R211 Discussion

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Yeah, based on one throwaway line in the twenty-year needs assessment. (Document source)

 

 

This literally shows no more level of commitment, development, or desire than the R211 RFP. To me, it's not a news story, but whatever. 

Wouldn't five doors per side be better at balancing loading and unloading times. It would be the same number of doors per train side as the 60-foot cars (40).

[bobtehpanda]

Wouldn't five doors per side be better at balancing loading and unloading times. It would be the same number of doors per train side as the 60-foot cars (40).

 

It would be, but the MTA has not stated how many doors it wants for its trains, so there's no incentive to change it.

[Union Tpke]

In the MTA's twenty year assesment it said there would be fleet growth in 2015–2019 as well as other years. It said the E, L, G, and N would likely get more cars. Which of these routes do you think needs more cars immidiatly. I would think the .

 

For a 75 Foot car I would think it makes sense to have 5 doors per side.

[bobtehpanda]

 

In the MTA's twenty year assesment it said there would be fleet growth in 2015–2019 as well as other years. It said the E, L, G, and N would likely get more cars. Which of these routes do you think needs more cars immidiatly. I would think the .

 

For a 75 Foot car I would think it makes sense to have 5 doors per side.

 

 

Well, unless the is having platforms extended, the is getting new terminals, or the is getting its own tunnel under the East River, there likely won't be any room to get new cars.

 

Aren't these all NTT already?

[Union Tpke]

The cars for the would be 60 feet, the extra trains could operate from 179 St and maybe a few to 2 Av, and the can have more service to replace the when it goes up 2 Av to 96 St, or those cars can be for a

[Guest Lance]

Since it's part of the new 20 Year Assessment, they could be including the implementation of CBTC, especially on Queens Blvd, as a way of increasing service to those lines.

[AndrewJC]

It would be, but the MTA has not stated how many doors it wants for its trains, so there's no incentive to change it.

 

Incentive for whom? I'd be very surprised if the design process for the R211's does not include an evaluation of the feasibility and cost of 75 foot cars with five doors.

 

Well, unless the is having platforms extended, the is getting new terminals, or the is getting its own tunnel under the East River, there likely won't be any room to get new cars.

 

Aren't these all NTT already?

 

New cars meaning more trains, not longer trains.

[Gong Gahou]

New cars meaning more trains, not longer trains.

I believe that's what bobtehpanda had in mind. Platforms on the L currently hold 8-car trains, so extending them would make room for a few more cars - two for each trainset that runs on the L. Of course, the new cars would have to be compatible with the R143s as well as the CBTC tech that's used on the L.

[bobtehpanda]

Incentive for whom? I'd be very surprised if the design process for the R211's does not include an evaluation of the feasibility and cost of 75 foot cars with five doors.

 

 

New cars meaning more trains, not longer trains.

 

I was under the impression that all of these lines are already at capacity TPH wise, particularly the and . Even with CBTC, is there room at 8th Av or WTC to turn all those trains?

[AndrewJC]

I was under the impression that all of these lines are already at capacity TPH wise, particularly the and . Even with CBTC, is there room at 8th Av or WTC to turn all those trains?

 

The L only runs 19 tph - the signal system and terminals can handle up to 26 tph.

 

I don't think WTC is maxed out at 15 tph. If it is, run the extra trains to Brooklyn (there's plenty of spare capacity through Cranberry southbound in the morning and northbound in the afternoon).

[T to Dyre Avenue]

It's not maxed out now. But given how slowly trains enter and leave WTC, if you run more E's into WTC, it may max out quickly. The extra trains may have to run into Brooklyn.

 

How many extra trains can they potentially run on Queens Blvd with a new CBTC signal system?

[Guest Lance]

That's a loaded question right there. Even with CBTC on Queens Blvd, 6th and 8th Avenues will still be on the older signal system, so that will definitely play a part in how many trains can be run on either line. Then there's terminal capacity. We all know Jamaica Center can't handle much more than it already deals with right now without CBTC. More trains would have to be sent to 179 St or short turn at Forest Hills if the plan is to run more service to the WTC.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I thought it might be...and just realized that yes, 6th and 8th Avenues will still be on the old signal system for the time being so that does still limit the number of and trains that can be run. 

