Trains.com

New MBTA rail cars

2830 views
18 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2006
  • 182 posts
Posted by cat992c on Monday, March 24, 2014 7:56 PM

The Orange line trains started arriving in late spring 1981

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Sunday, March 23, 2014 2:10 PM

Those cars remind me of the London Tube R Stock. They seem to have an 'angrier' look to them. It is interesting that the shops went to the trouble of fairing the side extensions into the body, as opposed to simply welding a shelf to the frame at floor level.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Sunday, March 23, 2014 1:59 PM

And the Culver steels did  not get beyond Kings Highway during the rush, but there the el gate cars ran all the way to 9th Avenue for connection with the West End.   After the A started running to Lefferts, C-types from Fulton St.replaced the gate cars,  and these were replaced by a real abomination, IRT Low-V's with longitudinal flanges added to the bottom sides to fit them to the wider clearance platforms.  Then came the D-train and the Church-Ditmas ramp.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:26 AM

daveklepper
Yes, early 50's, but possibly as early as 1949.   Remember that wood el cars were still providing Bay Parkway - Coney Island shuttle service with all rush hour West End trains terminating Bay Parkway "because of a shortage of steel cars."

Thanks.

  • Member since
    September 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 6,099 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:17 AM

Just curious...

I wonder how much the cost of each vehicle is increased by the requirement that the successful bidder build a new local factory and train many new employees.  Are they offering any incentives other than the purchase of the railcars?

Dave

Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Somewhere in North Texas
  • 1,080 posts
Posted by desertdog on Friday, March 21, 2014 9:43 AM

BaltACD

It amazes me that the various transit agencies across the country each believe their situation is totally unique and that no other agencies vehicles will perform to their needs and feel it is necessary to reinvent the transit car in their own image.  Talk about wasteful - wasteful of taxpayer money - wasteful of design resources - wasteful in every way you can define waste.

From what I have seen, you could probably say the same about fire departments. In earlier times, railroads tended to have their own specs and requirements, sometimes even eccentricities (the oddball headlights and other warning lights on SP diesels come to mind). But at least it was their own money they were playing with.

John Timm

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Friday, March 21, 2014 3:25 AM

Yes, early 50's, but possibly as early as 1949.   Remember that wood el cars were still providing Bay Parkway - Coney Island shuttle service with all rush hour West End trains terminating Bay Parkway "because of a shortage of steel cars."

Full-width-cab use of front vestibules was standard on all railroad and interurban mu cars at the time, and the BMT steels were a departure, with their small corner engineer's cabs.  The IRT adopted this change about the same time, with the earlier "Gibbs cars" using the entire front platform (and most keepinig this arrangement until retirement, found only on the Broadway-7th Avenue and 7th Avenue locals.)..  The B&O did not want to force "their"engineers to accept to the innovation of a small corner cab.

In the late 60's when the SIRT cars finally wore out with repare parts hard to get, some postwar LIRR Pullman-Standard mu's replaced by M-1's saw service on SIRT until the R-44's arrived.   They were returned to LIRR to become non-powered trail coaches for the diesel services.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Thursday, March 20, 2014 8:48 PM

daveklepper
PATH cars are wider at the belt rail, thus have bulging sides to take advantage of better clearances, thus are a bit roomier inside.

This is true. I should have been more specific. The H&M K cars were about the same dimensions as the IRT cars of the same era. However, as you say, the orders are large enough that engineering costs can be spread across all the units. The real target should be the $3 million streetcars.

From what I have heard, the R44s on the SIRT are held together by metaphorical gum and duct tape, and are in imminent danger of falling apart in the next few years. I think a few have been retired for this reason.

Are all of them gone from the Subway? I think at least one is in the museum.

The SIRT cars of 1925 not only had the same dimensions of the A-Bs, they shared the center door(s) and roof arrangement. However, the end doors, and cab doors, were similar to those on IRT stock. Those sent to the Subway went there about early '50s?

