Click for next page ( 10


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 9
9 One-hundred-percent low-floor designs might not meet ALSTOM also produces a version of the Citadis that is a stringent U.S. and Canadian fire standards (ASTM E-119 Category 3 vehicle with IRW trucks throughout. was specifically cited). The center truck of the Category 2 Citadis cars is the "Arpege" type, a design that has no primary suspension, rely- Ten years since the publication of TCRP Report 2, the ing instead on a flexible truck frame, resilient wheels, and coil greater availability and worldwide experience of 100-percent spring secondary suspension at the corners of the frame. The low-floor operation may now outweigh the liability issue. design of the wheelsets incorporates a low-level driveshaft These issues are considered in Chapter 4 under "Best Practice linking the wheels together. As such they are not truly IRWs. for System Design," and recommendations for research into Table 2-2 summarizes some of the main deliveries made of how this type of vehicle might be introduced in the United these vehicles. States and Canada are included in Chapter 5. A notable development is the appearance of a significant 2.2.2 Kinki Sharyo number of 100-percent low-floor cars (Category 3 in TCRP Report 2) having conventional small-wheeled trucks through- Kinki Sharyo is the manufacturing arm of the Kintetsu out. The low floor is achieved by the use of 560-mm-diameter Group of companies. They have worked with ALSTOM and wheels and 5-percent ramps to allow the floor to clear the have only supplied LFLRVs within the United States and trucks, without introducing steps. These cars have been suc- Canada. The center trucks were developed by Fiat-SIG with cessful in sales terms and the researchers are not aware of assistance from PROSE AG. The truck design is conventional, any major dynamic/wear-related issues with them. This employing cranked axles, chevron rubber primary suspen- tends to support the conclusion of TCRP Report 2, which sion and air bag secondary suspension. expressed optimism in regard to this particular concept. Kinki Sharyo has a large part of the U.S. market; this has However, wheel contact stresses are higher with small wheels been a significant development in recent years. They intro- for a given axle load. duced LFLRVs into the United States which now have mil- One source (3) has suggested that the optimum arrange- lions of miles of operating experience. One hundred and ment for future LFLRVs would be to employ conventional forty-five vehicles have been delivered and more are on order. motor bogies and a conventional small-wheeled trailer bogie The vehicles were supplied to NJ TRANSIT and Santa Clara in the center, based on experience with the existing car Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). They are supplying designs. low-floor center sections to convert existing LRVs in Dallas to LFLRVs. 2.2 Product Development 2.2.3 Ansaldobreda This section gives a brief overview of the products of the major suppliers that fall into the Type 2 LFLRV category. This company was formed by the merger of two Italian firms These products were known to the researchers when the Ansaldo and Breda; the latter had been a vehicle (e.g., locomo- research was completed and any omissions are accidental. tives, coaches, multiple units, metro cars, and streetcars) builder. TCRP does not endorse any particular product described The company has supplied many LRVs, including cars for the here. Cleveland Transit Authority and San Francisco Muni, but until recently had built relatively few LFLRVs. The early designs for Ansaldobreda LFLRVs were delivered to the Massachusetts Bay 2.2.1 ALSTOM Transportation Authority (MBTA) in Boston, Midland Metro GEC Alsthom developed some of the earliest LFLRVs, the (UK), Oslo Tramways (Norway) and Lille Transpole (France). French Standard Type (TSF), which first entered service in The Oslo car is a Category 1 with all conventional trucks while 1987 in Grenoble. These vehicles are a three-section design the Lille cars are virtually Category 3 cars with a large low-floor with a short center section fixed to a truck with cranked axles area and a very different running gear system that incorporates and IRWs (Type T2). This company is now part of ALSTOM, which has devel- Table 2-2. ALSTOM (and predecessor) Type 2 LFLRVs. oped this technology into the modular "Citadis" range. The Citadis is available in three configurations. Three of these are Product Main cities Approx. numbers built Category 2, the basic 301, 401, and 500 models having Citadis 301 Dublin, Orleans, Valenciennes, 69 conventional motor trucks and an independent wheel center Citadis 401 Dublin, Montpellier 68 truck. The "Regio Citadis" 500 model is designed for longer Citadis 500 Den Haag, Kassel 78 TSF (French Grenoble, Paris, Rouen 116 distance and higher speed routes and has an extra center truck. Standard) These are designed for use in shared running applications. TOTAL 331

