R211 Discussion Thread

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

14 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Honestly same; I'd really hoped to see more 75' cars with some longitudinal seating in the vein of the R68s on some of the longer express routes; like I'd love to see something Class 345-inspired on the , , and other lines with long express segments and long end-to-end runtimes (I loved the R44s and R46s on the in high school when I had a research internship at NYU Polytech because I'd just grab a forward facing seat at Jay St-Metrotech and knock out all the way to 207 St before grabbing the bus up to Riverdale and walking the rest of the way home); like the Class 345s are lower-capacity because they're only 9'2" wide, but you could widen them up to 9'10" to fit the BMT and shorten them to 600'; their platform height is aligned with NYC's, and they look pretty damn comfortable to ride in while still having decent capacity. Images supplied for reference:

Having diversity in the fleet for different lines is good; yes the NTTs are higher capacity, but a train like the  rarely reaches maximum capacity, and as you said rides can be really long.

 

I think the main issue is anywhere on the subway, homeless people are a problem, and the MTA doesn't want to let them get too comfortable. Furthermore, any sort of "soft-seating"  is going to be abused very fast by certain NYers sadly. Also the MTA seems to really want things to be standardized so it's easier to interchange fleets; 75 ft cars can't work for a few lines.

[engineerboy6561]

22 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Having diversity in the fleet for different lines is good; yes the NTTs are higher capacity, but a train like the  rarely reaches maximum capacity, and as you said rides can be really long.

 

I think the main issue is anywhere on the subway, homeless people are a problem, and the MTA doesn't want to let them get too comfortable. Furthermore, any sort of "soft-seating"  is going to be abused very fast by certain NYers sadly. Also the MTA seems to really want things to be standardized so it's easier to interchange fleets; 75 ft cars can't work for a few lines.

Yeah; 75' stuff can't really run on the BMT Eastern Division, and I'm also not quite sure how something would work with 75' length and Jacobs bogies (on trains without Jacobs bogies a 75' car is probably 65'-70' over truck centers, whereas a 75' car with Jacobs bogies would be actually 75' or so over truck centers; such a design would probably work better with 67' car lengths like the R110Bs had because the actual distance over truck centers would be similar). Honestly, making the seats uncomfortable doesn't make the homeless people go away or get off the train; safe injection sites, better shelter infrastructure and cheaper housing does a lot of that. I'd think that the London moquettes are fairly vandalism-resistant (at least they claim they are; I'm not sure how they would stand up to someone with a knife, but my impression is that not many people use knives vs drawing implements to mess up a seat, and a stock of spare covers could probably used to mitigate that. Coat the moquette in this stuff and you'll find you can basically spray it down and it'll clean really easily: https://www.flotechps.com/advanced-coatings/super-hydrophobic-coatings/)

Edited March 6, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

52 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Yeah; 75' stuff can't really run on the BMT Eastern Division, and I'm also not quite sure how something would work with 75' length and Jacobs bogies (on trains without Jacobs bogies a 75' car is probably 65'-70' over truck centers, whereas a 75' car with Jacobs bogies would be actually 75' or so over truck centers; such a design would probably work better with 67' car lengths like the R110Bs had because the actual distance over truck centers would be similar). Honestly, making the seats uncomfortable doesn't make the homeless people go away or get off the train; safe injection sites, better shelter infrastructure and cheaper housing does a lot of that. I'd think that the London moquettes are fairly vandalism-resistant (at least they claim they are; I'm not sure how they would stand up to someone with a knife, but my impression is that not many people use knives vs drawing implements to mess up a seat, and a stock of spare covers could probably used to mitigate that. Coat the moquette in this stuff and you'll find you can basically spray it down and it'll clean really easily: https://www.flotechps.com/advanced-coatings/super-hydrophobic-coatings/)

I do agree that "defensive design" tends to make normal people less comfortable compared to the very marginal decrease in homeless lingering. I was at the food court level in Grand Central the other day and they literally took every last seat out; there were only standing tables. Absurd; a young child can't use these relatively tall standing tables, and what about older people who NEED to sit down? Also most of the bathrooms were closed for some reason. I was seriously thinking about just sitting on the floor and seeing if they'd ask me to leave. And if you can't keep homeless people out of the food court of Grand Central, that's just embarrassing. What always makes me sad about homeless people is thinking about how many of them might be able to become productive members of society with proper help.

