Jump to content

R211 Discussion


Nova RTS 9147

Recommended Posts

I'm just going to necropost since nobody been on this thread for a while so the R211s are going to kill off the remaining R32s along with SIR R44s and very few R46s I hope the (MTA) is going to be smart about and have them already equipped with CBTC

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 356
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm just going to necropost since nobody been on this thread for a while so the R211s are going to kill off the remaining R32s along with SIR R44s and very few R46s I hope the (MTA) is going to be smart about and have them already equipped with CBTC

 

They will come with CBTC. There's absolutely no reason why they wouldn't, as it is the standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has the design for the R211s been done yet? I think that if it has been, it is really stupid.

The order is for 940 cars. That is a huge bulk of the subway car fleet. If they made the trains have open gangways, they would be adding a whole car of additional space, without lengthening platforms.

Look at this article

 

 

When American transit agencies ignore the world’s move to open gangways
Yonah Freemark
time-gray.gif April 6th, 2015 | comments-gray.gif 65 Comments

Tube.png

» Virtually every new metro or subway train purchased by transit agencies over the past ten years has been built with open gangways—allowing passengers to walk from one end of the train to the other. Except in the United States.

New York City’s Second Avenue Subway project, which in its first phase will bring transit service north from 63rd to 96th Streets in Manhattan, will provide many benefits for commuters, offering three new stations and much easier access from the Upper East Side to western Midtown. It will reduce congestion on the Lexington Avenue Subway (4/5/6) by as much as 13 percent—a boon for commuters on the single-most-used transit corridor in the country. And it will respond to the simple fact that New York City is growing quickly; it has added half a million people since 2000 and continues to expand.

But the Second Avenue Subway project has its issues—notably the fact that at $4.5 billion, it’s outrageously expensive given its 1.7-mile length. Given these construction costs, few projects of this magnitude are possible. So what alternatives do congested, growing cities like New York have to increase the capacity of their transit systems?

All around the world, cities investing in their metros—a term I’ll use here to describe systems like New York’s Subway, the Bay Area BART, and others—are choosing to include open gangways on their trains.* It’s a simple concept to understand: Basically, people who board a train are able to walk from one end of the train to the other without opening doors or stepping outside of the train.

Open gangways provide a number of advantages: One, they expand capacity by allowing riders to use the space that typically sits empty between cars. This added capacity means that a metro line can carry more people with trains of the same length. Two, it allows passengers to redistribute themselves throughout the train while the vehicle is moving, reducing problems associated with many people boarding in the same doorway, such as slow exiting times and poorly distributed standees. Three, it increases safety at times of low ridership by increasing the number of “eyes” in the train. There are no obvious downsides.

Open gangways offer passengers the benefit of an improved, less congested, and safer environment as compared to trains with individual cars, the standard you’re used to if you live in the U.S. And it’s no surprise that transit agencies all around the world are choosing open-gangway trains for virtually every new vehicle purchase. This is documented in the following map, where green cities represent places where the metro systems run at least some trains that are all open-gangway. Those that are red do not. Click on the map for a higher-resolution, larger version.

I used the World Metro Database to help me create the map below and the table at the end of this article, but the Database is out of date and, in some places, incorrect and as a result, I collected the information shown here one agency at a time. The vast majority of metro systems are investing in trains with open gangways.

world-map-2.jpg

Yet American transit agencies have ignored the concept. New metro trains have been or are being purchased in Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, among others, but they all continue to be built with individualized cars, with no open gangways. It’s as if the agencies simply have not gotten the message. Only Honolulu, which has a new purpose-built metro currently under construction, will adopt this technology. Perhaps the other agencies will get the message once that system opens in two years.

I wrote about this issue six years ago, interviewing representatives from New York and Washington transit agencies to ask why their new trains did not feature open gangways. The responses were anemic: In Washington, a spokesman told me that the agency had “no plans to change it just to change it,” as if the concept of open gangways was frivolous. In New York, I was told that open gangways would only be possible if “we have a budget for Research and Design for an entirely new subway car.”

