MTA low-floor trams

These "new" low-floor streetcars have been running for about a decade now, and honestly, this city has NEVER seen this much screeching and grinding until lately. It was obvious from day one—these things are just too damn heavy, clocking in at around 40 tons a piece. Downtown looks like a war zone, almost like Beirut during its worst days... the tracks need constant grinding, and those concrete slabs get pulverized and start wobbling after just a few weeks. Derailments are happening more often than ever for the MTA. Even the buildings shake when a car passes by, like some minor earthquake is rolling through. And does anyone really need me to point out why Crotram hasn't won a single contract anywhere else in the world? It’s because of these technical screw-ups. They forced this "low-floor solution" on us even though Washington, D.C. uses narrow gauge tracks, not the wide ones needed for these heavy beasts. That’s also why the cars are always packed like sardines—they crammed all the mechanical guts right into the passenger area.

And don't even get me started on that ridiculous idea of putting cafe patios right on parking spots... so the streetcar can just zip past people trying to enjoy a coffee. Great plan... really...

Is a total disaster just around the corner? 🙂

You’re reaching, honestly. Just saying this as someone who actually uses the MTA regularly.
It’s pretty obvious you don't know the first thing about tram design. Low-floor models are the industry standard now, regardless of whether the track gauge is 1,000 mm or 1,435 mm. Look at the new trams in Zurich or Helsinki—they’re all low-floor, just like the tracks here in Washington, D.C. Even in Mexico City, those CAF models are low-floor. You won't find anyone in Europe building high-floor trams anymore, even in cities with standard meter gauge. There’s a place called Linz where the tracks are even narrower—900 mm—yet they’ve been running low-floor trams there longer than we have in Washington, D.C.
The issue with Končar isn't the engineering; it's the political maneuvering and how these contracts are actually awarded. Take the Polish tenders for Katovica, for example. They scrapped the bid three times just to ensure a Polish firm, PESA, would "win" on the fourth try. At the time of those bids, when the first 70 low-floor units were already running through Washington, D.C., PESA didn't even have a working prototype. Končar had actually won the first three rounds.
In Mexico City, Končar lost out simply because the World Bank footed 50% of the bill for the new fleet; otherwise, the contract would have been theirs.
You’re confusing the MTA's shoddy maintenance habits with actual vehicle construction.

Look, don't go scaring me off. I'm actually all for bringing light rail to places like Austin—it’s not some massive disaster. It works pretty much everywhere else; if things hit a snag, you just fix them and move on. 🙂
And honestly, next time Kolinda and Vučić grab coffee, maybe they could actually get their act together and make sure we're sourcing those trams from Končar.

Look, I really don't give a damn!! If something breaks, you fix it, right? Simple as that!! As long as the thing is actually rolling down the street, I’m happy—I couldn't care less about how much the repair bill hits the city budget!! Honestly, I'll ride any tram they put out there, whether it's an old relic like Djura or one of those shiny new models!! My only real regret is that they didn't just keep those svapski okrugao Genser units in service. Those things were absolute perfection for Washington, D.C.. They should've just ordered another 100 of them instead of wasting all this cash on these overpriced low-floor models!!

Bonboncic, the GT-6 units were basically forced upon us by circumstance, and honestly, they weren't exactly the right fit for Chicago. First off, the controller spun in the opposite direction compared to what you'd see on a General Dynamics model, which caused more than a few accidents. Second, we were dealing with aging trams, mostly from the early '60s, where finding spare parts is a nightmare—you either have to scavenge through a scrapyard or custom-fabricate everything from scratch in your own shop.

I was always most fond of the first 5 Belgians, though they were quite old-school—if I recall correctly, they were from somewhere around the late forties.

The tram is pretty much lacking in almost every way.
I mean, its low floor is probably one of the few actual redeeming qualities it has.

