R211 Discussion

[Fan Railer]

60' cars also mean a better chance that they may try out the open gangway idea if the clearances permit.

[East New York]

Let me repeat this in detail for a few who may not understand English as well as others. http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1308922

 

Key word in that MTA statement from 2013 is assumed.... That word does NOT mean guaranteed. It was assumed that MTA would not order New Flyer C40LF buses, and we all know how that went.

 

When MTA finalized the design of the R211, the length will then be confirmed. Not one place did I say 75 foot cars were ruled out. I did however state the TA was leaning towards 60 foot cars for several reason.

 

According to the prior Capital Program, MTA wants to continue to operate a mixed fleet for 60 and 75 foot cars. However, many of this now depends on the outcome of the R179. If that program gets back on track, we may go back to a sold order for 75 foot cars.

 

As mentioned by another poster above, MTA stated they want 60 footers, whereas some within MTA want 75 footers. Whichever is economical, and feasible for MTA operations is what they will go with.

 

The MTA could in fact order a mixed fleet, which is not ruled out as well. The final decision will NOT be made until all the technical specs, and new technology assessments are complete. The MTA also wants to order up to 168 cars for grown on the E, G, L, and N lines..... Clearly those are 60 foot lines....... This will all be assessed as the R179 comes online.

 

Carry on.

[realizm]

Let me repeat this in detail for a few who may not understand English as well as others. http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1308922

 

When MTA finalized the design of the R211, the length will then be confirmed. Not one place did I say 75 foot cars were ruled out. I did however state the TA was leaning towards 60 foot cars for several reason.

 

According to the prior Capital Program, MTA wants to continue to operate a mixed fleet for 60 and 75 foot cars. However, many of this now depends on the outcome of the R179. If that program gets back on track, we may go back to a sold order for 75 foot cars.

 

As mentioned by another poster above, MTA stated they want 60 footers, whereas some within MTA want 75 footers. Whichever is economical, and feasible for MTA operations is what they will go with.

 

The MTA could in fact order a mixed fleet, which is not ruled out as well. The final decision will NOT be made until all the technical specs, and new technology assessments are complete. The MTA also wants to order up to 168 cars for grown on the E, G, L, and N lines..... Clearly those are 60 foot lines....... This will all be assessed as the R179 comes online.

 

Carry on.

LOL. Told you he doesnt know whats he's talking about.

[East New York]

Go back 4 years worth of posts between he and I and you will be quite entertained! So far I have been right 100% of the time..... But, there is always a first for everything..... Even if plans have changed all of what I have posted can be backed up by other sources.... I may be wrong at times cause I'm not perfect, but I have no problem admitting it. Some never will, and seem to forget they have been wrong on numerous occasions.... 

[realizm]

Go back 4 years worth of posts between he and I and you will be quite entertained! So far I have been right 100% of the time..... But, there is always a first for everything..... Even if plans have changed all of what I have posted can be backed up by other sources.... I may be wrong at times cause I'm not perfect, but I have no problem admitting it. Some never will, and seem to forget they have been wrong on numerous occasions....

Hold on let me get my popcorn...

 

I mean totally. Its obvious the MTA changed plans on the R211 design several times, its not like we were born yesterday. The reason as we both know that the MTA decided to go ahead with 60' cars is because they know from the R160s that smaller cars with more standee space will speed up dwell times in stations. The train dispatchers can shorten the headways, resultantly reducing delays and give T/Ds the ability to bump up the TPH on the line. Just by the way a subway car is designed and built. Plus the MTA said so. Common sense....

[RollOver]

You're right. This can also reduce the amount of loading delays on the during the times when it's busy. Same with the .

[realizm]

The R160's have more doors for access into the individual cars then the R46's which also improves dwell times... Thats another reason. Plus as one brought up in that discussion: 75' foot cars cannot run on the BMT Eastern Division. All the more the reason for the MTA to conclude that there is greater benefit with the purchase of more 60' cars depending on the performance of the R179's. But its already obvious where the MTA should go with this.

[R32 3838]

R211's will Be Officially 75 footers
http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1308922

[MHV9218]

R211's will Be Officially 75 footers

http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1308922

 

Yeah man, that info's almost a year old. That's repost of a 2013 doc. If we hear something more current, then we can say something like "official."

[Art Vandelay]

Besides being a year old, that report simply does not say that the R211s will be 75 feet. That poster is very good at finding information on the MTA website and is equally bad at understanding what it means.

[AndrewJC]

Let me repeat this in detail for a few who may not understand English as well as others. http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1308922

 

Key word in that MTA statement from 2013 is assumed.... That word does NOT mean guaranteed. It was assumed that MTA would not order New Flyer C40LF buses, and we all know how that went.

