NYC Future Subway Cars:MTA unveils $52m plans for 'bendy' cars that passenger can walk through

[TransitJusticeForAll]

I read just this story on my free time, and it's very interesting, in regards to the future R211. Influences from Paris and London's metro system.

 

Please check it out.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3416768/MTA-reveals-new-open-gangway-subway-train-design.html

[N6 Limited]

That would be cool.

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

I read just this story on my free time, and it's very interesting, in regards to the future R211. Influences from Paris and London's metro system.

 

Please check it out.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3416768/MTA-reveals-new-open-gangway-subway-train-design.html

All cars in the order should be like that. 

[TransitJusticeForAll]

All cars in the order should be like that.

 

I would love to see those train types.

[Wallyhorse]

Saw a video of these kind of cars elsewhere.  Having the open gangways like I saw in that is good if it does as advertised create more room.

[LTA1992]

I wonder if after the require data is compiled and the open gangways (I mean really, anyone who has ridden or know about how successful the application is should have no doubt in its success) are accepted to be used on all future orders, can the other 1,015 R211s (The 75 SIR cars are included in that number) be retrofitted with it?

[yeayo]

I wonder if after the require data is compiled and the open gangways (I mean really, anyone who has ridden or know about how successful the application is should have no doubt in its success) are accepted to be used on all future orders, can the other 1,015 R211s (The 75 SIR cars are included in that number) be retrofitted with it?

No, that would be too expensive of a retrofit. The 211's will stay as separate units. A big reason why NYCT isn't going for all gangway cars is the carshell design will be similar to R179, R160, and R143 which will help reduce the overall design cost of the car if Bombardier, Kawasaki, or Alstom were to win the order. 

[LTA1992]

No, that would be too expensive of a retrofit. The 211's will stay as separate units. A big reason why NYCT isn't going for all gangway cars is the carshell design will be similar to R179, R160, and R143 which will help reduce the overall design cost of the car if Bombardier, Kawasaki, or Alstom were to win the order. 

You don't know that. The design won't even be complete for another few months. The car body design can me changed. I mean, you have to change it anyway if 10 of the cars are going to be open gangway, so uniformity would naturally be desired. And this delivery will take at least 4 years for the base order. Longer if there are options. The order could be amended during delivery to become open gangway. Provisions for such a conversion could even be in the original design. Also, I doubt it would be too expensive. Especially if a possible conversion down the road is in the contract.

 

Either way, we need to wait and see.

[yeayo]

You don't know that. The design won't even be complete for another few months. The car body design can me changed. I mean, you have to change it anyway if 10 of the cars are going to be open gangway, so uniformity would naturally be desired. And this delivery will take at least 4 years for the base order. Longer if there are options. The order could be amended during delivery to become open gangway. Provisions for such a conversion could even be in the original design. Also, I doubt it would be too expensive. Especially if a possible conversion down the road is in the contract.

 

Either way, we need to wait and see.

I do know that. You can't convert separated units into gangway cars. The carshell design is completely different. You would have to eliminate one end of the carbody structure to install a gangway. And doing that has an insane amount of ramifications - carbody structural tests, crash energy management, swing tests, weight distribution, different coupler system, consist configuration, etc. Also, I am in the industry and know people who are on the project both on the authority side and the consultant side. The spec is nearly set in stone at this and no provisions for a conversion. The only gangway cars will be the test units. 

[LTA1992]

I do know that. You can't convert separated units into gangway cars. The carshell design is completely different. You would have to eliminate one end of the carbody structure to install a gangway. And doing that has an insane amount of ramifications - carbody structural tests, crash energy management, swing tests, weight distribution, different coupler system, consist configuration, etc. Also, I am in the industry and know people who are on the project both on the authority side and the consultant side. The spec is nearly set in stone at this and no provisions for a conversion. The only gangway cars will be the test units. 

First thing, I know the only open gangway cars will be in the test units. You, however, do not know what could be included in the car constriction contract therefore anything is possible when the contract is finally awarded in 2017. If the open gangway cars are going to be of similar dimension, then a conversion IS possible. I mean, this specific city has done something similar in the past. If it can be done in the 1920s with the C Types being converted from gate cars to three-car sets that were originally planned to be articulated, then I do not see why almost a century later, such a thing cannot be done again in a more modern fashion. And for less work considering that the sections actually requiring the modifications are cabless. Why would the couplers need to be changed? These are 60 foot cars and the ends do not swing like they do on longer cars. All of those variables you've presented are why the prototype set exists. If you mod cars that are of extremely similar design to match those prototypes, then that extra testing should not be needed as the data is already there.

