Eric B Posted July 23, 2014 Share #151 Posted July 23, 2014 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... One factor in that might be the open gangway idea. If it can work at all, I don't think it could work with 75ft, so inasmuch as they are looking into that, it would be a reason to stick with 60ft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted July 23, 2014 Share #152 Posted July 23, 2014 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? Lighter doesn't have to be weaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted July 23, 2014 Share #153 Posted July 23, 2014 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... If need be, they actually can... ...the NTT trains are made in a way that, if the situation calls for it, you can break up a set and take out (or add) cars to make service. You can take a 10 car set to ENY and take out 2 B cars to make an 8 car train, or do it at whatever yard it came from and send out the new 8 car set. Drawback is that now you'll have incomplete sets lying around that can't be used until they are back to normal. They did this before years back on the one night with an 11 car train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted July 23, 2014 Share #154 Posted July 23, 2014 They did this before years back on the one night with an 11 car train. What was the reason for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJC Posted July 23, 2014 Share #155 Posted July 23, 2014 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. Funny, nobody believed me when I said that in 2012 and 2013. 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. Or if five doors per side isn't feasible, the cars could be assigned to lines where dwells aren't as critical as they are on the Queens Blvd. express. And remember that the current 75 foot cars have an interior layout that promotes standing in the doorways - a four door 75 foot design with wide offset doors and longitudinal seating might work just as well as, or even better than, the current R160 layout. There are still reasons to favor 60 foot cars. There would possibly be savings on common components with the R143 and R160, if the layout is otherwise similar. Standardizing on a door placement would make platform doors easier to implement, if it's ever decided to implement them. As Eric B points out, open gangways might be feasible on 60 foot cars but almost certainly aren't on 75 foot cars. An R211 order of 60 foot cars could include 480 foot trains, while obviously an order of 75 foot cars couldn't. Distributing the weight of a train over 20 trucks rather than 16 causes less damage to the rails (even if the train as a whole is heavier, the weight per truck would be lower). But the very significantly lower capital cost of a fleet of 75 foot cars can't be ignored. This isn't a simple question - there are real tradeoffs. Maybe that's why the the debate's been going on for at least a decade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted July 23, 2014 Share #156 Posted July 23, 2014 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." I don't know. I'm not a train guy. All I do is post what MTA reports. However, I'm pretty sure none of what you are talking about will ever end up on any MTA trains this side of the decade. Let's be realistic now...... Funny, nobody believed me when I said that in 2012 and 2013. It's not that no one believed you, as I said a couple years ago. The fact remained that it was on the MTA books month after month as part of the Capital Plan. I post what MTA reports, whether or not they change plans has nothing to do with what was originally in black and white signed by MTA personnel. As I agreed with you then, I though it was stupid even though it would save MTA a few hundred million dollars in the short term, it didn't address any long term needs at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted July 23, 2014 Share #157 Posted July 23, 2014 http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/121029_1400_CPOC.pdf http://web.mta.info/capitaldashboard/CPDHome.html http://web.mta.info/mta/capital/pdf/TYN2015-2034.pdf So if the construction of the R179s end in 2017 (and delivery end in 2019), but they say they must replace the R46 cars by 2019... I will have to say they may have to roll out the R211s as soon as the R179 order is complete and wish upon a star all this ties in.... The way I look at this, its impossible to keep up a scedule into investments into new NTTs at this unrealistic rate, because we know that Bombardier will have to work out bugs on the R179's which can delay any more incoming purchases of new B division R211 cars. Look at Kawasaki's current struggle with the R188's. They state that the washout of the test tracks on the Rockaways as the delay on the R188's -but- we did have some serious mechanical problems with the first few R188 sets to begin with.... this can happen with the R179s even though the first test train is eventually delivered before the end of this year. This is why I have a feeling the R46 retrofit has to go through because the R211 could possibly end up delayed itself, even though the R179 test train delivery is on time. The first test train will get here by October-December from what I am being told by you guys, cool. But now once they are in testing thats a different story. Anything can happen to halt the progress of the R211 order still not even off the drawing board yet. They are even stating that cars have been in a normal replacement routine since 1992... But wait, what about the unexpected retirement of the R44's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted July 23, 2014 Share #158 Posted July 23, 2014 I actually have a question now regarding the R211's: Will they be able to function in both CBTC and block signaling system enviorments? MUNI Cars in California can. So the technology is there. I think a significant factor in the design could be if these cars can run on the IND Queens Bvld line fully in CBTC then fly into a sudden block