Would 67ft trains operate as 3 3 car sets or a set of 5 and a set of 4? Also, how would 67ft trains work on BMT eastern division? I feel like standardizing everything to 60ft is for the best, but you can still have a 60 ft B-division car that has a more "comfortable" seating layout.

I've never had experience with the Moquettes but idk if it's worth the tradeoff, even if they make the car look "more comfy". First off, moquettes aren't like a pillow; the seat is still very hard, and I can just imagine food and stuff being spilled making them disgusting. DC metro is still able to do it though, so maybe I'm being a bit too harsh. Moquette or not, I just find the inside of the NTTs too sterile and "aggressive" especially as someone on the spectrum who's not a fan of bright lights.

[engineerboy6561]

59 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I do agree that "defensive design" tends to make normal people less comfortable compared to the very marginal decrease in homeless lingering. I was at the food court level in Grand Central the other day and they literally took every last seat out; there were only standing tables. Absurd; a young child can't use these relatively tall standing tables, and what about older people who NEED to sit down? Also most of the bathrooms were closed for some reason. I was seriously thinking about just sitting on the floor and seeing if they'd ask me to leave. And if you can't keep homeless people out of the food court of Grand Central, that's just embarrassing. What always makes me sad about homeless people is thinking about how many of them might be able to become productive members of society with proper help.

Would 67ft trains operate as 3 3 car sets or a set of 5 and a set of 4? Also, how would 67ft trains work on BMT eastern division? I feel like standardizing everything to 60ft is for the best, but you can still have a 60 ft B-division car that has a more "comfortable" seating layout.

I've never had experience with the Moquettes but idk if it's worth the tradeoff, even if they make the car look "more comfy". First off, moquettes aren't like a pillow; the seat is still very hard, and I can just imagine food and stuff being spilled making them disgusting. DC metro is still able to do it though, so maybe I'm being a bit too harsh. Moquette or not, I just find the inside of the NTTs too sterile and "aggressive" especially as someone on the spectrum who's not a fan of bright lights.

My initial thought was to have three 3-car sets arranged as triplets the way the R110B was arranged, but since apparently the Eastern Division can take eight 67' cars it might make sense to do sets of four and then sets of five (so that sets of four could be used anywhere and then sets of 5 would do non-Eastern Div work. You can have a 60' car with a more comfortable layout, though the way I would probably do it is similarly to the Class 345s, putting a couple bays of 2+2 near the ends of the set while leaving most of the middle as purely longitudinal seating. As far as the moquettes are concerned, I meant with an upholstered seat similar to what the Tube uses, so it would be soft to sit on. Part of why I pitched the hydrophobic coating is that they actively repel most water-based liquids (which includes most kinds of food as well as other bodily fluids that can end up on train seats if someone's having a bad day). Ideally you could design the seat covers to come off in a minute or two, and then once a month or so the covers get taken off and washed while the train's laying up in the yard.

Edited March 6, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

19 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

My initial thought was to have three 3-car sets arranged as triplets the way the R110B was arranged, but since apparently the Eastern Division can take eight 67' cars it might make sense to do sets of four and then sets of five (so that sets of four could be used anywhere and then sets of 5 would do non-Eastern Div work. You can have a 60' car with a more comfortable layout, though the way I would probably do it is similarly to the Class 345s, putting a couple bays of 2+2 near the ends of the set while leaving most of the middle as purely longitudinal seating. As far as the moquettes are concerned, I meant with an upholstered seat similar to what the Tube uses, so it would be soft to sit on. Part of why I pitched the hydrophobic coating is that they actively repel most water-based liquids (which includes most kinds of food as well as other bodily fluids that can end up on train seats if someone's having a bad day). Ideally you could design the seat covers to come off in a minute or two, and then once a month or so the covers get taken off and washed while the train's laying up in the yard.

I see; I'm not a Maquette expert but I'll take your word for it. Though if they are removeable could there be an issue with people trying to steal the Maquettes?

Feel like the plastic seats are generally fine, but I'm also a younger person so maybe to older people with back issues they could be problematic on longer trips.

[engineerboy6561]

3 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I see; I'm not a Maquette expert but I'll take your word for it. Though if they are removeable could there be an issue with people trying to steal the Maquettes?

Feel like the plastic seats are generally fine, but I'm also a younger person so maybe to older people with back issues they could be problematic on longer trips.