[RollOver]

The and are highly likely to continue running every 4-6 minutes during rush hours, 6-8 minutes on middays and evenings and 10 minutes on weekends. Even with CBTC. You would always see a QBL express train every 2-3 minutes during rush hours.

[AndrewJC]

That's a loaded question right there. Even with CBTC on Queens Blvd, 6th and 8th Avenues will still be on the older signal system, so that will definitely play a part in how many trains can be run on either line. Then there's terminal capacity. We all know Jamaica Center can't handle much more than it already deals with right now without CBTC. More trains would have to be sent to 179 St or short turn at Forest Hills if the plan is to run more service to the WTC.

 

There is plenty of spare capacity on the 8th Avenue local and through Cranberry (southbound in the morning and northbound in the afternoon).

 

Nothing wrong with sending the additional E's to 179th.

[StevenFrancis]

I believe that's what bobtehpanda had in mind. Platforms on the L currently hold 8-car trains, so extending them would make room for a few more cars - two for each trainset that runs on the L. Of course, the new cars would have to be compatible with the R143s as well as the CBTC tech that's used on the L.

But do we forget how the line was designed? In Manhattan, each station is only 2 blocks apart, so 600 foot platforms would not be feasible and would decrease ridership in some of them namely either 1st or 3rd Avenues, if one of those were to be extended, eventually one would close

[LTA1992]

You seem to forget that blocks in Manhattan are longer than average. so it could work. And do you REALLY think that with the ridership the has, they'll close a station?

[jolusoji]

any news?

[Fan Railer]

any news?

If there was, it would be here...

[mine248]

No. When the 211 arrives, the R46s will go to SIR.

The is not doing that. The R44SIR are retireing in 2019, with the R46.

[RollOver]

Please don't necropost, mine248. Thank you.

[East New York]

The TA is in the evaluation process of new technology for the R211. The plans to retrofit R46's and send them to SIR is on hold as the MTA may now in fact order new trains for SIR. It is still undecided if the cars will be 60 or 75 footers. However, signs are pointing to 60 footers as the 75 foot era may be coming to an end.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I sure hope not. I prefer the 75-foot length. Sure, the end doors of each car have to be locked, but each 8-car train of 75-footers has fewer moving parts and electronics than each 10-car train of 60-footers. And other transit agencies run subway cars smaller than 75 feet with all of the end doors of each car locked. Sure, 75-foot cars can't be used on the Eastern Division and trains, but then again, 10-car trains of 60-footers (in two 5-car sets) can't be used on those lines either. To me, the biggest reason to stay with a 60-foot length would be the number of side doors, but if it's possible to do five side doors per side on each 75-foot car (instead of just four like the R44, 46 and 68 cars), then I don't see why they shouldn't order R211 cars as 75-footers.

 

But I guess we'll just have to wait and see...

[Culver]

The TA is in the evaluation process of new technology for the R211. The plans to retrofit R46's and send them to SIR is on hold as the MTA may now in fact order new trains for SIR. It is still undecided if the cars will be 60 or 75 footers. However, signs are pointing to 60 footers as the 75 foot era may be coming to an end.

 

When you say new technology, what does that mean by the definition? Are we talking first-to-market electrocaloric or magnetocaloric air conditioning? Laser headlights like what Audi and BMW are starting to use? OLED or doped-FIPEL interior lights? OLED display signs? Gearless one-piece axle motor trucks? Carbon composite body? I feel like when I hear and new technology that usually means "things other agencies have used for 10+ years."

[bobtehpanda]

When you say new technology, what does that mean by the definition? Are we talking first-to-market electrocaloric or magnetocaloric air conditioning? Laser headlights like what Audi and BMW are starting to use? OLED or doped-FIPEL interior lights? OLED display signs? Gearless one-piece axle motor trucks? Carbon composite body? I feel like when I hear and new technology that usually means "things other agencies have used for 10+ years."

 

Things that work well in other places tend to break down in this system. See: the first implementation of ATO on the 42nd St Shuttle, the R44 and R46, the CBTC installation on the when it first came out.

 

They're supposedly going lighter; the last time MTA did that, didn't they end up with cracked trucks or something like that?