5000-series: On seats and aisles

Photo credit: Ben Meyerson

Chicago's new 5000-series railcars are quite controversial amongst the riding public, but the CTA is not giving in. 

The seating arrangement, the so-called "bowling alley" style, allows for more passenger standing room. But Chicagoans are expressing displeasure at the "New York-style" seating, bemoaning the fact that they are often face-to-crotch and can no longer look out the window easily.

This raises all sorts of interesting points about the design or railcars and the context in which they're used.

Deconstructing the seating arrangement

One of the most disappointing aspects of the 5000-series is the lack of imagination. They look identical to the old cars, with the exception of the LED signs and new seating arrangement. The interior is the same drab beige of the 1980s, the seats are the same beige molded buckets. 

On this blog, I will write plenty on why I think design matters for transit. But let's talk about the seating arrangement specifically. 

Source: Wikimedia Commons

In New York, the R142(A) is the most comparable car to the 5000-series in terms of size, although CTA's cars are notably shorter. NYC got rid of the molded bucket seats and installed a flat bench from end-to-end, allowing people of various girths to negotiate a seating arrangement that is comfortable. 

Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Older cars like the R62 have molded seats much like the 5000-series do, and social interactions often get heated when someone sees an individual "seat" available and attempts to take it when their own seat doesn't really fit in it, squishing passengers on either side. The R142 does not delineate individual seats, instead letting people negotiate for themselves what an appropriate passenger distribution is.   

Another issue with the 5000-series approach to bowling-alley seating is that the CTA kept the biggest bottleneck of all—the forward-facing seats that still exist at one end of the alley. This sort of defeats the purpose of the alley-style seating, which is partially to encourage people to move towards the center of the car.  

On context

The 'L' is one of the most distinctive parts about Chicago. One of the best parts about riding the 'L' is that it is not (for the most part) underground. In Manhattan, nearly the entire subway is buried, and there is really nothing to look at except for beams and lights as you zip through the earth. (The 7 line through Queens, on the other hand, has some spectacular views.) 

When I lived in Chicago, one of my favorite things to do was stare out the window as the city goes by, especially on the Brown Line, which curves precariously through a variety of beautiful neighborhoods as it plods its way downtown.  Once downtown, the Loop trains take incredibly sharp winds through the massive skyscrapers and you can watch the pedestrians and the cars zip about as the financial powerhouse roars below. One of my favorite parts of my commute was passing an orthodontist's office just north of the Wells/Lake junction and watching people leaning back in the chairs with the jaws cranked open under operating lights being worked on by doctors. 

The aisle-facing seats do, sadly, take away from this uniquely Chicago experience. 

On balance

Munich's Class C subway cars make a compromise: At the end of each car is bench seating, and the middle has forward/backward seating. In addition, the 6-car trains are articulated, opening up additional standing space in the vestibule. I can imagine a similar layout for Chicago in 4-car sets with a cab at each end, allowing for both 4 and 8-car sets. 

Why so noisy?

Grid Chicago asks: why doesn't the Metra run as smoothly as the German Regio/S-Bahn system?

This question puzzled me for a while as well, and I remember during my first trip to Germany as a freshman in college, I was astounded at how quiet and timely the trains in Munich were. In the US, we're rather used to trains making a cacophonous racket as they enter and leave the station, screeching and clunking and grinding, but the trains in Germany seem to glide in on air exactly on schedule, only the whine of the A/C motors and whoosh of the doors opening and closing making any peep at all.

So why are U.S. train systems so loud—are the laws of physics not the same? How does Germany run on time? It turns out, there's a whole bunch of reasons:

• Yes, money is important. Track noise isn't really about straightness, per se, but Germany spends a lot more on things like welded rail (no clunking over joints between individual sections), track ballast (which deadens the noise and vibration), wheel truing (which prevents the clack-clack of flat wheels formed when the wheels lock or slip during braking), and signal systems (which are often the source of delays). The trains are also a lot newer (more responsive suspension systems) and run on electricity (smoother acceleration, no fumes, more reliable). 
• Why do they spend more money? Well, more people use the train—people in the US are reluctant to give up their cars, largely because of last-mile problems, particularly in the suburbs. Whereas a lot of small towns in Germany have light rail systems within their compact urban cores, US suburbs are sprawling and usually have limited to no transit, meaning you'll need a car to get to your destination one way or another. Limited ridership base = less frequent scheduling, although that sadly perpetuates a cycle of low ridership, because people don't take quick trips on lines with poor frequency.
• Track/grade separation of passenger and freight rail. The US lags way behind Europe and Asia for passenger rail, but what many people don't realize is that we're actually way ahead for freight. But that means freight reins supreme—many rail passenger routes in the US are leased from freight companies that own the rights of way. Freight is a whole different game logistically, though, and it severely affects the reliability and scheduling frequency/flexibility of passenger trains. 
• Network layout. US systems are generally designed as hub-and-spoke, oriented around urban cores, whereas Germany has a web-like blanket of rail service that means you can often find a more direct route between places. This goes towards ridership, investment, etc. The US had more routes in the past but they've mostly been pared down to urban commuting corridors.  
• Federal Rail Administration regulations. Trains in the US are extremely heavy because of stringent crashworthiness laws. Heavy trains have more sway, take longer to accelerate, can't corner as tightly (see: Acela's tilting train fiasco), and make more noise. It also means it's much harder to procure modern trainsets, because the world's train manufacturers don't have standard designs that meet US regulations.