who to ask, what to ask and how to interpret the answers and voila, you can order your new trams. It’s the same in every country. Governments (and parliament isn’t any better) and government companies are a master in letting everyone believe that the majority of citizens is in favor of the decision.
That's the cool thing about train cars: They're boxes on wheels that you can furbish in infinite different ways. Other than metal fatigue there's hardly ever a good reason for a full replacement.
Metrolink is refurbishing their fleet of bombardier bilevel coaches, and they're now nicer than their much newer Hyundai cars
Except that current new trains consume significantly less power, are equipped / compatible with latest generation signaling and automation systems, require much less maintenance & have predictive maintenance, produce less particles & less noise, have AC, video surveillance, all accessibility features, etc. The list is long.
If you have to change pretty much everything on a train it's really not worth it, ontop of rendering parts of the fleet unavailable for long periods of time during refurbishment.
Older trains often cost more in maintenance and downtime, more in energy and the refurbishment can be very expensive too.
Recently things precipitated a bit in Paris with the MF77 trains running on lines M7, M8 and M13.
The oldest trains on the network were the MP59, running on M11, until very recently when they were replaced by the fantastic new MP14.
Now the oldest fleet is the M67 currently running on 4 different steel lines. Only then comes the MF77.
These trains were ordered in 1977, as the name implies, and entered service in the very late 70's / early 80's.
They're 40+ years old but the MF67 running on other steel lines being older, the MF77 weren't the first ones to be replaced.
But lately problems started cascading on MF77 trains, disrupting service, creating delays, worsening overcrowding, etc.
The slightly reduced maintenance during the lockdowns proved to be catastrophic for these trains, many of their parts requiring replacement or intense maintenance to continue working.
So their replacement have been brought forward on a new schedule alternating MF67 and MF77 lines instead of all the older MF67 first and MF77 last. Deliveries will start each year for each if the 8 lines from 2024 to 2032
Same for the problem ridden MF88 on line M7bis that always was a maintenance headache since its introduction in 1993. It will be also replaced by the new MF19 in 2025, line M7bis being only the second one of the network to receive the new type (out of 8 lines, 6 main and 2 "bis" lines).
About 2036 cars / 410 trains of the MF19 type are to be delivered in 3 format versions and possibly 2 end car versions (with or without driver cab), all of them equipped with all the bells and whistles, GoA2 (CBTC Octys & PA135) and GoA4 capable systems, AC, and 20% less energy hungry than the MF77 but with better performance. A hefty order that can't come soon enough.
Some trains can also require replacement earlier to simply better meet the needs of a network and its passengers.
You may technically be able to add air conditioning on a train but that would require modifying or replacing the power treatment chain, altering the weight balance of the train and its performance, etc. It's not a "just do that" process. Changing weight distribution can mandate recertification, which will probably be refused as the trains do not meet current requirements. So you'd need even more modifications, costing even more.
The idea that a train can be refurbished virtually endlessly is more or less a dream. In reality, upgrading it to meet the current needs could have very complicated and costly repercussions, and ending up costing more money, time, public trust and ridership than simply replacing the trains early.
When you have overcrowding issues, you don't want to rotate for years the withdrawal of a handful of trains to be refurbished to marginally gain 5 or 10% in capacity and comfort when a replacement of the signaling system, the introduction of automation and brand new trains can substantially increase capacity, frequency and comfort.
Other examples:
On Paris RER line E, they've started introducing the first new RER NG's / Z 58000 (they will also go to line D with longer trainsets), replacing the MI2N Éole / Z 22500 dating back only to the late 90's, which is fairly young.
Modifying the MI2N Éole trainsets to the latest standards, adding AC, adding computers, antennas and other stuff needed for NExTEO (the new CBTC remote autopilot enabling very high frequency in the central section) and refurbishing interiors, motors and bogies would have been *very* expensive, and for what? A Frankenstein's creature of a train? Spending more for the remaining service-life than the equivalent period with new trains?
They also would have had to order a bunch more trains to augment the fleet enough to serve the large Western extension of the line set to open in 2024 and 2025. Would they have ordered the new type or the older with all the modifications? Maintenance headaches in sight either way...
All in all, they've decided to retire the MI2N Éole and to equip the line with only the new RER NG, which is great. The framework contract has been pushed to a maximum of 371 RER NG trains, presumably 255 firm orders, with roughly half going to RER E in 6-car variants and half to RER D in 7-car variants. The first ones have started service last week on line E (check them out on RUclips, they are great with colorful interiors).
The money saved by keeping the MI2N Éole trains would have been spent in heavy modifications, refurbishment, increased maintenance, etc. For an unsatisfying result.
It wasn't the right choice, and I'm glad that they've decided to replace them.
If you spend billions, you want the best value for your bucks, and a fresh start.
The new trains have more capacity, better comfort, better operational economics, better performance, are more accessible and more silent.
Last example:
They'll also begin replacing RER line B trains with new double decker MI20 trains in 2026 or 2027. 145 to 180 trains of the type are expected to be delivered, greatly increasing capacity and thus reducing constant overcrowding issues.
The current MI79/MI84 single deck trains have been sent for refurbishment not that long ago but it turned out problematic and very expensive.
So much that they've given up on most of the refurbishment and even on a part of the fleet . Only a few trains are refurbished with AC and video surveillance, the rest has been sent to a cosmetic refurbishment.
There was asbestos in parts of the trains, severely complicating the refurbishment, and all trains needed to be completely dismantled from top to bottom, then reassembled, just to add AC.
The whole process took months and RER B is such a busy line that even a mere handful of trains missing from service are enough to wreck havoc and render the passenger experience unbearable.
When you carry more than a million passengers daily on one line, you can't afford missing a few trains. Passengers know that, so when they hear about a refurbishment campaign they are torn between their desire for better comfort and fear of worsened overcrowding and disruptions.
Sorry for the far too long comment, but the "simple idea" of refurbishment to extend service life indefinitely is often anything *but* simple.
30 Year Old Subway Trains eh? Between 2000 and 2020, we imported a lot of used trains from Japan and by the time they're used in our commuter system, they're already 30 - 40 years old. There's the Toei 6000 Series, JR 103 Series, Tokyu 8000 & 8500 Series, Tokyo Metro 5000 Series, Toyo Rapid 1000 Series, Tokyo Metro 7000 Series, Tokyo Metro 05 Series, Tokyo Metro 6000 Series, JR 203 Series and lastly JR 205 Series
Here in the Philippines the 203 series are good but sometimes loud they added a generator and sometimes rare
Japanese trains seem to have a LOT of longevity!
Montreal still runs the MR-73s on the Blue, Yellow and, to a lesser extent, the green line. I like the new stock, but I also enjoy the retro look (and ride) of the older cars.
The Montreal Metro trains last for a long time because the entire system is underground. No wear from the weather.
Indeed it does! Though it is fair to bring up that they don't need to face the outdoors!
True, but their contemporary cousins in Paris, Ciudad de México and Santiago run in viaducts and trenches without significant issues
We in New York are MASTERS at rebuilding subway cars and giving them extended lives. Recently retired in early 2022 the famed R32 “Brightliners” served billions of passengers for nearly 60 years. Hell, when the R179’s had their teething problems the MTA dusted a couple of the R32’s off and put them back in service. That’s how good they were.
