Railcars for New York City Transit
By John Pegram[1]
Should the overaged type R46, R62 and R68 railcars of the NYC Transit subway system be replaced by manufacturer-designed railcars, as some people have suggested?
This article explains why I believe that NYC Transit should purchase subway cars based on its reliable New Technology designs. A future article will discuss why very similar cars should be purchased for and used on the proposed Interborough Express (IBX) line.
Current NYC Transit Purchasing
As shown by the chart below, from the MTA’s 2025-2029 Capital Plan Appendix, over 2,516 NYC Transit subway cars will be beyond their useful lifetime of 40 years in 2025.[2]
On December 18, 2024, the MTA Board approved a staff recommendation to exercise Option 2 of its agreement with Kawasaki to purchase 355 closed-end R211 subway cars, and 80 hard shell open gangway R211 subway cars for the “B” Division (lines identified by letter), a total of 435 cars.[3] That is in addition to the 1,175 R211 cars previously ordered for the B Division and Staten Island Railway.[4] The Option 2 cars are to be delivered in 2027-2028.
The total price, calculated under an adjustment formula in the base contract, is $1,266,247,247. That is $2,910,913 per railcar, or $159,130 per meter of railcar length. That cost per meter appears to be a favorable price as compared to other recent railcar purchases in North America. A major reason for the favorable price appears to be the large quantity of cars ordered of the same design.
In answer to a question at an MTA committee meeting, NYC Transit President Demetrius Crichlow said that the 80 new, open gangway cars would be operated throughout the system, and not limited to certain lines as the initial 20 R211 open gangway cars have been.[5]
The MTA’s Plans for a Next Generation of NYC Transit Cars
What design of railcars will be the next generation for NYC Transit? That is a bit unclear. The MTA may still be open to suggestions.
Starting in 2019, the MTA planned to order large quantities of R262 and R268 railcars for the A Division (numbered lines) and B Division, respectively. The designs would be based on the R211 cars.
To make a long story short, those plans were cancelled.[7] While the MTA initially contemplated extending the contract with the consultants on the R211 project to include the R262 and R268 projects,[8] the time for that possibility passed. On June 9, 2023, the MTA issued a request for proposals (RFP) “consulting services for the R262 and R268 Subway Car Contracts.”[9] It does not appear that any consulting contract has been awarded as a result of that RFP. The MTA does not appear to have publicly discussed the R262 and R268 since the 2023 RFP. The R262 and R268 are not specifically mentioned in the MTA’s 2023 20-Year Needs Assessment Appendix, although the need for many more subway cars is discussed there.[10] While the 2025-2029 Capital Plan includes 7.617 billion dollars for purchase of 2,000 A and B division railcars and “support,” it does not specifically mention R262 or R268.[11] I have made inquiries to the MTA about what is included in the subway railcar items in the Capital Plan, but have not yet received a reply.
Should the NYC Transit Buy Manufacturer-Designed Railcars?
A recent article by an advocacy group, the Effective Transit Alliance (ETA), suggests many features be included in the next generation of NYC Transit railcars, such as open gangways, fire and smoke detection and suppression systems, CCTV and modern information display systems. These are good ideas. The good news is that most of the suggested features are already being adopted in the R211 cars. I do not join in the ETA article’s suggestion that “the MTA should use a modular product like the Alstom Metropolis, Siemens Inspiro, or Stadler METRO” or the ETA article’s justification that “[t]hese trainsets simplify maintenance through standardization….”[12]
A very important and desirable feature mentioned in the ETA is that the next generation of NYC Transit Railcars should permit one person and fully-automated operation. All R211A and R211T cars are already being equipped for communications-based train control (CBTC); therefore, it should not be technically difficult or expensive to implement full Unattended Train Operation (UTO), also called grade GoA4 automation, in which starting, stopping and doors are all automated, with no need for a crew member on the train.
