Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

R211 Discussion Thread


East New York
Message added by East New York

Program Updates Effective 2/20/19

8B572BC2-6B77-4999-9283-417E996BD0EF.jpeg

5197FE8E-FC09-4EBF-B992-6B7FB2371D54.jpeg

8EEC2B6D-E8A2-4DB9-85B2-9F4AB240BB25.jpeg

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BMTKateMeltonLine said:

Do yu know what time?

All that is confirmed is sometime in the summer, not given time or date. That's why no one said what time. It was supposed to come in this month but someone said it could be delayed to July or August, which is coming from Feinburg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
12 hours ago, Railfanner Jake said:

My understanding is that the pilot open gangway set is coming from Japan. The regular 211A pilot set though and everything else will be built in Nebraska with final assembly at Yonkers most likely

open gangway set is also being built in nebraska, should be delivered in early 2022

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BMTKateMeltonLine said:

Do yu know what time?

As others have mentioned before me, it will be a while since it has to travel the system to test clearances first

I am also hearing that they are shooting for the revenue 30 day test to take place next summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jacob said:

Wonder where they'll test the R211, In my highly guess can be the (A) 

 

Well they're going to be tested on every line like the R179 has done and the same with the R211T pilot test as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

As others have mentioned before me, it will be a while since it has to travel the system to test clearances first

I am also hearing that they are shooting for the revenue 30 day test to take place next summer.

it's gonna be atleast 18 months before we see them doing a 30 day in service test, they have to completely test these cars. These aren't like the R160's/179's. these have newer tech in them so there's gonna be teething problems and etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2021 at 8:26 PM, R32 3838 said:

it's gonna be atleast 18 months before we see them doing a 30 day in service test, they have to completely test these cars. These aren't like the R160's/179's. these have newer tech in them so there's gonna be teething problems and etc.

That's well said, you're right they have to work out the bugs in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I ran out of popcorn and Im only 2 threads in.... My poor babies just don't know nothing... (in my old vise grandfather voice)

I mean even if I did hit yall off with a good old classic ENY exclusive, it definitely won't be appreciated. It is however a guarantee that it will be scrutinized, dissected, and challenged, and most definitely frowned upon. 😔

  

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2021 at 9:05 PM, Railfanner Jake said:

 

New video on YouTube today from Nebraska. Full 10 car set waiting outside the factory possibly just about ready for shipment. Guy in the video said that they were doing HVAC and PA testing when he was on site. 

I am seriously not a fan of those side windows...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They sure do look small. After seeing the part in the video where he’s driving past the R211 train in Lincoln outside the Kawasaki factory, it really dawned on me just how small those side windows look. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I am seriously not a fan of those side windows...

31 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

They sure do look small. After seeing the part in the video where he’s driving past the R211 train in Lincoln outside the Kawasaki factory, it really dawned on me just how small those side windows look. 

Yeah, they absolutely suck.  Considering we were capable of having wide-windowed cars like the R36s and R38s already way back in the 1960s, it really is a shame.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, East New York said:

I think I ran out of popcorn and Im only 2 threads in.... My poor babies just don't know nothing... (in my old vise grandfather voice)

I mean even if I did hit yall off with a good old classic ENY exclusive, it definitely won't be appreciated. It is however a guarantee that it will be scrutinized, dissected, and challenged, and most definitely frowned upon. 😔

 

Pretty much sums up the direction these boards have been going in the last few years, unfortunately.  You're not the only one who's been rubbed the wrong way by stuff, believe me.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I am seriously not a fan of those side windows...

Hard agree. They keep getting smaller with each new train model, and the MTA simple does not seem to care one iota. The windows are practically portholes at this point. Will people even notice when their train is above ground? I wish someone at the MTA cared about natural light. 

There is no meaningful technical reason for this. There are plenty of ways to have larger windows with just the tiniest of engineering changes. It just takes someone giving a crap and making it one of the design priorities. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Yeah, they absolutely suck.  Considering we were capable of having wide-windowed cars like the R36s and R38s already way back in the 1960s, it really is a shame.

 

I think they should have kept the original door size, but I see where they are going with this. They will put these cars on lines that have the highest ridership and where CBTC will be at.

Dwell times as they want to decrease rapidly, this is why these have large doors, Putting these on lines like the (N)(W) would be the biggest waste. The (Q) should get half of the base order along with the (A).

Edited by R32 3838
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

I think they should have kept the original door size, but I see where they are going with this. They will put these cars on lines that have the highest ridership and where CBTC will be at.

Dwell times as they want to decrease rapidly, this is why these have large doors, Putting these on lines like the (N)(W) would be the biggest waste. The (Q) should get half of the base order along with the (A).

I kinda have to disagree with you. The (Q) runs just fine with the R160's, and if anything half of the base order should go to the (N) and (W) , which have an even higher amount of ridership. You haven't seen Astoria during rush hours, pre-pandemic, it's a mad house.

