SIRT "replacement" cars

[3rdavenueEL]

It's been said that the current SIRT fleet will not last long enough for replacements to arrive. I guess they are saying the current rolling stock will need re-furbishing to make it until 2020. 63 cars are on their roster. Is it time to convert the line to a dedicated busway? How about building new station WITH fare controls? Or, just re-assign 63 units from elsewhere. Surely there must be surplus in a system as huge as NYC's? Oh and just so you know, I am NOT an MTA employee. I am a transplanted New Yorker. I left Brooklyn in 1968. I rode the system extensivley as a youngster and ride now whenever I can. My last trip was in June on the R-9 fan trip. So, I am not a wiseass. I was born 12 blocks from Yankee Stadium a block away from the 3rd Avenue El, hence, my handle.

[Tadman]

I don't know the answer to this question - way out of my depth. I'm from Chicago. That said, some day I'd like to ride the SIRT system, is it mostly in good areas or worth the trip?

[ExCon90]

My most recent trip on the SIRT was several (4 or 5?) years ago, but I don't suppose it's changed much. The neighborhoods seem OK, and it's probably the most rural operation in the system. As late as the 1960's the southern end of it was positively bucolic -- New Dorp had a wooden railroad-style station at a grade crossing with manual crossing gates zebra-striped in black and white. (It's all grade separated now.) One thing that struck me was that the probable cost of fencing and gating the stations would probably exceed the revenue -- passengers can reach the platforms from all directions. At the time I rode it, fares were collected only at the turnstiles in St. George, in both directions. On my return from Tottenville I noted that about half the passengers bailed out at Tompkinsville, the last stop before St. George, to avoid paying the fare by walking to the ferry at St. George, probably less than half a mile (I suppose they did the same thing southbound as well). I saw in a more recent post on the SIRT that there are now turnstiles at Tompkinsville also, so they've plugged that hole. As to whether it's worth the trip, you would need to allow about 4 hours to do it from Manhattan; the ferry takes about 20 minutes each way, with a base headway of about 30 minutes; I think the SIRT base headway is 30 minutes, with 40 minutes' running time. (Perhaps I should mention that the SIRT looks like being the last stronghold of B&O color-position-light signals.) I would say that if a railfan were on his first visit to New York, with 3 days at his disposal, the SIRT wouldn't make the cut. For someone with plenty of experience of New York, wondering what to ride next, and who has 4 hours, I would say yes. In any case, you can't beat the price: I believe the day pass has been discontinued, but you get 2 hours per swipe on a Metrocard, so if you go through the turnstile at St. George within 2 hours of entering the subway in Manhattan, you get a free ride to Tottenville and back to St. George. After swiping on exiting St. George you have 2 hours to go anywhere on the subway system, including a transfer to a bus if you get there in time. The ferry is free and well worth a trip at any time, apart from railfanning. I believe it's also the only U. S. example east of Seattle of what the railroad-operated ferries on the Hudson used to be like.

[MattW]

I rode this route just this past summer. We took the bus down to Tottenville then the train back. I think the bus actually took longer, but to me the train felt longer. It stops literally every two minutes and is timetabled for 42 minutes Tottenville-St. George. Off peak and weekend service is indeed once every 30 minutes as mentioned with more service around peak times, with express service. It's an ok ride, and it's a certainly something worth doing at least once if you have the time for it. If your goal is to see the island like mine was, you do get a better view from the bus. The cars are old, but serviceable and the one we were in must have been the deluxe massage chair model as it vibrated a lot even when standing in the station.

[umtrr-author]

I rode the SIRT end to end and back for the first time last year around this time. I echo MattW's thoughts. In addition, when you pay to exit at St. George there is a free transfer onto the rest of the subway at selected Lower Manhattan stations.

[UpperHarlemLine4ever]

Its a great line and worth riding. SBS (busway) would be a shame.