Another desirable feature noted by the ETA article is the ability to for an operator to move to a different cab without time-consuming venting and recharging of the brake line, which is now required by NYC Transit. That would make separating and rejoining train sections quicker and more practical. Shorter, more frequent trains could then be operated during off-peak hours. As NYC Transit President Demetrius Crichlow said at a recent MTA committee meeting, “If you run good, frequent service, the people will come….”[13]
Another change suggested by the ETA is that NYC Transit should revise its dynamic envelope standards, requiring an unusually large spacing between railcars and adjacent structures. I agree. As discussed in my article about platform screen doors, the present standard is overly conservative.[14] However, revision of the dynamic envelope standards would not directly affect railcar design for the NYC replacement program.
While I agree that modular components could simplify railcar maintenance, that does not require purchasing manufacturer-designed railcars. Indeed, because of Buy America requirements, it may not be practical to use foreign-manufactured modules in NYC Transit subway cars. Also, the newer NYC subway car designs have exceptional reliability. For example, according to NYC Transit President Demetrius Crichlow, the new R211 railcars are five times as reliable as the R46 cars they are replacing.[15] Reliability favors basing new railcars on the best NYC Transit designs.
A major point urged in the ETA article in support of its manufacturer-designed railcar position is its understanding (in my view, a misunderstanding) that the MTA’s 2025-2029 Capital Plan indicates that the MTA plans to pay an excessive amount for each railcar, In response, I suggest first that we should trust the MTA to negotiate the best price for quality railcars, as it apparently has done in recent years. Indeed, the ETA article admits that “[e]ven compared to its domestic peers New York has generally done well acquiring rolling stock at reasonable costs.” Second, we really do not know what is included in the Capital Plan amount, especially what is included in “support.” For example, does it include maintenance for 30 or 40 years? Third, I suggest that is wrong to project what the MTA would pay per railcar from the ballpark amount in a capital plan. As a rule, cost estimates at such an early stage are not precise. (For example, the cost estimates in the MTA’s IBX reports are identified as “order-of-magnitude” estimates.)[16] They are likely to be overestimated. (Better to overestimate than underestimate). Fourth, the ETA article does not appear to have appreciated the significant inflation which has occurred in construction costs. The MTA has pointed out in its Capital Plan presentation that there had been a 29.1% cumulative inflation in construction costs over the past five years,[17] which is well in excess of the 3.5% per year inflation factor which had been previously assumed. Similar inflation is likely affect the cost of any railcar made in the United States.
A very important factor in railcar prices is the quantity involved. The MTA operates approximately half of the railcars in the USA and it orders far more railcars of substantially the same design than any other North American transit operator. In contrast, railcar manufacturers’ literature emphasizes the customization of their designs for each customer. See, for example, the following table from a Siemens Inspiro metro railcar brochure:[18]
Manufacturers’ “standard” design metro cars, in many or all cases, would not be compatible with the NYC Transit system. For example, door locations and “high” floor levels vary on different models. Door location has increased importance today, as NYC Transit has installed platform barriers between door locations at several stations and is considering platform screen doors. While features of “standard” design metro cars could be customized for NYC Transit, customization would come with costs.
Recommendation
NYC Transit should purchase subway railcars based on its highly reliable New Technology designs, including the R211 design, and proposed R262 and E268 designs, incorporating the features suggested by the ETA article to the extent practical and not reducing reliability.
This article expresses the personal views of the author and does not express the views of his employer, or any client or organization. The author has degrees in law and physics, and has taken several engineering courses. After five years of work as an engineer, he has practiced law primarily in the field of patents for over 50 years, dealing with a wide variety of technologies. He is a life-long railfan and user of public transportation in the United States, Europe and Japan.
As usual a PDF copy of this article is attached.
[1] © John Pegram, 2024.
[2] P. 86, available at https://new.mta.info/document/152161.
[3] MTA Board Book for 12/18/2024, staff recommendation, p. 31/335, available at https://new.mta.info/document/160631. (Summarily approved at the MTA Board meeting on December 18, 2024 ).
[4] MTA Capital Program Committee Meeting Book for December 16, 2024 , p. 123/163, available at https://new.mta.info/document/160206.
[5] MTA NYC Transit/Bus Committee Meeting, December 16, 2024 at ~ 1:31:57, available at https://new.mta.info/transparency/board-and-committee-meetings/december-2024.
[6] Image from Wikipedia, “R262 (New York City Subway car),” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R262_(New_York_City_Subway_car).
[7] See generally id.
[8] Id.
