Low voltage trains on IRT

Aside from signaling, does anyone know if it is possible for 625V R142s to run on the 600V IND tracks? Are there any technologies that make this possible if not?

Thanks,

600 vs. 625 is negligible. Nominal traction voltage is 550. The major difference is the trip arm location. R-33WF cars have both, since Flushing Line adheres to BMT-IND standard. Probably some R-62As also.

Gerry6309 wrote:600 vs. 625 is negligible. Nominal traction voltage is 550. The major difference is the trip arm location. R-33WF cars have both, since Flushing Line adheres to BMT-IND standard. Probably some R-62As also.

Thank you. What about R142 cars? How hard would it be to retrofit them to run on IND standards?

More the question being "Why would you want to?"

an R142 is 51 feet long and 8 1/2 feet wide. A 10 car train is 510 feet, an 11 car 7 train is 561.

B division (BMT/IND) equipment is all 10 feet wide and ranges from 60 to 75 feet in length, all but 5 lines run 600' trains.

IRT equipment is restricted in size due to the narrower loading gauge of the pre-dual contract era tunnels, specifically the old "Day One" main line (contract one and contract 2) and the Steinway Tubes.

An R142, or any IRT car for that matter, on tracks shared with B division sized cars would leave too great a gap to do so safely in day to day service. The only IRT cars to run on BMT mainline track age in passenger service was a set of low Vs in the late 50s IIRC with running boards attached to the side to bridge that gap. They usually, from what I recall, ran the Nassau-Culver short line (Chambers Street to Ditmas Ave). But this also meant the trains could not return to the IRT.

Kamen Rider wrote:More the question being "Why would you want to?"

an R142 is 51 feet long and 8 1/2 feet wide. A 10 car train is 510 feet, an 11 car 7 train is 561.

B division (BMT/IND) equipment is all 10 feet wide and ranges from 60 to 75 feet in length, all but 5 lines run 600' trains.

IRT equipment is restricted in size due to the narrower loading gauge of the pre-dual contract era tunnels, specifically the old "Day One" main line (contract one and contract 2) and the Steinway Tubes.

An R142, or any IRT car for that matter, on tracks shared with B division sized cars would leave too great a gap to do so safely in day to day service. The only IRT cars to run on BMT mainline track age in passenger service was a set of low Vs in the late 50s IIRC with running boards attached to the side to bridge that gap. They usually, from what I recall, ran the Nassau-Culver short line (Chambers Street to Ditmas Ave). But this also meant the trains could not return to the IRT.

Kamen,

Thanks for this. I'm wondering if it would be possible as an option for the second avenue subway (phase 3/4, not down Q line) with automated platform extenders (like union square) and a connection to the IRT in the Bronx. The idea would be for that line to be able to support both standards. It's an academic project.

Kamen Rider wrote:More the question being "Why would you want to?"

an R142 is 51 feet long and 8 1/2 feet wide. A 10 car train is 510 feet, an 11 car 7 train is 561.
...........

IRT cars (including the R142) are 51 feet 4 inches long. That makes a 10 car train 510 feet 40 inches OR 513 feet 4 inches long. An 11 car train is 561 feet 44 inches OR 564 feet 8 inches long.

Allan wrote:

Kamen Rider wrote:More the question being "Why would you want to?"

an R142 is 51 feet long and 8 1/2 feet wide. A 10 car train is 510 feet, an 11 car 7 train is 561.
...........

IRT cars (including the R142) are 51 feet 4 inches long. That makes a 10 car train 510 feet 40 inches OR 513 feet 4 inches long. An 11 car train is 561 feet 44 inches OR 564 feet 8 inches long.

I'm not sure how important train length is. After all the M train runs with 8 cars while the F runs with 10. It is more of a question of the ability to be able to use both systems at once, which gets back to the question of the trip arm and how difficult it would be to make it compatible with both systems?

FRN9 wrote:

Allan wrote:

Kamen Rider wrote:More the question being "Why would you want to?"

an R142 is 51 feet long and 8 1/2 feet wide. A 10 car train is 510 feet, an 11 car 7 train is 561.
...........

IRT cars (including the R142) are 51 feet 4 inches long. That makes a 10 car train 510 feet 40 inches OR 513 feet 4 inches long. An 11 car train is 561 feet 44 inches OR 564 feet 8 inches long.

I'm not sure how important train length is. After all the M train runs with 8 cars while the F runs with 10. It is more of a question of the ability to be able to use both systems at once, which gets back to the question of the trip arm and how difficult it would be to make it compatible with both systems?