The R32's could probably still run now, but it was the "miles between servicing" number that was getting smaller and smaller and meant they really could only be used as you suggest, for "fill-in" duty-- but then there's the question of yard space, since NY mostly abandoned parking trains along the route because of vandalism.
@@guyfaux3978 in terms of more yard space the more logical but expensive option would be to deck over maybe the 207 street yard for more tracks. Additional provisions could be included to store some of the transit museum fleet.
New York has a great Scheduled Maintenance program that focuses on component replacement/overhaul at various intervals to avoid massive refurbishment projects.
I agree. What is important is proper maintenance of equipment & infrastructure, which is mundane compared to shiny new trains, but is what we need for punctual operation.
We too in Japan have various old trains running around. They are required to run at ~110km/h and with 2~3 min frequencies during rush hour (aggressive acceleration & deceleration), but many companies still operate 30, 40 and even 50 years old trains, transporting millions every day (7~10 car sets). Especially in Osaka, several companies run 50 year old commuter trains built in the 60s. You can hear the distinctive roaring of the motor, trying to stick to the timetable, but the interior is kept clean and comfortable.
With proper maintenance and upgrades to equipment, as well as periodical refurbishing of interiors, trains can be kept in operation for a very long time, while being reliable and comfortable for passengers.
some of the Japanese metro trains even was sent to Indonesia to serve as commuter (tho it was retrofitted to match the gauge and the non electrification nature of the line)
Yep! A great example of how you can run very intense and reliable service without super young equipment
Yeah if you maintain existing stuff well you can always just refit newer stuff on.
Like with the Mark 3 coaches getting plug sockets retroffited on.
All of the current Melbourne Metro trains run fairly often through my local station - by far my favourite are the refurbished versions of the very oldest trains they run. They have amazing aircon in the summer, they have the same really good wayfinding signs as the brand new HCMT sets, and the seating is a good balance between density and comfort.
The tram refurbishment program has also been amazing value, 500k per tram versus ~15m for a new one, and they are a huge improvement over the unrefurbished ones, but I hope this is the last time they need to extend the life of inaccessible trams before the network is fully upgraded to step free access and trams.
Go Comeng!
I remember the z/a/b trams in their worn out mk4 livery and pretty bad condition (The B class was only 20-30 years old). They are actually quite shiny now! It was a good project even though I miss the old livery and the blinds. Same can be said for the Comengs.
We often really don't build things like we used to, keeping old stuff around makes sense!
15 millions ? In Australian dollars I hope. And even then, it's very expensive compared to other places.
Philadelphia payed Alstom about 5.6 M USD / 8.5 M AUD per tram (130 trams for 667 million €), and the US have notoriously inflated costs for both construction and rolling stock.
Melbourne having a ton of trams, they should get quite a rebate on list price buying in bulk. So 15M seems more like the purchase of trams and maintenance for like 10, 20 or 30 years, isn't it?
Fairly recent orders in France in 2020, 2021 and 2023 were : 20 trams for a total of 55 M€ (city of Angers), 37 "Citadis X05" trams for a total of 130 M€ (Paris T1), 30 trams for a total of 125 M€ (city of Lille). Which puts each tram between 2.75 and 4.2 M€ (4.6 M AUD to 7 M AUD), less than half of 15 M...
@@KyrilPG It is AUD, but Melbourne also doesn't order off the shelf trams either. The last time we tried that (the C-class aka Citadis 202 and 302) they've turned out to be the worst of the fleet, frequently breaking down, derailing, and crashing into cars (mostly the fault of the cars to be fair). So while the upcoming G-class aka Flexity 2 will be the largest order of that model ever (100 vehicles at A$1.85b) they also have a large number of unique changes for the sake of Melbourne, such as a bespoke front and three-car variant (all other Flexity 2 orders have been 5 or 7 cars).
Sydneys V Sets are a great example of an older train loved by its users. They were built in the 1970s and still going strong. The refurbishment kept the trains feeling fresh too
Love the V sets. It'll be a sad day when they all go bur hopefully that's a while away
Tangaras were built in the late 80s, apparently Sydney Trains decided a modernisation trial of one set and said it was still too expensive to modify them, so the east and South coast lines still have never seen modern displays or voice announcements, unless you catch an interurban train on the line
Montreal's MR-63 trains ran from 1966 to 2018, and were refurfished from 1991-1993. They probably could have run longer but some of the parts (suspension in particular IIRC) were very hard to come by. The MR-73 trains that are still running on some lines entered service in 1976. Their planned retirement is in the 2030s. We have some of the best rolling stock maintenance in North America!
Even if they’re almost 50 years old, the MR-73 are still running great and they really don’t feel that old. I was shocked to learn the T1s are 20 years NEWER than them.
I think one of my favorite refurbishment projects has to go to the PATCO of South Jersey. The trains themselves have actually been rebuilt once in 1980 when a new updated version of the PATCO train was built (PATCO II), and the original trains (PATCO I) were rebuilt to match it. other than mechanical changes, up until 2018, nothing changed on the inside and outside of the train. starting in 2009, they began to refurbish the trains, and now both the original '69 and '80 fleets look and run great with no signs of stopping. I'd love to see you make a video about PATCO at some point, Alan Fisher made one a few months ago about its history.
Another notable example in Philly is our PCCs. Contrary to what you believed in your Philly trolley video, the only thing old about our PCCs is the shell, which has been refurbished anyway. This coming fall is the 3rd generation of PCC, the PCC III, which is not an old hunk of junk, but a preserved slice of history that still serves as an effective mode of transportation. Even if you're not convinced, an old trolley is better than no trolley.
Also don’t forget that the Broad Street Line's B-IV rolling stock is about 40 years old and still serviceable. And actually a lower priority for replacement than the newer MFL stock because it’s been more reliable. (I’ve heard conflicting stories about whether that’s because they’re better built or just that they’re less exposed to the elements (BSL being almost entirely underground, MFL being mostly elevated). (Not an example of refurbishment but of un-refurbished old trains still being fine.)
I feel like if your train is 40 or 50 years old you should just scrap it rather than do a major refurbishment. At that point you can't ignore the advantages of just buying new trains with a nice new design and state of the art tech.
@@itechcircle9410 I would be inclined to agree, but as expensive as refurbishing a train is, it ended up working out completely fine in this case. Buying new trains is an investment, and the cars do not feel dated or old in any way, you should take a look at the before and after. The trains themselves never fell into disrepair, and PATCO gave the trains a refresh when they felt they needed it.
I get that this might be the case for any other transit agency, and that makes sense, but PATCO is not struggling financially, and these cars from 69' and 80' are pretty important vehicles anyway.
@@wolfythewolf4457 interesting.
@@kareemseifeldin7805 I wanted to say this as well lol. I hate the M-4 cars and love the Kawasaki B-IVs and K-cars. It really just goes to show how good manufacturing determines the life of a vehicle. Those damn M-4s have had so many problems. and about the argument concerning the elements, I'm pretty sure that the BSL trains are stored indoors and outdoors but I'm not too sure.
Putting air conditioning is so vital!! Here in Athens Greece there is this one type of subway train that has no cooling system. As a result, in the summer months when the temperature goes up to 40°C the heat in the train is UNBEARABLE. The transit agency is aware of this since its a well known issue but they haven't done anything about it. Sometimes, especially in rush hour, it gets so congested and extremely hot making many riders feel uncomfortable and dizzy. At times we even joke that we might as well wait for the next train in hopes of getting the newer, air conditioned ones.
