Subway-Type Railcars for the Interborough Express
By John Pegram[1]
Now that the proposed Interborough Express (IBX) line no longer includes a street-running section,[2] the MTA and its consultants should be reconsidering selection of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) mode for the IBX line.
This article explains why the MTA should purchase subway-type railcars for the IBX line based on NYC Transit’s reliable designs, equipped for driverless operation, with an overhead power collector in addition to third rail collectors. That could be accomplished by an option in the next order for A Division (numbered lines) subway cars.
What Do Light, Heavy and Conventional Rail Mean?
There has been a lot of confusion regarding what is “light rail,” “heavy rail” and “conventional rail.”
The Glossary in the Federal Transit Administration’s Uniform System of Accounts is probably the most authoritative source. It is the basic reference document for the National Transit Database, and contains its accounting requirements and reporting system.[3]
Here is how the FTA Glossary defines Light Rail:
Light Rail (LR) A transit mode that typically is an electric railway with a light volume traffic capacity compared to heavy rail (HR). It is characterized by: passenger rail cars operating singly (or in short, usually two car, trains) on fixed rails in shared or exclusive right-of-way (ROW); low or high platform loading; and vehicle power drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph.
The MTA’s description of Light Rail in its IBX reports is consistent with the FTA Glossary definition, saying, for example:
Light Rail Transit (LRT)
Light Rail uses tram-like trains that would operate both in their own dedicated
right of way and on streets. The LRT alternative envisions a two-track service that is alongside but physically separated from the freight rail line, similar to CR and consistent with FRA requirements. Most of the line would run side-by-side with the freight tracks, with a short segment of the LRT alternative potentially operating on existing streets.[4]
The FTA Glossary defines Heavy Rail as follows:
Heavy Rail (HR) A transit mode that is an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic. It is characterized by: high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails; separate rights-of-way (ROW) from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded; sophisticated signaling; and high platform loading.[5]
The MTA’s IBX reports use the term “Heavy Rail” for a mode using conventional subway cars. That mode was eliminated from consideration in the January 2022 “Interim Report,” because subway cars are not compliant with Federal Railway Administration (FRA) regulations for sharing tracks with freight trains. Instead, the MTA considered what it called “Conventional Rail (CR),” saying “CR would use Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)-compliant electrical multiple units (EMUs). The rail cars would be configured similarly to subway cars that allow for faster boarding, alighting and greater standing room while operating at high frequencies.”[6] (The FTA Glossary does not use the term “Conventional Rail.”)
Under the FRA definitions, the IBX line would be considered a Heavy Rail line.
Light Rail or Subway Cars?
The MTA selected the Light Rail Transit (LRT) mode for the IBX line at a time when it proposed street-running. The IBX Interim Report said, “Light Rail Transit utilizes trams that can operate both in their own right-of-way and on streets. Within the region, these are similar in format to the NJ Transit Hudson-Bergen Light Rail lines.[7] A photo of such railcars is below:[8]
The publicly-stated reasons for selection of the LRT mode were summarized in a MTA presentation table, reproduced in part below.[9] I have added the red Xs to indicate that the statements are incorrect.
As I have pointed out in previous articles, the Light Rail mode would not provide better or more cost-effective service for IBX riders than a subway-car mode.[10] The principal reason why Light Rail was considered in the earlier IBX plans was because of street-running, which now has been eliminated from the IBX plan. The same tunnel under All Faiths Cemetery will be needed for either Light Rail or subway-cars.[11]
Catenary or Third Rail Power?
Progress reports from the MTA’s IBX consultants reveal that they have considered powering the IBX line either by third rail or overhead catenary.[12] I am neutral on this issue and will defer to the MTA; however, I suggest consideration of equipping IBX railcars to collect power from either a third rail or a catenary.
Catenary power has two potential advantages in the IBX context. First, an overhead wire can operate at a higher voltage, which means that there can be fewer and more widely-spaced substations to distribute the power. Second, a catenary system removes dangerous voltage from track level. That is always an important advantage during trackwork. It could be particularly important along the IBX line because the right-of-way is shared with freight tracks and freight train operations require workers at track level from time to time.
