R211 Discussion Thread

[Art Vandelay]

When was the last time 8th avenue went a full week without seeing B/D trains? 

[Bosco]

1 hour ago, Art Vandelay said:

When was the last time 8th avenue went a full week without seeing B/D trains? 

April 31, 1932.

In all seriousness, even if CBTC installation is complete by 2024 (which I'll take with a grain of salt), people seem to forget that any train can run along the line as long as the system itself is offline.  Also, I think it's safe to say that future CBTC projects will follow the same formula as the Flushing Line CBTC, where the wayside infrastructure is left untouched or at least upgraded, as a failsafe.  Expediting the retirement of the R68s might help expedite the process of installing CBTC, but let's just wait on that.  As it is, when the R211 was initially planned out, the second option order was dedicated for SAS Phases 2 and 3.  Now the R211 has been awarded, and there is precious little information as to when Phase 2 will be online, let alone the introduced.  I will be surprised if Phase 2 is open by 2030, and the last R211 is supposed to be delivered by 2026 (for now).

[Art Vandelay]

5 minutes ago, Bosco said:

April 31, 1932.

In all seriousness, even if CBTC installation is complete by 2024 (which I'll take with a grain of salt), people seem to forget that any train can run along the line as long as the system itself is offline.  Also, I think it's safe to say that future CBTC projects will follow the same formula as the Flushing Line CBTC, where the wayside infrastructure is left untouched or at least upgraded, as a failsafe.  Expediting the retirement of the R68s might help expedite the process of installing CBTC, but let's just wait on that.  As it is, when the R211 was initially planned out, the second option order was dedicated for SAS Phases 2 and 3.  Now the R211 has been awarded, and there is precious little information as to when Phase 2 will be online, let alone the introduced.  I will be surprised if Phase 2 is open by 2030, and the last R211 is supposed to be delivered by 2026 (for now).

The wayside system has not been removed from the Flushing line... Yet. While enough signals will remain to allow off hour equipment deadheads and work trains, they will not be capable of full rush hour service. 

[LTA1992]

20 hours ago, Art Vandelay said:

The wayside system has not been removed from the Flushing line... Yet. While enough signals will remain to allow off hour equipment deadheads and work trains, they will not be capable of full rush hour service. 

That's what he said. It's there as a fail-safe. Compared to Canarsie.

[m2fwannabe]

On 1/20/2018 at 10:11 PM, LGA Link N train said:

On 1/20/2018 at 7:38 PM, Fan Railer said:

That doesn't mean Siemens-Alstom won't be a subsystem contractor. I'm interested to see who Kawasaki contracts the propulsion system out to. Maybe it'll be a split fleet again; maybe we'll see an entirely new propulsion supplier (Mitsubishi, Toshiba), and maybe as some have been saying, we'll see permanent magnet synchronous motors.

I'm hoping for the Siemens Propulsion again, it'd be an interesting sight to see

"AC propulsion with a proven record of reliability."

At NYCT that would mean the Alstom Onix package, which now has 15 fine years under its belt since the R-142 (also most of the R-160s).

On the other hand, the Siemens equipped R-160Bs had a lot of problems and temporarily put that whole deal in doubt.  I'd have to believe that KRC will try to avoid such from happening again.  The other two above have no experience with NYCT at all.

Question is if new owner Siemens will continue to make the (Alstom) Onix available for the R-211.  That would ostensibly be the optimal outcome.

Just started to review this thread so slow in responding.

[Around the Horn]

13 hours ago, m2fwannabe said:

"AC propulsion with a proven record of reliability."

At NYCT that would mean the Alstom Onix package, which now has 15 fine years under its belt since the R-142 (also most of the R-160s).

On the other hand, the Siemens equipped R-160Bs had a lot of problems and temporarily put that whole deal in doubt.  I'd have to believe that KRC will try to avoid such from happening again.  The other two above have no experience with NYCT at all.

Question is if new owner Siemens will continue to make the (Alstom) Onix available for the R-211.  That would ostensibly be the optimal outcome.

Just started to review this thread so slow in responding.

