> 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.
I agree that NYC Transit/MTA tends to over-specify and I agree that displays should be modular, because the technology will change over a railcar's 40-year life. I don't agree that means NYC Transit should purchase manufacturer-designed railcars, which simply locks you into that manufacturer's modules and systems.
Please provide a link to the R211 Technical Specification RFP.
A manufacturer-designed railcar lets you buy the next order from a different manufacturer; for example, Warsaw has bought both Alstom Metropolis and Siemens Inspiro orders.
> 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.
Thanks, Khyber, for your several comments and Happy Holidays !
Provision for UTO probably is only a software change.
I'd go with the MTA preference on an operator room. Omitting an operator room at front & back of 4-5 cars would not add much passenger space. I like the front & rear windows, but was concerned watching children crawling over the control board on a Paris line 14 train last month.
The space isn't a ton, but it's something. Similar to open gangways. But more importantly, it's a massive tool in preventing the unions from insisting there be an operator, which they will definitely fight for. But if the MTA is like, oh well, we already bought the trains and there's no place an operator could go, then they're far more likely to win. It's also once again the international standard for GoA4 rolling stock.
As for Paris, I'm pretty sure they don't have exposed controls. The MP 14 I took had fully enclosed controls at the front, the white case on top of the black and blue parts. If you mean crawling on top of that closed case, I don't see what's wrong with that. It's designed for that.
> 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….”
This point was about terminal capacity, as operators switching ends at a non-loop terminal requires this time-wasting brake venting and recharging. I'm not sure it has anything to do with separating and rejoining trains, and that isn't as severely time-limited as terminal time when the train needs to do crossover to crossover in 120 s.
Perhaps I should have said it would also enhance separating and rejoining.... In Tokyo station, the Narita Express is separated or joining within about 120 seconds every 20 minutes. But in Philadelphia, Amtrack seems to take 5 to 10 times as long with the Keystone, when it reverses direction.
Separating/joining with 2 min is really good, but I think this is orthogonal to the brake venting. When the brake line is detached, it has to be vented, right? Vs. just changing directions, venting the brakes is done for "safety" when the operator changes, and there's no physical reason it needs to be done.
> 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?
In the costs we calculated for the R262 ($221k/m) and R268 ($272k/m), we didn't include this "support", so we assumed maintenance would not be bundled, as the MTA has never done so.
> 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.
A line like Tuen Ma does have wider (2 km) stop spacing than NYCT, which helps for sure, but an R211 that is 10x less reliable does not seem very good for a brand new train.
[1] The MTA counts any mechanical failure, but doesn't have a strict definition of this. Asia is counting any delay >= 5 min that is due to the train car. Both count distance traveled by train cars, not per train, so this is equivalent (though MTR train cars are 83 ft long, and the MTA's are mostly 60 ft).
Your opinion needs data to back it up, though. Internationally, though, the reliability is not good. A whole order of magnitude lower than Hong Kong. And I've also discovered now that the Singapore's Downtown Line is even higher at about 5000k miles, 20x better than the R211. That same article says 1 million km or 600k miles is the general global benchmark for a train/line to be considered reliable.
> 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.
A few points:
Against our recommendations, only a small fraction of the 2nd option order was open gangway. And part of the reason why might be the 20% upcharge for open gangways that wouldn't be present on a more modular product that includes open gangways as the international default.
If the MTA has indeed now figured out the R211T smoke issues, then the points about fire and smoke detection and suppression systems isn't necessary. But we wrote that under the assumption that they had not yet, and this was aimed solely at that.
As for modular standards-based PIS, the R211 does not have anything like them. They are a great improvement over previous PISs, but they are incredibly inflexible, and couldn't be adjusted in time when the A run up 2 Av. What they can display should not be specified at all beyond that they should display a standards-compliant HTML5 browser. They should be updateable in real-time (on the order of a website's time-to-live (TTL), measured in seconds) by showing a live website with caching. I'm not sure if modular traincar designs generally include this (they might not), but this is the modular standard for displaying information and the internet, and it's vastly simpler, cheaper, and more flexible at the same time.
I have mixed feelings about open gangway cars, which I have ridden a lot. Four example, how do you get away from the smelly passenger? And I have not found standing in open gangways very comfortable, as compared with leaning against a car end.
In any event, I believe that the MTA proceeded appropriately with initially trying a small quantity of open gangway cars of two different types. I do not know the reason for the premium, but guess that the small quantity was a significant factor.
I agree the pilot cars made sense as part of the base order, but they had a chance to order 435 more open gangways cars, not a tiny order, and yet only chose to order 80 for unspecified reasons.
As for the smells, the open gangways have strong HVAC that essentially creates a wall of air between the cars, so smells (and noises to a lesser extent) do not permeate very much at all. They are indeed not too comfortable (though the soft shell ones are pretty fun), as they are still between bogies. Open gangways with Jacobs bogies are a lot more stable, but that also changes how the cars navigate curves, including at curved platforms.