Edit: The only way that the inside of those trains get cool is by the windows on top that open slightly, something which can be found in all of our trains. I don't know if this is common
All trains in Toronto have air conditioning, some trains have unreliable air conditioning!
is it a train problem or a tunnel problem? London has no AC because there is nowhere for the heat to go as the tunnels are so old with no ventilation... so adding AC would only heat up the (already roasting) platforms.
@@mralistair737I am not sure about all of the lines but I do know that for line 2 the problem is the older generation of trains since the newer ones have ac
@@mralistair737 exactly the same in Paris. Although new trains in Paris have refrigerated (cooled) air if not true air conditioning. I suppose New London trains have the same.
@@paname514_bis only on the new lines, like elizabeth line and where the trains are out of tubbels for a while. all the new victoria line trans dot have cooling, because there is nowhere to put the heat in the tunnel.
Between 1996 and 2019 Ankara, Turkey also used similar trains (T1 running gear in H6 body) in its M1 line until the line's signalization was replaced with CBTC and the M1-M2-M3 lines began to throughrun as a single line using the CSR trainsets. Refurbishment is currently underway for the old trains, and test beds with updated signalization systems (though still with their old interiors) run on special occasions.
In Japan old trains seem to be moved to smaller cities / town in a hand-me-down way. Those trains are much older than those in Tokyo
The MTBF of the T1's is less than half of the Toronto Rocket, which really points to the need for more maintenance. Based on conversations with shop employees, the T1's are really well-built trains.
I understand the TTC's want to purchase more T1's. It would allow all of the subway lines (except the Ontario line being supplied by Hitachi) to standardize on 1 fleet. It would simplify maintenance, allow for cost savings in part procurement, and can also allow flexibility in how the trains are deployed. Now a refurbishment of the T1's could give them another 15 years or so. But, it also depends on the scope of such refurbishment. In the case of Toronto, they want to remove the existing fixed block signalling on Line 2. This is due to the hardware suppliers becoming more limited with the system they have. Plus the CBTC system on Line 1 has provided capacity gains. Installing the same system on Line 2 will allow flexibility between the lines and the fleet in general. Plus software can continually be updated on the newer systems more easily. That makes them less prone to becoming obsolete.
If the cost of going brand new is within 5% of a refurbishment price, usually the recommendation that comes out tends to go new due to the extended lifespan.
In either scenario, good points were brought up in the video.
The thing you mentioned about updating and refurbishing trains rather than replacing them, and citing Hong Kong as an example: I have to admit, I actually didn't know that happened. I grew up in Hong Kong in the 1980s, and I still remember the very yellowish-brown interiors on the MTR back then. Since then I've travelled to Hong Kong several more times, and I honestly thought that they had replaced the trains as they all looked quite new inside. I didn't realise that they were the same until I started researching into it.
I also visited London several years ago, and not knowing anything about the London Underground, my first ride on the Tube was in a Bakerloo line train - 1972 Stock. Admittedly I got quite a shock. Maybe it's because I didn't grow up with it, but I'm really not fond of the jerky acceleration and flickering lights. They look and feel every bit of its 50 years that, in my opinion, no amount of refurbishment can fix. While I agree that 20 years isn't old for a train, 50 years is stretching it a bit. The Central Line trains, at 30 years old, is just about ripe for replacement, while the 1972 Stock Bakerloo Line and the 1973 Stock Piccadilly Line trains have long since passed their use-by date.
In Melbourne, the earliest Comeng units have been scrapped after over 40 years service, and all units will see at least 40 years of service before they are withdrawn.
NSW's oldest interurban trains will see almost 50 years' service when they're withdrawn.
Brisbane's original EMUs saw over 40 years' service and some are still in service.
Victoria's locomotive hauled trains are slowly being phased out, and date as far back as 1956(!) All very good lifespan for public transport vehicles if you ask me!
I found something like this in Brisbane really recently, I was thinking some of our old stock was getting really out-of-date but just the other day I got on one of those old trains whose inside had been refurbed and it completely changed how I felt about that era of stock.
Many people will know that in 1988, ten sets of the 1938 EMU stock that had been used on the Northern Line of the London Underground were moved to the Isle of Wight, off the South coast of England, where they continued to operate safely until 2021. They were refurbished several times during their life and were later kept going by 'cannibalising' older units for spares. They were replaced in 2021, again by refurbished Underground stock, this time designed in 1973.
In case you were wondering why tube trains are running on a small, largely rural island, Underground rolling stock is used on the Isle of Wight because of a short twin-bore tunnel in the town of Ryde near the terminus of the line. The already small loading gauge of each bore was reduced further when the track level was raised in the mid 1960s to allow the third-rail electrification system adopted by the Southern Railway in the 1920s, and still used today, to be installed where there had previously been repeated flooding. The first Underground units used on the Island from 1966 were refurbished 'Standard' stock built between 1923 and 1934.
Thanks
Yeah the new class 484's are sub surface D stock trains whilst 1938 stock class 483's are deep level trains.
I completely support your point, I too think that way too often perfectly good transit vehicles are scrapped, but what needs to be considered is the build quality of the vehicle class, not just its age. Here in Saint-Petersburg the LVS-86 (86 standing for the year it entered production) is still the most numerous tram class, but the newer LVS-97 has been almost completely scrapped, because the build quality and quality of materials degraded before and during the LVS-97's production cycle (the 90's were not a good time for Russian industry)
That train you keep showing looks like NYC R38. It is a 1967 model that was discontinued in 2009.
The train had problems earlier on, but they managed to keep it running. But there was a point it got too expensive to maintain. It was a mixture of carbonated steel to save money.
It was built from the R38 still in a unpainted stainless body.
Than the Transit Authority took a different direction in design. That brought us to the R40 and R42. These were much more modern looking trains for it times. Now we in the 1970s.
And than they gave a full width cab to the motorman, now called train operator or train engineer. This removed the railfan window. So it became more about the workers than the customers. We would never see a railfan window after these trains entered service.
In the 1980s the trains featured big windows and a big sign in the front. But it really made a difference on the IRT since they were still running 1950's equipment. The #3 train you showed in your video.
New York City is a city that likes to stay with familiarity. But many places across the United States is like this. And that is reflective in train design.
When we got the R142 and beyond, we basically got a 1950 steel car train with some technology. Than the newest train brought us back to 1970s.
Meanwhile, Boston, the city north of us was already way ahead of us with their train design. Big windows, big doors, just an all around nice looking train.
And one thing, Cleveland trains, a bus on tracks. Just ridiculous 😮
A bus on tracks is called a pacer
Did you know that so called Threecity in Poland that is Gdańsk/Danzig, Sopot and Gdynia are all connected by on ground subway? The entire city is divided into 2 halves by subway railroads in the middle. It is very cool. Our capital Warsaw has an underground subway system and we in Danzig have above the ground subway system.
metro de santiago still uses ns-74 from 1974 and ns93 from 1994 wich have been reformed accordingly and still are quite reliable and give very good service , at first glance the ns93 has a futuristic look and mayority of people cant tell its a 30 year old train
Absolutly the MP89 design is a great one and it's amazing to see it's in use in three cities in Paris in Santiago and in Lausanne. Crazy to think the last of the type has been built as recently as 2017 for Lausanne!