A principal advantage of third rail power for the IBX line would be compatibility with the rest of the subway system. Railcars with third rail pickup “shoes” could run under their own power on the existing subway system, for example to major maintenance facilities, and such railcars could be used on other subway lines.
The best solution may be to provide an overhead catenary for power on the IBX line and equip its railcars to accept power from both an overhead collector and a third rail shoe. Provision of two types of collectors and ability to use different supply voltages should not be very expensive. (I note that most modern railcars do not directly use the power as supplied to operate their motors.[13] For example, 600 volts DC on a third rail or 1,500 volts DC on a catenary is converted to 3-phase AC to drive the motors. Providing for conversion from either voltage should be very simple.)
A Common Design for IBX and Buffalo Light Rail?
There has been speculation that a reason for the MTA’s selection of the Light Rail mode for the IBX line is that might make it possible for the Light Rail system in Buffalo, New York to share an order for the same design railcar as would be purchased for the IBX line. When you dig down, however, that does not appear to be a good idea. It should be publicly rejected.
The Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA) operates the Light Rail system in Buffalo, sometimes called the Buffalo Metro. That system currently has 27 railcars and operates over a 6.4 mile long, double-track line.[14] NFTA also operates a much larger system of bus lines.
The underground section of the NFTA Light Rail line has high level platforms and the above-ground section has low platforms. The current railcars are each 66.8 foot long, individual cars of the high-level type, with steps that extend when at low-level platforms. Trains are operated in two, three or four car sets.[15]
Drawing of current Buffalo Light Rail Vehicle from NFTA schedule[16]
The demographics of Buffalo are quite different from Brooklyn and Queens. The city of Buffalo proper has a population density of 6,436 people per square mile.[17] Brooklyn’s density is 36,732 people per square mile[18] and the density in Queens is over 21,000 people per square mile.[19] A paper posted by the NYU Marron Institute Transit Costs Project has estimated that the median population density around the proposed IBX line is 47,657 per square mile. According to that paper, “This is almost double the density that has been found to ensure a 40% mode share for public transit in US transit districts.”[20] In contrast, Buffalo’s population density is in a range likely to have a 5% transit mode utilization.[21]
NFTA had a total of 2,433,300, light rail passenger trips in 2023 and about 8,000 per weekday as of the third quarter of 2024.[22] That is about 6 or 7% of the MTA’s projections for IBX ridership. Taking account of the difference in line lengths,[23] the Buffalo light rail ridership per route mile is only 13-15% of that predicted by the MTA for the IBX line.
The population density and potential ridership in Buffalo is definitely in the range generally considered most suitable for bus service or light rail. The population density and potential ridership along the IBX corridor is definitely in the range generally considered most suitable for heavy rail.
Listen to the Riders
My review of comments submitted to the MTA on its IBX webpage and other comments on the Internet indicates a strong preference that the IBX line be a subway or heavy rail line, integrated with the NYC Transit system.[24] Now that street-running is no longer a part of the IBX plan, the MTA should drop the idea of using Light Rail Vehicles.
My sense is that potential IBX riders do not feel that the MTA is listening to them, particularly potential riders among the 7 in 10 people of color and 3 in 10 households below 150% of the poverty line, which the MTA has said would be served by the IBX line.[25] For example, local residents I spoke with at an MTA IBX town hall in East New York volunteered that the MTA had not scheduled a town hall in that area until pressed by Brooklyn Community Board 5. Several persons said to me that they felt that they were not being listened to or were excluded from the IBX planning process. A Brooklyn News Service article made a similar report.[26]
I do not believe that the MTA and some public officials understand that the proposal to use Light Rail Vehicles on the IBX line may be perceived as disrespectful to its IBX constituency when they compare it to the Second Avenue Subway, with its frequent 8-car subway trains and cathedral-like stations, serving the more affluent riders on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and those who will transfer at 125th Street from Westchester and Connecticut commuter trains.