That's fair; the assumption I'm making about having TfL-style moquettes is basically that the biggest threats facing public transit seats are writing and bodily fluids, and so a seat that's impervious to bodily fluids and designed with a pattern against which graffiti is frustratingly hard to see would be fine.

[Kamen Rider]

Okay… I just got home from my training class. I will share this and only this for now:

 

we’re looking at May/June-ish for the 211A to be in passenger service.

[NewFlyer 230]

54 minutes ago, Kamen Rider said:

Okay… I just got home from my training class. I will share this and only this for now:

 

we’re looking at May/June-ish for the 211A to be in passenger service.

That’s very exciting news! It seemed like an eternity waiting for the first set to hit service so I hope we see it’s in service debut in June. 
 

I wonder when Staten Island will see their piece of the order. Those R44’s really need to go because they have reached half a century in age. 

[Kamen Rider]

They’ll see them when the 211S are ready to be shipped.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 3/5/2023 at 10:37 PM, engineerboy6561 said:

My initial thought was to have three 3-car sets arranged as triplets the way the R110B was arranged, but since apparently the Eastern Division can take eight 67' cars it might make sense to do sets of four and then sets of five (so that sets of four could be used anywhere and then sets of 5 would do non-Eastern Div work. You can have a 60' car with a more comfortable layout, though the way I would probably do it is similarly to the Class 345s, putting a couple bays of 2+2 near the ends of the set while leaving most of the middle as purely longitudinal seating. As far as the moquettes are concerned, I meant with an upholstered seat similar to what the Tube uses, so it would be soft to sit on. Part of why I pitched the hydrophobic coating is that they actively repel most water-based liquids (which includes most kinds of food as well as other bodily fluids that can end up on train seats if someone's having a bad day). Ideally you could design the seat covers to come off in a minute or two, and then once a month or so the covers get taken off and washed while the train's laying up in the yard.

I remembered back when they announced that the R143s were going to be 60-foot cars and wondered why they went back to 60 after doing 67-foot R110Bs. This post from an archived thread from back in 2011 (skip down to post 27; the thread is archived so I can’t directly quote the post) helped explain why - 

And it probably made more sense to go back to 60-foot cars from a practical standpoint anyway. I mean, the triplet sets that R110Bs came in were impractical right off the bat because nine-car trains of them would have been much too long for the Eastern Division, while six-car trains would have been much too short. So like you said, they would have had to be in four or five-car sets. But even so, there are some platforms in the East that can’t hold more than eight 60-footers (Metropolitan Ave and at least one track at Rockaway Pkwy - due to its offset bumper blocks - come to mind). So trains of eight 67-footers might not have even worked there.

I like the idea of having 2+2 transverse seats at the ends of the cars, because I like transverse seats better than aisle-facing ones. But given the layout of the R143/160/179 cars, you likely wouldn’t have any more seats at the ends of the cars than you do now because there’s just not that much space between the bulkheads and the side doors. With the R211s’ wider side doors, there will be even less space there. 

[engineerboy6561]

39 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I remembered back when they announced that the R143s were going to be 60-foot cars and wondered why they went back to 60 after doing 67-foot R110Bs. This post from an archived thread from back in 2011 (skip down to post 27; the thread is archived so I can’t directly quote the post) helped explain why - 

And it probably made more sense to go back to 60-foot cars from a practical standpoint anyway. I mean, the triplet sets that R110Bs came in were impractical right off the bat because nine-car trains of them would have been much too long for the Eastern Division, while six-car trains would have been much too short. So like you said, they would have had to be in four or five-car sets. But even so, there are some platforms in the East that can’t hold more than eight 60-footers (Metropolitan Ave and at least one track at Rockaway Pkwy - due to its offset bumper blocks - come to mind). So trains of eight 67-footers might not have even worked there.

I like the idea of having 2+2 transverse seats at the ends of the cars, because I like transverse seats better than aisle-facing ones. But given the layout of the R143/160/179 cars, you likely wouldn’t have any more seats at the ends of the cars than you do now because there’s just not that much space between the bulkheads and the side doors. With the R211s’ wider side doors, there will be even less space there. 

Honestly that makes a lot of sense, and it's a pity that 67' didn't work out; longer car lengths make more room for things like transverse seats, and the door widths make it even more so. Honestly, what I'd love to see is an aluminum-based trainset with swing plug doors so we could have lower weights and more window space again.

