Fan Railer Posted May 10, 2013 Share #26 Posted May 10, 2013 Open gangways...will result in the entire train smelling of the foul homeless bum smell. Not sure if I'd favor that. Not to mention the draft in the last car... It's pretty strong.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dj Hammers Posted May 10, 2013 Share #27 Posted May 10, 2013 Open gangways...will result in the entire train smelling of the foul homeless bum smell. Not sure if I'd favor that. If the ventilation system is designed correctly, this shouldn't be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryB Posted May 10, 2013 Share #28 Posted May 10, 2013 Ok.....if they want to put 60ft and 75ft cars together in a PSD environment, those new 75ft-ers must have some distance between doors that means new 75ft-ers might have 5 doors per side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted May 10, 2013 Share #29 Posted May 10, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted May 10, 2013 Share #30 Posted May 10, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Eric B Posted May 11, 2013 Share #31 Posted May 11, 2013 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 More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted May 11, 2013 Share #32 Posted May 11, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted May 11, 2013 Share #33 Posted May 11, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Minato ku Posted May 11, 2013 Share #34 Posted May 11, 2013 That's right, Paris metro cars are 49ft long. Trains are also narrower, only 8ft wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted May 11, 2013 Share #35 Posted May 11, 2013 Interesting totally! Hopefully they have a different design to the R160's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted May 11, 2013 Share #36 Posted May 11, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted May 11, 2013 Share #37 Posted May 11, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted May 11, 2013 Share #38 Posted May 11, 2013 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 More sharing options...
DJ MC Posted May 11, 2013 Share #39 Posted May 11, 2013 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 More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted May 11, 2013 Share #40 Posted May 11, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted May 11, 2013 Share #41 Posted May 11, 2013 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 More sharing options...
itmaybeokay Posted May 11, 2013 Share #42 Posted May 11, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted May 12, 2013 Share #43 Posted May 12, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Eric B Posted May 12, 2013 Share #44 Posted May 12, 2013 The sideways movement is even greater than that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted May 12, 2013 Share #45 Posted May 12, 2013 RE: curves Let's not forget the super tight curve at Coney Island for the and . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodside7878 Posted May 12, 2013 Share #46 Posted May 12, 2013 If anyone went to the national train day last year and tour the Acela Express at Grand Central Terminal, imagine that gangway but built differently. Who knows it depends on the manufactuer's design to meet the requirements of the MTA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted May 12, 2013 Share #47 Posted May 12, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted May 12, 2013 Share #48 Posted May 12, 2013 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 More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted May 12, 2013 Share #49 Posted May 12, 2013 Fair enough. Hadn't thought of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted May 12, 2013 Share #50 Posted May 12, 2013 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.