M trains run with 8 cars because all stations on the BMT Eastern Division (Essex St eastward) are only 480 feet long (8 x 60 feet) and can't handle any longer trains.

The F train is 10 cars long because the IND built the stations to longer lengths (actually the stations can handle 11 car trains - the F train when first operated on Queens Blvd had 11 car trains.)

I am not sure any one really knows why the stop/trip arms are on opposite sides between IRT and BMT/IND. It would get rather expensive to retrofit all IRT cars (they would not retrofit BMT/IND cars because they are too wide to operate in IRT tunnels.)

Allan wrote:

FRN9 wrote:

Allan wrote:

Kamen Rider wrote:More the question being "Why would you want to?"

an R142 is 51 feet long and 8 1/2 feet wide. A 10 car train is 510 feet, an 11 car 7 train is 561.
...........

IRT cars (including the R142) are 51 feet 4 inches long. That makes a 10 car train 510 feet 40 inches OR 513 feet 4 inches long. An 11 car train is 561 feet 44 inches OR 564 feet 8 inches long.

I'm not sure how important train length is. After all the M train runs with 8 cars while the F runs with 10. It is more of a question of the ability to be able to use both systems at once, which gets back to the question of the trip arm and how difficult it would be to make it compatible with both systems?

M trains run with 8 cars because all stations on the BMT Eastern Division (Essex St eastward) are only 480 feet long (8 x 60 feet) and can't handle any longer trains.

The F train is 10 cars long because the IND built the stations to longer lengths (actually the stations can handle 11 car trains - the F train when first operated on Queens Blvd had 11 car trains.)

I am not sure any one really knows why the stop/trip arms are on opposite sides between IRT and BMT/IND. It would get rather expensive to retrofit all IRT cars (they would not retrofit BMT/IND cars because they are too wide to operate in IRT tunnels.)

If they are on opposite sides, then how were the redbirds compatible?

FRN9 wrote:
If they are on opposite sides, then how were the redbirds compatible?

They weren't. The Flushing line is IRT all the way. But when they had to move some redbirds down to Coney Island Yard for maintenance they would use a R36WF (single) car modified with a tripcock on both sides as the first car.

Some years back when they did an excursion using retired redbirds starting on the Lex and winding up in Coney Island (via the flyover into the Concourse yard and the D line), the T/O had to be very mindful of the signals.

BUT - you should be aware that there is a tripcock at both ends of A division cars (on opposite sides) meaning that even if they are running on B Division tracks so that even if the tripcock at the front isn't affected by the stop arm the one at the rear of the car would get tripped if the stop arm is up.

Allan wrote:

Kamen Rider wrote:More the question being "Why would you want to?"

an R142 is 51 feet long and 8 1/2 feet wide. A 10 car train is 510 feet, an 11 car 7 train is 561.
...........

IRT cars (including the R142) are 51 feet 4 inches long. That makes a 10 car train 510 feet 40 inches OR 513 feet 4 inches long. An 11 car train is 561 feet 44 inches OR 564 feet 8 inches long.

You ever heard the words "Rounding off"...

Back to topic

the Flushing line is kinda sorta a hybrid between A and B, it operates to IRT standards, but you'll only hear Flushing train crews on the BMT radio frequency. After the end of El service on the 2nd ave line via the Queensboro Bridge, the only connection to the outside would was the track connection to the BMT 60th street tubes. At that time, the only option to move equipment to the main shops was to couple an B divison Pilot car (every car order from both divisions, R10 to R68 except for the R44s and R46s, use the same SMEE brakeing design). Problem with that comes when you forget to take the car off when you get back to the interchange point. A train leaving Concourse Yard up the ramp to the Jerome Ave El left it's IND pilot car on the rear. It proceeded to tear apart Kingsbridge Road. And you can see why he made that mistake, when you compare the looks of the R10s to the R12s

So that was made a consideration in the design of the R33 World's Fair. Lead the train without the risk of causing utter chaos and destruction. And why they later went and built a direct ramp between the Broadway-7th ave line and the 207th shops.

Even today, the R33WFs remain on the work roster for such purposes. I've seen photos of them leading R62s to and from the Flushing line, and whenever the IRT museum SMEE "Train of Many Colors" is out on the road, you can bet that 9306, the first of the 33WFs, will be at one end.

As to the assertion of two division operating on the same tracks...

it's just a general, absolute, no room for negotiations NO. Having a gap filler at every door at every station is too great a mechanical risk. If just one gap filler fails to extend, then the station has to be bypassed by IRT trains. If it fails sticking out, then every B division train on the line would be trapped where it was basically clogging up the road. And heaven help you if it gets stuck out and a B division train goes and hits it.