As a frequent rider of the  train, Siemens > Alstom Onix. The Onix is horrendous at getting up to speed and holding that speed on express runs while the Siemens just take off and keeps taking off. Between 36th and 59th, on a Siemens its continually accelerating until the T/O applies the brakes. On a Alstom the train barely gets up to speed and then slows once it hits the hill just after 53rd

[m2fwannabe]

14 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

As a frequent rider of the  train, Siemens > Alstom Onix. The Onix is horrendous at getting up to speed and holding that speed on express runs while the Siemens just take off and keeps taking off. Between 36th and 59th, on a Siemens its continually accelerating until the T/O applies the brakes. On a Alstom the train barely gets up to speed and then slows once it hits the hill just after 53rd

The point isn't to maximize acceleration, however, especially when faced with a snow condition, or a cab view ahead filled with grade timing signals.

This isn't exactly the Indianapolis Speedway in most places.

After "racing" through the 40's and perhaps passing 50 a little, the fractional second of speed overrun that follows can be bumpy inside the passenger cabin when brakes have to be momentarily "grabbed" as the train proceeds in correspondence with conditions ahead.  Especially as the equipment ages and braking is achieved less equally along a 10-car train.

NTT's operate much differently than SMEE's in general.  On the former train control is almost entirely governed through varying speed inputs and degree of coasting momentum; power application is thus optimized.  On the latter train control is most often governed by degree of braking inputs plus coasting speed, if any after the desired degree of acceleration is achieved.  Power applications are usually minimized.

In the NYCT operating environment overall, the Onix package has proven best (by far) at governing train control via power instead of brake and provides smooth, even movement across the spectrum, in both "express" and "local" service.  

The other comparative is to ADTranz/BBD propulsion (R142A/R143/R188) which can be very rough riding or "slippery", mainly because its responsiveness to power inputs at the low (local) and high (express) ends of a typical NYC Subways speed range is not as immediate.

In some far-off Futureplace, these issues may not be as important once all lines are converted to CBTC, which removes the human element from speed control.

But until such time as that occurs (2050 or whenever?) such will be the case.

[Bosco]

8 hours ago, m2fwannabe said:

The point isn't to maximize acceleration, however, especially when faced with a snow condition, or a cab view ahead filled with grade timing signals.

This isn't exactly the Indianapolis Speedway in most places.

After "racing" through the 40's and perhaps passing 50 a little, the fractional second of speed overrun that follows can be bumpy inside the passenger cabin when brakes have to be momentarily "grabbed" as the train proceeds in correspondence with conditions ahead.  Especially as the equipment ages and braking is achieved less equally along a 10-car train.

NTT's operate much differently than SMEE's in general.  On the former train control is almost entirely governed through varying speed inputs and degree of coasting momentum; power application is thus optimized.  On the latter train control is most often governed by degree of braking inputs plus coasting speed, if any after the desired degree of acceleration is achieved.  Power applications are usually minimized.

In the NYCT operating environment overall, the Onix package has proven best (by far) at governing train control via power instead of brake and provides smooth, even movement across the spectrum, in both "express" and "local" service.  

The other comparative is to ADTranz/BBD propulsion (R142A/R143/R188) which can be very rough riding or "slippery", mainly because its responsiveness to power inputs at the low (local) and high (express) ends of a typical NYC Subways speed range is not as immediate.

In some far-off Futureplace, these issues may not be as important once all lines are converted to CBTC, which removes the human element from speed control.

But until such time as that occurs (2050 or whenever?) such will be the case.

This entire thing.

The Alstom is slower to get up to speed, but it brakes and takes off more smoothly.  With all the timers in place throughout the system, on most stretches it's rare for NTTs to get close to even their governed top speed.  Hopefully, as the technology has been advancing, a package will be available that optimizes speed and ride quality.  I'm also curious to see if there will be more than one propulsion package (and, as I think Fan Railer has mentioned, if PMSMs are a possibility).

[RailRunRob]

1 hour ago, Bosco said:

This entire thing.

The Alstom is slower to get up to speed, but it brakes and takes off more smoothly.  With all the timers in place throughout the system, on most stretches it's rare for NTTs to get close to even their governed top speed.  Hopefully, as the technology has been advancing, a package will be available that optimizes speed and ride quality.  I'm also curious to see if there will be more than one propulsion package (and, as I think Fan Railer has mentioned, if PMSMs are a possibility).