signaling environment in Manhattan? When are they going to complete this? In 2019 which is projected for the start of completing the R211 order, finalizing the contract, with the delivery of all cars. I don't think this is a coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted July 23, 2014 Share #159 Posted July 23, 2014 Funny, nobody believed me when I said that in 2012 and 2013. Really? The fact that it was in the books at first is why we didn't believe you during that time period. Hell, even I didn't believe you at first. Subjects are always to change, yes. Anyway, the issue has already been done long ago. The past is the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJC Posted July 23, 2014 Share #160 Posted July 23, 2014 It's not that no one believed you, as I said a couple years ago. The fact remained that it was on the MTA books month after month as part of the Capital Plan. I post what MTA reports, whether or not they change plans has nothing to do with what was originally in black and white signed by MTA personnel. As I said multiple times back then, if it was ever an actual plan, it ceased being an actual plan before 2012 rolled around. From that point forward it was a placeholder. Money was, and as far as I know still is, allocated to it in the 2010-14 Capital Program. Without a specific project for that money to be reallocated to, the original project remains in the official plans as a placeholder. Funding can't just be assigned to thin air. Instead I was told that the contract would, without a doubt, be awarded by February 2013. Even though the MTA Board had already been explicitly informed that the R44's would continue to run in SIR service through the decade. So if the construction of the R179s end in 2017 (and delivery end in 2019), but they say they must replace the R46 cars by 2019... I will have to say they may have to roll out the R211s as soon as the R179 order is complete and wish upon a star all this ties in.... The way I look at this, its impossible to keep up a scedule into investments into new NTTs at this unrealistic rate, because we know that Bombardier will have to work out bugs on the R179's which can delay any more incoming purchases of new B division R211 cars. Look at Kawasaki's current struggle with the R188's. The R211 hasn't been designed yet let alone ordered, so I think it's pretty clear that the R46's will last past 2019 (just as the R32's have lasted past 2004 (or should I say 1999?). They're not going to turn into pumpkins on January 1, 2020. I actually have a question now regarding the R211's: Will they be able to function in both CBTC and block signaling system enviorments? Certainly! All cars can operate in wayside signal territory - CBTC is an add-on, not a replacement. I think a significant factor in the design could be if these cars can run on the IND Queens Bvld line fully in CBTC then fly into a sudden block signaling environment in Manhattan? When are they going to complete this? In 2019 which is projected for the start of completing the R211 order, finalizing the contract, with the delivery of all cars. I don't think this is a coincidence. Signals and cars are different components of the Capital Program, and I don't think one is going to unnecessarily hang its hat on the other. The R160's are CBTC-ready, so there's no need to wait for the R211's, risking delaying the CBTC project if the R211's come in later than anticipated. I expect that QBL CBTC will initially rely on R160's and the R211's will be used on future CBTC lines. Of course, by then there will be a standard CBTC design, so R211's could be reassigned to the QBL lines at a future date if there's some reason to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted July 23, 2014 Share #161 Posted July 23, 2014 I don't know. I'm not a train guy. All I do is post what MTA reports. However, I'm pretty sure none of what you are talking about will ever end up on any MTA trains this side of the decade. Let's be realistic now...... I should've clarified, my mistake. For the trucks, Siemens' Syntegra trucks already exist and have for a while. Other than the A/C stuff I mentioned, nothing in there is wild, out-there stuff, and could be implemented on the R211 if the desired it. Thanks for the info, anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted July 24, 2014 Share #162 Posted July 24, 2014 Unless those trucks have been tested and proven successful on this system first, there is no chance for them to appear on the R211. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted July 24, 2014 Share #163 Posted July 24, 2014 Unless those trucks have been tested and proven successful on this system first, there is no chance for them to appear on the R211. My thinking is they could use a traditional truck design but use that sort of axle design for weight savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted July 25, 2014 Share #164 Posted July 25, 2014 A small update on the progress: I don't know if it was mentioned previously, but the order is projected to include 11% more cars than the 46s they're replacing for fleet growth. page 31 of http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/140728_1200_CPOC.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted July 26, 2014 Share #165 Posted July 26, 2014 Signals and cars are different components of the Capital Program, and I don't think one is going to unnecessarily hang its hat on the other. The R160's are CBTC-ready, so there's no need to wait for the R211's, risking delaying the CBTC project if the R211's come in later than anticipated. I expect that QBL CBTC will initially rely on R160's and the R211's will be used on future CBTC lines. Of course, by then there will be a standard CBTC design, so R211's could be reassigned to the QBL lines at a future date if there's some reason to do so. Yeah I heard this theory before from many people, and this actually makes sense. A study is currently or was being done on C service and I guess from what I've read they are considering upping A service. This will affect how they deal with the R179's once delivery begins which will be interesting to say the least. The only thing is will they come in the replace the R46 cars throughout the system in time? We know already we are facing a huge deficit. It will be interesting if they actually do go through with the R46 SMS program after all. Then again this is a critical project I'm sure. The R32s are not going to last any longer. The next CPOC meeting is on the 28th... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomtoon Posted July 26, 2014 Share #166 Posted July 26, 2014 A small update on the progress: I don't know if it was mentioned previously, but the order is projected to include 11% more cars than the 46s they're replacing for fleet growth. page 31 of http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/140728_1200_CPOC.pdf According to the document, it's Interesting the R46 isn't official still.. Or are they only put ins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted July 26, 2014 Share #167 Posted July 26, 2014 The car assignments are a guideline. They may not reflect the actual needs of service at the time. While both sections of the R are supposed to be comprised of 160s, it makes more sense for the northern portion to use 46s so the busier F gets the 160s. It's also based on whatever's available at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted July 26, 2014 Share #168 Posted July 26, 2014 As I said multiple times back then, if it was ever an actual plan, it ceased being an actual plan before 2012 rolled around. From that point forward it was a placeholder. Money was, and as far as I know still is, allocated to it in the 2010-14 Capital Program. Without a specific project for that money to be reallocated to, the original project remains in the official plans as a placeholder. Funding can't just be assigned to thin air. Instead I was told that the contract would, without a doubt, be awarded by February 2013. Even though the MTA Board had already been explicitly informed that the R44's would continue to run in SIR service through the decade. The R211 hasn't been designed yet let alone ordered, so I think it's pretty clear that the R46's will last past 2019 (just as the R32's have lasted past 2004 (or should I say 1999?). They're not going to turn into pumpkins on January 1, 2020. Certainly! All cars can operate in wayside signal territory - CBTC is an add-on, not a replacement. Signals and cars are different components of the Capital Program, and I don't think one is going to unnecessarily hang its hat on the other. The R160's are CBTC-ready, so there's no need to wait for the R211's, risking delaying the CBTC project if the R211's come in later than anticipated. I expect that QBL CBTC will initially rely on R160's and the R211's will be used on future CBTC lines. Of course, by then there will be a standard CBTC design, so R211's could be reassigned to the QBL lines at a future date if there's some reason to do so. I understand exactly what you are saying, however, it was in black and white at the time I posted. It was in the milestone report. I should've clarified, my mistake. For the trucks, Siemens' Syntegra trucks already exist and have for a while. Other than the A/C stuff I mentioned, nothing in there is wild, out-there stuff, and could be implemented on the R211 if the desired it. Thanks for the info, anyways. Ok, now I gotcha bro! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTA Dude Posted August 1, 2014 Share #169 Posted August 1, 2014 It'd be nice to see those R46s retire, but only if R68s are gonna recieve a huge cleanup of dirt and scratchitti and made as new as the R62s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted August 1, 2014 Share #170 Posted August 1, 2014 What? What does dirt and grime on one train have to do with the retirement of another? And for the record, the R62s are older than the R68s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTA Dude Posted August 2, 2014 Share #171 Posted August 2, 2014 What? What does dirt and grime on one train have to do with the retirement of another? And for the record, the R62s are older than the R68s. I meant that the R62s look newer than R68s. Also, I said that it would be nice to see them retire, but if R68s don't receive a cleanup, then I am not in favor of them retiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted August 22, 2014 Share #172 Posted August 22, 2014 Even though we are about a year away from pinning this thread, I do have a minor update. As many may have noticed, the MTA is aggressively trying to complete existing programs on schedule. Full funding for the R211 project is expected in the 2015-2019 Capital Plan. As of today, the project remains on schedule, and it is now expected that the final design of the R211 cars will be frozen in February 2016. The final design should then be approved an finalized in March of the same year. The MTA has chosen this time frame because the R179 is expected to be in revenue service, and MTA can plan exactly how and when the fleet will be replaced at that point. It is crucial that Bombardier prove themselves by this time, and they will compete with Kawasaki for the contract. It is also expected that the cars will be 60 feet in length, and part of the fleet will go to Staten Island. The days of 75 feet cars may officially be coming to an end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted August 22, 2014 Share #173 Posted August 22, 2014 I knew it! They are going to be 60 foot cars! I remember an MTA spokesperson as quoted saying that they would prefer to run 60' foot cars because it will improve station wait times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted August 22, 2014 Share #174 Posted August 22, 2014 Thanks East New York. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted August 23, 2014 Share #175 Posted August 23, 2014 No info on the open gangway idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.