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  
KeystoneRegional

Ideas for future subway cars...

Recommended Posts

If the MTA or whatever company in the future procures rolling stock in later decades, I'd expect more streamlined bodies as opposed to the boxy characteristics of old. There will be an emphasis on light weighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really hope they have articulated cars.

 

Oh yeah, at least like two cars are connected together so passengers can have more room to stand in. Today's car is just room taking, ;)!

 

Logically, it's the next step. First single units, then married pairs, then car sets, and then artics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Logically, it's the next step. First single units, then married pairs, then car sets, and then artics.

Toronto is getting artics, why can't we?

I heard it is cheaper to do artics than sets, I'm not really sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can get it if the (MTA) wants to do it. If the (MTA) doesn't like these, then fine, still go with the old fashioned way.

 

I would want them too but it takes time. The subways are slowly modernizing. When we start to get those glass screen doors, and more ATO around the place, I think that would be the perfect time to look into artics. But that would break the chain of using the same car companies for periods of time.

 

R38-R44 :: St.Louis

R46 :: Pullman

R62/R68 :: Kawasaki

R142 :: Bombardier / Kawasaki

R143 :: Kawasaki (Correct me)

R160 :: Alstom / Kawasaki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bombardier can help build the Arctics. You know why? Bombardier's subsidary in China build a lot of Arctics, so really Bombardier can do it.

 

I'm assuming, however, that these subway cars would be built in Bombardier's or whoever's American factories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your line assignments are a bit weird because most of the lines you mentioned will either have R160s or R179s and wouldn't need new cars. Anyway...

 

Newer cars should have more aerodynamic ends (like the Acela). This would make trains slightly faster since they move and meet less air resistance. Future subway cars should have higher acceleration and deceleration rates too. Then the (MTA) should start looking into higher-speed trains. Trains should be able to hit 40 between stations and hit 65MPH top speeds, like they were built to do before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your line assignments are a bit weird because most of the lines you mentioned will either have R160s or R179s and wouldn't need new cars. Anyway...

 

Newer cars should have more aerodynamic ends (like the Acela). This would make trains slightly faster since they move and meet less air resistance. Future subway cars should have higher acceleration and deceleration rates too. Then the (MTA) should start looking into higher-speed trains. Trains should be able to hit 40 between stations and hit 65MPH top speeds, like they were built to do before.

While aerodynamics should be a feature for future subway cars, remember our infrastructure. We have to update it so that it could support such cars. The signalling system requires upgrading, redundant timers should be removen and the removal of everything that would slow a train down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, yeah. We also need to factor in how the train is going to turn and will need it not to knock down or hit anything. The redundant signals and stuff also need to be removed as said, :)...

If the train length and width are designed well, they won't hit anything.

 

The first thing we should consider is the articulated cars design.

Then make some changes with the current NTT design (overhead rails)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, guess they'll have to build 60-foot articulated cars. Although, changes with the NTT design is fine but, building overhead rails won't do good. Pantographs would be better since it'll be easier for the (MTA).

 

Not those kinds of overhead rails. The overhead rails in the middle of the subway car, put there by the (MTA) for straphangers to grab onto... but which no one seems to use.

 

And they can't even fit pantographs in the subway system. Are you crazy or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not those kinds of overhead rails. The overhead rails in the middle of the subway car, put there by the (MTA) for straphangers to grab onto... but which no one seems to use.

 

And they can't even fit pantographs in the subway system. Are you crazy or something?

We already got a third rail system in place, why would we need catenary wires all of a sudden?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He thought you meant overhead rails as in rails on the ceiling instead of on the floor of the tunnel.

How could that happen? I can't imagine the NYC subway running like the Wuppertal monorail in Germany, with the rails above the train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, due to my bunch of ideas for future subway cars. Here is just some of them, mind the R-### thing.

 

R-232 (Boxy) '60-Footer': A squared car with a Route Rollsign in the Front ([A] Cars Only) and 2 Route + Each End Destination on Sides ([A] and ). Have it designed like a R-142 but with wider bodies and quiet HVAC. Have them built in 5-Car Sets [A][A] and let them have the F.I.N.D. System.

 

Run on: ©/(E)/® Lines.

 

R-238 (Slants) '60-Footer': A slanted car with slightly buldging sides. Have a Route Rollsign on slanted face of each car and Two Route + Each End Destination on Sides of each car. Have them built in pairs [A][A] and let them have the F.I.N.D. System.

 

Run on: (:P/(F)/(N) Lines.

 

R-242 (Non-Slants) '60-Footer': A non-slanted R-238 with same specs.

 

Run on: (A)/(D)/(Q) Lines.

 

Much like R-32, R-40, R-42 but with 2 in the first digit other than slanted revenue number changed.

 

Interesting ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your line assignments are a bit weird because most of the lines you mentioned will either have R160s or R179s and wouldn't need new cars. Anyway...

 

Newer cars should have more aerodynamic ends (like the Acela). This would make trains slightly faster since they move and meet less air resistance. Future subway cars should have higher acceleration and deceleration rates too. Then the (MTA) should start looking into higher-speed trains. Trains should be able to hit 40 between stations and hit 65MPH top speeds, like they were built to do before.

Speed? In the (MTA) system? Not with all these timers in place.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the articulated cars would be a nice addition to your MTA fleet but if MTA had some rubber tire trains then i would go with the MR-XX's

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.