 

It means more than that, actually. It means that there had to be an assumption "for the purposes of this plan" in order to derive a car count. The Capital Needs Assessment had to arbitrarily pick one of the two options in order to come up with the relevant numbers. Had the 60 foot option been picked instead, the car count would have been 25% higher.

 

When MTA finalized the design of the R211, the length will then be confirmed. Not one place did I say 75 foot cars were ruled out. I did however state the TA was leaning towards 60 foot cars for several reason.

 

Just curious what your source is. There are pros and cons either way, but 75 foot cars have a significant cost advantage.

 

The MTA also wants to order up to 168 cars for grown on the E, G, L, and N lines..... Clearly those are 60 foot lines....... 

 

The E, G, and N can run 75 foot cars just as well as they run 60 foot cars. And there's no reason to assume that the growth cars will be operating on the specific lines where service is being increased - on the contrary, I expect CBTC needs to drive car assignments until the R68A's are gone.

 

I mean totally. Its obvious the MTA changed plans on the R211 design several times, its not like we were born yesterday. The reason as we both know that the MTA decided to go ahead with 60' cars is because they know from the R160s that smaller cars with more standee space will speed up dwell times in stations. The train dispatchers can shorten the headways, resultantly reducing delays and give T/Ds the ability to bump up the TPH on the line. Just by the way a subway car is designed and built. Plus the MTA said so. Common sense....

 

The reason R160's are 60 foot cars is that many of them were slated for the Eastern Division, where only 60 foot cars can run.

 

NYCT's current 60 foot cars handle very heavy loads better than NYCT's current 75 foot cars. That doesn't mean that an alternative 75 foot design - say, longitudinal seating with five doors on each side - couldn't handle heavy loads even better. And, much as many here like to assume that everything's always crush loaded, in fact some lines draw much heavier peak loads than others - in practice, the R46's and R68's generally work fine where they operate today, where trains don't get nearly as crowded as on the E.

 

Plus as one brought up in that discussion: 75' foot cars cannot run on the BMT Eastern Division. 

 

Neither can 60 foot cars in five car units, at least not in any efficient fashion.

 

R211's will Be Officially 75 footers

http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1308922

 

Nice try, but that's not what that says.

[JayJay85]

The R160's have more doors for access into the individual cars then the R46's which also improves dwell times... Thats another reason. Plus as one brought up in that discussion: 75' foot cars cannot run on the BMT Eastern Division. All the more the reason for the MTA to conclude that there is greater benefit with the purchase of more 60' cars depending on the performance of the R179's. But its already obvious where the MTA should go with this.

 

realizm and ENY is correct about this. also i wanted point out something to u guys TA actually wants to order 168 extra cars (210 extra cars) to increase service on E,G,L and N lines.

[realizm]

The reason R160's are 60 foot cars is that many of them were slated for the Eastern Division, where only 60 foot cars can run.

 

NYCT's current 60 foot cars handle very heavy loads better than NYCT's current 75 foot cars. That doesn't mean that an alternative 75 foot design - say, longitudinal seating with five doors on each side - couldn't handle heavy loads even better. And, much as many here like to assume that everything's always crush loaded, in fact some lines draw much heavier peak loads than others - in practice, the R46's and R68's generally work fine where they operate today, where trains don't get nearly as crowded as on the E.

.

 

Yes I realize that, platform lengths on the BMT Jamaica Line cannot accommodate ten car 60' units either. Nethertheless the R179 contract will address any issues having to do with the BMT ENY division (Most of the order calling for 4 car sets anyway...)

 

Well even though lets say the cars were 75' feet with open gangways... that will certainty increase capacity, seated and standee room. It would not necessarily improve dwell times though! The fact we should bring into consideration is that the design will allow for fewer doors then a standard ten car 60' set which will end up in longer waits in the stations.

 

A good workable example would be the F. I can see clearly that R46 cars will stay held in stations longer in stations then R160's: Fewer ways of entry and exit for the passenger can make a big difference. Plus wouldn't it make sense for the agency to stick with one B division car specification anyway?

 

Plus seriously those horrendous bucket seats in a transverse seating arrangement... cmon now is their data on the seated capacity of R46 cars even accurate? People can barely take up one seat the with way past manufacturers designed the R46's and the R68's. So I even question the official statistics on passenger capacity on the 75' cars we currently have running on the system as it is.