Until very recently there were 1930s trains in regular service in the UK. The class 483 or 1938 stock.
Same in Buenos Aires!
Yes! This! I often feel that people complain about the age of rollingstock when they lack the knowlege to understand broader problems. Right now in victoria we are withdrawing 1980s locomotive hauled stock 'beacuse old' and replacing it 1/1 with modern railcars, depsite big capacity problems.
Another possibility would be a "used car" model where well funded and flashy metro systems that want to replace their trains "frequently" sell their older rolling stock to less well funded metro systems.
The pros as i see them:
1. The selling city gets new trains more frequently.
2. The selling city partially covers the cost of the new train with the sale of the ild train
3. The buying city gets a perfectly good train for a discounted rate (which helps them stretch a limited budget)
4. The train gets used for its full life expectancy
5. It encurages a standardized of metro systems so that their rolling stock remains easily interchangeable
Overall i see it as the equivalent of a well off person trading in their car at 5years and getting 15k towards their new car, and then a less well off person can buy the used car for 20k instead of having to get a brand new car for 30k. (Made up numbers) Only if its a city to city sale then you don't lose 5k to the dealership/middleman.
Its just a thought, old trains that are still functional could be sold instead of scrapped.
Based on many of the comments, used trains are sold to other metro systems.
I think Reese is saying that it is best to look at a metro system as a whole. Probably many of the trains that were sold, should have been kept and refurbished. The money saved could then be better used for other more important improvements in the metro system.
Remember, metro systems are a public service. No matter how wealthy a city is, they can benefit from being judicious with their funds.
Possibly! I do think that selling trains frequently probably leads to a lack of long term refit capability though - which is a good ability to have!
NYC Transit just retired the R32's that were built in 1965. The next class of trains to go (R44/R46) were built in the 70's. New York squeezed every drop of juice from our rolling stock.
The HB 8100’s will probably retired later in this decade
One of the worst examples of this was in Los Angeles a few years ago where they mechanically rebuilt a small fleet of older (1995) LRVs and repainted them, then didn’t use them for most of 2019 while the Blue/A line was rebuilt, then didn’t use them during covid, then scrapped them in 2021 because they “didn’t have space for them”
Yeah, the P2020s are disappointing. They could have been refurbished then used for another 20 years too...
Nah, they're competing - although with better success as LA scrapped its trains quicker - with Paris RER Z 22500. Built between 1996 and 2000, they will be retired in coming months because low power and no air conditioning from new and suboptimal level confuguration for the new line extension - although the first two points could easily have been improved with refurbishment as the trains themselves are still very modern.
Weird, in South Korea every transit company here throws away their trains when they become about 30 years old. Many of the 80s built rolling stock I grew up with as a kid no longer exist, right now they’re in the process of retiring trains built in the early 90s.
4:22 Same thing happened in the late 1990s, when SL (Stockholm Local Transport), had plans to rebuild their older C7, C8, C9 trains to the C17-C19 project, which would have meant that each unit got a complete revamp of the interior, and rebuilt to look and feel like the then brand new C20 trains on the inside.
Sadly they decided to order more C20 instead and scrap the C7 and C8 units, the C9 trains continued untill early or late 2009. However, 4 units of the C6 model from the 1970s, got a brand new interior in 2009 and were marked with a white foil outside of the passenger windows, but the last one got scrapped in August 2022, and later untill may 2023 all other units of the C6 type.
It's so sad that they didn't go through with the Cx refurbishment. I love those old trains and the motor have so much character!
the Cx and C1x trains screech a horrendous amount. i don't mourn their replacement.
@@TheArKabZol i do agree on that, but some deserve to be saved
Someone brought up a great point, the C20 looks much younger than the T1 despite being of similar age. I would say that adds longevity too!
@@RMTransit Yeah, even if the T1 looks like it is around the same age as the CX trains here in Stockholm, it certanly should be refurbished, just like we are doing with our C20 trains atm
Another example if a train being able to be used for a long time is the BART trains in the Bay Area. Only recently they finally took the old 50 year old trains (basically running since the system opened) out of regular service and replaced them with new ones. The old trains were showing their age but they used them for a LONG time and alot of them ran fine up until last few years of their service.
The overland train from Melbourne to Adelaide uses carriages that are 80 years old today with no new stock planned anytime soon. Just more refurbishments of the existing old carriages.
Vline also operates the H sets which date from the 1950s.
So yes trains certainly can last decades providing they are well maintained and refurbishments are carried out every so often to keep them upto date comfort and safety wise.
I think a good case in point, using NY as an example is the 7 line. Even when it received a new fleet of cars, the existing ones were simply transferred onto other lines.
They could do this because the rest of the IRT is still conventionally signaled. The R188 class was CBTC-ready and converting R142s into R188s was reasonably painless. That's why they had to move the R62s off to the 6; they could not be converted to CBTC-ready, and that's why they're trying desperately to get funding for the R262 series since they want to go CBTC on the east side once the IND lines have been converted. The R211A order backlog is the reason why CBTC deployment on the 8th Ave. IND lines is over a year behind schedule; there's not enough capable rolling stock available. The R46s can't be retrofitted and they're close to their end-of-life.
Transit riders want frequent reliable service, not new trains. Consultants want to design new trains to do what is 90%+ the same old job.
@@obifox6356 To a degree you're correct, but often 30+ year old trains have more instances of failure and thus have to be taken out of service for days or weeks. If the fleet's too small, fewer trains will ply the line resulting in longer headways and more crowding. CBTC signaling, on the other hand, means more frequent service since more trains can fit on the line than with conventional block signaling. But that means the rolling stock has to be compatible, and retrofitting old trains is either impossible or impractical. NYC's R62s and R46s (and R68s) cannot be retrofitted to CBTC, and the same is likely true of the TTC's T1 fleet.
@@W2IRT Agreed. But, design changes and replacements to make cars appear different are unjustified.
@@obifox6356 I agree with that completely. But as I said, I'm pretty sure the impetus for desiring new trains here is the planned CBTC conversion of the Bloor-Danforth Line, and that's the one thing that would be impossible to do on the T1s during any kind of rebuild program. As others have posited, the lead time for requesting funding, verifying the cars can be built and delivered and then starting the ordering and building process will take years to accomplish so now would be the time to bring this up, not when fleet availability figures start to crater. Get cracking on installing the CBTC infrastructure in the tunnels and then when the new cars come onstream you're ready to go.
A good reason for new trains, trams or busses is accessibility. If passengers need to climb stairs to enter and leave public transport, a lot of people are excluded to use it. But it's not necessary to replace the whole fleet at once, but make sure to distribute modern low floor vehicles evenly. Vienna is a good example, where three (major) generations of trams are used, the old ones with stairs, the ULFs and the Flexity. (I don't know how many of the old trams are still in operation, as I sadly haven't been there quite some time.)
When refurbishing old (subway) trains, a lot can be done, not only better passenger information, but also make them easier to use, replace mechanic door handles with buttons to make opening the doors easier, or build special automatic ramps into the doors that fill the gaps, so that wheelchair users can enter more easily. And install clear visual and auditory information around the doors, so they can be found easier and faster.
And of course, working elevators in all underground stations are a must.