Others have suggested that the handicap in the U.S. is that transit agencies have specifications that make them incapable of handling such vehicles. Some say that U.S. agencies need trains with short cars, but the Paris region features a commuter train with open gangways with cars that are shorter than even the notoriously short Chicago L vehicles (43’5″ versus 48′). Some say that the maintenance expense would be too high to transition to these trains (since maintenance facilities might have to be altered to handle cars that are permanently affixed to one another), but many of the European agencies, with metro systems just as old as those in the U.S., have been able to accommodate the trains in their facilities, probably with the assistance of the train manufacturers. Some suggest that these trains would be more expensive, but evidence suggests otherwise.**

London, which has resisted adding open gangways to its “deep tube” fleet (it has such trains already on its “sub-surface” lines) because of issues with tight curves, has recently come around to the concept. In its future metro vehicle feasibility study, London found that open gangways were not only possible, allowing walk-through trains, but that they would increase train capacity by up to 10 percent, while reducing train weight and energy consumption.

When I analyzed this subject in 2009, I didn’t realize the degree to which the world standard had shifted. 75 percent of non-U.S. metros now offer open-gangway trains in their fleets, representing systems as varied as the brand-new networks in China to the ancient facilities in Berlin or Budapest. The last time Mexico City, Madrid, Oslo, or Amsterdam bought a train with individual, separated cars was back in the 1990s. Even our compatriots just across the border in Montreal and Torontohave come around. Every major train manufacturer offers trains with open gangways off the shelf. What is holding U.S. systems back?

gangway-availability.png

Back in 2013, New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority announced in its long-term capital needs assessment that “consideration should be given to” trains with open gangways. We’ve heard no more on this subject in the intervening time, despite some positive coverage of the news.

Yet the agency, like others around the country, has the opportunity to address some of its problems through the purchase of these trains. On the congested Lexington Avenue Line, which I discussed at the beginning, about 45.6 feet of each train’s 513.3-foot length is used up by the empty four feet between each car and the 10 feet reserved for the cabs at the center of the trains.

That means that, if the Lexington Avenue Line were transitioned to trains with open gangways, the line could gain almost an entire car-length of capacity on every train. That’s practically as much relief as the Second Avenue Subway will provide—at the cost of trains that would be purchased anyway.

congestion-relief.png

Open gangways are hardly the end-all be-all of transit operations. They won’t guarantee better service or necessarily attract more riders. And they may not be able to resolve some issues, such as the fact that Washington’s Metro runs trains of different car lengths on each line.

But the fact that every U.S. transit agency—with the exception of Honolulu’s—has failed to adopt to this trend and has no plans to change, raises important questions. Just how much are the management of these transit agencies isolating themselves from world best practice? This is hardly an isolated case. The fact that transit agencies around the world are transitioning infrequent suburban rail operations into frequent regional rail services seems to be lost on most U.S. commuter rail agencies.

If the problem is simply a lack of knowledge, that’s no excuse given the existence of this website or Wikipedia or countless other sources. If the problem is petrified management, stuck in an older technological age and unable to try something new, staffers at those agencies should be working to convince them of at least the possibility of change. If the problem is some sort of U.S.-specific regulatory problem enforced by the federal government, let’s work to adjust it.

I’m skeptical that this technology is just “not possible” on historic U.S. systems; it’s been adapted to too many places around the world in all sorts of conditions for that to be the case. But if the problem is that transit agency management simply doesn’t care enough to adjust their operational standards to respond to improvements that can be offered to passengers, well… it’s time to kick the bums out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any train with open gangways, a homeless person can make the entire train smell like garbage, instead of just his car. Also, with open gangways you have to treat the entire train as a set while with cars you can take individual cars out of service, and all that. I would prefer if the (MTA) stuck with actual train cars, and not articulated trains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any train with open gangways, a homeless person can make the entire train smell like garbage, instead of just his car. Also, with open gangways you have to treat the entire train as a set while with cars you can take individual cars out of service, and all that. I would prefer if the (MTA) stuck with actual train cars, and not articulated trains.

The MTA already has to take entire sets out of service if there's a problem with just one car. They've got the worst of both worlds by going with permanently linked sets of four or five completely closed cars. At least go with open gangways if you're going to do perma-linked sets. It doesn't have to be a full 8- or 10-car train with open gangways. You can have four or five cars with open gangways. That's what London and Paris have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MTA already has to take entire sets out of service if there's a problem with just one car. They've got the worst of both worlds by going with permanently linked sets of four or five completely closed cars. At least go with open gangways if you're going to do perma-linked sets. It doesn't have to be a full 8- or 10-car train with open gangways. You can have four or five cars with open gangways. That's what London and Paris have.

I personally would do the whole train. But in order for the cab to work for the C/O. There would be two cabs on either side of a passageway between the 5th and 6th cars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any train with open gangways, a homeless person can make the entire train smell like garbage, instead of just his car. Also, with open gangways you have to treat the entire train as a set while with cars you can take individual cars out of service, and all that. I would prefer if the (MTA) stuck with actual train cars, and not articulated trains.

