www.nycsubway.org

Re: D type efficiency (Was best subway equipment) (207151)

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread ]

Posted by J trainloco on Tue Mar 20 23:25:08 2001, in response to Re: D type efficiency (Was best subway equipment),
posted by Train Dude on Tue Mar 20 23:14:44 2001.

>>Hmmmmmm! There are pro's and cons. However, if you follow the TA's current logic to link cars into 4 & 5 car links, I suppose your idea is the next logical step. That's not to say that I agree. Right now I can unlink and mix cars from other links in an hour or two. Articulated cars are far more difficult to do this with.<<

You might be able to do this with R-68/As, But this can't be done with the R-44/46 fleet, or the R-62/ part of 62A fleet. Articulateds are basically 44/46 type concepts.
(Note: R-62's have had thier cabs somewhat modified, so it's pretty near impossible to switch them around, and if you do it's a pain)(Note2: this was not directed to you T Dude.)

>>Another thought. If you want to articulate 60' cars, you'd possibly run into clearance problems. Currently, truck centers on an average 60' car is 44'7" If you articulate them the end cars would have truck centers of more than 52' and the center car(s) would be over 60'. Clearly, these cars would sweep wider on the curves and might scrape bench walls. (Truck centers on 75' cars are only 54'.<<

I didn't mean to do this with 60 footers. I meant with smaller units.

And, How about bringing back 67' units? Larger cars, smaller fleet size can be brought to BMT East. R-110b was an example of 67' cars. Apparently the TA doesn't like them. But what about you?


(There are no responses to this message.)

Replying to posts on SubTalk are disabled at this time.