rbrome

I'd much rather see a station at Tompkins Square Park. This is our one chance to finally bring subway service to Alphabet City. Why isn't there more discussion of this idea? It should run down Avenue A, connecting with the L at the 1st Ave station. There are a few places (Stuyvesant Square, Stuyvesant Town, Houston St, among others) where you could put the necessary curves without too much trouble, I imagine.

FWIW, that article is over a year old.

Seriously? There's a subway "state of emergency", for which old trains are partly to blame, and now this?!

With an island platform, you also have to widen the approaches.

http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2017/05/a-complete-and-geographically-accurate-nyc-subway-track-map/

Apparently: https://youtu.be/i-OhoZBZE04?t=51m37s

If the cars aren't sharing a truck, then that's technically "open gangway" and not "articulated". But I think I know what you mean. They were worried that the ends might shift and/or bend too much on some curves to be connected. As I understand it, people have spotted trains that seem to be measuring this very issue. Apparently those tests were successful, because at the most recent MTA board meeting, they said they are now 100% confident that open-gangway trains can work on the NYC system.

First, let me apologize for possibly mixing up "Triplexes" (AKA "D-Types") with "C-Types". I hadn't heard the term "C-Type" before. C-Types were apparently open-gangway of sorts. Triplexes were articulated. As for why articulated can't work in NYC, I'd upload a sketch if I could figure out how to upload any images to this forum. It's much easier to explain visually. But I'll try: Curves require wider tunnels because part of the train moves away from the center of the track. On a traditional (two-truck) car, the difference is split; the center of the car shifts toward the inside of the curve, while the ends shifts toward the outside of the curve. With an articulated train, all of the shift is toward the inside of the curves. Therefore, given the same car length, the shift is much greater. The inside of each curve would require greater clearance. The Triplexes were only 45 feet long. So... technically, if the MTA decided to run 45-foot cars again — with more cars to keep the train length comparable — perhaps it could work. But I think that'd be a tough sell.

There's some interesting stuff in there, including requirements that the cars be compatible with wireless platform CCTV cameras (which could enable OPTO), provisions for platform doors, and this note about interior displays: "A minimum of 12 displays per car, 6 per side, shall be provided, which shall be at least 12 inches (305 mm) high and 46 inches (l ,168 mm) wide."

To the passenger, it was very similar. The old cars had more of a narrow metal box you walked through. It will be a wider passage using some some sort of flexible materials on the R211. (Although, unfortunately, it won't be as wide as on most cars overseas, from what I've heard.) In terms of the mechanical train design, there is actually a big difference between "articulated" and "open gangway". The Triplexes were truly "articulated", which means cars share trucks, which are located directly underneath the joint between cars. "Open gangway" technically means a more standard car design, where each car has its own two trucks. A truly articulated design, which shared trucks, could never work in today's NYCT system for a number of reasons, the primary one being clearances.

At the MTA board meeting, they did address this. Check out the YouTube video of the MTA board meeting that I linked to a few posts back. The speech was basically: "We really love and want open gangways. They're the future. But suppliers have told us that it will take extra time to develop those designs; standard cars can be delivered faster. New cars ASAP is our priority."

The Triplexes! You can walk through one at the Transit Museum.

Sorry, it's actually "up to 640" open-gangway cars. So I interpret that as a "minimum" option of 490 cars, and the maximum is 640.

I meant TEST track, obviously.

Reports from today's MTA meetings: https://twitter.com/danrivoli/status/856522249951735809 https://twitter.com/danrivoli/status/856524068866203648 And here is the video, starting at about 49:24: https://youtu.be/i-OhoZBZE04?t=49m24s In sum, changing the first batch from 435 cars to 535 cars. These are all closed-end except for one prototype train, because those can be delivered faster than open-gangway cars, and time is of the essence. The breakdown is 450 standard cars + 75 SIR cars + one (10-car) open-gangway prototype. Delivery starting in 2020. They're also confirming that the second part of the order will be 640 open-gangway cars, with delivery starting in 2023. Technically still an option, but it sounds very firm. Finally, they want to accelerate testing to get cars into service faster. This means a second text track and extra testing shifts.

Report from today's MTA meetings: https://twitter.com/danrivoli/status/856521839471992834 "70 cars by 2018, then 200+ next year"

With enough cameras in the right places, yes. That's exactly what most systems around the world do.

Nonsense. When the train is moving, the conductor is doing nothing. When the doors are open, the operator is doing nothing. There is no reason one person can't do the job. That's how most systems in the world operate, even the busiest ones. No one needs to lose their job. Phasing out conductors line by line as people retire is easy and sensible. Unions can and should ensure their workers are safe and paid fairly. But when they fight to keep unnecessary positions, seemingly just to pad their dues income, I'm sorry, that pisses me off.

It could technically be either LED or LCD. LED panels would be smarter, as they could be much brighter and possibly more reliable. It would also be far easier to get an LED grid in that size and shape. That type of digital signage is a commodity item these days. They come in all sizes, pixel densities, and brightness levels. Square LCD panels are a rare specialty item, and don't come in many sizes.

Update: that list of Trump's 50 top infrastructure projects is draft, but relatively official. The consulting group CG/LA Infrastructure confirmed that they put it together for the Trump transition team, and the National Governors Association confirmed that the Trump transition team sent it to them for feedback. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article128794374.html

Liberals have long championed more infrastructure spending, and the GOP has traditionally been opposed. Trump is breaking with "his party" on this. I am no fan of Trump, nor most of his nominees, nor the vast majority of his proposals. But that doesn't mean I can't applaud this infrastructure plan. My only criticism is that it doesn't go far enough. But if it's an increase in infrastructure spending, and it includes rail, that's a good thing.

Big news: Trump's infrastructure plan is a list of 50 priority projects, and #18 is Phases 2 and 3 of SAS. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article128492164.html Gateway is #1.

TBMs come in different sizes, of course. You can up the diameter and fit two or even four tracks in one tube. I don't understand why they don't just drill one giant tunnel for each new line and have a lower level they can use for future express tracks, etc.

Modern concrete viaducts are vastly quieter and less imposing than old steel elevated structures. Instead of a forrest of steel columns, you can have a single row of concrete columns in the center of the street. And a concrete bed + concrete sides can contain the sound and direct it upwards. Modern low-vibration trackbeds also help. With that said, any elevated structure is a no-go in any truly urban area these days, especially in NYC. People here saying it's just not going to happen are correct. You might build one in the outer parts of the outer boroughs (like where they built the JFK AirTrain), but otherwise, forget it, even with the improved new designs. Also, consider where the real costs are in projects like this. All of the talk about cost per mile makes its easy forget how bad of a metric that is. A continuous stretch of plain track is actually relatively cheap, whether underground or above. It's everything else that's expensive, like stations, launch boxes, ancillary structures, connections to other lines, etc. In the case of these elevated 2nd Ave ideas, it's the transition from underground to elevated that would be cost-prohibitive. Imagine building that portal anywhere near 2nd Ave. You'd have to raze several blocks just for the incline. We're not talking about huge distances for Phase 2. I could easily see it being cheaper to just continue underground than to build that crazy inline and portal.

Did anyone else make it to the open house yesterday at 96th St station? I went. It looks nice. There are plenty of photos all over social media. I did take two 360-degree panoramas. If anyone wants to check it out in VR using Google Cardboard, etc. let me know and I can try to share those. I didn't see much that was surprising, except for one next-gen "On the Go Travel Station", with large screens and two USB ports. It's like a cross between the current kiosks and the new LinkNYC ones on the sidewalks. Of course, they're only showing off 96th because it's the only station that's actually ready. After the open house I walked down to 86th and was shocked at how much work was going on, and how much seemed left to be done in just one week. They're cutting it very, very close with the Jan 1 opening date.