 

If the very design is prohibitive of such conversion, then it's short sighted. They've obviously been considering this since at least 2013 and the routes that will be served can get heavily congested during Rush Hours. New York City should not have to wait until 2025-29 to see a car designed to be open gangway from the get go, because the people designing the first of the next generation couldn't see the possibility of the need.

 

Also, "nearly set in stone" does not mean "set in stone". With a few months left before the design is awarded, changes can be made. BUT. You aren't designing the cars yourself, so I'll take you and your sources with a grain of salt.

[yeayo]

 

 

First thing, I know the only open gangway cars will be in the test units. You, however, do not know what could be included in the car constriction contract therefore anything is possible when the contract is finally awarded in 2017. If the open gangway cars are going to be of similar dimension, then a conversion IS possible. I mean, this specific city has done something similar in the past. If it can be done in the 1920s with the C Types being converted from gate cars to three-car sets that were originally planned to be articulated, then I do not see why almost a century later, such a thing cannot be done again in a more modern fashion. And for less work considering that the sections actually requiring the modifications are cabless. Why would the couplers need to be changed? These are 60 foot cars and the ends do not swing like they do on longer cars. All of those variables you've presented are why the prototype set exists. If you mod cars that are of extremely similar design to match those prototypes, then that extra testing should not be needed as the data is already there.

You are making the conversion as some simple process. One end of the carshell (doors, stainless still skin, windows, FRP, cabinets, etc) would have to be removed in order to incorporate the gangway. That is an extremely complicated and costly process. 

 

 

 

If the very design is prohibitive of such conversion, then it's short sighted. They've obviously been considering this since at least 2013 and the routes that will be served can get heavily congested during Rush Hours. New York City should not have to wait until 2025-29 to see a car designed to be open gangway from the get go, because the people designing the first of the next generation couldn't see the possibility of the need.

NYCT has a very rigid testing program when it comes to the introduction of any new technology or carbody design. Look at R110A and R110B. The technology on those test cars wasn't incorporated until subsequent train orders - R142 and R143. This will be no different for the R211 test cars. NYCT wants to verify there are no issues with gangway in revenue service before fully committing to the design in future rail car orders. That is the way they operate. 

[N6 Limited]

NYCT has a very rigid testing program when it comes to the introduction of any new technology or carbody design. Look at R110A and R110B. The technology on those test cars wasn't incorporated until subsequent train orders - R142 and R143. This will be no different for the R211 test cars. NYCT wants to verify there are no issues with gangway in revenue service before fully committing to the design in future rail car orders. That is the way they operate. 

Seems logical.

[Jsunflyguy]

How do you isolate cars with sick customers, vomit, bad doors, no lights etc. Whole train goes out of service I figure? Although it may help with load balancing in the long run. What's the expected benefit, other than fitting an extra 8-9 customers on or near the gangway?

[Wallyhorse]

How do you isolate cars with sick customers, vomit, bad doors, no lights etc. Whole train goes out of service I figure? Although it may help with load balancing in the long run. What's the expected benefit, other than fitting an extra 8-9 customers on or near the gangway?

Sick customers would likely be isolated as they are now.  75% of cars outside the US are done this way and they don't have too many issues.

 

Those extra 6-9 customers likely mean an extra 60-90 (or more) per train can fit, and probably a little more comfortably outside of major crush loads.  That can at times make a huge difference.

[Fresh Pond]

Sick customers would likely be isolated as they are now. 75% of cars outside the US are done this way and they don't have too many issues.

 

Those extra 6-9 customers likely mean an extra 60-90 (or more) per train can fit, and probably a little more comfortably outside of major crush loads. That can at times make a huge difference.

You missed the point he tried to make.

 

When they normally isolate a car, they cut out all the doors, and lock the end doors so that specific car can't be used. How are you gonna lock the end doors on a car that has no end doors?

[yeayo]

How do you isolate cars with sick customers, vomit, bad doors, no lights etc. Whole train goes out of service I figure? Although it may help with load balancing in the long run. What's the expected benefit, other than fitting an extra 8-9 customers on or near the gangway?

