R-211 Soliciations Have Been Posted

[YankeesPwnMets]

If they put 5 doors a side, that would work. If not, then I see the 75 footers as useless. They're incompatible with the , would have less doors and exacerbate crowding issues.

[itmaybeokay]

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?

 

The theoretical benefit is that for a given 600' train there is more interior space and less space wasted between cars and taken up by carbody ends. 

 

In practice, the 75' cars obviate any practical benefit because they take longer to load and unload. They still have 4 doors per car, but only have 8 cars. The doors are farther apart and there are 8 less per side per train. This causes the same number of passengers as would try to pass through 40 doorways pass through 32 doorways - exacerbating loading delays and increasing dwell time. 

 

Hence - why 5-door 75 foot cars are the only real option for 75 foot cars. Or perhaps much larger doors with 4 per car.

[AndrewJC]

What exactly is the advantage of 75 foot over 60 foot?

 

On a 600-foot-train basis, 75 foot cars are significantly cheaper than 60 foot cars. Cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain.

 

...And 60 footers can run on the Eastern Division.

 

The entire R211 order will be for 300 foot units. They're not going to the Eastern Division regardless of the car length.

[Kamen Rider]

Gangway cars may have a future in the subway, but I'm not sold on completely open gangways.

 

 

Lets say there's a fire. Which would spread easier; a fire in a contained car or a fire in a car open at both ends?

[AndrewJC]

Gangway cars may have a future in the subway, but I'm not sold on completely open gangways.

 

 

Lets say there's a fire. Which would spread easier; a fire in a contained car or a fire in a car open at both ends?

 

The latter, almost certainly. But on the flip side, open gangways make for easier/faster/safer evacuation. I'm not sure which is better overall from the safety standpoint, but you raise a good question.

[Kamen Rider]

The gangways would be fine if there were simple doors in them.

 

Nice, sliding two piece set of Lexan.

 

It also better protects the train. If a unit needs to be disassembled for maintenance purposes, the other cars can be left outside with their passenger compartments sealed from the elements. A totally open gangway removes that luxury.

 

Lets take that accident on the Brighton line earlier today, and change the circumstances slightly. Subway cars with fully open gangways, and one of them suffers a more direct hit that results in body damage. You gonna just tarp one end of the rest of the unit while the damaged car is in the body shop for reconstructive surgery?

 

Remember that R143 set from the Canarsie yard accident? the 3 undamaged cars have been sitting in 207 yard ever since 8277 went airborne. (last time I was up there someone mentioned something about using them for a window test or something). What would their insides be like if they were open ended?

[Eric B]

They could always cover the end with a temporary barrier.

[Art Vandelay]

Actually, considering how many windows were removed from those R143s, one could easily consider them open ended. 

[jay2]

The London Underground seems to be doing fine with its articulated cars, as is Toronto.  I think NYC could particularly benefit from the design.

[bobtehpanda]

The gangways would be fine if there were simple doors in them.

 

Nice, sliding two piece set of Lexan.

 

It also better protects the train. If a unit needs to be disassembled for maintenance purposes, the other cars can be left outside with their passenger compartments sealed from the elements. A totally open gangway removes that luxury.

 

Lets take that accident on the Brighton line earlier today, and change the circumstances slightly. Subway cars with fully open gangways, and one of them suffers a more direct hit that results in body damage. You gonna just tarp one end of the rest of the unit while the damaged car is in the body shop for reconstructive surgery?

 

Remember that R143 set from the Canarsie yard accident? the 3 undamaged cars have been sitting in 207 yard ever since 8277 went airborne. (last time I was up there someone mentioned something about using them for a window test or something). What would their insides be like if they were open ended?

 

Open gangways increase standing capacity by a significant amount. Doors would just obstruct otherwise perfectly good standing space.

 

It's not as if open gangways aren't reinforced. In any case, why should we be designing trains based on freak accidents (has a car landing on top of a train ever happened before in this city?)

[Kamen Rider]

please don't put words in my mouth, it's a pet peeve.

 

The incident on the Q was the basis for my example, but you will note I said "Change the circumstances". The point of that post was not the ability of an open ended car to take an impact, it was what happens to the rest of the train while the damaged car is being repaired. Which will require the equipment to sit outside and wait for days if not weeks or even months, if not longer. The R143 set I mentioned has been parked outside 207th Overhaul for nearly 8 years now minus one car, 8277, the A unit that had it's frame bent from going airborne and droping itself onto a bumper block.  

 

My question, and my point, is in that circumstance, long time outdoor storage while slightly dissembled, what happens?

 

And as for more standing room, find someone willing to stand there when the train is doing 60 under the East river and she's bucking all over the place. 

[Art Vandelay]

From riding other intercirculated cars such as the Berlin H class or the Toronto TR class, the area between the cars is not particularly rough riding compared to the rest of the train. That said, River tunnels are a small percent of the subway, And one of the only two which get close to the speeds you are mentioning (14th) will never run with R211s, 

If you look at 8278-8280, you'll notice a large number of parts missing from them, including many of the windows. If being watertight is a concern(Which, I honestly think you are probably right, it should be), the MTA doesn't seem to follow precautions against the weather in stored cars anyway. 
Perhaps open gangways would make it more problematic, but if such is being thought about during design, it could almost certainly be designed for a car which can deal with such without problem. 

[Dj Hammers]

Open gangway cars have been around for decades now. I'm sure engineers have figured out a way to deal with all the issues people have been bringing up, otherwise open gangway cars would not be used elsewhere.