OCR for page 9
10 conventional motor trucks fitted under a high-floor area 2.2.5 Siemens/Duewag containing the cab and other electrical equipment. The Boston MBTA and Midland Metro cars are classic Category 2 configu- Siemens (formerly Duewag) based its first Category 2 rations, but the center trucks differ in their design. design on the EEF self-steering wheelset concept. Many of Sixteen Category 2 LFLRV vehicles are in use on the Mid- these vehicles were constructed, but Siemens stopped devel- land Metro and 100 have been ordered and some introduced oping this design in the 1990s. The company produced some into service by Boston MBTA. more typical Category 2 vehicles and the center trucks for the Ansaldobreda also offers a modular range known as Sirio, Siemens Duewag/Adtranz (later Siemens/Bombardier) GT6- but it is a Category 3 100-percent low-floor design not rele- 70DN cars introduced in Karlsruhe, Germany, beginning in vant to this study. 1995. Most relevant to the U.S. market are the SD-600 and SD- 660 types. These are a Category 2 design of which there are 2.2.4 Bombardier 79 on the TriMet system in Portland, Oregon. Siemens' sec- The "Flexity Swift" LFLRV cars that run on the Minneapo- ond product is the "Avanto" type, a Category 2 design hav- lis Metro Transit are part of a range of similar products. Bom- ing a short center section with cranked axles and IRWs. bardier developed the standard Flexity Swift range with the These operate in Houston, on new infrastructure. Table 2-4 first examples appearing in Cologne in 1995. Very similar summarizes some of the main deliveries of these vehicles. vehicles have also been built for Istanbul, Croydon, Rotter- Siemens offers the "Combino" range as its standard product. dam and Stockholm. This product is a classic Category 2 This is a Category 3 100-percent low-floor design that has design with three sections, and an IRW truck under the short all IRWs. center section. It is intended for light rail systems with a mix of street track and segregated running. 2.2.6 Summary Through mergers and takeovers, Bombardier has also inherited a range of other Category 1, 2, and 3 designs, which Table 2-5 summarizes the statistics of the vehicles it now sells under the same "Flexity" brand. Of relevance to considered in this review and indicates the scale of U.S. this study is the "Flexity Classic" design, originally developed by DWA as the "LF2000." This is a Category 2 design similar Table 2-4. Siemens (including Duewag) Type 2 LFLRVs. in concept to the Flexity Swift but with a different configura- Product Main cities Approx. tion of vehicle bodies. There is no small center section, with numbers built IRW trucks with freedom to yaw instead being placed under 6MGT Ludwigshafen, Mannheim 64 8MGT Ludwigshafen, Mannheim 5 full-length body sections. This design has been very popular Avanto S70 Houston, Paris, San Diego 34 in Germany, notably with Frankfurt am Main where an Buenos Aires Buenos Aires 9 Lisbon Lisbon 10 option for more Category 3 cars was abandoned in favor of MGT6D Bochum, Brandenburg, Erfurt, Halle, this more traditional type of vehicle. Heidelberg, Muelheim, Oberhausen 146 NGT6C Kassel 25 Bombardier offers a Category 3 product, Flexity Outlook, NGT6D Bonn, Dusseldorf 72 which uses these trucks to obtain a 100-percent low floor. The 6NGTWDE Rostock 40 company claims that these trucks give much better running NGT8 Leipzig 56 NGT8D Magdeburg 71 performance than IRW alternatives and, as such, no longer SD-600A Portland 52 markets its inherited IRW Category 3 designs. Table 2-3 sum- SD-660A Portland 2 Valencia Valencia 25 marizes some of the main deliveries of these vehicles. TOTAL 611 Table 2-3. Bombardier (and predecessor) Type 2 Table 2-5. Summary of vehicle numbers LFLRVs. for Category 2 type LFLRVs. Product Main cities Approx. Supplier Cars % of Cars US % of % of numbers built group total US supplier US Flexity Classic Adelaide, Bremen, Dessau, Dresden, Essen, 389 group total Frankfurt-am-Main, Halle, Kassel, Krakow, ALSTOM 331 15 0 0 0 Schwerin Bombardier 759 34 24 3 7 Flexity Swift Alphen, Cologne, Croydon, Istanbul, 255 Minneapolis, Stockholm Breda 116 5 100 86 27 GT6-70DN Karlsruhe 70 Kinki Sharyo 145 7 145 100 39 T Vienna 3 Siemens 636 29 98 15 27 Variotram Heidelberg, Ludwigshafen, Mannheim 42 Other 238 10 0 0 0 TOTAL 759 TOTAL 2225 100 367 17 100