It is a cheaper way to increase ridership capacity. I have no idea what they would do about a smelly homeless person on the train. Toronto Rocket trains have an open gangway. I would be interested in seeing how they deal with it. 

[Fan Railer]

Easy... eject them.

[Lordsaitamaboss]

Or move the turnstiles to the subway station entrances rather than within the stations this makes it much harder for the bums to even enter the system at all as people will  be unlikely to give them swipes so they can bother people.

[Fresh Pond]

Or move the turnstiles to the subway station entrances rather than within the stations this makes it much harder for the bums to even enter the system at all as people will be unlikely to give them swipes so they can bother people.

Not for nothing qjtransitmaster, but that's a dumb idea...

[Wallyhorse]

You missed the point he tried to make.

 

When they normally isolate a car, they cut out all the doors, and lock the end doors so that specific car can't be used. How are you gonna lock the end doors on a car that has no end doors?

That is a good point.  What you might have to do is have some type of curtain or steel roll in the gangways that can come down in the event of a sick passenger if part of one of these has to be sealed off for any reason.

[DaTransitMan4608]

That is a good point.  What you might have to do is have some type of curtain or steel roll in the gangways that can come down in the event of a sick passenger if part of one of these has to be sealed off for any reason.

Maybe even glass doors similar to the ones the Acela has could work in that situation. The crew can shut the doors at their discretion.

[Jsunflyguy]

It is a cheaper way to increase ridership capacity. I have no idea what they would do about a smelly homeless person on the train. Toronto Rocket trains have an open gangway. I would be interested in seeing how they deal with it. 

I'd contend with it being cheaper. For the 60-90 people added (which may even be generous) you get:

 

A) Forfeit the ability to remove 1 car from service under current rules and risk displacing 1000 customers for a minor issue.

B) Lose the ability to take a single car out of service for long term maintenance, even with the current linked sets you can unscrew the drawbar, unhook the cables and either make a 4 car set or replace the other car (although this may not be standard practice anyway). It is my understanding that these articulated sets are together in a more permanent way.

C) The freedom to move between cars with the added downside that one bad environment (showtime, fight, couple arguing) will make everyone in the adjacent two cars miserable.

 

 

My opinion is it won't even help with load balancing, as we see in the RTS buses customers get in the vehicle find a spot near the door and will not move unless someone makes them. A significant number of Customers don't move while the train is in motion for one reason or another, so the idea that they will freely flow between cars is folly.

 

 

I'm not saying the idea cannot work, I just don't think it will work in NY. Not without a lot of psycho-social engineering anyway.

[GojiMet86]

The gangway idea does not necesarily have to be incorporated completely into the full R211 order. It can be incorporated into the next A-Division order.

[YankeesPwnMets]

Instead of a homeless person stinking up one car they can now stink up the entire train!

[bobtehpanda]

I'd contend with it being cheaper. For the 60-90 people added (which may even be generous) you get:

 

A) Forfeit the ability to remove 1 car from service under current rules and risk displacing 1000 customers for a minor issue.

B) Lose the ability to take a single car out of service for long term maintenance, even with the current linked sets you can unscrew the drawbar, unhook the cables and either make a 4 car set or replace the other car (although this may not be standard practice anyway). It is my understanding that these articulated sets are together in a more permanent way.

C) The freedom to move between cars with the added downside that one bad environment (showtime, fight, couple arguing) will make everyone in the adjacent two cars miserable.

 

 

My opinion is it won't even help with load balancing, as we see in the RTS buses customers get in the vehicle find a spot near the door and will not move unless someone makes them. A significant number of Customers don't move while the train is in motion for one reason or another, so the idea that they will freely flow between cars is folly.

 

 

I'm not saying the idea cannot work, I just don't think it will work in NY. Not without a lot of psycho-social engineering anyway.

 

They are not articulated, they have open gangways, which is another matter entirely. While it's not normal for them to do so, open-gangway trains can be taken apart; they don't share trucks and it's not like the bodies are welded together.

 

Load balancing will be better; it's proven better in other places. Right now only a few people really move between cars because it's impossible/dangerous and illegal, and there's not really a reason to move within a single train car unless you're trying to grab a seat. If you have an open-gangway train or open-gangway sets, things like getting on at the door closest to the exit are less important to do in the station and you can do it while the train is in motion.

 

It's really rich seeing people act like New York is the only place with bums and performers on the train, when nearly every major city has issues like this and they all have ope gangways.