 

One of the key goals with the R211 is to create a car that is CBTC ready and designed to handle a forcasted increase in ridership. As to what the plan is? Well we wont know 100% for sure since we are not even close to the final design phase at this point: 

 

"Adam Lisberg, the authority’s chief spokesman, said that increased capacity could improve “dwell time” — the period during which a train is stopped in a station, often because of overcrowding — and allow more trains to run. He cautioned, though, that with a 109-year-old system, any major change required extensive review.

 

“If you make a bad call on changing equipment in a new subway car order,” he said, “the consequences can be pretty serious.”

 

That's what the engineers are trying to figure out as this fiscal period comes to a close. And well the information is indeed a bit outdated. Maybe future CPOC reports before the end of the year may give us any updates on this? 

 

Lastly ENY receives the hard copies fresh off the press, reports to be published to the public online before it happens, so thats what he is going by, the most up to date information available. Which is subject to change of course. None of us makes up the executive committee of the MTA so all we can do is make for educated speculation on how the final design will look like in 2016.

[RollOver]

I'm a bit puzzled now...

 

I know this is subject to change and all, but why are they going to increase service on the , , and for?

 

The I can sorta understand, because it's heavily used during rush hours and on weekends. But isn't the already at capacity (15 tph out of Queens in the 8:00 a.m. hour and 15 tph back into Queens in the 5:00 p.m. hour)? The Queens Boulevard Express, during the aforementioned time period, has 30 tph.

 

And as for the , here's where the question becomes...what about the interaction with the , and (where Astoria, Broadway and 4th Avenue customers can also use) and the DeKalb interlocking, and most importantly, the plain fact that it becomes seated load with some standees, fewer seats available and/or almost empty during rush hours in the reverse peak direction after many commuters have gotten off for work/home (like almost every other line in the system)? And the Sea Beach branch? The West End and Culver branches (which are a few blocks away or so) also provide service to Midtown 24/7.

[Gong Gahou]

Well even though lets say the cars were 75' feet with open gangways... It would not necessarily improve dwell times though! The fact we should bring into consideration is that the design will allow for fewer doors then a standard ten car 60' set which will end up in longer waits in the stations.

 

Plus wouldn't it make sense for the agency to stick with one B division car specification anyway?

 

That's not correct. Dwell times would be the same as with 60-footers, because if what AndrewJC said is taken into consideration it would mean equal amount of doors, not fewer.

 

5 doors per side x 8 cars = 40 doors

4 doors per side x 10 cars = 40 doors

 

Also, keep in mind that NYCT's current 75-footers are not a standard for all cars of the same length, meaning future cars of this length could have a setup of five doors and no transverse seating. It could even look just like a R160 except with a longer body and five side doors. However, the sloped portion that is present on both sides of the bonnet on current 75 foot cars should be a keeper - that will be needed for tunnel clearance when going through sharp curves.

 

When you also consider the cost savings that 75 foot cars bring, as well as its other benefits, it makes sense 1) why it is an appealing option to the MTA, 2) why this is still on the table, and 3) why a mix of 60 and 75 foot cars are preferrable than an entire fleet of 60-footers.

[realizm]

That's not correct. Dwell times would be the same as with 60-footers, because if what AndrewJC said is taken into consideration it would mean equal amount of doors, not fewer.

 

5 doors per side x 8 cars = 40 doors

4 doors per side x 10 cars = 40 doors

 

Also, keep in mind that NYCT's current 75-footers are not a standard for all cars of the same length, meaning future cars of this length could have a setup of five doors and no transverse seating. It could even look just like a R160 except with a longer body and five side doors. However, the sloped portion that is present on both sides of the bonnet on current 75 foot cars should be a keeper - that will be needed for tunnel clearance when going through sharp curves.

 

When you also consider the cost savings that 75 foot cars bring, as well as its other benefits, it makes sense 1) why it is an appealing option to the MTA, 2) why this is still on the table, and 3) why a mix of 60 and 75 foot cars are preferrable than an entire fleet of 60-footers.

 

Well then for the sake of arguement still, at one point they were deciding whether to design a 75' car with open gangways or not. They were quoted as saying they are considering taking a page from the Toronto Rocket that's in operation... Theoretically if you build open gangways into a 8 car set of R211s, say if it was 75 feet,  do you think it can handle clearances on radial curves sufficiently? That's another thing to consider. They may have to stick with 60' footers if they wish to incorporate the cars as articulated sets... 

 

The R211 may gain a capacity advantage with open gangways and five set of doors on each side with vertical bench seat arrangements as it can better address free flow for the passengers but as a 75 foot car vs a 60 footer, not so sure if that may be practical. 