PMSM's should be possible in the next few generations. CPU and electronics are at level for digital inverter operations.  Yeah, your right the NTT's rarely get to flex. Kawasaki tested the R142/a design up to 70mph, of course, she'll never reach that due to system constraints. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by RailRunRob

[CTK246]

56 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

PMSM's should be possible in the next few generations. CPU and electronics are at level for digital inverter operations.  Yeah, your right the NTT's rarely get to flex. Kawasaki tested the R142/a design up to 70mph, of course, she'll never reach that due to system constraints. 

In theory, let's say all subway lines are equipped with CBTC and are all running at max TPH. Would speeds greater than 55 MPH be permitted for passenger service?

[RailRunRob]

34 minutes ago, CTK246 said:

In theory, let's say all subway lines are equipped with CBTC and are all running at max TPH. Would speeds greater than 55 MPH be permitted for passenger service?

Doubt it station spacing is still a major factor. CBTC would be able to calculate breaking curves a little better so there maybe few stretches maybe the Under River crossings ,The flats (Rockaway Line) where  CBTC zones might allow max power + gravity.  Wear and tear on equipment is also something to factor in along with power efficiency. CBTC also helps out in the department. The operation's over 55 would affect these areas in some way.Extra stress of breaking ect. The last thing is an area I used to test when I was at Kawasaki. Is P2 Force limit's without getting to crazy it's basically how much weight a rail can take at different speeds in reference to the rail cars weight per axle. I'm not sure what type of rail's the NYCTA uses. 100/110 lbs? Even upping a trains speed by 10 Mph could add more weight on a rail by a factor of ten.Or the effects of that weight I guess I should say. Point being maybe more trouble thann it's worth. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by RailRunRob

[Bosco]

1 hour ago, CTK246 said:

In theory, let's say all subway lines are equipped with CBTC and are all running at max TPH. Would speeds greater than 55 MPH be permitted for passenger service?

I would say no, but the big thing is efficiency (so timers would be rendered obsolete since CBTC can ensure the trains are as close together as possible but still safe to avoid a collision).  Unnecessary slowdowns could be eliminated.  As for a greater top speed, even if it were allowed, how many stretches exceed 55 as it is?  Besides the flats, some of the tunnels hit pretty close to that (60 St), but that's in part due to gravity helping out.  There aren't that many express stretches otherwise that could handle above 55.  For reference, I've been on southbound  and  trains that get close to 50 mph at around 50 St before slowing down for Times Sq.

[RailRunRob]

15 minutes ago, Bosco said:

Unnecessary slowdowns could be eliminated

 

16 minutes ago, Bosco said:

For reference, I've been on southbound  and  trains that get close to 50 mph at around 50 St before slowing down for Times Sq.

Great example. With the OBC being able to calculate exactly where it would need to start breaking in reference to the zone, station and other trains. The train wouldn't have to slow until absolutely necessary. 

[Maserati7200]

On January 28, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Bosco said:

I would say no, but the big thing is efficiency (so timers would be rendered obsolete since CBTC can ensure the trains are as close together as possible but still safe to avoid a collision).  Unnecessary slowdowns could be eliminated.  As for a greater top speed, even if it were allowed, how many stretches exceed 55 as it is?  Besides the flats, some of the tunnels hit pretty close to that (60 St), but that's in part due to gravity helping out.  There aren't that many express stretches otherwise that could handle above 55.  For reference, I've been on southbound  and  trains that get close to 50 mph at around 50 St before slowing down for Times Sq.

Just so you are aware - the NTT's are neutered. They could hit 60+ on level ground out of the factory  but the MTA changed the power profile to make them perform like the rest of the fleet. The power profile can be increased with CBTC, and already has on the . Now with CBTC, the L train accelerates very quickly between tightly spaced local stations, sometimes getting to 40 MPH or so. In the 60th street tunnel, the computer system cuts power at 55 MPH. If allowed its full power capabilities it could go much faster downhill and on level ground.