[9] NYC Transit, Solicitation Notice SSE #: 0000432517, available at https://new.mta.info/document/112931
[10] Pp. 8-12, available at https://future.mta.info/documents/20-YearNeedsAssessment_FullAppendix.pdf.
[11] MTA, 2025-2029 Capital Plan, pp. 20, 86-87, available at https://new.mta.info/document/152161.
[12] Effective Transit Alliance, “A Not-So-Capital Plan, Part 1: Perhaps the Most Expensive Subway Train in the World,” available at https://www.etany.org/a-not-so-capital-plan-1-most-expensive-subway-train.
[13] MTA, NYC Transit/Bus Committee Meeting, December 16, 2024 at ~ 0:59:45, available at https://new.mta.info/transparency/board-and-committee-meetings/december-2024.
[14] “Platform Screen Doors and the Interborough Express,” available at https://bqrail.substack.com/p/platform-screen-doors-and-the-interborough.
[15] MTA NYC Transit/Bus Committee Meeting, December 16, 2024 at ~ 0:47:30, available at https://new.mta.info/transparency/board-and-committee-meetings/december-2024.
[16] MTA, Interborough Express Planning & Environmental Linkages Study (PEL Report), Appendix 1.10 Capital Cost Methodology, Part 1 Introduction, p.1 (Jan. 2023), available at https://bqrail.substack.com/api/v1/file/8132daa4-60d3-44e5-b0fb-7256b273ac09.pdf.
[17] MTA Board meeting, 2025-2029 Capital Plan presentation, September 25, 2024, p. 19, available at https://new.mta.info/document/152161.
[18] Siemens Inspiro brochure, p. 7, available at https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/ api/uuid:a79346b3-db17-4397-bbd1-237fbe2504c8/brochure-metro-inspiro-en.pdf.
> A very important factor in railcar prices is the quantity involved. The MTA operates approximately half of the railcars in the USA and it orders far more railcars of substantially the same design than any other North American transit operator. In contrast, railcar manufacturers’ literature emphasizes the customization of their designs for each customer. See, for example, the following table from a Siemens Inspiro metro railcar brochure:[18]
>
> Manufacturers’ “standard” design metro cars, in many or all cases, would not be compatible with the NYC Transit system. For example, door locations and “high” floor levels vary on different models. Door location has increased importance today, as NYC Transit has installed platform barriers between door locations at several stations and is considering platform screen doors. While features of “standard” design metro cars could be customized for NYC Transit, customization would come with costs.
I think you misunderstood our point here. Of course, NYCT would need customizations of international rolling stock for things like the loading gauge, train car length, door location, platform height, electrification, etc. But as you can see with the Siemens Inspiro, these are aspects of the train that manufacturers specifically advertise as customizable. Everyone customizes these parts of the train, and so they are used to it and expect it.
Notably, though, things like open gangways or aluminum carbodies are not customizable. It is assumed to be the default. It's when you start to change these things that the customization costs creep in. It's when you start to overspecify tiny details of the PIS that the manufacturer has to invent their own bespoke software, entailing higher costs and inflexibility. And there are plenty of other tiny customizations that add up in the 819 page long R211 Technical Specification RFP.
> A very important and desirable feature mentioned in the ETA is that the next generation of NYC Transit Railcars should permit one person and fully-automated operation. All R211A and R211T cars are already being equipped for communications-based train control (CBTC); therefore, it should not be technically difficult or expensive to implement full Unattended Train Operation (UTO), also called grade GoA4 automation, in which starting, stopping and doors are all automated, with no need for a crew member on the train.
I'm not sure this as easy as you say, and would require retrofitting. The R211 RFP Technical Specification requires provisions for TPTO and OPTO, both under ATO, ATPM, or manual driving. There is no provision for UTO, so it would have to be retrofitted, even though that may not be technically too difficult (I'm not sure exactly how hard it is).
However, for something like the IBX that could be automated from day 1, you want a very different design from the NTTs. There should be no operator room whatsoever, with that room instead being used for more passenger space and a wide front and back window. This both increases passenger space, provides a really nice view, and helps in convincing the union that UTO is the only option, as there is literally no room or controls for a human operator. But this is fundamentally different from the NTT design, but is in line with many international trains.