This issue has been solved by many transit systems by arranging the air intakes for the HVAC in proper locations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any train with open gangways, a homeless person can make the entire train smell like garbage, instead of just his car. Also, with open gangways you have to treat the entire train as a set while with cars you can take individual cars out of service, and all that. I would prefer if the (MTA) stuck with actual train cars, and not articulated trains.

You can still keep the train separated into two parts. Also, open gangways does not equal articulated. In fact, most systems do not use articulated trains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good article. I'm all for open gangways. I'd say keep the trains in 300' sections, to keep the full-width cabs, though. I like this idea because spacing for passengers during SRO conditions would be even; allowing for more opportunities to board, no matter where you're standing on the platform. Also, I'd be able to look for a seat in a larger area, instead of just one car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MTA already has to take entire sets out of service if there's a problem with just one car. They've got the worst of both worlds by going with permanently linked sets of four or five completely closed cars. At least go with open gangways if you're going to do perma-linked sets. It doesn't have to be a full 8- or 10-car train with open gangways. You can have four or five cars with open gangways. That's what London and Paris have.

Not too sure about Paris, but London, the new open gangway trains are 7 and 8 cars long... I think it's easier to take a car/train out of service however on the London Underground as its not 24 hours yet..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Major R211 Updates.

 

As of today, the R211 project is now about 9-10 months behind schedule. The MTA has pushed the project back a bit to evaluate more design and technical issues with the cars that will definitely be headed out to Staten Island. The new 60-foot cars will feature the latest technology, but will have significant commonality with the R143/160/179 fleets. This has now been decided as the MTA could swap train sets and /or run the new equipment parallel to that of the new. This is the major reason all new cars for the forseeable future will be 60 feet in length.

 

The MTA has requested a contact extension with the company that is currently providing design and technical consulting to prepare MTA for pre-award for the new cars. Again, this delay has been caused by the addition of SIR to the overall contract. This will also include support needed for the full size mock-up the MTA will request before the test train set is built.

 

The new timetable calls for final R211 design freeze for early to mid 2017. At that time MTA will prepare an RFP for the new cars. This schedule push back will also allow MTA to evaluate Bombardier and where they stand with the R179 order, as the R211 cars will be very similar.

Are the cars for Staten Island definitely part of the R211 order? Are there any sources online concerning the order? I am trying to find a source for wikipedia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The R211 is supposed to replace ALL R46s hence the 940-Car number. The raise in number would be for the R32s that are not replaced by the R179s.

They are supposed to replace all the R46s? I thought the some of the R46s retirement date was pushed back due to them killing of all of the 222 R32s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ばかな!2030? That would put their retirement age to...54 years of age. Can they even survive that long? If there aren't stainless steel on the inside as well, I'm not sure. When did that aspect of the plan change? The last thing I heard was that the current plans were for 940 R211s to replace the 752 R46s. Growth cars for a few services would be included. With the number 1000 popping up, I'm thinking that's for the last of the R32s. Then there are potential option orders, if there can be financially. Remember, a good chunk of R32s are dying with the R179 order. 300 R179s were originally to replace the 222 R32s and 50 R42s. Wait. Let me re-math this.

 

40 cars in 5-Car sets for SAS expansion. Not replacing anything. That still leaves 260 R179s.

 

The 50 R42s are definitely going so that leaves 210 179s.

 

Let's just say, hypothetically, they were to keep the more than the 12 leftover R32s, I'd see that number raised to a probable...48 max? I'd see them running how the R42s are now. Mostly in reserve for rush hours. 

 

This is hypothetical, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IINM No R32s are being retired by the R179s. Some are being retained for temporary service expansions, so those shouldn't need replacing. Some are not. Those will need replacing. 

R46s are entirely stainless from a structural perspective. Nothing structural should stop them from lasting 54 years. They won't last that long due to the R211s. (but you could have said the same thing about the R32s 10 years ago...)

Also, The SI R44s must be retired. That is probably more urgent than the retirement of the R32s, and certainly more urgent than the retirement of the R46s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ME-1 incident?

Not really an incident, but after the SIRT closed all its lines except the mainline we see today, there were some extra cars, so the cars were transfered to the TA. Some years later, a fire at the Clifton shop took down seven cars atop of 13 other cars lost in 2 previous fires, plus 2 other scrapped cars. This make SI short of cars, with 48 total. This was JUST ENOUGH cars to run on the mainline.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.