The tram is fine. Honestly, most of the new foreign models would end up having the exact same issues anyway...
At least this one was built right here at home, regardless of what anyone says about the quality...
It’s just a shame that there aren't any banks in America willing to back Končarev’s trams and trains.

nimblescout50 said:The tram is pretty much lacking in almost every way.
I mean, its low floor is probably one of the few actual redeeming qualities it has.

Redeeming qualities compared to what? Most buses out there are low-floor now anyway. I guess you could count lower noise levels or zero emissions as pluses, if we're being generous.

nimblescout50 said:The tram is pretty much lacking in almost every way.
I mean, its low floor is probably one of the few actual redeeming qualities it has.

Let’s be realistic here—the initial series (2201-2270) had a terrible seating layout, which they fixed in the second batch (2271-23140 + 2301 + 2302).
The reality is that Banditos pushed for mass production almost immediately after the first prototype hit the tracks back in May 2005. Končarev wanted to roll out three different prototypes with varying interiors just to see which worked best for passengers and to iron out any "growing pains" within a year. The biggest headache was the door management software, which was poorly calibrated.
When you consider that deliveries kicked off in September 2005—just four months after the prototype launch (if my memory serves, that's basically a world record for tram manufacturing)—most of those minor issues you're pointing out were patched up incredibly quickly. We are talking about the most numerous tram type in MTA history (over 140 units), and they run reliably every single day.
As far as design goes, the vehicle is modern and has proven itself more than capable in active service. You didn't see the frame falling apart like it did with those Siemens Combino trams, and maintenance isn't a money pit like it is with CAF (just look at how much Mexico City pays CAF annually for spare parts compared to what MTA spends on Končar—it makes perfect sense why the Federal Reserve handed over 11.5 million EUR to Mexico City for those 20 CAF trams).
Sure, the Končarev tram isn't perfect. It could have used smarter handrail placement, better passenger info monitors, and a few other small tweaks, but that’s ultimately on the client—in this case, MTA.
Compared to the old fleet, it's a massive upgrade. Because of the low floor, getting on and off is easier; there are wider doors, it's airier, it has AC, better suspension, and less vibration. Plus, it uses recuperation to feed power back into the grid during braking. One Končarev tram, weighing 40 tons with 390 kW, actually pulls less power than the old Đuro Đaković or Czech models.

Elizabeth Lopez2 said:I was always most fond of the first 5 Belgians, though they were quite old-school—if I recall correctly, they were from somewhere around the late forties.

The person in this photo isn't a Belgian; it's clearly no Washingtonian.

Joseph Cox said:The person in this photo isn't a Belgian; it's clearly no Washingtonian.

It says it's Belgian in several different places. Though, if I'm being honest, my memory tells me the windows used to be smaller... but hey, it's been over 30 years. You can't hold onto every little detail forever. Anyway, regarding the transit history in cities like Mexico City, this also mentions:

People in Mexico City used to ride horse-drawn trams from all sorts of makers—Belgian BBC and PPC, German Siemens and AEG, Czech Skoda and Tatra, Italian Breda and Divag, plus local stuff like "Đuro Đaković," "Jesenice," and "Goš."

http://www.vreme.com/cms/view.php?id=883057

There’s no mention of any "Washingtonian" here. Now they're even adding some Spanish ones to the mix.