[tdoran1951]

See:

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2014092 ... way-trains" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At more than 4.5 million each, and noting below, M-9A’s seem like a logical choice.

NORAC Rules – Same as, NJT, MN, SEPTA, AMT, et al. (FRA has to approve rules)
ATC/CSS Signal System - Same as, NJT, MN, SEPTA, AMT, et al. (FRA controls specifications)
PTC Overlay Provision – Capable future upgraded same as, NJT, MN, SEPTA, AMT, et al.

But not under FRA jurisdiction ort control, nor STB for the moment.

The word is to watch out for the Chinese, the 400-500 meter, 20,000 plus container vessels cannot dock and transfer in any US port at present. They need 50-60 deep water at full load, usually go broadside to bulkhead, have limited current / wind compensation, thus SI deep water, and possibly BKLYN deep water are critical for these ships. The Chinese (they already have a dozen of these size ships, many more coming) are pushing the RPC plan, possibly fully funding such, thus national rail interconnection points, one to west via Port Ivory, and one to the north via the Hellgate.

Baltimore, Boston are “out”, Newport News is “in”, as is one port in Florida, as is Long Beach in California for these ships.

[Kamen Rider]

noting the weird Chinese rant, but rejecting the M9s as possibility. It will most probably be Transit Authority equipment based, probably on the R211s, as CI handles SIR's heavy overhauls.

[tdoran1951]

Even if R-2111 were to be considered, they would require extensive on-board electronics rebuild, or just just scrap a the entire 15 million dollar 4-year old signal system.

Also a new rule book would then be need, and it would have to approved by all unions.

[4400Washboard]

The SIRT line is such an awesome line to ride on. Nothing like it elsewhere on the NYC subway system (A train from Howard beach to Hammels wye comes pretty close). See this for more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE0EOIqwiQI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Make "It's" to "It'd")

Anyway, the cars will be 47 by 2020, and if they survive until then, they should be very proud of that when you take in account the early teething problems and frame rot that the regular cars experienced. Last time I rode the R44SIRTs, they were in "Meh" shape despite going through a refurb. Hopefully, the MTA will be able to pony up the $ to keep the cars running a little while longer.

[Kamen Rider]

Even if R-2111 were to be considered, they would require extensive on-board electronics rebuild, or just just scrap a the entire 15 million dollar 4-year old signal system.

Also a new rule book would then be need, and it would have to approved by all unions.

Why would a train THAT HAS NOT BEEN BUILT YET require a "rebuild" of it's electronics? If you are referring to CBTC, they don't need to be capable of using the system to operate. In this case the CBTC computer would simply need to be left out.

[tdoran1951]

Even if R-2111 were to be considered, they would require extensive on-board electronics rebuild, or just just scrap a the entire 15 million dollar 4-year old signal system.

Also a new rule book would then be need, and it would have to approved by all unions.

Why would a train THAT HAS NOT BEEN BUILT YET require a "rebuild" of it's electronics? If you are referring to CBTC, they don't need to be capable of using the system to operate. In this case the CBTC computer would simply need to be left out.

All new NYC subway vehicles from R-179 onward are supposed to be built with all CBTC onboard equipment installed; the 7 line wayside and other CBTC will be the reference standard.

The R-44’s on the SIRT have been extensively modified to utilize a non-rapid transit signaling system, using a very proven and traditional signal solution for FRA CLASS 1 -3 passenger railroads, the standard ATC/CSS, whose operation is not usually defined in standard rapid transit operating rule books, but by something such as the NORAC Rule Book, that the SIRT does use (LIRR is one exception, using their own homemade brew, NJT, MN SEPTA, AMTRAK all use NORAC).

Several years ago, this ATC/CSS system was installed with extensive wayside infrastructure at a good cost in many, many millions of dollars.

Yes, R-211’s could be used, but would have to be extensively modified, and all CBTC equipment removed, as it may conflict and/or interfere with the RR ATC/CSS system, to modify less than 100 R-211 cars would be an expensive undertaking, and this may in effect void any warranty from the prime builder unless the work was undertaken as an option by the prime builder.

