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.
Sign in to follow this  
EphraimB

60-footers vs 75-footers

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

How is this possible that the 60-footers help more with less crowding than the 75-footers if the 75-footers have 15 feet of more room?

The amount of doors on each car have not increased to the larger length so increased boarding and dwelling times occur. Why haven't they stuck with 75 footers, they are also more impractical and I dont think they can run on certain lines

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NTTs take advantage of interdimensional field manipulation tech allowing for them to makeup for the lost space.

Edited by kosciusko
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

The amount of doors on each car have not increased to the larger length so increased boarding and dwelling times occur.

The doors of the 75-footers being the same length as the 60-footers should make it the same boarding and dwelling times in stations.

 

1 hour ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

Why haven't they stuck with 75 footers, they are also more impractical and I dont think they can run on certain lines

So you mean to say that the R46 can't run on some lines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

The doors of the 75-footers being the same length as the 60-footers should make it the same boarding and dwelling times in stations.

So you mean to say that the R46 can't run on some lines?

For your first point, I was stating that the doors were farther apart from each other since the train cars are longer and no extra doors are added, and want to add on that since the 46's ran with only 8 cars (not 10 like before), the door number is also reduced.

Second point, yes, I don't think the R46's (and any 75 footer) can run on lines with the services J/Z, M and L. Although im not too sure.

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

1)The doors of the 75-footers being the same length as the 60-footers should make it the same boarding and dwelling times in stations.

 

2)So you mean to say that the R46 can't run on some lines?

1) That's not the point. There are less doors per train. The 60 footers have 40 doors per side, whereas the 75 footers have 32 doors per side. Less doors for entry leads to greater volumes of passengers per door. 

2) Yes. It can't run on the BMT Eastern Division, or the (M) . Same goes for R68/R68As.

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both the 60-foot and 75-foot cars have 4 pairs of doors (4 on each side, for a total of 8). The distribution of the doors in the 60-footers is not the same as the distribution in the 75-footers. So sure, the 75-footers have more space but it means more people for just 4 pairs of doors. If the 75-foot cars had 5 pairs of doors, along with the bench seating present in the 60-footers, they probably would have had less time  dwelling issues.

 

Think about it this way. Imagine if the MTA had to run 85-foot cars with just 2 pairs of doors (one at each end), like Amtrak's standard coach. Just ignore any infrastructure constraints (sharp curves, narrow tunnels, etc). It's a lot of space, but not worth it if there are just 2 pairs of doors. Think how long that train would stay in the station trying to let people off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

Thank you. I get it now. Why can't they add another door on each side instead of going back to 60-footers?

Not an impossible thought but like we previously stated, 75 footers cant run on certain lines due to it being difficult for an upgrade to occur that would make it possible. Also, an extra door on each side would be more costly and would just make back up the number of doors for the 60 footers. So not an improvement and a little problematic

It's just more better to go back to what's cheaper and I guess more practical. Hoped that helped!

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

Thank you. I get it now. Why can't they add another door on each side instead of going back to 60-footers?

Fleet mobility. Since 75-footers can’t run on BMT east, they’re limited to long-running lines that make wear and tear disproportionate compared to the rest of the fleet, and limit how service can be expanded.

Say there’s a surplus of R68s because Sixth Av isn’t at capacity, but the (M) is over capacity and needs more consists. All the other lines are at or close to capacity so their consists can’t be spared.

What do you do, since the R68s don’t fit on the Jamaica line?

This is why, because of the cost of retrofitting, it’s simpler to order consists of 60-footers instead of 75-footers. In that example, if R68s were 60 feet long, you could yank the surplus out of Concourse and Coney Island and run (J) and (M) with increased service. Without it, Jamaica line riders are SOL.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If R32s can't run on the N, R, and W because of the Montague Tube clearance, then how come they mostly have R160s assigned to it. Isn't the R160s also 60-footers?