And honestly, the (MTA) is the worst when it comes to operational efficiency. They still haven't figured out what they're gonna do with the (C) after they f**ked up the R179 order by switching the amount of cars between the 4 and 5 car sets. If they're smart, they would take each B car from a 4 car set and insert it into another to make them 5 cars (like the R188's). 

The smart thing would have been to send the 10 car R179's to Coney Island and send some of the R46's to Pitkin/207th St, that way the (A) is fully next-gen when the entire R211 order comes in and Astoria & Brighton riders can stop complaining about the R46's.

3 hours ago, rbrome said:

Hard agree. They keep getting smaller with each new train model, and the MTA simple does not seem to care one iota. The windows are practically portholes at this point. Will people even notice when their train is above ground? I wish someone at the MTA cared about natural light. 

There is no meaningful technical reason for this. There are plenty of ways to have larger windows with just the tiniest of engineering changes. It just takes someone giving a crap and making it one of the design priorities. 

I can see why they made the windows shorter in order to accommodate the larger door housings, but I agree with your standing. With today's technology they could've at least made an effort to keep the window size.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

I kinda have to disagree with you. The (Q) runs just fine with the R160's, and if anything half of the base order should go to the (N) and (W) , which have an even higher amount of ridership. You haven't seen Astoria during rush hours, pre-pandemic, it's a mad house.

And honestly, the (MTA) is the worst when it comes to operational efficiency. They still haven't figured out what they're gonna do with the (C) after they f**ked up the R179 order by switching the amount of cars between the 4 and 5 car sets. If they're smart, they would take each B car from a 4 car set and insert it into another to make them 5 cars (like the R188's). 

The smart thing would have been to send the 10 car R179's to Coney Island and send some of the R46's to Pitkin/207th St, that way the (A) is fully next-gen when the entire R211 order comes in and Astoria & Brighton riders can stop complaining about the R46's.

I can see why they made the windows shorter in order to accommodate the larger door housings, but I agree with your standing. With today's technology they could've at least made an effort to keep the window size.

 

(Q) gets or was getting more ridership (pandemic made ridership drop across all lines but is coming back slowly) than the (N) and (W), 2nd ave line carries even if it's just 3 stations. Astoria doesn't get the ridership that the (A)(E)(F)(Q) gets. Jamaica isn't keeping all of those R160's forever. (they aren't planning these cars to have open gangways for nothing) 

It makes more sense to have the Base order R211A's for the (A)(Q) lines. have the (A) get the first 150-200 cars, give the rest to CI.

The 10 car R179's could be pushed to the (C) line to run with the R46's until the option order R211's making it 100% full length.

 

but if you want to look at it like this, the (A) could just get the entire base order while moving the 10 car R179's to 207th for the (C) to run with the full length R46's until the next option order.

I still see the R211T's debuting on the (E)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rbrome said:

Hard agree. They keep getting smaller with each new train model, and the MTA simple does not seem to care one iota. The windows are practically portholes at this point. Will people even notice when their train is above ground? I wish someone at the MTA cared about natural light. 

There is no meaningful technical reason for this. There are plenty of ways to have larger windows with just the tiniest of engineering changes. It just takes someone giving a crap and making it one of the design priorities. 

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

With today's technology they could've at least made an effort to keep the window size.

Both of you hit the nail on the head here; there needs to be reasonable cut-off point for sacrificing window size for the sake of door width, and I'm sure it's possible with today's technology.  At this rate, I'm afraid to see what the R3xx or whatever will look like; one giant sliding door taking up the entire wall? I sure hope not.

As you both alluded, the MTA simply doesn't give a shit.  You would think with all the concerns about ridership being down and trying to entice passengers back, they would proactively be trying to make the system more attractive to riders, not less...

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

Both of you hit the nail on the head here; there needs to be reasonable cut-off point for sacrificing window size for the sake of door width, and I'm sure it's possible with today's technology.  At this rate, I'm afraid to see what the R3xx or whatever will look like; one giant sliding door taking up the entire wall? I sure hope not.

As you both alluded, the MTA simply doesn't give a shit.  You would think with all the concerns about ridership being down and trying to entice passengers back, they would proactively be trying to make the system more attractive to riders, not less...

 

 

you got to remember these were designed for a few years before this went out to the public. plus these were originally supposed to be 75 foot tech trains (thank god they didn't go with that) and this order was approved before the pandemic hit. it sucks that the window size is small though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a solution for the window size already out there and in revenue service before they chose to make the doors 58 inches wide, they simply chose not to do it.

30385578323_ce6b8e4c74_h.jpg

31156820546_989a8e0a17_h.jpg

The worst part about the small windows is that it neuters the effect of the (finally) full color destination signs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

There was a solution for the window size already out there and in revenue service before they chose to make the doors 58 inches wide, they simply chose not to do it.

30385578323_ce6b8e4c74_h.jpg

31156820546_989a8e0a17_h.jpg

The worst part about the small windows is that it neuters the effect of the (finally) full color destination signs.

Actually I could see why they didn't go with that, as at some stations of ours, the track is titled so the door can hit the platform and cause damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.