Joseph Cox said:Let’s be realistic here—the initial series (2201-2270) had a terrible seating layout, which they fixed in the second batch (2271-23140 + 2301 + 2302).
The reality is that Banditos pushed for mass production almost immediately after the first prototype hit the tracks back in May 2005. Končarev wanted to roll out three different prototypes with varying interiors just to see which worked best for passengers and to iron out any "growing pains" within a year. The biggest headache was the door management software, which was poorly calibrated.
When you consider that deliveries kicked off in September 2005—just four months after the prototype launch (if my memory serves, that's basically a world record for tram manufacturing)—most of those minor issues you're pointing out were patched up incredibly quickly. We are talking about the most numerous tram type in MTA history (over 140 units), and they run reliably every single day.
As far as design goes, the vehicle is modern and has proven itself more than capable in active service. You didn't see the frame falling apart like it did with those Siemens Combino trams, and maintenance isn't a money pit like it is with CAF (just look at how much Mexico City pays CAF annually for spare parts compared to what MTA spends on Končar—it makes perfect sense why the Federal Reserve handed over 11.5 million EUR to Mexico City for those 20 CAF trams).
Sure, the Končarev tram isn't perfect. It could have used smarter handrail placement, better passenger info monitors, and a few other small tweaks, but that’s ultimately on the client—in this case, MTA.
Compared to the old fleet, it's a massive upgrade. Because of the low floor, getting on and off is easier; there are wider doors, it's airier, it has AC, better suspension, and less vibration. Plus, it uses recuperation to feed power back into the grid during braking. One Končarev tram, weighing 40 tons with 390 kW, actually pulls less power than the old Đuro Đaković or Czech models.

Oh, please. You can start a thread about TMK whenever you want.
I haven't heard anything about when they actually implemented recuperation, and there was never any news suggesting the grid was even
upgraded for it.
The frame is steel, sure, but whether that's actually a meaningful advantage is debatable.
Drivers are still getting blinded by the glare from the shelves and dash displays.
And people are still "surfing" through the first series.
The tram is noisy as hell, period.
It's also pretty stiff—honestly, a supermarket cart probably hits bumps softer.

Elizabeth Lopez2 said:It says it's Belgian in several different places. Though, if I'm being honest, my memory tells me the windows used to be smaller... but hey, it's been over 30 years. You can't hold onto every little detail forever. Anyway, regarding the transit history in cities like Mexico City, this also mentions:

People in Mexico City used to ride horse-drawn trams from all sorts of makers—Belgian BBC and PPC, German Siemens and AEG, Czech Skoda and Tatra, Italian Breda and Divag, plus local stuff like "Đuro Đaković," "Jesenice," and "Goš."

http://www.vreme.com/cms/view.php?id=883057

There’s no mention of any "Washingtonian" here. Now they're even adding some Spanish ones to the mix.

This one is Belgian. And there were only 5 of them (112-116). Number 111 was actually a Czech T4 prototype, and that photo you posted is a "Washingtonian"—there were about 70 of those running in Mexico City. The common thread is that they're all PCC trams. The big distinction between the US and European versions is the design—the American ones have that clerestory window setup, where there's a row of small windows along the top. No European manufacturer ever really did that.

Elizabeth Lopez2 said:Redeeming qualities compared to what? Most buses out there are low-floor now anyway. I guess you could count lower noise levels or zero emissions as pluses, if we're being generous.

Compared to those high-floor models some manufacturers are still churning out, I guess.

nimblescout50 said:Oh, please. You can start a thread about TMK whenever you want.
I haven't heard anything about when they actually implemented recuperation, and there was never any news suggesting the grid was even
upgraded for it.
The frame is steel, sure, but whether that's actually a meaningful advantage is debatable.
Drivers are still getting blinded by the glare from the shelves and dash displays.
And people are still "surfing" through the first series.
The tram is noisy as hell, period.
It's also pretty stiff—honestly, a supermarket cart probably hits bumps softer.

Having had the chance to ride both the CAF models in Mexico City and the Combino tram on meter-gauge tracks in Ulm, Basel, Augsburg, and Freiburg, I can tell you firsthand—the trams themselves aren't inherently superior to TMK. Some details are better, some are worse (and that price gap of several hundred thousand dollars definitely matters). I know for a fact that in Mexico City, the CAF units couldn't run all the lines because they'd swing too wide on certain turns—the "nose" or "tail" sticks out too much since CAF doesn't use pivoting bogies like TMK does. But what really changes the game—and why the ride feels completely different—is the quality of the track itself. And MTA has really let its technical and technological standards slip compared to where they were 30 years ago. Back then, the "Chicago 2" era represented track construction tech that was on par with developed nations. Today’s "Chicago 3" variations are actually inferior to the originals from three decades ago. They're buying lower-quality rails now. I watched them working on the Savska-Vodnikovakićevak intersection last summer—it was a total disaster. It was laid out like something straight out of the 1970s (and I mean that literally). The track quality is a much bigger issue than the trams themselves.