Or to utilize the R-211, the entire “command and control”, and “wayside infrastructure” based on ATC/CSS could be removed at great expense, with more than 90% of expected useful life remaining, and an expensive original “relay / track circuit” subway signal system could be installed, or at an even greater cost, installing “full subway CBTC”.

But, the it makes true sense to keep the railroad ATC/CSS signal solution, as there is the very real potential, and possibility that the SIRT could once again be connected to “national railroad network”, either via Port Ivory, or the cross-harbor tunnel to Brooklyn, or both.

And the cross-harbor tunnel may be more real now than anyone realizes, as both Chinese and middle-eastern firms want the harbor facing SI waterfront to handle the 300-400 meter mega-container ships that can be handled in no US port currently, and the number of potential port options on either coast is quite limited, less than a dozen, with Alaska and Hawaii excluded. Moreover, they will fund and “design build” the entire project.

A diversion or option off the M-9A (MN build, NORAC compliant) makes the most sense, and least cost impacting, or service disrupting, with only very minor physical infrastructure modifications needed on the SIRT to handle “off the shelf” M-9A (MN build, NORAC compliant) rail vehicles. And if the interconnection is reestablished, they are fully FRA CLASS-3 compliant, just that the crewing would then have to be FRA certified.

[Kamen Rider]

you don't seem to understand that the CBTC equipment would simply be left out when the trains are built. the tech is basically plug and play, it's not hard wired in. Or could simply be turned off and left off. It's not going to void warranties if their design and construction is part of the original agreement.

I think you are missing the key point that the 211s barely even exist on paper. No contracts have been let, nor any designs approved.

Also, as I said, all heavy work for the line is done at Coney Island, with the cars driven over the bridge on a flatbed. they are not equipped to handle "M series" cars.

[tdoran1951]

you don't seem to understand that the CBTC equipment would simply be left out when the trains are built. the tech is basically plug and play, it's not hard wired in. Or could simply be turned off and left off. It's not going to void warranties if their design and construction is part of the original agreement.

I think you are missing the key point that the 211s barely even exist on paper. No contracts have been let, nor any designs approved.

Also, as I said, all heavy work for the line is done at Coney Island, with the cars driven over the bridge on a flatbed. they are not equipped to handle "M series" cars.

Electronics is NOT HARDWIRED but the are PHYSICAL SUPPORTING ITEMS (heavy cast transponder receivers etc.) that are part of the physical car, and except for the brief R-44 period, SIRT has had RR trainsets, and they can be quickly car-floated to LIRR/MN trackage for repair.

Yes, railfans, still and the MTA at first wanted to make the SIRT, and the LIRR "rapid transit", but the SIRT has more in common with a railroad than a subway, and it would be short-sighted to make it a subway.

BTW, the R-211 specification has been given to several manufactures in parts, under code-names, to toss everyone off the R-211 nomenclature, for comment.

[Backshophoss]

The "R211" might be a concept now, but a variant the "R211a" is possible,SIRT was an B&O line before MTA ownership that was folded
into NYCTA using Subway cars modded as needed for SIRT services,as the current batch of R-44's were. ANY connection to the Freight
shortline along the north shore of Staten Island was cut years ago. Buy now,Coney Island shop has testing set ups for SIRT's ATC
and Cab signal on board systems
If and when the "R211" order is tendered to the carbuilder of record,there could be "X" amoumt of cars with a delete CBTC
option, allowing the equipment space in the underframe boxes and in the cabs for SIRT's ATC and cab signals.(aka "R211a").

As far as Mainland China sniffing around for waterfront space in NYC,even if done on the "QT" would have the news media
out on the trail and splashed nation wide by now. As far as that Chinese Carbuidler making any cars for MTA,their unproven,
and MTA is not crazy like MBTA!