R-211 Soliciations Have Been Posted

[Fan Railer]

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.

While true, if you take the current 75ft car profile and assume a nominal reduction of weight in the 10-15% bracket, putting jacobs bogies between the cars to articulate them will still result in an unacceptably high axle load. Hence why I say we will most likely not see articulated subway cars in NYC during our lifetimes.

[Culver]

While true, if you take the current 75ft car profile and assume a nominal reduction of weight in the 10-15% bracket, putting jacobs bogies between the cars to articulate them will still result in an unacceptably high axle load. Hence why I say we will most likely not see articulated subway cars in NYC during our lifetimes.

Current 75 foot cars. Ones built in a few years would have the car bodies (and the bogies) be quite a bit lighter. Not that the would dare pursue light weight technologies, but the axle load shouldn't be an issue for subway cars built in 2015 or later.

[Fan Railer]

Current 75 foot cars. Ones built in a few years would have the car bodies (and the bogies) be quite a bit lighter. Not that the would dare pursue light weight technologies, but the axle load shouldn't be an issue for subway cars built in 2015 or later.

We'll see.

[DJ MC]

I'm putting my bets on open gangways, but too early to tell. Plus tight curves on some lines may prevent that from happening. 

[LTA1992]

Unless the sections are of 60 foot lengths.

[itmaybeokay]

Unless the sections are of 60 foot lengths.

 

The only thing is, the solicitation on page 1 of this thread clearly states "Purchase of over 752 75-foot cars", so it's pretty definite they're going with 75 foot cars, not 60's. 

 

The open gangways is mentioned in "Some technologies and features which are being considered are: Alternate configurations such as open gangways between cars"

 

(emphasis mine)

 

So what we're looking at here is they've decided to go with 75 foot cars, and they're seeing if a manufacturer can deliver one with open gangways that will fit the "plate" of the subway (with the exception of BMT eastern div). "Plate" is a railroading term referring to clearances of a railcar with respect to turning radii, etc. 

 

I don't think the MTA has done the engineering to know if this is possible or not, to have open gangways on the tightest curves. This is more of a "Hey manufacturers, if you can make this work on our tunnels we're into it". 

 

From my perspective, barring some sort of wormhole or portal between cars, I don't see it as being feasible. But, maybe the car designers can surprise us. Based on the solicitation, however, an "open-gangwayed" train of 60 foot cars would be an instantly rejected proposal, because while it meets one of the optional features considered, it certainly doesn't meet the primary required criteria of 75-foot cars. 

 

 

[LTA1992]

It's a solicitation. Not the actual design.

[Tricknologist]

Let's hope those gangways stay at that, a consideration. Won't be able to isolate a car if someone drops a deuce or vomits in it.

[Culver]

Let's hope those gangways stay at that, a consideration. Won't be able to isolate a car if someone drops a deuce or vomits in it.

I would like at least diaphragms that make walking between cars safe (See: BART, LIRR, Metro-North, etc etc etc etc etc etc).

[Fan Railer]

I would like at least diaphragms that make walking between cars safe (See: BART, LIRR, Metro-North, etc etc etc etc etc etc).

None of those systems have curve radii as small as the NYCS does. The farthest I see this going is a trial period with a 4 car set, and then having that 4 car set converted back to the standard configuration. The increased maintenance costs for the diaphragms might deter using them in the new fleet. I can't imagine the stress on parts that going around a tight curve would produce.

[Culver]

None of those systems have curve radii as small as the NYCS does. The farthest I see this going is a trial period with a 4 car set, and then having that 4 car set converted back to the standard configuration. The increased maintenance costs for the diaphragms might deter using them in the new fleet. I can't imagine the stress on parts that going around a tight curve would produce.

I don't see how they even made it a consideration for open gangways considering that even the IND has super tight curves. I think some sort of diaphragm is the best they can possibly get on 75 foot cars. At least to cover the passageway.

[QM1to6Ave]

The MTA is only looking into the possibility of these gangways, nobody says they will do anything about it if it is impractical. Remember the whole plan to put intercoms and computers in the R68's? That apparently went nowhere. 

[RTOPRO]

Just ride the R46 and watch the scissor like action on most turns. Gangways become really unfeasible when a train is forced to diverge tracks. Plus once its determined that it's a legal liability all consideration will drop.

[itmaybeokay]

Just ride the R46 and watch the scissor like action on most turns. Gangways become really unfeasible when a train is forced to diverge tracks. Plus once its determined that it's a legal liability all consideration will drop.

 

Oh man, I was really hoping they'd figure out a way to do this so I could get my camera and become an internet sensation with my "Open Gangway Style" knockoff music video. 

 

Wait a minute, that's a terrible idea. 

[RPTA]

As for manufacturer, I actually would like to see the MTA give CAF a try. CAF is only one of four manufacturers who have manufacturing facilities in New York (the others being Bombardier, Kawasaki, and Alstom), and considering the MTA has a preference for such manufacturers, CAF should consider bidding on the R211 contract.