[cl94]

Open gangway cars have been around for decades now. I'm sure engineers have figured out a way to deal with all the issues people have been bringing up, otherwise open gangway cars would not be used elsewhere.

 

It's called they (almost) never take the sets apart. Even now, linked sets stay linked. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that they just roll the entire set into the shop if one car needs anything but major work (which shouldn't ever be needed outside of an overhaul).

[R40SlantFan]

please don't put words in my mouth, it's a pet peeve.

 

The incident on the Q was the basis for my example, but you will note I said "Change the circumstances". The point of that post was not the ability of an open ended car to take an impact, it was what happens to the rest of the train while the damaged car is being repaired. Which will require the equipment to sit outside and wait for days if not weeks or even months, if not longer. The R143 set I mentioned has been parked outside 207th Overhaul for nearly 8 years now minus one car, 8277, the A unit that had it's frame bent from going airborne and droping itself onto a bumper block.  

 

My question, and my point, is in that circumstance, long time outdoor storage while slightly dissembled, what happens?

 

And as for more standing room, find someone willing to stand there when the train is doing 60 under the East river and she's bucking all over the place. 

That's bordering on pedantic. If they had to store some cars out of service for a while thats a special case and im sure they would seal off the open ends. theres no reason to not order open gangway cars just because of the chance that a set or two may need to be split up and stored out of service for a long time

[AndrewJC]

Open gangways increase standing capacity by a significant amount.

 

Define "significant."

 

If the gangways are 5 feet wide - a highly optimistic assumption, in my opinion - and are completely unobstructed, they'd increase the capacity of a 10 car train by 3-4%.

[cl94]

Define "significant." If the gangways are 5 feet wide - a highly optimistic assumption, in my opinion - and are completely unobstructed, they'd increase the capacity of a 10 car train by 3-4%.

 

Anything is an improvement. The unobstructed gangways of the TRs can fit at least 10 people during rush hour. The Yonge-University line (which is 100% TRs) runs ~25-30 TPH durning rush hour. It's like the Lex express tracks in frequency and loading. If you can fit an extra 80 people on a train, that's 80 fewer people left standing on the platform.

[LTA1992]

Besides, cars on the system are linked into permanent sets anyway. Might as well make them articulated. That's less trucks needing to be built, less motors, less brake shoes, etc.

[bobtehpanda]

Besides, cars on the system are linked into permanent sets anyway. Might as well make them articulated. That's less trucks needing to be built, less motors, less brake shoes, etc.

 

Open gangways =/= articulated. The request is for open gangways, not articulated trucks.

[Fan Railer]

Besides, cars on the system are linked into permanent sets anyway. Might as well make them articulated. That's less trucks needing to be built, less motors, less brake shoes, etc.

Higher axle load... because that's never an issue...

[darrylbaniaga38]

Besides, cars on the system are linked into permanent sets anyway. Might as well make them articulated. That's less trucks needing to be built, less motors, less brake shoes, etc.

 

 

Higher axle load... because that's never an issue...

Don't forget about decreased acceleration and longer braking distances.

[Fan Railer]

Don't forget about decreased acceleration and longer braking distances.

Unless you increase the power of the motors / braking capacity.

 

Either way, the point here is that the MTA would really not be saving anything in terms of cost by choosing an articulated design over the traditional design, but as stated earlier, walk-through gangway trains does not = articulated trains with jacobs bogies.

[Culver]

RE: higher weight.

Just because the demands 1930s subway car weights for "Safety" (nothing says Incompetence like assuming only more weight = safe), doesn't mean it isn't possible to have lightweight, safe subway cars. WMATA's new subway cars are 75 feet long, weigh less than those piece of shit R160 slugs and were specifically designed to be very safe (and be safe at 75 mph, too). So yes, we can have 75-foot cars that weigh the same as the R160s or less while being as safe. It's a matter of the entering the 21st century.

[R10 2952]

If the positioning of the wheel sets in the R110B was a problem, then all I can say is that they should have followed the design of the BMT Standard.  That way, they could have avoided the problem.  As to train length, the best solution is not always the easiest.  What I'm saying is that the platforms would have to eventually be lengthened to accommodate 10-car 67.5' trains, or 675 feet in total length.  But don't tell me that it's not doable; subway platforms have been lengthened numerous times in the past to keep up with longer trains.  It's called the inevitable march of progress, which the MTA seems unwilling to accept (Eastern Division is case in point).

[cl94]

If the positioning of the wheel sets in the R110B was a problem, then all I can say is that they should have followed the design of the BMT Standard.  That way, they could have avoided the problem.  As to train length, the best solution is not always the easiest.  What I'm saying is that the platforms would have to eventually be lengthened to accommodate 10-car 67.5' trains, or 675 feet in total length.  But don't tell me that it's not doable; subway platforms have been lengthened numerous times in the past to keep up with longer trains.  It's called the inevitable march of progress, which the MTA seems unwilling to accept (Eastern Division is case in point).

 

Most of the IND has platforms able to accomodate 11 car trains with little or no platform extensions required. It was built with increased length in mind. Issue is the length of yard, layup, and relay tracks. IIRC, the Hillside layup/relay tracks can barely fit 2 600' trains each. One of the levels can't even do that without fouling the switches. Church has the same issue. Only 4 lines run entirely on original IND or LIRR trackage (the , , , and ). 3 of those run with shortened consists due to lack of ridership and the other could certainly use an extra car. In this day and age, platform extensions cost a heck of a lot more AND any station with that amount of renovation must legally recieve full ADA accessibility. As just about every line has a station or 2 that would certainly need platform extensions, the cost and disruptions to service would be massive.