The B and D have R68s assigned to it, which are all 75-footers. Why would that be a problem being in the Montague tube?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

If R32s can't run on the N, R, and W because of the Montague Tube clearance, then how come they mostly have R160s assigned to it. Isn't the R160s also 60-footers?

The N, R and W are either crowded lines that would take a toll on the trains, or have large undergrounds segments, with the same effect

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

FYI 60-footers (the R32, R42, and museum train consists) are banned from the Montague Tube due to clearances. 

Same goes with the 75-footers (R46, R68) being banned from the Eastern Division (Myrtle, Jamaica, Canarsie, Nassau). 

This means that R68s are banned from the (J)(M)(L)(Z)

The R32s, on the other hand, cannot run on the (N)(R)(W) since they use Montague as part of their regular service. They also can't run on the (Q) since that route is rerouted to Montague many times before. The only two southern division lines they aren't banned from are the (B)(D).

And before I pull an angry crowd, the (B)(D) are almost never rerouted to Montague, hence why they're not banned from those two lines. One of the two will receive the R32s in the future...

The reason as to why all 75-foot rolling stock is banned from the (J), (L), (M), and (Z) is because those trains (R44s, R46s, and R68/R68A's) can't clear the radii of the curves on certain portions of track that are found on those lines. While the MTA doesn't allow 60-foot cars to enter the Monatague Tube, it isn't physically impossible to have them run through there.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

The reason as to why all 75-foot rolling stock is banned from the (J), (L), (M), and (Z) is because those trains (R44s, R46s, and R68/R68A's) can't clear the radii of the curves on certain portions of track that are found on those lines. While the MTA doesn't allow 60-foot cars to enter the Monatague Tube, it isn't physically impossible to have them run through there.

(Those 60-foot cars being SMEE-type equipment; R32s, R40s, R40M's, R42s.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

(Those 60-foot cars being SMEE-type equipment; R32s, R40s, R40M's, R42s.)

Why is first-generation rolling stock (R1-99) 60-footers banned from the Montague Tube, but second-generation (R100-199) rolling stock 60-footers are not banned from the Montague Tube?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

The N, R and W are either crowded lines that would take a toll on the trains, or have large undergrounds segments, with the same effect

 

Excluding the (R), (N)(W) have much shorter underground segments than the (C) - which is all underground (like the (R)) and runs R32s.

Crowds aren’t an issue, as anyone who’s ridden a rush hour (C) from Brooklyn or Washington Heights can attest.

The worst of the R32s run on (J) because it’s above ground for the bulk of its run, so the AC systems aren’t overtaxed in the hot and humid  tunnels during summer, but since the (C) is all underground, there isn’t an issue per se with running R32s on Broadway or 4th Av - it’s just not done likely because of the MBDF of that model, and the reliability issues with the lines themselves - a consistently massively delayed line with a breakdown-prone car model is a catastrophe waiting to happen. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EphraimB said:

Why is first-generation rolling stock (R1-99) 60-footers banned from the Montague Tube, but second-generation (R100-199) rolling stock 60-footers are not banned from the Montague Tube?

Straight sides vs bowed sides. IIRC the MTA in its eminent wisdom uses the 46 as the clearance profile standard as it's the system's largest car. Thing is, in terms of vertical cross section, straight sided 60 footers have more stringent profiles, so unless there's a note made to take that into account, they'll not fit. That didn't happen in Montague, et voila! 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

FYI 60-footers (the R32, R42, and museum train consists) are banned from the Montague Tube due to clearances. 

The R32s, on the other hand, cannot run on the (N)(R)(W) since they use Montague as part of their regular service. They also can't run on the (Q) since that route is rerouted to Montague many times before. The only two southern division lines they aren't banned from are the (B)(D).

