Could the IND run 11-car trains nowadays?

[mark1447]

They actually did run a test with 11 cars on the line, however it failed. Some platform lengths are not wide enough to handle 11 cars. Plus, the line runs on former BMT trackage in Brooklyn, most if not all of those stations could only fit 10 car trains.

 

Well what about running a 51ft IRT based car.[if its 51ft] Will that work too?

[LRG]

Well what about running a 51ft IRT based car.[if its 51ft] Will that work too?

 

You're forgetting the gap that's the problem with IRT cars and B Division platforms. There's a foot-wide (approx.) gap.

[Y2Julio]

You're forgetting the gap that's the problem with IRT cars and B Division platforms. There's a foot-wide (approx.) gap.

 

and the tripcocks are on opposite ends on Div A rolling stock.

[Tbirdbassist]

Singles increase operating weight and require each car to have its own components rather than share them. The combination of those things 1) makes car orders more expensive 2) increases wear on track due to the heavier operating weight 3) increases maintenance costs and the time needed to service cars. For now it's safe to say we won't ever see singles ordered for the subway again (unless you're referring to work locomotives and cars for the ) however the jury is still out on weather 4 and 5 car sets are more efficient than married pairs as far as I'm concerned.

 

 

 

Um... simple physics says that adding a car to either end of the train will make the train weigh more by one train car. However, since cars are connected end to end, no significant... if any at all... wear will be added to what is already happening.

 

 

There is some big long equation that could be written out, but it's really not that big of a deal.

[SubwayGuy]

Um... simple physics says that adding a car to either end of the train will make the train weigh more by one train car. However, since cars are connected end to end, no significant... if any at all... wear will be added to what is already happening.

 

 

There is some big long equation that could be written out, but it's really not that big of a deal.

 

That's not what I was talking about at all. My post was referring to singles vs. married pairs or semi permanent 4/5 car sets. If you set up cars as singles, each car needs to have its own equipment that is currently shared on pairs/sets. That adds weight to each individual car in the train, which increases wear.

 

And also, while it was not the point of my post, adding an 11th car to trains ALSO adds more wear to track...10% more in fact, because it is 4 more wheels that need to pass over a given point per train, if it's on a curve, then that is 4 extra wheels that are grinding up against the guard rail and putting pressure on the track.

[Grand Concourse]

My opinion: leave the IND at 600' train lengths.

If anything could use a few extra cars it's the IRT. Add two more cars and make the trains 612', or order 45' single cars and insert them into existing 5-car sets and make them 600' trains.

[LTA1992]

That's not what I was talking about at all. My post was referring to singles vs. married pairs or semi permanent 4/5 car sets. If you set up cars as singles, each car needs to have its own equipment that is currently shared on pairs/sets. That adds weight to each individual car in the train, which increases wear.

 

And also, while it was not the point of my post, adding an 11th car to trains ALSO adds more wear to track...10% more in fact, because it is 4 more wheels that need to pass over a given point per train, if it's on a curve, then that is 4 extra wheels that are grinding up against the guard rail and putting pressure on the track.

 

But what I was talking about was to have the first or last car as a single with cabs at both ends. And whoever used the R62/A as a reason for not having singles, don't do that ever again since an A divisions car weight is not a problem. Singles or not. It is still in the range of normal A division car weights. The Redbirds were not that much lighter. Only by about 1,000-3,000lbs. The lightest being the R36 at around little more than 69,000lbs. The weights go up from there to the R62/As at around 73,000lbs. You were comparing THAT to a 75ft single R68/A at little more than 93,000lbs. An R160 is little more than 80,000lbs so one R160 Single would be at around 81,000-83,000lbs.

[SubwayGuy]

Whatever I've given the reasons it wont happen...if people dont listen and just dismiss the reasons I don't need to go back and forth justifying. I am secure in the facts I've posted and there is nothing more to say. Operating weight of each car, and the train as a whole, is a concern to the MTA in both divisions and is considered when looking at possible solution for overcrowding

 

Also an "average" R160 weight 85,000 pounds, NOT 80,000, yes that matters, and singles will weigh more because there is no sharing of equipment. Try 88,000 pounds or so for a single, pushing 90,000 pounds for a 60 foot car. That is extremely heavy and will tremendously increase wear on track whether people here choose to believe it or not.