Over here in Boston, the Red Line still has some trains running from 1970. The majority of the system is these older looking train sets, and the issues with the brand new Chinese train sets aren't helping.
And I thought the 55 metre Luas trams were bad
When I visited Buenos Aires in 1985 and 1987, they still had some original subway trains from when system began operating in 1913. They looked their age but ran fine.
In Ankara, we have modified Bombardier H6's, we started to use in 1997 but now it lies in storage for modernization and test drives on the line. We also have an Ansaldo Breda-Adtranz-Siemens co-production light rail train (LRT) used on the Ankaray A1 line. It has been in service since 1996 and is a very solid and brilliant train. Now there are CRRC made sets used on M1-M2-M3 (single line) and M4, they are worse than H6.
is there a timeframe of when the H6s are expected to return to service? they've been MIA for 4 years now apparently. what sort of upgrades will they receive during modernization (interior, electronics, etc)?
The M Train of the MTR is still the favourite of many HK rail fans. Despite passing its 44th birthday last week, with its revolutionary design at its inception, its refurbishment in the late 90s and its robust build, it still surprises many HK people when I tell them the M Train is over 40 years old.
Old trains are cool, when I lived in Vienna I was always excited to see the old trains on the U-bahn because I liked pulling the door lever.
Slam doors would match me very much I am impatient for the button at stations
In London, TfL got rid of the D-Stock trains, along with older C-Stock trains, so that new trains, that were longer, equipped with walk-through carriages and the ability to talk to new signalling equipment, that would allow for extra trains per hour, could take their place. The new S-Stock trains were 100 percent accessible to wheelchairs, and I remember being on a train at Wimbledon, waiting for it to go and a wheelchair user got on in the last compartment and wheeled through the end of the carriage towards the front of the train.
I had used those D-Stock trains since they had come into service and replaced the old trains with a skirt on the bottom. I remember them getting the red-white and blue treatment. I remember the push buttons being removed. I remember grab poles being designed for partially sighted people going in. And I remember a few seating areas being pulled out to make the trains partially wheelchair accessible.
I loved those trains. I've travelled on those trains with my parents and I've got good memories of them.
But those trains were bad for disabled people, when they were first brought into service. And the refurbs made them better for disabled people, but not perfect.
The S-Stock trains are the trains that disabled Londoners deserve.
Likewise the 777 stock trains are the trains that disabled Liverpudlians deserve.
I do applaud the effort that Viivarail made to upcycle the D-Stock trains, but you can not easily retrofit sliding step technology to a train that wasn't designed for it. And you can not easily drop a train to the the same height as the platform (assuming the US and Canada even have a "standard platform height" for level boarding campaigners to demand trains comply with).
We do need to move towards sliding step technology and platform edge doors. And that does mean that some trains will need to be retired early, so that better trains - with standardised door placement and fully accessible interiors can be brought into service.
I would urge you to reach out to disabled passenger pressure groups, across Canada and the US, to ask them what they think needs fixing in Canadian and US cities. Maybe some of that stuff can be done with a refit. Maybe some of that requires platforms or station entrances to be rebuilt.
I think you can use your voice to boost their signal.
I used to love our old Routemaster buses, in London. Until the day I saw a campaigner with short arms and legs, get out of his wheelchair and crawl underneath one and handcuff himself to the drive-shaft. Then I realised we had zero wheelchair accessible buses in London. And I also realised there were no lifts at most Underground and British Rail stations.
Luckily for me, I am not disabled. But our city totally sucked. We have accessible buses now, but many of our railway lines still suck. A deadline was set for the UK to have accessibility. That deadline came and went. And our central government doesn't care about the fact that many of our trains (old or new) are still not accessible. The entire country needs modernisation and only fractions have been upgraded.
I would love to know how well accessibility is being dealt with, in different cities in the US, Canada and other places. I would love to know how many cities provide true turn up and go travel, to disabled passengers. I would love to know how viable it is to retrofit trains, not just with modern looking interiors, but with innards that make it possible for disabled people to travel around. I would love to know how many cities provide accessible toilets on their trains and in their stations.
There is a push to make city centres more walkable, at the moment. Making them more friendly for wheelchairs, at the same time, means you get to do refreshes that really will last a long time.
Revising and rebuilding is what the Dutch NS (though not a Subway service of course) also does to really use the trains to their full potential. Most of the famous Koploper/ICM trains date from the Mid-1980s to the 1990s, but because of a modernisation between 2005 and 2010 a lot of them still operate in good condition and are only now (after 35 -- 40 years) ]starting to get phased out for the newer ICNG. This is great for the longevity of the vehicles, so I'm surprised it hasn't become standard practise there.
Indeed, a lot of electric equipment in Europe from the 80s and earlier is still operating!
very true! in NYC we have trains that are 30 years old and running good!
Now if they can smooth out the tracks a bit they can go faster. Was pretty bumpy in spots.
Philadelphia's subway trains are 40!
One important problem with some old trains is accessibility to the handicapped. I have a friend near Philadelphia who lives right near a trolley line, which would be great for him. But he can't ride the trolley because he uses a wheelchair and the trolleys predate the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Some Indian local trains were manufactured in the 1950s and still run smoothly 😂😂😂
Some are made of woods
Wooden carriages and wood framed carriages are restricted in Ireland due to Buttevant
There's nothing like old vehicles. I always see the need to upgrade as to get better features. Case in point:
Here in Bucharest, we never had any low-floor vehicle until mid 2000s when the first Mercedes Citaro buses came around. Nowadays, old Tatra T4R trams from 1950s are phased out and replaced with locally produced Astra Imperio trams. Tatra cars are shorter, do not have a low floor section and the engine consumes more power than an Imperio. Imperio trams have four cars all walkthrough, have AC and a current recovery system (i.e. when the tram breaks, a small amount of current is "recovered" and transferred back into the grid). The authorities announced the Tatras will go through a refurbishment process as well, but have only a low floor section (not 100% LF). Not sure if the engine will be the same or if they will have a similar recovery breaking system, but if the vehicle is no longer able to meet the current standards, and the refurbishment costs would be greater than purchasing a new vehicle, then that vehicle might have its days numbered.
Edit: and yes, too much people seem to neglect the fact that maintenance is a key factor to consider in vehicle repairability/replacement. You can have a shiny 1950's era vehicle in good condition and a malfunctioning vehicle say from 2005 that has been poorly maintained while in service.
Out here in Edmonton, we refurbed our U2 fleet back in the early 2010s with LED destination signs, LED info screens inside the trains, and CBTC for the Metro Line. ETS only just started to look for replacements to the U2s. These trains are gonna hit 50y/o before they get replaced!
