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  
Harry

Could This Subway Car Save NYC Transit? - Cheddar Explains

Recommended Posts

TRB's ideal design is BART/DC Metro 21st century layout. Traverse on the end for bums to nod off on dope, cattle in the middle with no seats. MTA would prefer no seats at all, see 42 Shuttle. Traverse only came back in 70s and 80s because ridership was so low, capacity wasn't needed, and load guidelines weren't created yet which say to cut trains until SRO (at 10pm) or 20 minute headways are reached.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It works on MARTA and WMATA.

Even works on bendy buses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As was said, what this agency wants are more standees - preferably every single one of us 1.7 bla bla bla billion yearly riders....

I wish it were that easy to have a new design of a subway car be the cure all for transit in this city.... Overcrowding isn't the only problem our subway system faces, by a longshot....

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 8:13 PM, bulk88 said:

TRB's ideal design is BART/DC Metro 21st century layout. Traverse on the end for bums to nod off on dope, cattle in the middle with no seats. MTA would prefer no seats at all, see 42 Shuttle. Traverse only came back in 70s and 80s because ridership was so low, capacity wasn't needed, and load guidelines weren't created yet which say to cut trains until SRO (at 10pm) or 20 minute headways are reached.

From my own personal standpoint, I like the TRB concept better. For those of us with longer commutes (which would only increase in number if the MTA ever gets extension-happy). With minimal seating in the middle of the cars and doors clustered closer together, you’d likely negate the need for super-wide entry doors, like the R211 will have. Or you might have three super-wide entryways, instead of four regular sized ones, like in the TRB diagrams and on the current B-Division cars.

Though I can see issues with those entryways being clustered closer together. It would force riders on the platform to cluster in even larger groups than now, to position themselves in front of a door when the train stops. That’s a less efficient use of platform space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subway is fine, although it's dumb that the Division B NTTs got rid of the offset doors that are present on B Division cars as old as the R32.

The real vehicles with layout issues are the buses; 2+2 seating on the lower level simultaneously doesn't provide enough seats but you still can't walk between them, the poles are in the worst locations possible (right next to the exits, so people always get in the way), etc.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The real vehicles with layout issues are the buses; 2+2 seating on the lower level simultaneously doesn't provide enough seats but you still can't walk between them, the poles are in the worst locations possible (right next to the exits, so people always get in the way), etc.

That’s why I like (MTA)’s Orion V layout before retirement - longitudinal on both sides. Wider aisle, easier to access poles, and faster alighting since no one had to turn or stand up for a rider to exit.

That’s how these low floors should be laid out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Deucey said:

That’s why I like (MTA)’s Orion V layout before retirement - longitudinal on both sides. Wider aisle, easier to access poles, and faster alighting since no one had to turn or stand up for a rider to exit.

That’s how these low floors should be laid out.

You don't even need that: 2+1 seating leaves more than enough room.

22-263-int-mt.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

The real vehicles with layout issues are the buses; 2+2 seating on the lower level simultaneously doesn't provide enough seats but you still can't walk between them, the poles are in the worst locations possible (right next to the exits, so people always get in the way), etc.

 

34 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

You don't even need that: 2+1 seating leaves more than enough room.

 

I'm pretty sure we have 2+1 seating on most if not all (local) buses. The issue for me is the seating over the wheels on the articulateds: the New Flyers have 2+2 while the Novas go longitudinal, and because of that the New Flyers feel so cramped inside while it's so much easier to move around in an LFSA. I take the Q44 on the regular and I hated when Stengel gave up their LFSAs for New Flyers.

 

Also regarding the lack of offset doors on B division stock--that puzzles me as well since all A division NTTs have it. Perhaps it has something to do with wider doors and a certain number of seats required?

Edited by 7LineFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 7LineFan said:

Also regarding the lack of offset doors on B division stock--that puzzles me as well since all A division NTTs have it. Perhaps it has something to do with wider doors and a certain number of seats required?

Keep in mind that this only applies to B/C cars. A cars have aligned doors and full cabs.

Share this post


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

Keep in mind that this only applies to B/C cars. A cars have aligned doors and full cabs.

Well yeah, but that's an obvious spacing issue. Why couldn't the 143/160 B cars have been designed with offset doors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 7LineFan said:

Well yeah, but that's an obvious spacing issue. Why couldn't the 143/160 B cars have been designed with offset doors?

While they could've implemented them, it's somewhat harder to justify, seeing that they have no cabs, four doors per side, and only 9 more feet than IRT stock.

Share this post


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

You don't even need that: 2+1 seating leaves more than enough room.

22-263-int-mt.jpg

In theory. Having done both B38s and S40/44, 2x1 on an almost at capacity bus makes alighting and boarding as slow as 2x2 seating.

i really feel like there should be 3 doors on 40 footers just to make it faster, and 5 doors on bendy buses (Bx1/2 and both Bx12s show why that’s something to consider).

Share this post


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

In theory. Having done both B38s and S40/44, 2x1 on an almost at capacity bus makes alighting and boarding as slow as 2x2 seating.

i really feel like there should be 3 doors on 40 footers just to make it faster, and 5 doors on bendy buses (Bx1/2 and both Bx12s show why that’s something to consider).

Unless you plan to have every stop on every local bus route have passenger areas on both sides or use true low-floor buses (which haven't caught on in North America for a reason), you're basically asking for the impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offset doors encourage people to move around the sides, while regular doors encourage people to crowd around the same spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ttcsubwayfan said:

What is the benefit of having offset doors?

People like crowding around doorways to be the first to get off.

If they're parallel, then you'll have crowds for stops on either side of the train crowding in one spot. Offset doors spreads the crowding, so that people who want the left doors aren't blocking people looking for the right doors, and vice versa.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 11:01 PM, 7LineFan said:

 

I'm pretty sure we have 2+1 seating on most if not all (local) buses. The issue for me is the seating over the wheels on the articulateds: the New Flyers have 2+2 while the Novas go longitudinal, and because of that the New Flyers feel so cramped inside while it's so much easier to move around in an LFSA. I take the Q44 on the regular and I hated when Stengel gave up their LFSAs for New Flyers.

 

Also regarding the lack of offset doors on B division stock--that puzzles me as well since all A division NTTs have it. Perhaps it has something to do with wider doors and a certain number of seats required?

Private RTSes were 2x2 always. NYCT RTSes were 2x1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 11:30 PM, Lex said:

While they could've implemented them, it's somewhat harder to justify, seeing that they have no cabs, four doors per side, and only 9 more feet than IRT stock.

They managed to fit offset doors on the R142/142A/188 B-cars, though the A-cars have parallel doors. That was an arrangement retained from the R110A train.

Interestingly, all nine cars of the R110B had offset doors, even the A-cars. I guess that was easier to do with a 67-foot car length. But they decided to go back to 60 feet for the R143, but retain parallel doors on both A and B-cars (unlike the R16 thru R42 fleets which all had offset doors). 

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.