LTA1992 Posted May 28, 2015 Share #301 Posted May 28, 2015 How, in any way, would less trucks equal more noise? At any rate, open gangways does not necessarily mean Articulated. Open Gangways are needed if the still wants to continue with everything they can before moving towards large expansion. Open gangways takes normally unused space and makes it usable, upping capacity by about 10 percent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted May 28, 2015 Share #302 Posted May 28, 2015 While I strongly support open gangways and would love to see them here, 10% is a large overestimation of how much of a capacity increase they would provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted May 28, 2015 Share #303 Posted May 28, 2015 Open Gangways should include the possibility to get between the first 5 cars to the last 5. This would mean that there would be two cabs in the front of the 1st and 6th cars with a passage between sets in between. This would bring back the RFW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted May 28, 2015 Share #304 Posted May 28, 2015 While I strongly support open gangways and would love to see them here, 10% is a large overestimation of how much of a capacity increase they would provide. Other systems have already done it. That is where the 10 percent comes from. Maybe 8-9 percent when taking account it would be two sets connected together. By the way, those percentages are per train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted May 29, 2015 Share #305 Posted May 29, 2015 On a line built perfectly straight (Rockaway Beach rehab?), go ahead and use articulated cars. On nearly every other line, with screeching curves, please spare us the extra noise. We've actually had articulated cars before. They're not new by any means. Screeching noises are more of an issue with curve radii, and not actually with the cars themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted May 29, 2015 Share #306 Posted May 29, 2015 On a line built perfectly straight (Rockaway Beach rehab?), go ahead and use articulated cars. On nearly every other line, with screeching curves, please spare us the extra noise. What you hear is a function of the curve radii, superelevation, lubrication, and noise dampening features within the train. If everything else were held constant, the logical place to attack the noise problem is by improving the noise dampening feature. I imagine that most of the train would have to have hollow floors, walls, and doors filled with a sound-absorbing gel for this to work effectively as solid metal is a great conductor of sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeesPwnMets Posted May 29, 2015 Share #307 Posted May 29, 2015 Now imagine one homeless person stinking up an entire half of a train..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted May 29, 2015 Share #308 Posted May 29, 2015 That should not stop progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparen of Iria Posted May 29, 2015 Share #309 Posted May 29, 2015 Yeah, I understand the curve radii. However, I'm under the impression that the section between cars lets in a hell lot of noise, and from my experiences in Lisbon, the soundproofing in that section is often not as secure, and noise leaks into the rest of the train, especially on sharp curves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted May 29, 2015 Share #310 Posted May 29, 2015 Yeah, I understand the curve radii. However, I'm under the impression that the section between cars lets in a hell lot of noise, and from my experiences in Lisbon, the soundproofing in that section is often not as secure, and noise leaks into the rest of the train, especially on sharp curves. How long have the trains you used been in service? That could be a factor. Nevertheless, it should not stop a measure that can increase capacity. Even if it is a small amount, the number adds up and could be quite significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted May 30, 2015 Share #311 Posted May 30, 2015 Yeah, I understand the curve radii. However, I'm under the impression that the section between cars lets in a hell lot of noise, and from my experiences in Lisbon, the soundproofing in that section is often not as secure, and noise leaks into the rest of the train, especially on sharp curves. That's a matter of construction. In my experiences in Hong Kong the articulated section is not really noticeably noisier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted May 30, 2015 Share #312 Posted May 30, 2015 From my recent trip to HK: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gong Gahou Posted May 30, 2015 Share #313 Posted May 30, 2015 Using 75 foot cars along with open gangways would be great as it adds a bit more space for passengers in an entire train (think the number of areas in-between cars that passengers can't ride on) along with the open gangway idea. Coupled with the cost savings, it looks even better. Unfortunaly, the curve radius of some places in the system make the use of such cars to be not so appealing. So it's decided that 60 is the way to go. I'm fine either way. On a side note: I'll miss the bevels seen on the bonnets of the 75-footers. Although they can be applied to 60-footers, they will merely be aesthetics on those cars while they served a purpose on the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted May 30, 2015 Share #314 Posted May 30, 2015 60 has to be the way to go. This system is not built for 75 foot cars so the swing on curves and switches make that dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gong Gahou Posted May 30, 2015 Share #315 Posted May 30, 2015 Oh yeah, absolutely. I know from observation. I just realized I forgot to mention how dangerous it was. And thanks for bringing it up - it didn't really occur to me that this indicates how the system is not built for such cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted May 30, 2015 Share #316 Posted May 30, 2015 Yeah, the most that the Dual Contract portions of the system could handle (without tunnel modifications like what were done to prepare for the 75 foot cars) is 67 feet. Those could even serve the eastern division as well without issue. The swinging problem would still be there though so that would be the only drawback, though I'm assuming not as much as on the 75 footers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gong Gahou Posted May 30, 2015 Share #317 Posted May 30, 2015 It seems to me that they are slightly less severe and yet still dangerous, since their trucks are located 10 feet away from the anticlimbers/couplers. That's only 4 inches shorter compared to the distance on the 75-footers. By comparison, current cars on the A division are 7 feet 6 inches, and 7 feet 10 inches for the 60-foot cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted May 31, 2015 Share #318 Posted May 31, 2015 I cannot wait for the entire B Division to be 100% 60 footers in the coming years. It will help lower boarding and dwelling times on the during rush hours and the summer weekend beach crowds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted June 1, 2015 Share #319 Posted June 1, 2015 I cannot wait for the entire B Division to be 100% 60 footers in the coming years. It will help lower boarding and dwelling times on the during rush hours and the summer weekend beach crowds. Don't expect it for at least 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted June 1, 2015 Share #320 Posted June 1, 2015 I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3838 Posted June 2, 2015 Share #321 Posted June 2, 2015 I wouldn't be surprised if Jamaica got this whole order and bumped the R160's to the and concourse bumped the R68's to the , but of course this isn't set in stone but Jamaica always got new equipment from 1966-76 R38,40,(some R42's),44/46's, with the exception of the R68/A and R143's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3216068E Posted June 2, 2015 Share #322 Posted June 2, 2015 Question I have heard that the R211s will be 75 ft versions of the R179s is that true? I'm pretty it's not true I thought the wasn't going to purchase anymore 75 footers because of the problem they have o the BMT eastern division they want to play safe by only purchasing 60 footers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted June 2, 2015 Share #323 Posted June 2, 2015 The R211 will be 60 feet long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted June 3, 2015 Share #324 Posted June 3, 2015 I wouldn't be surprised if Jamaica got this whole order and bumped the R160's to the and concourse bumped the R68's to the , but of course this isn't set in stone but Jamaica always got new equipment from 1966-76 R38,40,(some R42's),44/46's, with the exception of the R68/A and R143's I don't think they'd put the hippos on the A simply because it'd be a PITA to constantly change those signs with so little recovery time at 207 St. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted June 3, 2015 Share #325 Posted June 3, 2015 I don't think they'd put the hippos on the A simply because it'd be a PITA to constantly change those signs with so little recovery time at 207 St. I don't see the point in 9-10 trains per hour (west of Rockaway Blvd) during the off-peak and this is me talking from experience as a rider who has been taking the for 5 years in a row now, but we'll see what the has to say about the full-line reviews when they release them. Meanwhile, back to the title of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.