R211 Discussion Thread

[Around the Horn]

So I did some digging in the CPOC meetings and found this reference from January's meeting...

[HenryB]

IMO...instead of having folded seats, could they just remove the seats next to the open gangways and make those passways wider?

[Bosco]

I think officially it referred to as a certain percentage of the car built in New York, but that's essentially what it boils down to.

CRRC has proposed building a plant in Fort Edward to address this, although I think the bigger problem is getting them to be qualified in time to meet the schedule needed for these cars.

[Bosco]

IMO...instead of having folded seats, could they just remove the seats next to the open gangways and make those passways wider?

The width of the gangways is limited by the sharp curves of some parts of the system.  That's why they tested an R143 around the system a while back.

 

 

I think officially it referred to as a certain percentage of the car built in New York, but that's essentially what it boils down to.

CRRC has proposed building a plant in Fort Edward to address this, although I think the bigger problem is getting them to be qualified in time to meet the schedule needed for these cars.

 

 

*Please delete my first comment

Edited September 6, 2017 by Bosco

[Far Rock Depot]

 

 

The width of the gangways is limited by the sharp curves of some parts of the system. That's why they tested an R143 around the system a while back.

 

 

 

 

This.

 

 

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[rbrome]

The width of the gangways is limited by the sharp curves of some parts of the system.  That's why they tested an R143 around the system a while back.

 

Can you elaborate? I'd love to know more about the engineering of this. I don't understand why a wide open gangway can't be designed to accommodate tight curves. 

[Bosco]

Can you elaborate? I'd love to know more about the engineering of this. I don't understand why a wide open gangway can't be designed to accommodate tight curves. 

 

An extreme example of where a car-width gangway couldn't be used is through the old South Ferry loop.  Imagine curves so sharp (and there are some on the original BMT as well, especially pre-Dual Contracts) that the left side between the cars are almost touching, and the right sides are extremely far apart that the springs are stretched to their maximum length.  The accordion-like material would break either due to too much tension on one side, or too much compression on the other.  By narrowing the gangway, there is less tension/compression acting on the accordion.  There are also many tight switches in the subway system where the anticlimbers don't line up for a second (this is especially noticeable on the 75-foot cars).  Again, there is a good chance the cars will rip apart.

 

You might be thinking: but they do it on buses, so what's the big deal?  Well, with buses the turning radius is determined by the mechanics of the bus itself.  But for subway cars, it's determined by the radius of the curve of the tracks.  If a turn is too tight for a bus, the driver simply avoids making that turn; if a curve is too tight for a train, there is no where to go.

 

The pre-Dual Contracts BMT and IRT are some of the oldest metros on the planet.  Even the original IND has some tight curves (although not nearly as bad where gap fillers or strict timers are always needed).  Other metro systems built later (or around the same time or even earlier) had different standards for turning radius such that the infrastructure is more favorable to car-width gangways.

[bobtehpanda]

An extreme example of where a car-width gangway couldn't be used is through the old South Ferry loop.  Imagine curves so sharp (and there are some on the original BMT as well, especially pre-Dual Contracts) that the left side between the cars are almost touching, and the right sides are extremely far apart that the springs are stretched to their maximum length.  The accordion-like material would break either due to too much tension on one side, or too much compression on the other.  By narrowing the gangway, there is less tension/compression acting on the accordion.  There are also many tight switches in the subway system where the anticlimbers don't line up for a second (this is especially noticeable on the 75-foot cars).  Again, there is a good chance the cars will rip apart.

 

You might be thinking: but they do it on buses, so what's the big deal?  Well, with buses the turning radius is determined by the mechanics of the bus itself.  But for subway cars, it's determined by the radius of the curve of the tracks.  If a turn is too tight for a bus, the driver simply avoids making that turn; if a curve is too tight for a train, there is no where to go.

 

The pre-Dual Contracts BMT and IRT are some of the oldest metros on the planet.  Even the original IND has some tight curves (although not nearly as bad where gap fillers or strict timers are always needed).  Other metro systems built later (or around the same time or even earlier) had different standards for turning radius such that the infrastructure is more favorable to car-width gangways.

 

Weren't the BMT Triplexes articulated/open-gangway? How wide were those at the connection points?

[Bosco]

Weren't the BMT Triplexes articulated/open-gangway? How wide were those at the connection points?

 

They were, although the gangways were very narrow (like two-thirds the width of the passageways on the R160s) and those cars were shorter too, so the sharp turns weren't as much of a problem.

 

Between the delays with the R179s, the dire need for increased service, and the fact that there are hundreds of 40+-year-old cars hanging by a thread, I'd sacrifice that little extra capacity to have new cars here ASAP.  Hell, most of the base contract is for traditional cars, plus the option order still isn't 100% (it depends on how the test train goes).  The MTA moves way too slow on things, but sometimes it's better for them just to get it done and get it working, if not ideal.

[Far Rock Depot]

Weren't the BMT Triplexes articulated/open-gangway? How wide were those at the connection points?