There would also need to be a security measure to prevent B division equipment from taking the wrong lineup and ending up on the IRT tracks, but does not interfere with work equipment that can be tripped both ways.

The MTA has done everything in it's power to remove gap fillers from the subway. They didn't spend all that time, money and effort building a new South Ferry Station just because. If they could rebuild 14th street-USQ to remove them, they would. They currently maintain only about 30 all together. They are in no mood to have to put in more then they've ever had. You idea would require 900 units.

This started out as a question about traction voltage, and evolved into an issue with dimensions.

New York does pretty good on this. Here in Boston we have only four rapid transit services, but we have three sets of dimensions. The Red Line (2 services) uses 9' 6" wide cars (10' 2" at the belt). The Orange and Blue Lines use 8' 6" wide cars, but the Blue Line's platforms are several inches lower. The 1978-1981 Hawker Siddley cars used the same cross section, but altered the body bolsters on the Blue Line Cars to lower the floor, and left out one door and window set to shorten the body. The underfloor equipment displaced on the Blue Line cars went on the roof. The MBTA is now considering another combined order to replace Orange and Red Line cars. Both the width and lengths differ. Will we get 65 x 8' 6" cars with platform extenders for the Red Line? That will not go over well in Cambridge during rush hour…

Be Thankful that MTA can order 1000s of cars at a time.

Kamen Rider wrote:

Allan wrote:

Kamen Rider wrote:More the question being "Why would you want to?"

an R142 is 51 feet long and 8 1/2 feet wide. A 10 car train is 510 feet, an 11 car 7 train is 561.
...........

IRT cars (including the R142) are 51 feet 4 inches long. That makes a 10 car train 510 feet 40 inches OR 513 feet 4 inches long. An 11 car train is 561 feet 44 inches OR 564 feet 8 inches long.

You ever heard the words "Rounding off"...

Back to topic

the Flushing line is kinda sorta a hybrid between A and B, it operates to IRT standards, but you'll only hear Flushing train crews on the BMT radio frequency. After the end of El service on the 2nd ave line via the Queensboro Bridge, the only connection to the outside would was the track connection to the BMT 60th street tubes. At that time, the only option to move equipment to the main shops was to couple an B divison Pilot car (every car order from both divisions, R10 to R68 except for the R44s and R46s, use the same SMEE brakeing design). Problem with that comes when you forget to take the car off when you get back to the interchange point. A train leaving Concourse Yard up the ramp to the Jerome Ave El left it's IND pilot car on the rear. It proceeded to tear apart Kingsbridge Road. And you can see why he made that mistake, when you compare the looks of the R10s to the R12s

So that was made a consideration in the design of the R33 World's Fair. Lead the train without the risk of causing utter chaos and destruction. And why they later went and built a direct ramp between the Broadway-7th ave line and the 207th shops.

Even today, the R33WFs remain on the work roster for such purposes. I've seen photos of them leading R62s to and from the Flushing line, and whenever the IRT museum SMEE "Train of Many Colors" is out on the road, you can bet that 9306, the first of the 33WFs, will be at one end.

As to the assertion of two division operating on the same tracks...

it's just a general, absolute, no room for negotiations NO. Having a gap filler at every door at every station is too great a mechanical risk. If just one gap filler fails to extend, then the station has to be bypassed by IRT trains. If it fails sticking out, then every B division train on the line would be trapped where it was basically clogging up the road. And heaven help you if it gets stuck out and a B division train goes and hits it.

There would also need to be a security measure to prevent B division equipment from taking the wrong lineup and ending up on the IRT tracks, but does not interfere with work equipment that can be tripped both ways.

The MTA has done everything in it's power to remove gap fillers from the subway. They didn't spend all that time, money and effort building a new South Ferry Station just because. If they could rebuild 14th street-USQ to remove them, they would. They currently maintain only about 30 all together. They are in no mood to have to put in more then they've ever had. You idea would require 900 units.

Kamen,

I think with a closed platform with doors the gap filler technology could be much more advanced.

I get what you're saying though. Your points are well taken--as is all the detail.

thank you.

Kamen Rider wrote:Even today, the R33WFs remain on the work roster for such purposes. I've seen photos of them leading R62s to and from the Flushing line, and whenever the IRT museum SMEE "Train of Many Colors" is out on the road, you can bet that 9306, the first of the 33WFs, will be at one end.

R62As 1901-1910 are single units also equipped for work service and have double cocks. There are four WF R33s on the Flushing Line roster for this purpose.