As of right now, the non-CBTC NTT acceleration between 35-40 MPH is slow, and PAINFULLY SLOW between 40-50 MPH. Like you were alluding to earlier, the power profile as set up on non-CBTC NTT's means it's basically impossible to get above 50 without the help of gravity. Considering  how powerful they are, considering how quickly the NTT's on the  get to 40 right now, and considering how long it takes for the non-CBTC NTT's to go from 40 to 50 MPH, I would guess uneuttered under CBTC conditions, the NTT's can get to 50 about twice as quickly as they could now. Because of this, 55 could easily become a good cruising speed on most express runs, as opposed to now where the high 40's is 'fast', and low 50's is on the very high end and rare. I would also guess that they could get to 65-70 MPH about as quickly as they get to 50 MPH now un-neutered, so 65-70 would be the speed for really long stretches.

I could think of multiple examples besides the tunnels and flats where such speeds could be achieved. This includes, but isn't limited to the Brighton Express, 4th ave express, CPW between 59th and 125th, Flushing express, and Queens Blvd express. However, doing so would mean the MTA would have to maintain their equipment and and tracks better than they do now, which I don't foresee happening. However, I do think that realistically, with CBTC, 55 MPH will be normal for most straight express runs, and it'll get to 55 much quicker and thereby staying at 55 for longer.    

Edited February 2, 2018 by Maserati7200

[RailRunRob]

1 hour ago, Maserati7200 said:

Just so you are aware - the NTT's are neutered. They could hit 60+ on level ground out of the factory  but the MTA changed the power profile to make them perform like the rest of the fleet. The power profile can be increased with CBTC, and already has on the . Now with CBTC, the L train accelerates very quickly between tightly spaced local stations, sometimes getting to 40 MPH or so. In the 60th street tunnel, the computer system cuts power at 55 MPH. If allowed its full power capabilities it could go much faster downhill and on level ground.

As of right now, the non-CBTC NTT acceleration between 35-40 MPH is slow, and PAINFULLY SLOW between 40-50 MPH. Like you were alluding to earlier, the power profile as set up on non-CBTC NTT's means it's basically impossible to get above 50 without the help of gravity. Considering  how powerful they are, considering how quickly the NTT's on the  get to 40 right now, and considering how long it takes for the non-CBTC NTT's to go from 40 to 50 MPH, I would guess uneuttered under CBTC conditions, the NTT's can get to 50 about twice as quickly as they could now. Because of this, 55 could easily become a good cruising speed on most express runs, as opposed to now where the high 40's is 'fast', and low 50's is on the very high end and rare. I would also guess that they could get to 65-70 MPH about as quickly as they get to 50 MPH now un-neutered, so 65-70 would be the speed for really long stretches.

I could think of multiple examples besides the tunnels and flats where such speeds could be achieved. This includes, but isn't limited to the Brighton Express, 4th ave express, CPW between 59th and 125th, Flushing express, and Queens Blvd express. However, doing so would mean the MTA would have to maintain their equipment and and tracks better than they do now, which I don't foresee happening. However, I do think that realistically, with CBTC, 55 MPH will be normal for most straight express runs, and it'll get to 55 much quicker and thereby staying at 55 for longer.    

10

Indeed. Faster speeds would mean more wear and tear on equipment more spend on maintenance in the long run. CBTC is meant to be more efficient overall with power consumption and breaking and power return and you said runs could sustain speed longer with the CPU handling braking curves. Your also correct in the saying the NTT's are load balanced I worked at Kawasaki 2000-01 and got the extreme tail end of the R143 project with Interior CAD and basic simulation stuff. These cars could hit 60 easy with 5,000-5,500 ft level run. I remember talking to some of the senior staff /engineers about the 142a's which I wasn't around for during for Q/A. These cars were tested for speeds up to 70mph. And the power out was about the same as a 143 with a 5 ton lighter body. So weight to ratio the 142a's might be the fastest cars in the MTA fleet?  As far as express runs I remember a ole timer that had about 30-35 years with MTA started in the 60's be told me when he started as a M/M some of the Lo-V cars on the Lex Express would operate normally at about 60-65mph. He talked about the 86st-GC/42 run before 59th street opened as an Express station. Something about all the cars having two sets of motors? Been about 17-18 years now and I later came to find out most car classes didn't have speed gauges in those days so not sure if that's exaggerated.