Technically no. They were straight articulated. Three cars used four trucks. So the connection between cars shared a truck. Open gangway means two separate cars with a wide open interior section between cars while the triplex had basically only a cylinder "hallway" between cars only allowing one person to pass at a time. Now the curves weren't really an issue since the cars didnt "jackknife" on them. They shared a truck so it was basically just like the turntable on articulated buses. Open gangway cars dont share a truck so they will still jackknife needing the articulated portion to not only bend but to also kind of "slide" across each other. Especially when navigating a switch.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[Bosco]

Technically no. They were straight articulated. Three cars used four trucks. So the connection between cars shared a truck. Open gangway means two separate cars with a wide open interior section between cars while the triplex had basically only a cylinder "hallway" between cars only allowing one person to pass at a time. Now the curves weren't really an issue since the cars didnt "jackknife" on them. They shared a truck so it was basically just like the turntable on articulated buses. Open gangway cars dont share a truck so they will still jackknife needing the articulated portion to not only bend but to also kind of "slide" across each other. Especially when navigating a switch.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

Ah, so the middle trucks used Jacobs trucks.  Forgot about that (big difference as you pointed out).  Has the MTA considered using Jacobs trucks for the R211 at all?  It would mean less parts (and less weight), but I would imagine them not wanting to as it would make it that much harder to take the cars apart when working on them.

[Far Rock Depot]

Ah, so the middle trucks used Jacobs trucks. Forgot about that (big difference as you pointed out). Has the MTA considered using Jacobs trucks for the R211 at all? It would mean less parts (and less weight), but I would imagine them not wanting to as it would make it that much harder to take the cars apart when working on them.

Nope. 1) you answered your own question. The want o be able to split the unit in the shop. 2) if they did consider it, they wouldn't have refitted an R143 to ride around the system taking measurements for the open gangways. 3)less parts, weight is the reason why Consists come in Multi car units now. The last time they tried something "radical" to save weight/parts got us 75' long cars which can't run on the BMT East.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

Ah, so the middle trucks used Jacobs trucks. Forgot about that (big difference as you pointed out). Has the MTA considered using Jacobs trucks for the R211 at all? It would mean less parts (and less weight), but I would imagine them not wanting to as it would make it that much harder to take the cars apart when working on them.

Nope. 1) you answered your own question. The want o be able to split the unit in the shop. 2) if they did consider it, they wouldn't have refitted an R143 to ride around the system taking measurements for the open gangways. 3)less parts, weight is the reason why Consists come in Multi car units now. The last time they tried something "radical" to save weight/parts got us 75' long cars which can't run on the BMT East.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

Bombardier makes good trains tho, it's the internal management that was the issue.

sounds like someone we know

[East New York]

We have come to that time in history ladies and gentlemen. The R211 contract is now pending. If all goes as planned and MTA decides to move forward, the winner(s) will be announced in just a few weeks. So far we have had one delay so MTA can continue to conduct evaluations of all proposed specifications. Let's see how September goes. The mock-up could be a signal towards the next move forward and official contact award.

We have come to that time in history ladies and gentlemen. The R211 contract is now pending. If all goes as planned and MTA decides to move forward, the winner(s) will be announced in just a few weeks. So far we have had one delay so MTA can continue to conduct evaluations of all proposed specifications. Let's see how September goes. The mock-up could be a signal towards the next move forward and official contact award.

[Around the Horn]

We have come to that time in history ladies and gentlemen. The R211 contract is now pending. If all goes as planned and MTA decides to move forward, the winner(s) will be announced in just a few weeks. So far we have had one delay so MTA can continue to conduct evaluations of all proposed specifications. Let's see how September goes. The mock-up could be a signal towards the next move forward and official contact award.

We have come to that time in history ladies and gentlemen. The R211 contract is now pending. If all goes as planned and MTA decides to move forward, the winner(s) will be announced in just a few weeks. So far we have had one delay so MTA can continue to conduct evaluations of all proposed specifications. Let's see how September goes. The mock-up could be a signal towards the next move forward and official contact award.

 

Do you have any idea if/when they'll open up the mock up to the public?

[danielhg121]

I’m wondering if the R160 contract got as much coverage as this contract. MTA is in deeper waters now.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Bosco]

I’m wondering if the R160 contract got as much coverage as this contract. MTA is in deeper waters now.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

 

A lot has also changed since the R160 contract was awarded in summer 2002.  While popular and growing, the internet wasn't nearly as powerful as it is today; and social media was just being planned out.  Even MySpace didn't come out until about a year later.  The usage of social media has changed the politics of many issues besides transit as leaks are much more common, making it easier to obtain information.  If not for all these platforms, it's likely we may have never seen the mockup at all.

[Fan Railer]

Wondering how this will affect who gets the R211 contract:

http://business.financialpost.com/transportation/rail/siemens-likely-to-pick-alstom-for-rail-merger-on-tuesday-sources

[m2fwannabe]

Probably not at all, though I wouldn't be surprised if the old "Alskaw" alliance winds up being the winning consortium, maybe under the new name "Siekaw."

[JayJay85]

10 hours ago, m2fwannabe said:

Probably not at all, though I wouldn't be surprised if the old "Alskaw" alliance winds up being the winning consortium, maybe under the new name "Siekaw."

The Alstom and Siemens merger could affect the R211 order and open the door for R211 cars to have Siemens SITRAC IGBT AC traction motors. 

[LGA Link N Train]

On 9/30/2017 at 1:32 PM, JayJay85 said:

The Alstom and Siemens merger could affect the R211 order and open the door for R211 cars to have Siemens SITRAC IGBT AC traction motors. 

That would be cool to see/hear

Edited October 2, 2017 by LGA Link N train
Forgot a key word

[m2fwannabe]

Isn't that assuming the Alstom Onyx system disappears?  Will all Alstom products now go away?

[Fan Railer]

No, the more likely scenario is that the fleet has split propulsion systems, like the R160s do.

[LGA Link N Train]

Well, this thread has been dead for more than a month, I'm assuming that t he re was no news in a while 

[Lance]

That would be a good assumption.