Kamen Rider wrote:
tdoran1951 wrote: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.
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.
Also a new rule book would then be need, and it would have to approved by all unions.
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.