This is a point that definitely needs to be made, thanks Reece :) The T1 trains on line 2 are just fine! At least for the time being. ATC would improve headways, but not as much as better budget allocation would. And the money saved on new train sets could be put towards modernizing and improving the system, making it truly ready for better trains in the future
For Singapore our Siemens C651 rolling stock (dating from 1994) were originally supposed to be refurbished in 2013, but the refurbished prototypes were unveiled only in 2016, then 2 years later our gov't changed its mind & decided to replace them with more new R151s (from Bombardier/Alstom) by 2026. So the prototypes were scrapped without ever seeing service. Meanwhile the newer C751B stock (from Kawasaki & Nippon Sharyo in 2000-1) are to be replaced too with even more R151s, supposedly to increase fleet standardization, but this also would cause more service disruption if R151s ever have to be recalled for any problem (they'll eventually form ~55% of the fleet of the train lines that they'll run on). However the C751A rolling stock from Alstom (made from 2001-3) is now refurbished by CRRC Nanjing Puzhen, with a brighter interior but less seats, & also sturdier grab handles, which unfortunately are also hard enough to risk a concussion if you knock you head against them from certain angles
The original Glasgow Subway cars lasted nearly 80 years with only 2 moderations, in 1935-6 they were retrofitted from cable traction to electric 3rd rail and the original wooden bench seating was replaced with leather seats so apart from that these cars lasted from 1896 to 1977
Didn’t they at the end still have gate doors
@@OscarOSullivan Yes, the trailer cars were mainly gate doors until the end.
I've travelled through various places of Germany and rode quite a few old trains, from the high level trams in Frankfurt, Mainz and Darmstadt (and even some of their low-floor ones are over 30 years old), the old Berlin S-Bahn class 481 trains, DB class 420 trains, BVG Class F and G to the DB Class 628 diesel trains, all of which are still in use if in reduced numbers. You still can see their age like the quality of speakers (though I sometimes prefer the sound of the older ones), gangway connections (or lack thereof), type of door opening and general aesthetics like shape of train, materials and maquet.
One notable example are the Görlitz bi-level trains DB uses throughout Germany as some are over 30 years old (these have a fairly edgy cab when newer cabs have a rounder cab) but still look fairly modern both in- and outside to the point where it isn't always easy to guess the generation of these trains.
In any case, the fact that you made such a video in the first place shows how much TTC (and a couple other operators throughout NA) messed up.
One point you should have mentioned here is that old trains also function as a backup considering that you sometimes mentioned that in your previous videos, it's always good to keep some older models in spare in case of problems with newer ones.
This is a good video; Sydney Australia wastes a huge amount of money on new trains, its surely a corruption situation. Someone is making bank. In my 32 years of life we have had about 5 distinct designs for our rolling stock for literally no reason. I just moved to Tokyo & they still use a lot of older trains and its totally fine. Its a train, it doenst need to be fancy, it just needs to be on time and comfortable-ish.
It wasn't for "no reason", they were replacing 50 year old trains that had no air-conditioning and trains that were beyond their lifespan. Sydney's train system has also been expanding and services being improved which requires increasing the fleet
@@gde1989 as I said, does that require five complete redesigns? No it doesn’t. We should still be building and running Tangara’s. While I agree the S sets had a full life everything since has been retired or replaced for almost no good reason after only ten years or so.
@TheRealUnconnected but there hasn't been 5 completely new designs, the T-set was introduced in 1988 then the next redesign was the M-Set in 2002. The following redesigns, the A & B sets are based on the M-set, so you can't consider them to be a "completely new design". Sydney have then technically been using the one model for 21 years now.
@@TheRealUnconnected the Tangara's are still running and in service. They haven't been replaced yet.
I cannot remember which transport youtuber first said "inefficiency is inequality" but that extends to this point as well, inefficiently spending your budget, even on something good, shiny and new, might deprive someone of better service and ultimately be for the greater good. That said there is a capital vs maintenance cost argument which makes it at some point more viable to replace, but this is an argument for more capital, not necessarily for using your existing capital.
In Vancouver, we still run the original MK I trains from 1985 (very similar to the SRT trains referenced), and some will be 40 years old when they reach retirement. They're louder and less refined than the newer rolling stock, and the lack of AC is a problem with increasingly hotter summers, but they're perfectly functional and well maintained.
With some older trains having wifi too
The MK IIs were retrofitted, yes, but the oldest of those are just over 20 years old; still lots of life in them @@TheRandCrews
The T1 subway cars are similar in age to the 1996-2000 Breda A650, and yet those A650 are going to be retired, and the 1991 A650 are being retired by next year, because LA Metro ordered their replacements, which will essentially retire the whole 1991 fleet. They’re barely 32 years old (1991), seems to me they could last longer than that
Sorry for the off topic comment, but I think there’s something to be said about this. You’ve never (As far as I know) done a video on the transit mode of ferries and I think BC Ferries would be a great place to start. I find a little bit compelling that you haven’t covered BC Ferries in a video considering how essential it is to your home province of British Columbia. It is also can be an example of privatized transit, essential service, and a great way to show the water being used as a transit mode. There are also a pair of other ferry systems in the area that could be topics of future videos on ferry systems, Washington State Ferries and the Alaska Marine Highway. The AMH could certainly be used to drive home the point of the essentiality of transit. Sorry for the long read, Spenser out.
Along with the Seabus for more local transit. As far as I know this has only been mentioned sparingly, but is a great cross harbour system.
*Hamburg has entered the chat*
KC water taxi and kitsap fast ferries slap
I've done a few videos about ferries, will likely do more in the future!
At the public transport company I work at we have trams ranging from the 70s (and older but those only run on Sundays and only for novelty) to the 2020s, same for buses and from having been on all of them, including some from other cities, the real difference is quality of the model not the age. There's new ones that are horribly rattly, loud and uncomfortable, there's new ones that are very well isolated, very comfortable and the same is true for the old models.
And yes all of them are completely modular, from things that are easy to change like signs, seats and lighting to the whole as autonomous driving system, which yes, the ones from the 70s can do too.
I do hope that they still change those seats on the newer ones someday. But with the engine making up more and more of the price point of those 500.000€+ vehicles, some aspects needs saving unfortunately. Best do it on the modular bits since those are easily to upgrade in a few years.
The CIÉ cravens coaches from the early 1960’s are more comfortable that IÉ 22000 class trains introduced in 2008
only 1970s? think you shoudl take a look at blackpools balloon trams those are from 1934.
@@davidty2006 our historic ones are from 1920 but they're far from daily drivable, passenger seats and cabin-wise. They have Edison bulbs as a lighting system, everything is wood and they're very hard to drive according to drivers. The drivers cabin consists of a seat and 3 levers. But- they still work just fine.
They're not nearly as cool as the ones you said though, unfortunately I couldn't find any images from the inside. Do you have any idea what they're like?
@@Sophie-144p I haven't been to blackpool in years... soo sadly i don't have any recent experiance of what they are like on the inside.
BVG Class A was used until 1989 in East Berlin, for over 80 years. That is what i would call sustainable^^
Hell, Seattle's Metro system refurbishes their buses for a very long time. Some of the buses on the fleet were originally built in the 60s-90s and have merely been refurbished and upgraded.
One example of railroad equipment lasting a long time is the EMD F40PH's that Metra uses here in Chicago. They were first introduced back in 1975 with Amtrak and others like VIA, and even today they are the most common locomotive that Metra uses. They are the only locomotive commonly seen on the BNSF line (the busiest line and the one I happen to live nearby to), and trains on this line are never shorter than six cars and are regularly 8-10 cars during rush hour. I'm reasonably certain that some trains on this line can even have up to twelve cars, or at least I think I remember seeing that before the pandemic hit.
I know Metra has it's problems (largely thanks to lack of funding, infrastructure, and dealing with the freight railroads), but aside from some locomotives that are on their last legs and desperately need either an overhaul (new engine, etc.) or to be replaced, most of the F40's are still handling the work just fine. The gallery cars they pull is another example, I believe at least some of the cars still found on the trains are at least from the 90's, if not the 80's, and they are either still in passenger service or were refurbished into the bicycle storage cars that some trains have in their consists.
There are even examples of Steam Locomotives, as the Darjeeling railway in India kept using it's old 1920's (at the latest) steam locomotives in regular service until they finally got new diesels in the 2000's, and even after that the railway keeps some of the locomotives around for tourists.
The Cumbres & Toltec and the Durango & Silverton narrow gauge tourist railroads in Colorado and New Mexico are also examples of this in the US. The company they were originally a part of, the Denver & Rio Grande Western, kept them operational in regular service until the 1980's, with steam engines that, at the latest, were built in the 1930's. The company just couldn't get rid of their narrow gauge lines until then, despite planning to close them down much earlier (the reason they never bothered getting newer equipment for those lines), and the equipment still worked perfectly well. Even today, those steam locomotives are hauling tourists on the same tracks they have been operating on for the past 100 years, and doing it with aplomb.
Yeah, railroad equipment can last a long time if you bother to take care of it.
I think there's Gallery cars dating back to the 1950s in Metra's fleet
In Saint-Petersburg, we still have the Em-series subway cars from the early 1970s in service on Line 1
You forgot to mention that Russian railways are still using the Soviet M62s, 2TE10s and 2TE116s to this day
@@detroitdieselseries5071 oh those, completely forgot about the M62s
The original Siemens rolling stock from 1993 on Line 1 here in Shanghai are still in service, though they have mostly been refurbished. Some (all?) of the original trains were 6 cars, so when they extended all of the trains on Line 1 to 8 cars, they used some of the 6 car trains as donors to give 2 more cars to other trains, and then replaced the middle cars with new cars (which are very obvious since the door styles are entirely different). So some of the Siemens trains are entirely original from end to end, while others have original end cars (with driver cabs) with 6 new cars in the middle.
Chinese metro systems are hella serious about refurbishments, they quite literally tear the entire thing down to just the outer frame and shell, and practically rebuild it from scratch
As someone who lives in London and has worked with the Tube and watched the redesign of 3 different rolling stocks. I agree completely that you can redo both signalling and passenger comfort with a mid-point refurbishment. It also is often the case that North America feels like it prioritizes looks over function sometimes.
I felt the same when Amtrak bought the new trains for Acela, seemed pointless when the track and such hadn't been upgraded and they'd just wasted money on shiny new trains in a quick fit marketing campaign that now looks really bad when they just sitting unused in the sidings.
is the new train even launched? last i heard it was still on test campaign....
@@PrograError they're still testing the new trains, and unfortunately they've been having numerous issues so they might not be in service for a while
The original Acelas are one of the few exceptions where early replacement makes more sense. The trains are still regularly sold-out, and even sold out in advance, despite the fact the interiors have never been refreshed and service has only declined. Refurbishing the trains therefore wouldn't make Amtrak any more money, and solving the capacity issue requires new equipment anyways because Bombardier either destroyed or sold their tooling for the Acela coaches to VIA Rail to maintain the LRC fleet. Refurbishing the Acela Is for service on Northeast Regionals also doesn't really help: a lot of them travel off-wire south of DC, they usually have 8-10 cars as opposed to an Acela's 6, and Amtrak is already replacing the entirety of the Northeast Regional's rolling stock with the Airo sets. In the short term, Amfleets are cheaper to maintain since they have no tilting equipment, and they were also refreshed just a few years ago.
Now, Amtrak couldn't have done a poorer job of actually procuring a replacement, but they did do one thing right in that they left open contract options for additional coaches to be procured later, so this shouldn't be an issue going forwards.
A bit late to comment, but the reason the TTC wants new trains is not just for minor overhauls. The train design life is about 30 years, and beyond that you start running into issues like fatigue, which require very thorough (read costly) inspections to ensure safe operation, as well as many parts becoming obsolete and extreme difficulty in sourcing parts, which again, makes the sourced parts more expensive. This in addition to the incompatibility of the trains to ATC, which would require a major retrofit that isn't cost effective. The TTC already does a thorough overhaul program for the T1 fleet, but it is actually more financially prudent to put a new fleet on the line.
This is a pretty complex issue, and I know Japan has suffered with this for long years. While train's body life may be long, the other essential electrics and accommodation evolve from time to time. Sometimes refurbishments are costly than simply creating a new train, and if you need lot's of fleets for operation that will also have to be in consideration. JR East tried to resolve this issue with the 209 series, while shortening it's expected train life in half from the previous 205 series, it used less materials, lighter and more efficient. The hope was to sustainably renew fleets in cycles and if a new technology was developed, it could be applied without delays. Unfortunately the series were never considered a success, the body was made too light and fragile, not meeting the cycles that JR East hoped for.(While it did leave technological marks for the E231 series and beyond)
The most successful refurbished train example in Japan is probably the Tokyu 7000 series…it started it's life in 1967 and some are still in operation in local areas. With the many refurbishments and improvement, there was one thing they simply couldn't improve -- body weight. The lasting body was weighty, and compared to lighter new generations it was simply eating more energy, prompting Tokyu to use the series on branch lines that had less operations than the main lines(Toyoko/Den-en-toshi).
While the average life expectancy of trains in Japan is considered 30~40 years, nobody has a clear conclusion of what cycles are the best yet.
In Sydney Australia, we normally keep our trains for about 40 years. Which is nice, as almost all trains now have air-conditioning (I think the first with aircon was around '85, and all trains had it by '88.
Took longer - the S sets, which were finally retired in 2019, were the last trains in Sydney without air conditioning.
I still love the cars from 1964/66 that the Berlin U-Bahn still runs in full regular service. They just won't break down like the ones with all the new electronics. And they do all have info screens retrofitted
There are trains in my hometown of New York that have been running since the 1960s. Yes, they are slowly getting replaced but more often than not they just get moved to a different line after a full renovation.
Sydney still had 'red rattlers' from the 1920's, running until at least the 1980's. It was a bit of a hobby to find the oldest one, by checking the date on the plate near the entrance. There were 1 or 2 dating back to 1922 or 1923! Admittedly they were getting hard to maintain but they were quite functional.
The earliest in service was 1925
@@OscarOSullivan Actually yes...on racking my brain, I think the earliest I saw was 25-27, but definitely 1920's. Made by Tulloch, I think?
Mendzona, Argentina actually uses handed-down light rail cars from San Diego (some of the oldest cars from 1980 are still operating there!) They will be getting more cars as the San Diego Trolley is clearing space for new low-floor cars.
One wouldn't expect it, but when it comes to very old trams in regular service then Japan might be worth a look. You fill find plenty of trams from the 1960s and 70s in normal operation every day, Hakodate, Toyama, Fukui, Matsuyama, Kagoshima, Nagasaki, even Osaka and a couple of more cities. Quite lovely and an interesting contrast to the passing cars of today
In Paris we are still running our MP59 tire subways, which as the name implies, was designed in 1959, albeit being delivered in 1963. They are being retired unfortunately for the newer MP14
My first reaction when you said those trains were from 1999 my first thought was "oh they're so young"... In Italy we phased out between the 2000s and 2010s locos and stock from the '60s and '70s, a 2000 train is very modern in my mind
right
At 1:40 That brings back memories for me! I rode trolleycoaches just like that here
in Halifax when I was a kid. They were removed in the early 1970s. Bad thing to do!