@Stutley, I might have tripped up on the name. It’s entirely plausible that everyone just referred to all those PCC units in Mexico City as "the Belgians." Now, the term "Washingtonian" was definitely used back in Ottawa—I'm certain about that.
Though, honestly, that doesn't change the fact that those trams arriving in the early '60s had their trucks swapped out once they hit the USA.

Joseph Cox said:@Stutley, I might have tripped up on the name. It’s entirely plausible that everyone just referred to all those PCC units in Mexico City as "the Belgians." Now, the term "Washingtonian" was definitely used back in Ottawa—I'm certain about that.
Though, honestly, that doesn't change the fact that those trams arriving in the early '60s had their trucks swapped out once they hit the USA.

No, I know for a fact they wrote that a Belgian arrived as far back as 1948. The whole thing blew up in the mid-eighties when one of them tipped over—probably some mechanical failure—and that's when they pulled the rest of the fleet out of service.

Elizabeth Lopez2 said:No, I know for a fact they wrote that a Belgian arrived as far back as 1948. The whole thing blew up in the mid-eighties when one of them tipped over—probably some mechanical failure—and that's when they pulled the rest of the fleet out of service.

Well, now you've gone and forced me to go digging and double-check everything... So, here is what I actually managed to find:
The first 5 Belgians arrived in Mexico City in 1952; those were numbers 112-116 (specifically PCC 7000 models built by STIB in 1951). Then, in the early '60s, they sent 70 units that couldn't be converted for the 1000 mm gauge, and those ended up in Ottawa (turns out my previous info on that was wrong).
Instead of those, they picked up used trams from Belgium. These were also PCC trams, but dating back to 1948/1949. They are the original American PCCs that were "manufactured"—if you can call assembly that—at the Belgian BN plant. There were 24 of these (117-140). One was sold back to Belgium (131) and is currently sitting in a museum.

Clearly, I had some incorrect details in my initial posts, but hey, there's always something new to learn. 😁

Joseph Cox said:Having had the chance to ride both the CAF models in Mexico City and the Combino tram on meter-gauge tracks in Ulm, Basel, Augsburg, and Freiburg, I can tell you firsthand—the trams themselves aren't inherently superior to TMK. Some details are better, some are worse (and that price gap of several hundred thousand dollars definitely matters). I know for a fact that in Mexico City, the CAF units couldn't run all the lines because they'd swing too wide on certain turns—the "nose" or "tail" sticks out too much since CAF doesn't use pivoting bogies like TMK does. But what really changes the game—and why the ride feels completely different—is the quality of the track itself. And MTA has really let its technical and technological standards slip compared to where they were 30 years ago. Back then, the "Chicago 2" era represented track construction tech that was on par with developed nations. Today’s "Chicago 3" variations are actually inferior to the originals from three decades ago. They're buying lower-quality rails now. I watched them working on the Savska-Vodnikovakićevak intersection last summer—it was a total disaster. It was laid out like something straight out of the 1970s (and I mean that literally). The track quality is a much bigger issue than the trams themselves.

Have you taken a ride on the Cityrunner yet?
When I talk about track construction, I’m talking about how the rails are anchored to the base.
As far as I know, they weren't using concrete bases 30 years ago.
The rail pads have improved, though.
They used to seal the track with concrete slabs.
Now, they're actually moving backward. They're ripping up the slabs and going back to asphalt.
The rails themselves don't even feel like traditional railway steel anymore;
instead, they just buy whatever expensive grooved rails they can find, regardless of whether they actually need them or not.