[BroadwayBuffer]

My opinion: leave the IND at 600' train lengths.

If anything could use a few extra cars it's the IRT. Add two more cars and make the trains 612', or order 45' single cars and insert them into existing 5-car sets and make them 600' trains.

 

Of course, anything to increase capacity in the IRT would be good, but unfortunately there's no way they can extend the vast majority of IRT stations anymore than they already have.

[INDman]

Of course, anything to increase capacity in the IRT would be good, but unfortunately there's no way they can extend the vast majority of IRT stations anymore than they already have.

 

Thats what you get for building a toy train lay-out to surve a major city.

[Grand Concourse]

Of course, anything to increase capacity in the IRT would be good, but unfortunately there's no way they can extend the vast majority of IRT stations anymore than they already have.

 

True, I wished that they did pursue the idea of running 60' cars. Damn Union Sq station. That's pretty much the main obstacle along with the Steinway Tubes for A division cars being longer than 51'.

[LRG]

Thats what you get for building a toy train lay-out to surve a major city.

 

Lmao...personally I wouldn't really call the A division a "toy-train layout", but the standards were different at that time for those who had built the line. I do wonder what influenced the IRT to make their cars narrower than normal standards though.

 

True, I wished that they did pursue the idea of running 60' cars. Damn Union Sq station. That's pretty much the main obstacle along with the Steinway Tubes for A division cars being longer than 51'.

From what I heard, the car lengths were supposed to be 61' or 63', somewhere along that range. But think of the same problem that 75' cars have: tighter curves to go around, less doors for increased dwell time, and so on. I'm glad this plan didn't fall through, although I do wonder how a four-door IRT car would play out.

[SubwayGuy]

Lmao...personally I wouldn't really call the A division a "toy-train layout"

 

Its an inside joke between myself, Buffer, and Matted

[INDman]

I do wonder what influenced the IRT to make their cars narrower than normal standards though.

 

 

.

 

August Belmont was afraid that they IRT would be a flop but anted it to be very hard for another railroad to buy him out (he thought of himself as a railroad tycoon).

[SubwayGuy]

August Belmont was afraid that they IRT would be a flop but anted it to be very hard for another railroad to buy him out (he thought of himself as a railroad tycoon).

 

Yup no freight on the subways if the IRT wasn't a success...that was his view...

[LTA1992]

Also an "average" R160 weight 85,000 pounds, NOT 80,000, yes that matters, and singles will weigh more because there is no sharing of equipment. Try 88,000 pounds or so for a single, pushing 90,000 pounds for a 60 foot car. That is extremely heavy and will tremendously increase wear on track whether people here choose to believe it or not.

 

First off, It was a guess on weight. Secondly, the wastes more money on empty space on the rails than what they pay because of car weight wearing down the tracks quicker. So I don't think an R160Single would be a problem.

[INDman]

First off, It was a guess on weight. Secondly, the wastes more money on empty space on the rails than what they pay because of car weight wearing down the tracks quicker. So I don't think an R160Single would be a problem.

 

Proof?

[SubwayGuy]

First off, It was a guess on weight. Secondly, the wastes more money on empty space on the rails than what they pay because of car weight wearing down the tracks quicker. So I don't think an R160Single would be a problem.

 

Well excuse me all to hell. I post facts and actual information, and you're telling me that because you think the MTA wastes money paying rent on the air above the rails that despite anything I've posted, the ever knowing and all knowledgeable you thinks nothing of spending millions of dollars during a recession in shops and additional parts to refit certain R160's as singles so that an 11 car train can be run when Matted has shown that station lengths don't even permit an 11 car train to stop at all stations and have the doors open on the platform.

[Grand Concourse]

August Belmont was afraid that they IRT would be a flop but anted it to be very hard for another railroad to buy him out (he thought of himself as a railroad tycoon).

 

Heh, how 'narrow' minded of him

But seriously, what a shame though. The system would've been much better if everything was 10' wide.

I still wished Union Sq was rebuilt so that it could handle a car longer than 51' and did not need platform gap fillers.