Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Am I the only one who believes its a no-brainer to have 8 sets of doors on each railcar? NYC has railcars with 8 doors and those cars are only 60 feet long while WMATA's railcars are all 75 feet long. They plan to order 740 of these things. Why flush a golden opportunity down the toilet? Its not like metro will get any LESS crowded in the coming years.
I ride metro every day during rush hour and trying to get out of the train from one of the middle seats is almost impossible. I think the seating design is idiotic and I don't get why WMATA sticks with it. At least add more doors for easier boarding. Come on man...
The fundamental difference between the NYC Subway and Metro is that the NYC Subway is exclusively an inner-city subway. Metro is kind of a mix between inner-city subway and commuter rail with stations way out in the suburbs like the eventual Ashburn Station, Shady Grove, etc. Therefore, Metro's only goal isn't too get as many people on a train as possible but they're also taking into consideration comfort so that the long-range commuters can sit down in their "luxurious bucket seats."
Don't get me wrong though, I think it is stupid as hell. Metro's cars should be exactly like the NYC Subway Cars - suburbanites be damned. If you're taller than like 6'3" or so like me, the seats on Metro are completely worthless.
The fundamental difference between the NYC Subway and Metro is that the NYC Subway is exclusively an inner-city subway. Metro is kind of a mix between inner-city subway and commuter rail with stations way out in the suburbs like the eventual Ashburn Station, Shady Grove, etc. Therefore, Metro's only goal isn't too get as many people on a train as possible but they're also taking into consideration comfort so that the long-range commuters can sit down in their "luxurious bucket seats."
Don't get me wrong though, I think it is stupid as hell. Metro's cars should be exactly like the NYC Subway Cars - suburbanites be damned. If you're taller than like 6'3" or so like me, the seats on Metro are completely worthless.
We're slowly going that direction anyway...
I only traveled on a 7000 series train once so far, but it was just as difficult to board and unboard as the older railcars. Plus I think more people chased it down to get a ride.. so that made it even more crowded.
Yeah, at this point in time.. designing the railcars around the people in the suburbs is dumb. Especially since not all suburban commuters are necessarily commuting into the city. Some people both live and work in the suburbs and take Metro only a few stops within that suburb.. like Clarendon to Rosslyn or Rockville to Bethesda for instance.
I think the only reason they stuck with 6 doors was $$$. Because its too stupid to not be about $$$.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistrictSonic
There will be 8 car trains for the 7000 series when completely implimented, but there are only a couple of 7000 series trains out there at the moment.
I'm talking about the number of doors on each individual railcar. Not the number of railcars on each individual train.
Besides the number of seats, Metro has also cited crashworthiness as a reason why they didn't order more doors in the new cars. Of course, the real solution is prevention... sigh.
Besides the number of seats, Metro has also cited crashworthiness as a reason why they didn't order more doors in the new cars. Of course, the real solution is prevention... sigh.
Good point. Probably makes more sense to put $$$ into preventing crashes than to put $$$ into making trains built for crashes. WMATA is basically saying.. "We expect our trains to eventually crash" lol.
Good point. Probably makes more sense to put $$$ into preventing crashes than to put $$$ into making trains built for crashes. WMATA is basically saying.. "We expect our trains to eventually crash" lol.
Well, they will, yes? Obviously nothing's ever going to be 100% perfect, 100% of the time. Seems silly to give Metro **** for actually taking safety into consideration.
Well, they will, yes? Obviously nothing's ever going to be 100% perfect, 100% of the time. Seems silly to give Metro **** for actually taking safety into consideration.
In the end its a subway with no seat belts. It can only get so safe.
And usually when you focus too much on one safety issue you end up neglecting others. For instance.. having less doors to improve crash worthiness leads to less exits in case of emergency evacuation. So you are just trading one safety issue for another.
It has as many exits as it has always had, so I'm not seeing the trade? The new cars handle crashes better than the old ones IIUC, but have the same number of exits. Seems like that is an improvement to me.
Why no center rail to hold on to is what I wonder. Also why not the open around the entrance design instead of those stupid glass wall things with the seats, the open area is so much better, especially when it is jammed packed and people going in and out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.