Edited February 2, 2018 by RailRunRob

[Maserati7200]

34 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Indeed. Faster speeds would mean more wear and tear on equipment more spend on maintenance in the long run. CBTC is meant to be more efficient overall with power consumption and breaking and power return and you said runs could sustain speed longer with the CPU handling braking curves. Your also correct in the saying the NTT's are load balanced I worked at Kawasaki 2000-01 and got the extreme tail end of the R143 project with Interior CAD and basic simulation stuff. These cars could hit 60 easy with 5,000-5,500 ft level run. I remember talking to some of the senior staff /engineers about the 142a's which I wasn't around for during for Q/A. These cars were tested for speeds up to 70mph. And the power out was about the same as a 143 with a 5 ton lighter body. So weight to ratio the 142a's might be the fastest cars in the MTA fleet?  As far as express runs I remember a ole timer that had about 30-35 years with MTA started in the 60's be told me when he started as a M/M some of the Lo-V cars on the Lex Express would operate normally at about 60-65mph. He talked about the 86st-GC/42 run before 59th street opened as an Express station. Something about all the cars having two sets of motors? Been about 17-18 years now and I later came to find out most car classes didn't have speed gauges in those days so not sure if that's exaggerated.

I think 65 is probably pushing it a bit considering there was no speedo. I could believe 60 considering how fast it is now even with the stop at 59th street and that big downhill. Check this out: 

EDIT: Also, I think saving power should be a very low priority for NYCTA. Of all places to cut costs, power consumption should be towards the very end. The subway is already one of the cleanest, greenest and most energy efficient ways to get around. Increasing performance and speed to make the subway more attractive, if anything, is the greener thing to do.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Maserati7200

[Union Tpke]

I love that video!

[RailRunRob]

9 minutes ago, Maserati7200 said:

I think 65 is probably pushing it a bit considering there was no speedo. I could believe 60 considering how fast it is now even with the stop at 59th street and that big downhill. Check this out: 

 

He sure had somewhere to go!! Think he got the call from home  lol.. Yeah seem like in the 50mph range. I stumbled on a video not so long ago on youtube showing an R160 coming into 42nd on the express. Similar that unit had a gravity assist of course as well. Yeah, 86 to 42 sb had to be fast.

Edited February 2, 2018 by RailRunRob

[Maserati7200]

3 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

He sure had somewhere to go!! Think he got the call from home  

Bae: come over 

Me: I can't I'm busy

Bae: I got 4K HD RARE pics of the R211

Me:

 

[Fan Railer]

38 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

He sure had somewhere to go!! Think he got the call from home  lol.. Yeah seem like in the 50mph range. I stumbled on a video not so long ago on youtube showing an R160 coming into 42nd on the express. Similar that unit had a gravity assist of course as well. Yeah, 86 to 42 sb had to be fast.

The R142 train in that video takes about 7.5 seconds to pass by the fixed point (which is the nearest station column). With 510 feet of train, that translates to about 46 MPH. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Fan Railer

[RailRunRob]

40 minutes ago, Fan Railer said:

The R142 train in that video takes about 7.5 seconds to pass by the fixed point (which is the nearest station column). With 510 feet of train, that translates to about 46 MPH. 

46MPH > 50MPH (Range) Round to the nearest ten.. Can you even be exact when counting FPS? What is youtube 29.97? 23.98?  Estimates at best. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by RailRunRob

[FLX9304]

14 hours ago, Maserati7200 said:

I think 65 is probably pushing it a bit considering there was no speedo. I could believe 60 considering how fast it is now even with the stop at 59th street and that big downhill. Check this out: 

EDIT: Also, I think saving power should be a very low priority for NYCTA. Of all places to cut costs, power consumption should be towards the very end. The subway is already one of the cleanest, greenest and most energy efficient ways to get around. Increasing performance and speed to make the subway more attractive, if anything, is the greener thing to do.

 

 

Have you ever saw this on speed mode? If so, you just made this R142 NIS train look like the Acela Express

[Fan Railer]

12 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

Estimates at best. 

That's what the word "about" means lol.

[RailRunRob]

49 minutes ago, Fan Railer said:

That's what the word "about" means lol.

Figured "Range" was in the same ballpark as about? 

Edited February 2, 2018 by RailRunRob

[Fan Railer]

42 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Figured "Range" was in the same ballpark as about? 

hehehe touche.

 

At any rate, given current operating rules, we'd be unlikely to see something like that again nowadays.