You're being misleading. They aren't banned from there "because" they're 60 footers. They're banned because they don't have the same profile as the R46/R68/R160 where the top of the train is narrower than the bottom. They just happen to be 60 feet. Also, this wasn't the case until they rebuilt the tunnel after Sandy, and put some infrastructure on the top of the tube as opposed to the bottom. Before Sandy they ran in the tunnel just fine.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 13, 2018 at 3:50 AM, Maserati7200 said:

You're being misleading. They aren't banned from there "because" they're 60 footers. They're banned because they don't have the same profile as the R46/R68/R160 where the top of the train is narrower than the bottom. They just happen to be 60 feet. Also, this wasn't the case until they rebuilt the tunnel after Sandy, and put some infrastructure on the top of the tube as opposed to the bottom. Before Sandy they ran in the tunnel just fine.  

This is true. If the Montague refurb didn’t ban the R32/42, I’d bet you’d see the R42 and R32 going on the (N) or (W) for this upcoming switch, instead of the (B) and (G). Both of the (N)’s terminals are above ground, and there is an above ground middle segment (Bridge) making it perfect for these old trains. 

Now that obviously cannot happen. 

Edited by R42N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2018 at 5:33 PM, EphraimB said:

The doors of the 75-footers being the same length as the 60-footers should make it the same boarding and dwelling times in stations.

 

So you mean to say that the R46 can't run on some lines?

 

On 2/12/2018 at 5:51 PM, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

For your first point, I was stating that the doors were farther apart from each other since the train cars are longer and no extra doors are added, and want to add on that since the 46's ran with only 8 cars (not 10 like before), the door number is also reduced.

Second point, yes, I don't think the R46's (and any 75 footer) can run on lines with the services J/Z, M and L. Although im not too sure.

 

On 2/12/2018 at 6:29 PM, EphraimB said:

If R32s can't run on the N, R, and W because of the Montague Tube clearance, then how come they mostly have R160s assigned to it. Isn't the R160s also 60-footers?

The B and D have R68s assigned to it, which are all 75-footers. Why would that be a problem being in the Montague tube?

 

On 2/12/2018 at 6:45 PM, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

The reason as to why all 75-foot rolling stock is banned from the (J), (L), (M), and (Z) is because those trains (R44s, R46s, and R68/R68A's) can't clear the radii of the curves on certain portions of track that are found on those lines. While the MTA doesn't allow 60-foot cars to enter the Monatague Tube, it isn't physically impossible to have them run through there.

75 foot cars are banned from BMT East because 2 75' car trains can't pass each other from Essex St. to Marcy Ave. because the curves coming on and off the bridge are too tight.  This is why they don't use 75' cars on the JLMZ. Other then that, they could technically run to Metropolitan Ave on the M and Bway Junction on the J/Z.

Helpful illustration by SubwayGuy 9 years ago: 

2yuf0y8.jpg

 

Original context https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/7766-can-6-or-less-75-foot-cars-run-on-the-bmt-eastern-division-in-service/?do=findComment&comment=92679

 

 

On 2/13/2018 at 3:50 AM, Maserati7200 said:

You're being misleading. They aren't banned from there "because" they're 60 footers. They're banned because they don't have the same profile as the R46/R68/R160 where the top of the train is narrower than the bottom. They just happen to be 60 feet. Also, this wasn't the case until they rebuilt the tunnel after Sandy, and put some infrastructure on the top of the tube as opposed to the bottom. Before Sandy they ran in the tunnel just fine.  

Correct, from a technical standpoint that ban is due to "Plate Clearance" not due to car length. Strictly addressing length - there is nowhere that a 75' car CAN go that a 60' car CANNOT. 

The plate clearance is the profile of the car when looking at it from the front. Quick reference: 

ekzeI1M.jpg

So, the boxy R32 is nearly a full 12 inches wider at the top than the more ovoid R160 and R46. I am not sure what about the Montague refit impinges on the R32's clearance, but I'd surmise it's hanging cables. If I recall correctly this was a bit of an error by a contractor, but I might be wrong about that. 

 

Lastly, quick math here: 

Xits1Xp.png

75 foot cars in an 8 car consist have Max peak load of 1400 and max off peak load of 704 

60 foot cars in a 10 car consist have Max peak load of 1450 and max off peak load of 530. 

