Articulated trains

[EphraimB]

The BMT trains had articulated trains and when the city bought the BMT and IND, they got rid of articulated trains. Now the city is bringing articulated trains back as a pilot as the R211T. Why did the city take articulated trains away and now decide to bring them back?

[RR503]

54 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

The BMT trains had articulated trains and when the city bought the BMT and IND, they got rid of articulated trains. Now the city is bringing articulated trains back as a pilot as the R211T. Why did the city take articulated trains away and now decide to bring them back?

The BMT cars were — from my understanding — largely the victim of the IND management’s want to do things their way — so cars that looked/ran like R1-9 everywhere. 

The R211Ts are not articulated. Articulated means that 2 cars share trucks. The 211s cars retain individual trucks, but have open gangways connecting them. Classic MTA going halfway. 

As for why they’re bringing them back, capacity. Open gangways increase trainset capacity by about 10%, and even out car loading by giving people towards the ends of cars a second egress route, making those areas less unpopular with the riding public. 

I’d encourage you to post these questions in the random thoughts topic instead of in new threads; you’re cluttering the forum. 

[bobtehpanda]

16 minutes ago, RR503 said:

The BMT cars were — from my understanding — largely the victim of the IND management’s want to do things their way — so cars that looked/ran like R1-9 everywhere. 

The R211Ts are not articulated. Articulated means that 2 cars share trucks. The 211s cars retain individual trucks, but have open gangways connecting them. Classic MTA going halfway. 

As for why they’re bringing them back, capacity. Open gangways increase trainset capacity by about 10%, and even out car loading by giving people towards the ends of cars a second egress route, making those areas less unpopular with the riding public. 

I’d encourage you to post these questions in the random thoughts topic instead of in new threads; you’re cluttering the forum. 

To add onto this, the BMT was an incredibly forward-looking organization; among the innovations that the BMT was responsible for included the PCC streetcar, meant to upgrade streetcar comfort levels to those of buses. Among other things they were looking into was sharing parts between streetcars and railcars to reduce maintenance costs for both in the way car manufacturers do today.

Had the BMT Bluebirds been fully developed and bought for the B-Division, the els may never have been torn down. Unfortunately, the IND had its head very far up its own behind, so the taxpayer ended up getting the short stick.

[EphraimB]

I wonder what a BMT train would look like if the company would still be making trains today. I wonder what the BMT equivalent of the R160 would be like.

[itmaybeokay]

Yeah - the upcoming "Open Gangway" cars aren't technically "Articulated". 

Most articulated trains, including those on the BMT (I know the Triplex were, not familiar enough to declare the others) rode on what's called "Jacobs Bogies" 

Valuable Reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobs_bogie

In fairness, they do have significant downsides - while the fact that its harder to split up a trainset really doesn't matter much, as I don't think the 4-5 car sets are split often, the most salient issue is the fact that you'll have less motors, less traction wheels and less braking wheels. Though, yes, you'll also have reduced weight somewhat. 

Generally speaking, I believe Jacobs Bogies on a multiple-unit set are beneficial for top speed but detrimental to acceleration/deceleration - making them good for your long-distance higher-speed trains, but not great for rapid transit service. 

[Missabassie]

Still not a fan of this, but whatever....