The MTA's Kawasaki subway car orders are a significant departure from many of their other metro rolling stock orders internationally. Kawasaki, according to Nolan Hicks' sources, charged the MTA a 20% premium for open gangways when literally all of their metro rolling stock outside of the US with the sole exception of Dhaka has open gangways (some have doors, so are semi-open, but the gangway is interior and safe to walk through. the R211Ts also have doors that can close the open gangway). Buying a more modular product would mean the manufacturer would have no basis for this extreme upcharge.
I essentially answered this a minute ago in responding to another comment. I believe that if the MTA buys 1,000+ cars having an open gangway, I doubt there would be a significant premium as compared with "a more modular product."
The MTA does make orders smaller than 1000, though. The second R211 option was 435 cars, apparently not enough for the MTA to commit to 100% open gangway. The R268 order will be 355 cars, even smaller. So does that mean only the huge orders get the cost savings? The MTA will still lose a lot of money this way, as not all of their orders are 1000 cars.
Do you know where [5] is available at? I think it got cut off. The R211Ts being able to run on all lines would be a very welcome change, though if that's the case, I have no idea why the second option wasn't pure open gangways/
> 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.
I agree that NYC Transit/MTA tends to over-specify and I agree that displays should be modular, because the technology will change over a railcar's 40-year life. I don't agree that means NYC Transit should purchase manufacturer-designed railcars, which simply locks you into that manufacturer's modules and systems.
Please provide a link to the R211 Technical Specification RFP.
A manufacturer-designed railcar lets you buy the next order from a different manufacturer; for example, Warsaw has bought both Alstom Metropolis and Siemens Inspiro orders.
Thanks, Alon,
Happy New Year ! John
Links were posted here: https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/54404-train-specification-documents-for-the-r142-r142a-and-plans-for-r211/, but they're gone now. They've been archived, though.
R211: https://web.archive.org/web/20230604084254/https://transitinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/R211%20Tech%20Spec.pdf
R142A: https://web.archive.org/web/20230105195327/https://transitinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/R142A-Contract-Specifications.pdf
R142: https://web.archive.org/web/20230105195327/https://transitinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/R142%20Contract%20Specification.pdf
Thanks, Khyber,
For this info and all of your comments.
Happy New Year ! John
> 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.
Thanks, Khyber, for your several comments and Happy Holidays !
Provision for UTO probably is only a software change.
I'd go with the MTA preference on an operator room. Omitting an operator room at front & back of 4-5 cars would not add much passenger space. I like the front & rear windows, but was concerned watching children crawling over the control board on a Paris line 14 train last month.
Happy holidays, too!
The space isn't a ton, but it's something. Similar to open gangways. But more importantly, it's a massive tool in preventing the unions from insisting there be an operator, which they will definitely fight for. But if the MTA is like, oh well, we already bought the trains and there's no place an operator could go, then they're far more likely to win. It's also once again the international standard for GoA4 rolling stock.
As for Paris, I'm pretty sure they don't have exposed controls. The MP 14 I took had fully enclosed controls at the front, the white case on top of the black and blue parts. If you mean crawling on top of that closed case, I don't see what's wrong with that. It's designed for that.
> 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….”
This point was about terminal capacity, as operators switching ends at a non-loop terminal requires this time-wasting brake venting and recharging. I'm not sure it has anything to do with separating and rejoining trains, and that isn't as severely time-limited as terminal time when the train needs to do crossover to crossover in 120 s.
Perhaps I should have said it would also enhance separating and rejoining.... In Tokyo station, the Narita Express is separated or joining within about 120 seconds every 20 minutes. But in Philadelphia, Amtrack seems to take 5 to 10 times as long with the Keystone, when it reverses direction.
Separating/joining with 2 min is really good, but I think this is orthogonal to the brake venting. When the brake line is detached, it has to be vented, right? Vs. just changing directions, venting the brakes is done for "safety" when the operator changes, and there's no physical reason it needs to be done.
> 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?
In the costs we calculated for the R262 ($221k/m) and R268 ($272k/m), we didn't include this "support", so we assumed maintenance would not be bundled, as the MTA has never done so.
Of course, you are correct on this point.
> 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.
This is not a particularly good reliability for new trains. The R46 has an MDBF of ~50k miles (https://metrics.mta.info/?subway/meandistancebetweenfailures), while the 18-year-old R160s have a MDBF of around ~250-300k miles, about the same as the R211s if they're 5x as reliable as the R46. In 2015-2016, though, when the R160s were only 10 years old, they had a higher MDBF of ~400k miles. For an international comparison (which is not the best, since reporting works a bit differently [1]), in 2019, Singapore's MRT's North-South line had a MDBF of 870k miles and 430k for the East-West line (https://web.archive.org/web/20191117070426/https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/north-south-line-train-rail-reliability-on-par-hong-kong-taipei-11694564). In 2024, Hong Kong's MTR had a MDBF of ~2000k miles on some lines and ~2600k miles on the East Rail and Tuen Ma lines (https://www.mtr.com.hk/digitalleaflet/en/detail.html?article=mtr-service-newsletter-3rd-quarter-2024).