Edited March 7, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[IAlam]

I'm not sure why people are saying the 75' trains can't work out. That whole argument for shorter cars for full-length trains when only the lines 8-car trains are the ones that need the restrictions. The way I see it there is no need for regular B division trains to run on the eastern division in the first place. the 5-car R160s Probably won't ever see service on the Eastern Division just like the 4-car R46/68s. The only real concern should be if the Eastern Division is compatible with the rest of the system. If the MTA ever makes a new order of full-length trains only there is no need for them to be 60'. The only places in the system with restrictions for longer rail cars are the same places with restrictions for the length of the train. 

Edited March 7, 2023 by IAlam

[R32 3838]

41 minutes ago, IAlam said:

I'm not sure why people are saying the 75' trains can't work out. That whole argument for shorter cars for full-length trains when only the lines 8-car trains are the ones that need the restrictions. The way I see it there is no need for regular B division trains to run on the eastern division in the first place. the 5-car R160s Probably won't ever see service on the Eastern Division just like the 4-car R46/68s. The only real concern should be if the Eastern Division is compatible with the rest of the system. If the MTA ever makes a new order of full-length trains only there is no need for them to be 60'. The only places in the system with restrictions for longer rail cars are the same places with restrictions for the length of the train. 

A 75 foot tech train would be very heavy. That's one of the factors on why they stuck with 60 foot subway cars. 75 foot subway cars don't work no more here. They are horrible at handling crowds and even if they made them with 5 doors, it'll still be an issue with weight. Flexibility is key, 5 car units do visit ENY from time to time for maintenance so its better to buy 60 footers vs 75 foot subway cars. 

[RandomRider0101]

38 minutes ago, IAlam said:

I'm not sure why people are saying the 75' trains can't work out. That whole argument for shorter cars for full-length trains when only the lines 8-car trains are the ones that need the restrictions. The way I see it there is no need for regular B division trains to run on the eastern division in the first place. the 5-car R160s Probably won't ever see service on the Eastern Division just like the 4-car R46/68s. The only real concern should be if the Eastern Division is compatible with the rest of the system. If the MTA ever makes a new order of full-length trains only there is no need for them to be 60'. The only places in the system with restrictions for longer rail cars are the same places with restrictions for the length of the train. 

The MTA stopped ordering 75 foot trains for several reasons. It isn't just about platform restrictions. Doors on 75 footers must be kept locked for safety reasons, meaning passengers can't move between cars even when there's an emergency.

Case in point: that subway shooting last year in which a man opened fire on a train of R46s. Passengers were desperately trying to escape and get as far away as possible, and couldn't due to the doors being locked.

That is just one of many issues with the 75 footers and why it's good that they moved away from them.  Since we're now heading in the open gangway direction, that will only make these cars even more obsolete.

I haven't even gotten into the crowd control issue, along with other existing issues with these cars. Maybe someone else can give a more in-depth explanation for why we never need to order 75 footers again.

[IAlam]

40 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

A 75 foot tech train would be very heavy. That's one of the factors on why they stuck with 60 foot subway cars. 75 foot subway cars don't work no more here. They are horrible at handling crowds and even if they made them with 5 doors, it'll still be an issue with weight. Flexibility is key, 5 car units do visit ENY from time to time for maintenance so its better to buy 60 footers vs 75 foot subway cars. 

That makes a lot more sense, I didn't know ENY worked on 5 car sets.

17 minutes ago, RandomRider0101 said:

The MTA stopped ordering 75 foot trains for several reasons. It isn't just about platform restrictions. Doors on 75 footers must be kept locked for safety reasons, meaning passengers can't move between cars even when there's an emergency.

17 minutes ago, RandomRider0101 said:

Case in point: that subway shooting last year in which a man opened fire on a train of R46s. Passengers were desperately trying to escape and get as far away as possible, and couldn't due to the doors being locked.

The thing is I was never sure if the MTA could order trains with closed gangways as they do on mainline railroads. Some LIRR junctions have nasty turns where the cars don't align but that never stopped them.

That same argument is also being made against the open gangways by many since it makes it easier for a bad actor to target more people. 

But thanks for the explanations.

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by IAlam

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

9 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

That’s very exciting news! It seemed like an eternity waiting for the first set to hit service so I hope we see it’s in service debut in June. 
 

