Jump to content

R-211 Soliciations Have Been Posted


The Real

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm surprised that no one has noticed the last inclusion : Compatibility with Platform Screen Doors. Considering that its mentioned as a potential project, that part has me really intrigued. Makes you wonder if we're actually going to get them....

 

This would mean that if Platform Screen doors are implemented (which I hope they dont), then the whole MTA fleet after the R211 would have to be 75 feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would mean that if Platform Screen doors are implemented (which I hope they dont), then the whole MTA fleet after the R211 would have to be 75 feet.

Not necessarily. it is entirely possible to engineer a 5 door 75 foot car with door placements equivalent with any 60 foot cars the MTA already has.

On a related note, this is what any diaphragm concept would look like in operation on the subway (not the exterior of course, just the diaphragm).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nice to have an open pathway from one end of the unit to the other, but I don't see how this will work with the sideways movement of cars with respect to each other. That is what makes 75ft so dangerous; where you would be walking into the end wall of the next car. You can get the sense of that from the video, but it moves much more than that; again, where the entire doorway of the next car would be completely out of view,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: open gangways.

I've wanted that all along, but aren't there still spots (even in the IND) where 75 foot cars can't even have traditional diaphragms between carriages because of tight turns and/or switches? Bergen on the IND Crosstown comes to mind.

 

Paris Metro has some pretty tight turns on its tracks (there are two sharp right-angle turns just west of the Bastille station),  and they run articulated units just fine

 

Perhaps the 75 ft distance includes the gangways as well? 5-car 75-footers would be great as well, since the main problem with 75 footers vs 60 footers is the fact that they have longer dwell times in stations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paris Metro has some pretty tight turns on its tracks (there are two sharp right-angle turns just west of the Bastille station),  and they run articulated units just fine

 

Perhaps the 75 ft distance includes the gangways as well? 5-car 75-footers would be great as well, since the main problem with 75 footers vs 60 footers is the fact that they have longer dwell times in stations.

The Paris Metro also runs much SHORTER cars. And no, the 75ft is the car body length, not including the gangway. That would be an additional 2-3.5 or so feet in between cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nice to have an open pathway from one end of the unit to the other, but I don't see how this will work with the sideways movement of cars with respect to each other. That is what makes 75ft so dangerous; where you would be walking into the end wall of the next car. You can get the sense of that from the video, but it moves much more than that; again, where the entire doorway of the next car would be completely out of view,

Well, the difference here would be that the car sections would be sharing trucks so that problem most likely wouldn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention BMT Broadway between Cortlandt and City Hall. I'm amazed the 75footers can even squeal their way through there. I'm not sure you'd be able to make an articulated car navigate that S curve.

I'm pretty sure they had to chip out some wall space just for them cars fit through

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the difference here would be that the car sections would be sharing trucks so that problem most likely wouldn't exist.

I don't know where the articulation thing came in, but the advertisement does not SPECIFICALLY mention it. This is just pure speculation. I don't see the MTA going with an articulated design with jacobs bogies any time soon due to axle loading issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where the articulation thing came in, but the advertisement does not SPECIFICALLY mention it. This is just pure speculation. I don't see the MTA going with an articulated design with jacobs bogies any time soon due to axle loading issues.

 

If the MTA goes for articulation it will be interesting in how they will do it. It's still a little early to tell what will be done at this point.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where the articulation thing came in, but the advertisement does not SPECIFICALLY mention it. This is just pure speculation. I don't see the MTA going with an articulated design with jacobs bogies any time soon due to axle loading issues.

 

It's the first thing in that bullet point list on the advertisement, as "open gangways in between cars." It's not a solid requirement per se, but it is something that MTA wants to look into, which is the most interest they've shown in any such configuration so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the first thing in that bullet point list on the advertisement, as "open gangways in between cars." It's not a solid requirement per se, but it is something that MTA wants to look into, which is the most interest they've shown in any such configuration so far.

The first thing in the bullet point list is as you said "open gangways," but NOT articulation as a lot of people here think about it. Why is it so hard for people to understand? Articulation, as us railfans from New York remember it, points back to the D type cars, which were triple sectioned units with jacobs bogies. They were the heaviest hunks of metal to roll around the subway, and it is unlikely that the MTA will go for that design again. 

 

What we are talking about HERE and NOW is a design that is not unlike the rolling stock of the MTR in Hong Kong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR#Rolling_stock). Those are not articulated stock; rather, they are regular train cars with two trucks each that happen to have a connecting passageway between cars. THAT is what is being proposed in the solicitation announcement, not some wild speculative idea about articulated junk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first thing in the bullet point list is as you said "open gangways," but NOT articulation as a lot of people here think about it. Why is it so hard for people to understand? Articulation, as us railfans from New York remember it, points back to the D type cars, which were triple sectioned units with jacobs bogies. They were the heaviest hunks of metal to roll around the subway, and it is unlikely that the MTA will go for that design again. 

 

What we are talking about HERE and NOW is a design that is not unlike the rolling stock of the MTR in Hong Kong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR#Rolling_stock). Those are not articulated stock; rather, they are regular train cars with two trucks each that happen to have a connecting passageway between cars. THAT is what is being proposed in the solicitation announcement, not some wild speculative idea about articulated junk.

 

You're right, I mis-spoke when I said "articulated". I mostly just meant "Full length open gangway" 

 

I still don't know how you'd make a car like that navigate the BMT broadway line in lower manhattan...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, I mis-spoke when I said "articulated". I mostly just meant "Full length open gangway" 

 

I still don't know how you'd make a car like that navigate the BMT broadway line in lower manhattan...

Or through that sharp curve north of Queensborough Plaza:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first thing in the bullet point list is as you said "open gangways," but NOT articulation as a lot of people here think about it. Why is it so hard for people to understand? Articulation, as us railfans from New York remember it, points back to the D type cars, which were triple sectioned units with jacobs bogies. They were the heaviest hunks of metal to roll around the subway, and it is unlikely that the MTA will go for that design again. 

 

What we are talking about HERE and NOW is a design that is not unlike the rolling stock of the MTR in Hong Kong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR#Rolling_stock). Those are not articulated stock; rather, they are regular train cars with two trucks each that happen to have a connecting passageway between cars. THAT is what is being proposed in the solicitation announcement, not some wild speculative idea about articulated junk.

In all technicalities, they are only the heaviest because they count all 3 sections as 1 unit aka car. Weigh them separately, and they'd be light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all technicalities, they are only the heaviest because they count all 3 sections as 1 unit aka car. Weigh them separately, and they'd be light.

Total weight might be comparable, but remember that the D type trains have fewer axles than an equivalent "normal train" thereby making axle load heavier. Increased axle load does more damage to rail, so by all means, the rails would think that a D type train is heavier than a regular non-articulated train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Total weight might be comparable, but remember that the D type trains have fewer axles than an equivalent "normal train" thereby making axle load heavier. Increased axle load does more damage to rail, so by all means, the rails would think that a D type train is heavier than a regular non-articulated train.

To be fair, they were working with rather primitive materials in terms of weight. They were tanks on wheels. Build them today (or even the BMT experimental fleet not too long after the D-types) and they're light as anything else, with reasonable axle load.

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.