>>2060269>I rather envy those systems that got to be built brand new from the ground up in the 21st century, like the Sydney metro. 21st century systems seem to avoid legacy problems, which makes sense.Oh yes, I'd say systems built from the 1970s onward have it easier than 'legacy' systems when it comes to buying new rolling stock and upgrading existing systems. But even those systems like Washington and Atlanta use DC powered trains and even newer systems will mostly be AC, so standards are still always changing.
>but I wonder how much of that is due to insufficient communication from MBTA to CRRC.I think the MBTA just presumed they were going to get the same forethought and practical design experience that western manufacturers had already learned and incorporated into their designs years ago; accordingly, a lot of items they took for granted popped up. Not to say they can't be rectified, but fixing problems with physical assets within a public sector framework usually moves at a glacial pace if it even gets rectified at all, and that's presuming CRRC is cooperative in the first place.
I think the cost overruns the MBTA had will haunt the CRRC's attempts to expand into the US. The trains ended up being built behind schedule for a much higher cost than originally planned and that kind of risk is a big strike against them. If CRRC had buckled down and really delivered a comparable product on time, other agencies would definitely consider their rolling stock for their future needs. However I also don't discount the power of corruption and outright ineptitude of transit agencies either.
