HenryB Posted May 16, 2013 Share #76 Posted May 16, 2013 If MTA reallllly like the idea of open gangway, why can't they try 60ft cars with open gangway instead of 75ft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted May 17, 2013 Share #77 Posted May 17, 2013 75 feet and open gangways doesn't work. The choice is 75 feet OR open gangways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MTA Bus Posted May 17, 2013 Share #78 Posted May 17, 2013 If I remember correctly, after the MTA ordered the R68s, they said they would not order anymore 75ft cars. Open gangways aren't a bad idea, the problem is the many curves that are in the BMT/IND division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exseed Posted March 8, 2014 Share #79 Posted March 8, 2014 After watching this video of the Toronto Rocket going through a switch and a rather tight curve, there's no excuse to preclude the implementation of gangways between cars. It's also worth mentioning that the TR's cars are 76 feet long, although for the R211, 60 feet would be better so that the sideways motion between the car ends would be less pronounced. Also, to combat smells etc. they should keep at least one set of sliding doors between cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomtoon Posted March 8, 2014 Share #80 Posted March 8, 2014 There's also London's S7 and S8 built by Bombardier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_S7_and_S8_Stock there are some tight curves on the underground so I'd imagine bombardier could do it again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbr40 Posted March 8, 2014 Share #81 Posted March 8, 2014 i think open gangway had been used in past on MTA. iirc on the nostalgia xmas run there a married pair that have small connection. both side walls was curved i think once the train on curved, it moved to block you from entering the next car. i remember seeing that when it in action. i don't know which car number it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted March 8, 2014 Share #82 Posted March 8, 2014 i think open gangway had been used in past on MTA. iirc on the nostalgia xmas run there a married pair that have small connection. both side walls was curved i think once the train on curved, it moved to block you from entering the next car. i remember seeing that when it in action. i don't know which car number it was. D-Types Triplexes... After watching this video of the Toronto Rocket going through a switch and a rather tight curve, there's no excuse to preclude the implementation of gangways between cars. It's also worth mentioning that the TR's cars are 76 feet long, although for the R211, 60 feet would be better so that the sideways motion between the car ends would be less pronounced. Also, to combat smells etc. they should keep at least one set of sliding doors between cars. Interesting. I wonder how tight that turn is. Looks tight for sure, but is it as tight as the BMT curve south of City Hall and the IND Crosstown switches between Jay and Bergen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cl94 Posted March 8, 2014 Share #83 Posted March 8, 2014 D-Types Triplexes... Interesting. I wonder how tight that turn is. Looks tight for sure, but is it as tight as the BMT curve south of City Hall and the IND Crosstown switches between Jay and Bergen? It's pretty tight. There are 2 curves on each side of Union Station along with 2 more on the Spadina leg that have radii of under 250 feet. Wilson Yard has a loop that is about the same size. I'll try and remember to get a video when I'm up there tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeesPwnMets Posted March 9, 2014 Share #84 Posted March 9, 2014 Jesus... I can imagine a homeless man stinking up the ENTIRE train instead of just one car now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E For Erica Posted March 9, 2014 Share #85 Posted March 9, 2014 Jesus... I can imagine a homeless man stinking up the ENTIRE train instead of just one car now.... Yeah these open gangways may not be such a good thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missabassie Posted March 9, 2014 Share #86 Posted March 9, 2014 We do not need more 75ft cars. It was said that NYC Subway is not built for 75' cars, so the carbody is stressed in tight turns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ MC Posted March 9, 2014 Share #87 Posted March 9, 2014 We do not need more 75ft cars. It was said that NYC Subway is not built for 75' cars, so the carbody is stressed in tight turns. The R46s are in their 39th year of service. I think they're doing fine when it comes to the carbodies. They're expected to be in service into 2020, which will make them 45 years old. As for whether more 75 footers will come, who knows. The R211 order hasn't even been finalized yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missabassie Posted March 9, 2014 Share #88 Posted March 9, 2014 The R46s are in their 39th year of service. I think they're doing fine when it comes to the carbodies. They're expected to be in service into 2020, which will make them 45 years old. As for whether more 75 footers will come, who knows. The R211 order hasn't even been finalized yet. I'm not saying they're dying... just something to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E For Erica Posted March 9, 2014 Share #89 Posted March 9, 2014 The R46s are in their 39th year of service. I think they're doing fine when it comes to the carbodies. They're expected to be in service into 2020, which will make them 45 years old. As for whether more 75 footers will come, who knows. The R211 order hasn't even been finalized yet. I can't believe my favorite train is about to be old. It seems like yesterday when I was little, I use to call them new trains because they looked newer than everything else before the tech trains came. Even looked newer than the R68's because of the rollsigns vs. the 46's digital side signs. I actually thought the R68 came before the R46 too lol. But damm. I didn't know they could last till 2020. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted March 9, 2014 Share #90 Posted March 9, 2014 We do not need more 75ft cars. It was said that NYC Subway is not built for 75' cars, so the carbody is stressed in tight turns. Carbon fiber carbodies FTW. The tech is so advanced and well developed now that I wanna see Bomb or Alstom do it already. Reinforce the floor with Zylon plating and you got a goddamn tank (but lighter than the lightest aluminum cars). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted March 9, 2014 Share #91 Posted March 9, 2014 Carbon fiber carbodies FTW. The tech is so advanced and well developed now that I wanna see Bomb or Alstom do it already. Reinforce the floor with Zylon plating and you got a goddamn tank (but lighter than the lightest aluminum cars). I mean, we've had carbon fiber for decades, it's just that with train construction in particular there aren't many advantages that would allow for saving money (stress can be alleviated with proper construction, and it's not as if trains need to boost their max speed or decrease their fuel consumption) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScreechyFlange Posted March 9, 2014 Share #92 Posted March 9, 2014 Im all for another 75 Ft Car! I bet you can't wait to operate one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted March 9, 2014 Share #93 Posted March 9, 2014 I mean, we've had carbon fiber for decades, it's just that with train construction in particular there aren't many advantages that would allow for saving money (stress can be alleviated with proper construction, and it's not as if trains need to boost their max speed or decrease their fuel consumption) It's been around for a long time, but only this past decade has it become reasonably priced for anything besides racing, aerospace and military applications. Lighter train cars would certainly help, seeing as how the insists on rolling tanks for all their new subway cars. It could mean a subway car as strong or stronger than an R160 while weighing much less, and that means either improved acceleration for same power or same acceleration with less power. It is of course and issue of cost and whether a manufacturer would be able to get it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbr40 Posted March 9, 2014 Share #94 Posted March 9, 2014 imagine if this was made like 100 years ago? what material would we used now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10 2952 Posted March 10, 2014 Share #95 Posted March 10, 2014 They should just make them 67.5', like the Standards. It worked for the BMT, it can work for the MTA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted March 10, 2014 Share #96 Posted March 10, 2014 They should just make them 67.5', like the Standards. It worked for the BMT, it can work for the MTA. Lets do the math... 10 car 60' train...600' 8 car 75' train...600' 9 car 67.5' train...607.5' 8 car 60' train...480' 7 car 67.5' train...472.5' 8 car 67.5' train...540' Either way you look at it, it would either be too long or too short compared to the standard length we use now. Not to mention the sheet amount of conductor boards that would have to be replaced and/or moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted March 10, 2014 Share #97 Posted March 10, 2014 The R110B cars that ran on the line in the mid-90's were 67 feet-even apiece. They ran in a nine-car train, so that's 603 feet, just three feet longer than an eight-car R46 train or 10-car R32 train. Train length was never a problem with the R110B cars. It was the position of the cars' wheel sets (which caused them to turn wider than the old BMT Standards did and therefore have the same issues the 75-footers have in the Eastern Division) and the conductor's position on the train that caused the MTA to go back to 60 feet for the B-Division New Tech Trains. In 1996, three of the R110B cars were withdrawn from service and cannibalized for parts, so the remaining six cars ran on the until 1999, I think. That was when the train became too short - at only 402 feet (vs. 480 for eight R32s). So 67-foot cars aren't necessarily a problem in the subway. They would just need to follow the BMT Standards' layout more closely, which may not be very practical for today's (or tomorrow's) subway needs. That said, I think the R211s should be 75-foot cars. They'll just have to be restricted from running on the , and lines. Just like five-car sets of R160 trains are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted March 10, 2014 Share #98 Posted March 10, 2014 What exactly is the advantage of 75 foot over 60 foot? Don't 60 foot cars have more doors and lower dwell time as a result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeesPwnMets Posted March 10, 2014 Share #99 Posted March 10, 2014 ...And 60 footers can run on the Eastern Division. I see absolutely no benefit of 75 foot cars. They just seem like a real pain in the ass. I hope the MTA keeps it as 60 foot cars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted March 11, 2014 Share #100 Posted March 11, 2014 ...And 60 footers can run on the Eastern Division. I see absolutely no benefit of 75 foot cars. They just seem like a real pain in the ass. I hope the MTA keeps it as 60 foot cars The R179 could have 5 doors per side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.