[R10 2952]

Honestly, I get fed up with the MTA's whole "Made in New York" rhetoric.  I know it provides an incentive for companies to move in and spur economic growth in our state, but the de facto result is an oligopoly which a select few manufacturers grow immensely rich off of, much like the American auto industry some time back.  Not a good precedent.

[Culver]

Honestly, I get fed up with the MTA's whole "Made in New York" rhetoric.  I know it provides an incentive for companies to move in and spur economic growth in our state, but the de facto result is an oligopoly which a select few manufacturers grow immensely rich off of, much like the American auto industry some time back.  Not a good precedent.

I think it doesn't go far enough. CTA's new cars from Bombardier had their trucks made in China. The trucks were all cheap crap that cracked.

[bobtehpanda]

Honestly, I get fed up with the MTA's whole "Made in New York" rhetoric.  I know it provides an incentive for companies to move in and spur economic growth in our state, but the de facto result is an oligopoly which a select few manufacturers grow immensely rich off of, much like the American auto industry some time back.  Not a good precedent.

 

That's general MTA contracting for you - whether it's an MTACC project or just rolling stock, it's always only a small handful of firms that can navigate the process and submit bids with a successful chance of winning.

 

I think it doesn't go far enough. CTA's new cars from Bombardier had their trucks made in China. The trucks were all cheap crap that cracked.

 

Buy America was never perfect - look at the R46 or the Grunman Flxble.

[DJ MC]

That's general MTA contracting for you - whether it's an MTACC project or just rolling stock, it's always only a small handful of firms that can navigate the process and submit bids with a successful chance of winning.

 

 

Buy America was never perfect - look at the R46 or the Grunman Flxble.

 

 

The R46 and Grumman were in different situations compared to now, as there wasn't as many foreign bus or car manufactures at the time. 

[Far Rock Depot]

Just ride the R46 and watch the scissor like action on most turns. Gangways become really unfeasible when a train is forced to diverge tracks. Plus once its determined that it's a legal liability all consideration will drop.

As someone else already mentioned- two words "Toronto Rocket". Now i see and fully understand a lot of debate here against the use of the consideration of the open gangway given the tight turns and its the reason why current 75' cars have their end doors locked. But think about this design concept: Who says the opening HAS to be as narrow as current end doors. If you make it wide enough, you can still have a clear path from car to car. As far as a legal liability, This design consideration will combat the current practice of those who still know how to, for lack of a better word-"jimmy" the end doors open to walk between cars. 

[Eric B]

Still, with the cars moving sideways that much, I don't see how it would be safe.

And what about climate control if it's all open like that? There would obviously be space between the diaphragms.

[RTOPRO]

As someone else already mentioned- two words "Toronto Rocket". Now i see and fully understand a lot of debate here against the use of the consideration of the open gangway given the tight turns and its the reason why current 75' cars have their end doors locked. But think about this design concept: Who says the opening HAS to be as narrow as current end doors. If you make it wide enough, you can still have a clear path from car to car. As far as a legal liability, This design consideration will combat the current practice of those who still know how to, for lack of a better word-"jimmy" the end doors open to walk between cars. 

Jimmy the doors open is not really the point I was getting at in regards to legal liability. The MTA legal team can fight that as neglect and vandalism on part of the passenger. But if someone was to ever get hurt walking through an open gangway where a turn caused said person to fall then it would fall on the MTA for allowing a unsafe design as some lawyers would claim. This is not the railroads where the percentage of passengers fall in a higher income bracket. Unfortunately in the subways you have urban life and there is a higher percentage of passengers looking to get over anyway they can. #truthhurts

[Culver]

 

 

Jimmy the doors open is not really the point I was getting at in regards to legal liability. The MTA legal team can fight that as neglect and vandalism on part of the passenger. But if someone was to ever get hurt walking through an open gangway where a turn caused said person to fall then it would fall on the MTA for allowing a unsafe design as some lawyers would claim. This is not the railroads where the percentage of passengers fall in a higher income bracket. Unfortunately in the subways you have urban life and there is a higher percentage of passengers looking to get over anyway they can. #truthhurts

"Open gangway" would mean something like the Toronto Rocket or [insert any modern Asian or European subway]. "Open" means you can walk freely between cars. Passageway would be entirely enclosed. If somebody manages to fall between cars, you're already at a place and time where "legal issues" are the least of the MTA's concerns for that day...

 

EDIT: Unless you mean fall as in, just fall down, in which case, see: Articulated buses in New York City.

[HenryB]

 

And what about climate control if it's all open like that? There would obviously be space between the diaphragms.

I know there are lots of concerns about open gangways, however, that's really NOT a reason....

I can't see that most of the rolling stocks with open gangways around the world are failed in climate control

[bobtehpanda]

Still, with the cars moving sideways that much, I don't see how it would be safe.

And what about climate control if it's all open like that? There would obviously be space between the diaphragms.

 

Climate control isn't particularly hard with diaphragms, depending on how it's implemented - the Hong Kong rolling stock with diaphragms are iceboxes, even during the hot summers.

 

A more obvious issue is the fact that smells can now circulate through the entire train, instead of being confined to one car (and on the R160s, I've had smells waft in from other cars through the ventilation systems...)