This is one of the many advantages that public transport has over owning a private 4 seater, battery powered or not.
Yes, most cars are made as disposable items - the fast fashion of transportation. Most people couldn’t afford a truly long lasting and upgradeable car, but the expense of upgrading a train is shared with so many people that it is cost-effective.
Enjoyed this, as someone who spent a lot of time on Linea A in Buenos Aires when they operated one hundred year old cars from Belgium with wooden brake shoes!
Of course, the Picadilly Line stock can't hold a candle to the '38 stock, only recently retired from the heaving metropolis of Ryde, after eight decades in service!!
You shouldn't forget though, that older trains are harder and more expensive to maintain than just buying new trains. As trains get older, replacement parts are getting rare and thus more expensive. The turning point for street cars/light rail is about 30 years and for metros about 40 years, before new trains are more justifiable than maintaining old rolling stock.
Here in britain we LOVE our older transit stock (well atleast used to) The 1938 tube stock when it was decommisioned from the tube was converted and sent to work the island line and only just got replaced with rebuilt D stock tube trains.
Ontop of the countless 1960's locomotives that are still running around notably class 37's that are old diesel locomotives that don't know how to stop.
Then theres the balloon trams in blackpool also from 1934 they kept running long after other trams were scrapped and some were retrofitted with disability ramps and are STILL going.
And also theres the class 91's that are fully electric push pull express trains from the 1990's with a top speed of 140mph but due to infrastructure it was stuck at the old 125mph, with them just being repainted into a new Swallow livery they look brand new and modern.
Has no one mentioned the Island Line yet? Aight imma mention the Island Line. This short rural line on the Isle of Wight (UK) was, until a couple of years ago, running trains that dated from 1938, which had spent most of their lives on London Underground's Bakerloo line before being retired and transferred. The island had been scrabbling around looking for suitable trains that could fit in the tunnel under the town of Ryde, which had had its trackbed raised to prevent flooding and could no longer accommodate conventional rolling stock, and these trains were the only viable option. I rode on them a few years back, and whilst they were definitely looking and feeling very old, they still worked - imagine an 83-year-old car still being used for several hours a day. These trains were eventually replaced by... more ex-London-Underground stock, this time dating from 1978 and originating on the District Line. So the tradition continues.
Here in The Hague I’ve heard they’re planning to replace the classic red/beige HTM trams in 2025. I find it somewhat sad to see them go since they’ve been with me my whole life, but the design dates to at least the ‘70s and they’re being replaced for accessibility reasons (these are high-floor trams, the new ones will allow level boarding).
I wholeheartedly agree that old rolling stock is still usually workable. NS (the Dutch National Rail operator) has a fleet of modernised double-deckers (the DD-AR’s iirc) which are just as comfortable and usable as the modern variant. NS doesn’t always reuse their old stock, a few years ago an old type of “sprinter” (slow stopping service trains) was finally removed from service but I haven’t heard of any plans to reuse or modernise them. Not sure what has happened / will happen to them.
Edit: The red/beige HTM trams are also a good example of smart modernisation. They received a new front panel, which completely changed the “style” of the trams. They feel more like strange modern designs rather than 70s (the old version had the classic square headlights that typified cars of the time and looks quite outdated now). The interiors still feel a bit old though.
In İstanbul, roughly 50 years old ex-Cologne B-Wagens are currently in use in the T4 “tram” line. IMM plans to replace them with locally produced ones despite there are no problems apart from the high operating costs. Additionally, the ABB-SGP LRVs are in use for 35 years in the M1 line however their replacement plans are uncertain at the moment. So many people actually want these trains to be replaced but the underlying reason of it is the trains are being not good enough to serve, not the trains are being old.
@RMTransit, I think you should re-upload, or make a follow-up to, your old video about how not to order new trains, as I think that also is really valuable for how transit systems order their new trains or rolling stock the wrong way and try to replace old fleet too quickly!!
In Hong Kong, MTR have scrapped the Metro-Cammell MLR trains that ran on the East Rail Line (The original KCR line with MTR took over its operations) and replaced them with brand new Hyundai Rotem trains. The train length was reduced from 12 to 9 cars due to the HK Island extension.
Here in Antwerp they still use trams from the 60’s even on the pre metro lines. They are currently working on replacing them with the brand new “stadslijner”trams but that will probably still take a couple of years
A good example of this situation might be Japan since like the E217 which has been in service since 1994 is already getting replaced by newer E235 trains which don’t even need to be replaced at this time as they are still capable for maybe 15 years more of service.
Melbourne is scrapping its comeng trains from the 80s and to me it seems like such a waste of funding. They just got a life extension too!!
Jakarta commuter trains are all secondhand from Japan built in the 70s-90s. Interestingly, they're much more reliable than the locally built trains built in 2010-2011 which are now used in Yogyakarta-Surakarta Commuter Rail.
There are plans for the government to buy newer locally built trains but there were opposition because many people actually preferred Japanese secondhand which are deemed more reliable and could start to operate much sooner
You also have to consider the ongoing maintenance costs. One thing that was mentioned about line 3 was some of the parts were no longer available. This also happened with the PCC streetcars. Then there's the issue of so many things wearing out, that the costs become prohibitive. IIRC, this was the case with the previous generation of streetcars. As for signalling, one thing I have heard is that block signalling is inadequate stopping the train is place so that platform gates can be used. This is something that many have been calling for, for safety reasons. One thing I have noticed, on the TTC, is older buses are held in reserve, should they be needed or for peak service. Lastly old rolling stock is often sold to operators in poorer countries. Also, it's obvious from your comments that you have never had to maintain complex systems. I have. I have been a technician going back to 1972, starting with CN Telecommunications, where I worked with new systems and old. Being so close to CN Rail, I also saw close up how poorly old rolling stock operated. You can do all the maintenance you want, but sooner or later the cost of that maintenance will exceed the cost of replacement, assuming you can even get the parts. IIRC, the TTC had to fabricate some of the parts needed to keep the PCC cars on the rails, as they could no longer be bought. They were also cannibalizing parts from cars that had been removed from service. You do that long enough and you'll no longer have anything left. That sort of custom work causes costs to soar. As for line 3, I was hearing is was already years past it's best before date. What the TTC should have been doing is factoring in the depreciation costs, over the expected life time, and then budgeting for the eventual replacement. Running old equipment, like running an old personal vehicle, at some point becomes too expensive.
The Scarborough line was very loud inside when I rode it as well as the T1 being loud when it pulls in, however these 2 trains function just fine aside from the infrastructure and derailment
When I rode it last fall the Scarboro(ugh) RT was, by far, the worst transit line I've ever ridden in any first world nation anywhere on the globe, and I've ridden on just about all of them in North America and Europe in the last 25-30 years. Abandoning it rather than refurbishing it to TTC subway standards was a ridiculous decision. Change the gauge to TTC standard and put in a conventional third rail and there's your new home for a bunch of the T1s. That is, if the bridges and structures at Kennedy and the Town Center could handle the extra weight.
I'd chalk it up to poor maintenance, SkyTrain has similar vehicles that are mostly fine
@@RMTransit They should have focused more on that than those screens on the sides