Off peak loading is rated by 125% seating capacity so:

The 75 foot train has 530 seats

The 60 foot train has 424 seats. 

 

So, you lose 100 seats but gain 50 standees, which might not seem like a win, but when you factor in lower dwell times, you can technically run more trains. 

At a busy station, you're talking about the difference between (ballpark number) 500 people moving through 40 doors and 500 people moving through 32 doors. It can be a big difference. 

 

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, itmaybeokay said:

 

 

 

75 foot cars are banned from BMT East because 2 75' car trains can't pass each other from Essex St. to Marcy Ave. because the curves coming on and off the bridge are too tight.  This is why they don't use 75' cars on the JLMZ. Other then that, they could technically run to Metropolitan Ave on the M and Bway Junction on the J/Z.

Helpful illustration by SubwayGuy 9 years ago: 

2yuf0y8.jpg

 

Original context https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/7766-can-6-or-less-75-foot-cars-run-on-the-bmt-eastern-division-in-service/?do=findComment&comment=92679

 

 

Correct, from a technical standpoint that ban is due to "Plate Clearance" not due to car length. Strictly addressing length - there is nowhere that a 75' car CAN go that a 60' car CANNOT. 

The plate clearance is the profile of the car when looking at it from the front. Quick reference: 

ekzeI1M.jpg

So, the boxy R32 is nearly a full 12 inches wider at the top than the more ovoid R160 and R46. I am not sure what about the Montague refit impinges on the R32's clearance, but I'd surmise it's hanging cables. If I recall correctly this was a bit of an error by a contractor, but I might be wrong about that. 

 

Lastly, quick math here: 

Xits1Xp.png

75 foot cars in an 8 car consist have Max peak load of 1400 and max off peak load of 704 

60 foot cars in a 10 car consist have Max peak load of 1450 and max off peak load of 530. 

Off peak loading is rated by 125% seating capacity so:

The 75 foot train has 530 seats

The 60 foot train has 424 seats. 

 

So, you lose 100 seats but gain 50 standees, which might not seem like a win, but when you factor in lower dwell times, you can technically run more trains. 

At a busy station, you're talking about the difference between (ballpark number) 500 people moving through 40 doors and 500 people moving through 32 doors. It can be a big difference. 

 

I really appreciate you for posting this, I learned a lot. I had a feeling that two sets of R46s would collide with one another on those curves that ascend/descend the Williamsburg Bridge. If that's not enough, T/O's working the (J) will often wrap it before even reaching those curves situated on the Williamsburg Bridge—moreso on the Manhattan-bound track. When there are fixed signals indicating when you can resume speed, I have yet to understand why some T/O's impatiently switch to third point at the 4-car marker. All (J) trains are made up of 8 cars, not 4! There's also a pair of curves between Broadway Junction and Alabama Avenue that are very sharp—the speed limit there is posted at 6 MPH and is reinforced with numerous timers. Would an R46 be able to clear those curves in both directions?

Edited by AlgorithmOfTruth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the curve on the east end of the bridge was eased a bit when totally rebuilt in '99; though I don't know if that was enough to allow 75 footers. Now, I wonder if the new Myrtle viaduct construction will ease that curve (looks like they are placing the new columns further out where it merges); but again, not sure if they bother with that, figuring the 75 footers are on their way out anyway, and it's not worth it when there are other barriers, etc. (And just like they've renovated nearly every station on the (J) and (M) lines but never bothered to extend them to 600 feet while they were at it).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of doors....aren't the R-160 doors themselves a few inches wider than the ones on the R-32's?    If not the actual doors, than perhaps the doorway's, between the bench seats?   It seems to me that the benches on the R-32's are slightly longer...you sometimes will see seven adults seated on them as opposed to six on the R-160's, but that may only be bacause of the center pole dividing them in half....not sure....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2018 at 2:14 PM, EphraimB said:

Does all 60-footers have the benches and all 75-footers have side seats?

Yes. Putting side seats on a 60 foot train greatly reduce seating, but on the flip side increase standing room

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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