[realizm]

Well regardless of what the opposing points are, to be frank we may have to agree that an error was made by that poster declaring that they will be purchasing 75' cars when the final design phase has not begun yet. We still are waiting to see if Bombardier can successfully complete the R179 contract to be in a position to compete for the new contract! So its more of an issue with a misinterpretation of a dated publication. 

[JayJay85]

I'm a bit puzzled now...

 

I know this is subject to change and all, but why are they going to increase service on the , , and for?

 

The I can sorta understand, because it's heavily used during rush hours and on weekends. But isn't the already at capacity (15 tph out of Queens in the 8:00 a.m. hour and 15 tph back into Queens in the 5:00 p.m. hour)? The Queens Boulevard Express, during the aforementioned time period, has 30 tph.

 

And as for the , here's where the question becomes...what about the interaction with the , and (where Astoria, Broadway and 4th Avenue customers can also use) and the DeKalb interlocking, and most importantly, the plain fact that it becomes seated load with some standees, fewer seats available and/or almost empty during rush hours in the reverse peak direction after many commuters have gotten off for work/home (like almost every other line in the system)? And the Sea Beach branch? The West End and Culver branches (which are a few blocks away or so) also provide service to Midtown 24/7.

They will need extra train due to in about 2017 or 2018 the Astoria will lose the to 2nd Avenue branch to make up for loss of service along Astoria section.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

They won't run extra trains because the rest of the line doesn't need the extra service. They will just have a new second Astoria service to replace the , most likely called the , which will run local and short-turn at Whitehall St, possibly with some limited rush hour service in southern Brooklyn.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The R211 may gain a capacity advantage with open gangways and five set of doors on each side with vertical bench seat arrangements as it can better address free flow for the passengers but as a 75 foot car vs a 60 footer, not so sure if that may be practical. 

Even if they can't do open gangways on 75-foot car, I still think they should go with the 75-foot length for the R211 - but with five sets of doors per side, so they have the same number of side doors as ten 60-foot cars.

 

By the way, how long is each Toronto Rocket car?

[realizm]

Even if they can't do open gangways on 75-foot car, I still think they should go with the 75-foot length for the R211 - but with five sets of doors per side, so they have the same number of side doors as ten 60-foot cars.

 

By the way, how long is each Toronto Rocket car?

 

They are bigger then your average 75' foot car here, but then again TTC follows a larger track gauge then NYCT does and on the B division at that. Different scenerio. 

[Gong Gahou]

Well then for the sake of arguement still, at one point they were deciding whether to design a 75' car with open gangways or not. They were quoted as saying they are considering taking a page from the Toronto Rocket that's in operation... Theoretically if you build open gangways into a 8 car set of R211s, say if it was 75 feet,  do you think it can handle clearances on radial curves sufficiently? That's another thing to consider. They may have to stick with 60' footers if they wish to incorporate the cars as articulated sets... 

 

The R211 may gain a capacity advantage with open gangways and five set of doors on each side with vertical bench seat arrangements as it can better address free flow for the passengers but as a 75 foot car vs a 60 footer, not so sure if that may be practical. 

 

It will clear tunnels, if that's what you mean. The bigger issue is making the gangway work with all that movement 75 footers make on sharp turns. I can't comment on that though since I don't know much about gangway equipment.

 

Even without gangways 75 foot cars already have a slight capacity advantage: in a 600' train there is a little less "no standing" space - aka the area between cars - compared to 60 foot cars.

 

 

By the way, how long is each Toronto Rocket car?

 

Just over 76 feet, according to the TTC.

[GojiMet86]

R211's will Be Officially 75 footers

http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1308922

 

That's just Gold_12th/w8hou trying to pretend he knows better than ENY. It's not coincidence that after ENY wrote that the MTA was now leaning to 60-footers that Gold posted that. Nor is it coincidence that he posted that on BusChat that the Luminator Titan signs are not being phased out right after arguing with ENY here on the BTE thread.

[Lance]

The way I look at all of this, until the order is finalized, the details and specifications can very well change. It's not that long ago where most people were believing the 179 order was going to be 290 cars comprised of mostly 5-car sets. On the A-side, the 188 order originally contained more new builds over conversions. I'm not saying either East New York or Gold12th are liars. I just won't be surprised by either outcome.

[GojiMet86]

The way I look at all of this, until the order is finalized, the details and specifications can very well change. It's not that long ago where most people were believing the 179 order was going to be 290 cars comprised of mostly 5-car sets. On the A-side, the 188 order originally contained more new builds over conversions. I'm not saying either East New York or Gold12th are liars. I just won't be surprised by either outcome.

 

The thing is, I would rather trust and have ENY's info because of his closeness to the industry rather than Gold, who as far as I'm concerned just copies and pastes info from the forums and from the MTA.