I wonder when Staten Island will see their piece of the order. Those R44’s really need to go because they have reached half a century in age. 

I actually have a bit of hope I'll be able to take one before college! Thank you Kamen for the info.

[RandomRider0101]

36 minutes ago, IAlam said:

That makes a lot more sense, I didn't know ENY worked on 5 car sets.

The thing is I was never sure if the MTA could order trains with closed gangways as they do on mainline railroads. Some LIRR junctions have nasty turns where the cars don't align but that never stopped them.

That same argument is also being made against the open gangways by many since it makes it easier for a bad actor to target more people. 

But thanks for the explanations.

 

Well think about it this way...

If you ever (forbid) found yourself in a situation like that - would you rather be trapped in the car with the perp and nowhere to go, or would you rather have more places to run?

If it were me, I would prefer the latter as I'd like to have the option to get as far away from the perpetrator as possible. But that's just me; I know everyone's not gonna look at things the same.

Yes with closed cars the perp wouldn't be able to advance as easily, but the ppl that are in that car won't be able to escape either. So which one is worse; is it really worth sacrificing a few lives over stubborn exceptionalism? I think not. We should be looking towards the future, and open gangways are the future of NYC and probably the U.S. as a whole.

Just my opinion. Carry on.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

31 minutes ago, RandomRider0101 said:

Well think about it this way...

If you ever (forbid) found yourself in a situation like that - would you rather be trapped in the car with the perp and nowhere to go, or would you rather have more places to run?

If it were me, I would prefer the latter as I'd like to have the option to get as far away from the perpetrator as possible. But that's just me; I know everyone's not gonna look at things the same.

Yes with closed cars the perp wouldn't be able to advance as easily, but the ppl that are in that car won't be able to escape either. So which one is worse; is it really worth sacrificing a few lives over stubborn exceptionalism? I think not. We should be looking towards the future, and open gangways are the future of NYC and probably the U.S. as a whole.

Just my opinion. Carry on.

Generally speaking, something that is a barrier to both the attacker and the victim is a net benefit to the attacker because they get a chance to catch up to the victim.

Also rmbr, most of the time the next stop is a few minutes away at worse; it'd be very hard for an attacker to slaughter a 5 car train in that amount of time, so if there was a shooter in car 1, I'd much rather be able to run to car 5 and wait it out. It would also allow larger groups of people to bunch together in the remaining cars to stop the shooter.

The thing I see getting worse with open gangways might actually be theft and other "hit and run" style crimes like theft because now folks can run down the train. Furthermore, maybe more children accidentally being separated?

[RandomRider0101]

Those are some good points. Thanks for adding your 2 cents.

[U-BahnNYC]

2 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Generally speaking, something that is a barrier to both the attacker and the victim is a net benefit to the attacker because they get a chance to catch up to the victim.

Also rmbr, most of the time the next stop is a few minutes away at worse; it'd be very hard for an attacker to slaughter a 5 car train in that amount of time, so if there was a shooter in car 1, I'd much rather be able to run to car 5 and wait it out. It would also allow larger groups of people to bunch together in the remaining cars to stop the shooter.

The thing I see getting worse with open gangways might actually be theft and other "hit and run" style crimes like theft because now folks can run down the train. Furthermore, maybe more children accidentally being separated?

It is 100% safer to be able to move through 5 cars. The more space there is to move, the safer it is. 

Currently, the locked 75 footers are death traps for this reason should the worst scenario happen. 

[U-BahnNYC]

14 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

Okay… I just got home from my training class. I will share this and only this for now:

 

we’re looking at May/June-ish for the 211A to be in passenger service.

By "passenger service" does that mean the 30-day acceptance test, or whatever happens after the test is done? 

[Nova Fly Guy]

Got a surprise update 211A inaugural run will be March 9, 2023 From 1400-2100 starting from 207

Edited March 8, 2023 by Nova Fly Guy

[BreeddekalbL]

2 hours ago, Nova Fly Guy said:

Got a surprise update 211A inaugural run will be March 9, 2023 From 1400-2100 starting from 207

Who is your source?

[Cait Sith]

1 minute ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Who is your source?

He's actually right. They'll be in service on Thursday, assuming that there are no last minute changes or delays.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Cait Sith

[Nova Fly Guy]

15 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Who is your source?

My employer