A line like Tuen Ma does have wider (2 km) stop spacing than NYCT, which helps for sure, but an R211 that is 10x less reliable does not seem very good for a brand new train.
[1] The MTA counts any mechanical failure, but doesn't have a strict definition of this. Asia is counting any delay >= 5 min that is due to the train car. Both count distance traveled by train cars, not per train, so this is equivalent (though MTR train cars are 83 ft long, and the MTA's are mostly 60 ft).
In my opinion, recent NYC transit designs have good reliability. When MDBF gets this high, one bad car can dilute the stats.
Your opinion needs data to back it up, though. Internationally, though, the reliability is not good. A whole order of magnitude lower than Hong Kong. And I've also discovered now that the Singapore's Downtown Line is even higher at about 5000k miles, 20x better than the R211. That same article says 1 million km or 600k miles is the general global benchmark for a train/line to be considered reliable.
Notably, a reliable train has no bad cars.
> 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.
A few points:
Against our recommendations, only a small fraction of the 2nd option order was open gangway. And part of the reason why might be the 20% upcharge for open gangways that wouldn't be present on a more modular product that includes open gangways as the international default.
If the MTA has indeed now figured out the R211T smoke issues, then the points about fire and smoke detection and suppression systems isn't necessary. But we wrote that under the assumption that they had not yet, and this was aimed solely at that.
As for modular standards-based PIS, the R211 does not have anything like them. They are a great improvement over previous PISs, but they are incredibly inflexible, and couldn't be adjusted in time when the A run up 2 Av. What they can display should not be specified at all beyond that they should display a standards-compliant HTML5 browser. They should be updateable in real-time (on the order of a website's time-to-live (TTL), measured in seconds) by showing a live website with caching. I'm not sure if modular traincar designs generally include this (they might not), but this is the modular standard for displaying information and the internet, and it's vastly simpler, cheaper, and more flexible at the same time.
Thanks for your points, Khyber,
I have mixed feelings about open gangway cars, which I have ridden a lot. Four example, how do you get away from the smelly passenger? And I have not found standing in open gangways very comfortable, as compared with leaning against a car end.
In any event, I believe that the MTA proceeded appropriately with initially trying a small quantity of open gangway cars of two different types. I do not know the reason for the premium, but guess that the small quantity was a significant factor.
I agree the pilot cars made sense as part of the base order, but they had a chance to order 435 more open gangways cars, not a tiny order, and yet only chose to order 80 for unspecified reasons.
As for the smells, the open gangways have strong HVAC that essentially creates a wall of air between the cars, so smells (and noises to a lesser extent) do not permeate very much at all. They are indeed not too comfortable (though the soft shell ones are pretty fun), as they are still between bogies. Open gangways with Jacobs bogies are a lot more stable, but that also changes how the cars navigate curves, including at curved platforms.
The MTA's Kawasaki subway car orders are a significant departure from many of their other metro rolling stock orders internationally. Kawasaki, according to Nolan Hicks' sources, charged the MTA a 20% premium for open gangways when literally all of their metro rolling stock outside of the US with the sole exception of Dhaka has open gangways (some have doors, so are semi-open, but the gangway is interior and safe to walk through. the R211Ts also have doors that can close the open gangway). Buying a more modular product would mean the manufacturer would have no basis for this extreme upcharge.
I essentially answered this a minute ago in responding to another comment. I believe that if the MTA buys 1,000+ cars having an open gangway, I doubt there would be a significant premium as compared with "a more modular product."
The MTA does make orders smaller than 1000, though. The second R211 option was 435 cars, apparently not enough for the MTA to commit to 100% open gangway. The R268 order will be 355 cars, even smaller. So does that mean only the huge orders get the cost savings? The MTA will still lose a lot of money this way, as not all of their orders are 1000 cars.
Do you know where [5] is available at? I think it got cut off. The R211Ts being able to run on all lines would be a very welcome change, though if that's the case, I have no idea why the second option wasn't pure open gangways/
Sorry about note [5]. Substack was messing with my YouTube links. It is at , available at https://www.youtube.com/live/nwqhCVihTiA. Generally, you can find MTA Board and Committee meeting videos and materials on the MTA Board Meeting page for the month, which for December was https://new.mta.info/transparency/board-and-committee-meetings/december-2024.
As far as open gangways are concerned, perhaps not everyone likes them.