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:50 PM
PS. Pullman Standard tried to do this with the R-46's. Building a railcar that could be narrowed widened, made shorter or longer.
Unfortunately the R-46's broke the company.
Rgds IGN
  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:47 PM
A major place to save money is the control and motors that run the cars. By standardizing these one could save considerably. The biggest savings are down the road when you need to replace worn out motors. If one had standard mounts one could exchange as needed. In the SMEE cars of NYCTA were an example of this. NYCTA could plug together a train of several different types from R-11 to R-36's.
Rgds IGN
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, March 20, 2014 10:39 AM

Staten Island cars are the same specs as NYCTA B Division, BMT and IND lines, now combined.   Indeed, the B&O had the original cars designed to fit the BMT A-B "steel"car envelope, with all characteristics for capable running over the 4th Avenue Subway and the Manhattan Bridge, and the ports off the 4th Avenue subway at Bay Ridge for a future tunnel to Staten Island exist to this day.   Current Staten Island equipment are standard R-44 B-Division cars, with a f ew  FAA mandated modifications since freight service may be restored to Clifton.  And once the Arlington and South Beach SIRT service was cut, leaving only the existing Tottenville line, surplus SIRT cars were used by the TA, specificalliy on Culver, and then on the Culver shuttle.   The PATH cars have the same width at platform level as the IRT cars.   SIRT = BMT  and IND.  In all cases there is third rail compatibility for all these cars, and with LIRR as well.

We expect R46's to replace R-44's when new car deliverities make them surplus on the B Division.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, March 20, 2014 9:56 AM

It took a major effort to get the PCC streetcar designed in opposition to the existing mentality even at that time that each operator had distinct characteristics that precluded standardization.  While the PCC car war fairly standardized, it was never intended as a "one size fits all" design.  Modular construction with a variety of options took care of the variations from system to system.  Also consider that the three major designs of PCC rapid transit equipment (Chicago, Cleveland and Boston) were quite distinct from each other in appearance and were also different from the various streetcars.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, March 20, 2014 9:02 AM

BaltACD

It amazes me that the various transit agencies across the country each believe their situation is totally unique and that no other agencies vehicles will perform to their needs and feel it is necessary to reinvent the transit car in their own image.  Talk about wasteful - wasteful of taxpayer money - wasteful of design resources - wasteful in every way you can define waste.

Truer words were never spoken.   I suppose that was one reason why the "Standard Railroad" was the envy of the world eons ago.   

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Thursday, March 20, 2014 7:46 AM

But, Dave, aren't the H&M standards the same as Staten Island and specs are almost if not entirely compatible?

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, March 20, 2014 4:32 AM

Pardon me,  PATH cars are wider at the belt rail, thus have bulging sides to take advantage of better clearances, thus are a bit roomier inside.  They are also designed to take sharper curves than A Division (IRT) NYCTA cars.  So there are good reasons for the differences.  The TA could use PATH cars if they relocated a lot of signs and signals throughout the system.   Both systems order enough cars at one swell foop to make further economies of scale problematical anyway.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 7:39 PM

I'm with you guys. The Orange Line cars are approaching 35 years old, and are in need of replacement. They are based off of PATH's PA-3 cars, although heavily modified. So, there is some commonality, but rarely. (PATH has the same loading gauge as the NYC Subway, but refuses to co-order cars with the MTA...)

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 6:38 PM

I've often thought the same, BALTACD.  But you are dealing with fiefdoms and their attending politicians here.  I remember when a DL&WRR station was "saved" by a small upstate NY community figured they had the only DL&W station in existence, that it was just like a LVRR station about 40 miles away, and who refused help from railfans an local railroaders in helping pay and do the work of restoring the the depot.  My estimation was that they spent almost 10 times what it could have cost them in both time and money.  But they knew better what their depot was.  Same when it comes to  these "authorities" and "agencies".  Local, only ones with this problem, don't want nobody's help, don't want to be like anybody else.  So you have differences in inches and feet, in colors, placement of doors, electrical attachments, etc.  And suppliers drooling all over the prospective paychecks they will have for such nonsense..

RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 6:01 PM

It amazes me that the various transit agencies across the country each believe their situation is totally unique and that no other agencies vehicles will perform to their needs and feel it is necessary to reinvent the transit car in their own image.  Talk about wasteful - wasteful of taxpayer money - wasteful of design resources - wasteful in every way you can define waste.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Western, MA
  • 8,571 posts
New MBTA rail cars
Posted by richg1998 on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 5:16 PM

Springfield is about ten miles from where I live. At least they will be built in the USA. CSX mainline not far away. Just no siding for the place.

We shall see.

http://www.masslive.com/business-news/index.ssf/2014/03/cnr_changchun_railway_vehicles_berkshire.html#incart_river_default

Rich

If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy