60' vs 67' cars

[Paul]

A question I've had, which I haven't seen any answer to is:

 

I understand the R 110Bs were 67 feet long, and the intention was that new cars for the Southern Division would be that length. But when the car orders came, they were back to 60 feet. What happened? I thought 67 ft made sense!

 

Thanks for the edification!

[R44 5278]

I think that the R110B was a failed chance to revive the BMT Standards' standards. Here's the situation, the point is to have the least amount of maintenance needed in each train. Notice that all the trainsets R44 and forward have either one consist or two consist coupled together. Even with the new 60 ft NTTs, you don't find pairs anymore b/c one half breaking down means the other breaking down. Think of the A cars as the locomotives, while B cars are the trailers. The problems with the R110Bs are that each A car is performing horrible and that there are three consists (3 cars) in each full trainset. Another "problem" is the number of doors on each side in that Queens Blvd was having idling problems with the R46s. So even though there are more cars altogether, the 60 ft trains solved everything by providing more doors, increasing B cars, and subsequently somewhat reducing maintenance. Not to mention, there are list of features carried over to the R160 such as the Automated Announcements and Emergency Calling System.

[Eric B]

The intention was that they could run anywhere, including the Eastern Div. But by the time they came, one or two factors led to them being banned from there, nevertheless. By the time the NTT program began, the longer-than-60-ft concept had been abandoned in favor of cars that could run anywhere, and end doors could be left open.

But now the thinking changed again (especially after it was decided to ban passing through cars altogether, and the Eastern Div. is now set with a full fleet of dedicated cars).

[LRG]

The intention was that they could run anywhere, including the Eastern Div. But by the time they came, one or two factors led to them being banned from there, nevertheless. By the time the NTT program began, the longer-than-60-ft concept had been abandoned in favor of cars that could run anywhere, and end doors could be left open.

But now the thinking changed again (especially after it was decided to ban passing through cars altogether, and the Eastern Div. is now set with a full fleet of dedicated cars).

 

I really hope they don't go back to 75' cars, even if the doors per side have 5 instead of 4. That's just my say to be honest, although I still wonder what the R179s will look like. But its time they make the cars look different from one another because seeing the same identical cars gets annoying, which was unique about the old cars because they always looked so different (i.e. the Slants).

[R421969]

I really hope they don't go back to 75' cars, even if the doors per side have 5 instead of 4. That's just my say to be honest, although I still wonder what the R179s will look like. But its time they make the cars look different from one another because seeing the same identical cars gets annoying, which was unique about the old cars because they always looked so different (i.e. the Slants).

 

I guess since the pattern of NTTs is showing that MTA wants all cars to basically look alike, the R179s might be very similar to the R160s. I would only expect stainless steel with no color anyway, for the reason that it would cost less to maintain and give certain attention just on paint color when solid stainless steel would only need ot be cleaned, not repainted and then cleaned

[LRG]

I guess since the pattern of NTTs is showing that MTA wants all cars to basically look alike, the R179s might be very similar to the R160s. I would only expect stainless steel with no color anyway, for the reason that it would cost less to maintain and give certain attention just on paint color when solid stainless steel would only need ot be cleaned, not repainted and then cleaned

 

BOO! The MTA needs some variety in their fleet, like really.

[SubwayGuy]

BOO! The MTA needs some variety in their fleet, like really.

 

Amazingly, people said the same thing back when SMEE cars were new...

 

Equipment just comes and goes...

 

Someday the buffs will all be upset when the new techs go away...

[R44 5278]

BOO! The MTA needs some variety in their fleet, like really.

 

I think ease of operation is a priority over variety.

[LRG]

I think ease of operation is a priority over variety.

 

Yeah, that's true.

[Maserati7200]

Amazingly, people said the same thing back when SMEE cars were new...

 

Equipment just comes and goes...

 

Someday the buffs will all be upset when the new techs go away...

 

Yeah... in the 1940's you had Standards, Triplexes, the experimental units, R1's, R4's, R6's, R7's, R9's, Lo-V's, BU El/open gate cars, rebuilt BRT el cars, Hi-V's and composite cars. Now THAT was variety. And in the 50's & 60's you had most of that plus the brand new SMEE's.

[Paul]

Thanks.

 

But I get the impression from the responses here, surprising to me, that TA decisionmaking on this important issue seems to be many parts seat-of the-pants, and not so much hard analysis of the operating and financial benefits, costs, and tradeoffs. I know they used to do things the former way, but I thought they brought more formality and serious analysis to it beginning with the David Gunn administration in the 1980's. But perhaps they have, and we just don't know about it.