single standard

[flexliner]

realizing that it would be EXTREMELY expensive - but nonetheless, would there be any long term advantages to converting the entire system to IRT (A division) standards?
yes B division platforms would need extensions for the gaps but then all cars could run anywhere,
(all the work trains on both divisions are ex IRT IIRC)
more standardization in terms of parts repairs etc
just wondering

[Fan Railer]

realizing that it would be EXTREMELY expensive - but nonetheless, would there be any long term advantages to converting the entire system to IRT (A division) standards?
yes B division platforms would need extensions for the gaps but then all cars could run anywhere,
(all the work trains on both divisions are ex IRT IIRC)
more standardization in terms of parts repairs etc
just wondering

Other than equipment compatibility, there wouldn't be many benefits. It's actually quite silly, considering there is more B division trackage and lines, and not to mention that B division trains have a higher passenger capacity. If anything, the better idea would be to convert A division trackage and lines to run B division trains. However, as I know, there are several points in the underground system where B division cars would not be able to meet clearance issues around curves and such, not to mention the cost it would take to shave platforms and reorient columns to accommodate the stock. But costs aside, as you said, yes, there would be some advantages to standardizing the fleet, although I would go about it A --> B, and not the other way around.

[SlowFreight]

It still wouldn't fix the more fundamental problem, which is bad connections between lines. IND and IRT lines use the same standards, but you still can't connect worth a **** between them.

[R36 Combine Coach]

The IRT Flushing Line (7) east (north) of Queensboro Plaza is built to BMT spec and could be modified, which did occur with the Astoria Line in 1949 (originally an IRT el, it was converted to BMT standards).

[Head-end View]

According to a book I have, both the Astoria, and Flushing els were built to IRT standards. So when the big change of service happened, they only had to shave back platforms on the Astoria Line to accomodate the newer wider BMT subway equipment. The BMT had originally used very old el cars to Flushing and Astoria that met IRT specs.

[Terrapin Station]

realizing that it would be EXTREMELY expensive - but nonetheless, would there be any long term advantages to converting the entire system to IRT (A division) standards?
yes B division platforms would need extensions for the gaps but then all cars could run anywhere,
(all the work trains on both divisions are ex IRT IIRC)
more standardization in terms of parts repairs etc
just wondering

Yes, there would likely be some "long term advantages". But there would also likely be MANY MANY more short and long term disadvantages. IMO it would be an absolutely terrible idea.

[railfan365]

Geting all subway lines to accommodate the same size cars would not provide any standardization benefits. The tracks are already the same gauge, electric power distribution and signaling are identical. And all cars have the same internal operating specs and mechanisms - it's just that some have shorter/narrower car bodies with fewer doors and windows.

Meanwhile, it would cost several fortunes over to convert one divisoin in its entirety to handle the otehr divisons rolling stock and to have more convenient transfers and would require mass replacement of hundreds of cars, many of them long before the end of their useful lives.

The only tangible benefit that I can think of would be a modest reduction of the fleet if the same cars served all lines. The cost/benefit on this , IMO, is exponentially against this idea.

[lirr42]

Yeah, if you were to all of A division stations to B division specifications, you would have to get rid of all the A division cars, because they would be far too narrow to be any use with the new stations. Modifying them is out of the question, unless you want to screw a sheet of plywood or metal onto the bottom of the doors to bridge the gap, a unsafe and ineffective option.

Shaving A division platforms back to be able to accommodate wider B division cars would not be practical. Some stations have narrow little island platforms already, and now whacking 10 ft off them would be just too much. Plus lots of tunnels would have to be widened to accommodate the wider cars (tracks would have to be shifted, switches realigned, support beams relocated, etc.)

Widening B division platforms to accommodate narrower A division cars could be done, but you would lose all of the capacity on the wider trains. Therefore lines would become dangerously over capacity. To avoid this, you would just need longer trains, but then you would have to lengthen platforms, buy more cars, etc. Plus you have these shiny new R143's, and R160's (and the future R179's by this point) that would be no use at all.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And the 2-division system now ain't broke.
Bottom line: A good idea, but not practical or cost-effective.

[jonnhrr]

It's just a fact of life that lines were built at different time with different standards. This is not limited to NYC.

In Boston we have 3 rapid transit lines each with a different loading gauge and car size.
Philly goes one further and the 2 SEPTA lines have different track gauges.
London you have tube and subsurface lines, the latter being wider.

So it is a common problem. The only systems that don't have it tend to be smaller ones with 1 or 2 lines, or ones built more or less all at once, like BART and WMATA.

Transit systems just learn to live with it.

Jon

[keyboardkat]

They don't have identical signalling, although IRT division is gradually being changed to B division type signals. But the track trippers are on the right on the IRT, and on the left on the B division.

[Patrick Boylan]

Would which side the trippers are on make a difference to the train? I assume the train has trip levers on both sides, since they can go in any direction on any track.
At least that's how they are in Philly, although there's a loop at one end of one of our subway lines, trains change ends and reverse direction at the other termini.

[Fan Railer]

Would which side the trippers are on make a difference to the train? I assume the train has trip levers on both sides, since they can go in any direction on any track.
At least that's how they are in Philly, although there's a loop at one end of one of our subway lines, trains change ends and reverse direction at the other termini.

Revenue rolling stock on NYS don't have trip levers on both sides, so they MUST remain in their division unless hauled by a locomotive through another. The only cars that have trip levers installed on both sides are your non-revenue work service cars and locomotives.

[Patrick Boylan]

I'm missing something big here, and I'm sure I'll slap myself silly for missing it when someone explains it to me, but if the train's trip levers are only on 1 side how does it change ends and run on the opposite track and still have the trip levers on the correct side? And what do they do about trains that manage to loop around somehow?

Prior post says IRT trackside tripping arms are on the right. The train gets to its terminal, changes ends, then goes back out the other track. The train's tripping levers are on the old right side, which after changing ends is now the left side. So how do the one sided track tripping arms and train tripping levers engage? What 500 lb gorilla, 2 ton elephant, or hundreds of tons subway train am I missing?

[Kamen Rider]

all cars have atleast two trippers, counter to each other. one tripper is alway facing in the direction of movement, and one is not.

[R36 Combine Coach]

The single unit WF R33s have dual trippers and can be used in work service in either division.