The MTA’s IBX reports have stated, “If built, the IBX would see higher daily ridership than nearly any new transit line built in the U.S. over the last two decades.”[27] The MTA has not provided a plausible reason to potential riders why such a busy line should not have subway cars similar to those on the rest of the NYC Transit system.
Recommendation
My recommendation is that the same basic type of railcar be purchased for the IBX line as will be purchased in the future for the NYC Transit A Division. As outlined in my recent article, “Railcars for NYC Transit,”[28] the 2025-2029 MTA Capital Plan includes plans to purchase an additional 1,140 A Division cars.[29] Purchasing the same basic type of railcar for the IBX line should provide a price advantage. Use of the same basic type of railcar would also simplify maintenance and make it likely that a high level of reliability would be achieved.
The IBX railcars should be equipped for fully automated, unattended train operation,[30] and with collectors for both an overhead catenary and a third rail. Use of an overhead catenary on the IBX line would reduce the number of power substations and the danger of a third rail at track level, which could be particularly important because the right-of-way is shared with freight operations, which may require workers at track level. A third rail collector would permit use of the IBX railcars on other NYC Transit subway lines, including movements to and from maintenance facilities.
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] See “Interborough Express Fall 2024 Update,” available at https://bqrail.substack.com/ p/interborough-express-fall-2024-update,
[3] FTA, NTD Uniform System of Accounts (USOA), available at https://www.transit.dot. gov/ntd/ntd-uniform-system-accounts. See also American Public Transit Association, Fact Book Glossary, available at https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/transit-statistics/public-transportation-fact-book/fact-book-glossary/#8.
[4] MTA, Interborough Express Planning & Environmental Linkages Study (Jan. 2023), p. 15 (PEL Report). The report without appendices is available from the MTA at https://new.mta.info/document/114891.
[5] USOA Glossary, supra, note 3.
[6] MTA, Interborough Express – Feasibility Study and Alternatives Analysis – Interim Report, pp. 9, 12 (Jan. 2022) (Interim Report). The report without appendices is available from the MTA at https://new.mta.info\document\72081
[7] Id. at p. 9.
[8] Image from https://www.kinkisharyo.com/projects/jersey-city-nj-new-jersey-transit-njt-5-section-lrv/jersey-city-nj-new-jersey-transit-njt-3-section-lrv/#jersey-city-3.
[9] MTA Open House Presentation, slide 5, available at https://new.mta.info/ document/126041.
[10] See, e.g., “Fact-Checking the MTA’s Interborough Express FAQs,” available at https://bqrail.substack.com/p/fact-checking-the-mtas-interborough.
[11] See “Light Rail Vehicles Are Not the Best Choice for the Interborough Express,” available at https://bqrail.substack.com/p/light-rail-vehicles-are-not-the-best; “Full-Size Trains for the Interborough Express,” available at https://bqrail.substack.com/p/full-size-trains-for-the-interborough.
[12] See “Interborough Express Progress Reports,” available at https://bqrail.substack.com/ p/interborough-express-progress-reports.
[13] See, e.g., Wikipedia, “R211 (New York City Subway car),” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R211_(New_York_City_Subway_car)ikipedia.
[14] Wikipedia, “Buffalo Metro Rail,” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Buffalo_Metro_Rail.
[15] Id.
[16] Available at https://metro.nfta.com/schedules/route/145.
[17] World Population Review, https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/new-york/buffalo
[18] World Population Review, https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/new-york/brooklyn
[19] World Population Review, https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/new-york/queens
[20] NYU Marron Institute, Transit Costs Project, “Unlocking the IBX’s Transit Potential,” available at https://ibx.transitcosts.com/ibx-2/#int_f3.
[21] See id.
[22] Wikipedia, “Buffalo Metro Rail,” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Metro_Rail.
[23] The IBX line would be approximately 14 miles long. PEL Report, p. 2.
[24] See “Light Rail Not Preferred for the Interborough Express,” available at https://bqrail.substack.com/p/light-rail-not-preferred-for-the; “Most Comments Oppose Street-Running for the Interborough Express—Part 1, available at https://bqrail.substack.com/p/most-comments-oppose-street-running.
[25] Interim Report, p.6.
[26] Brooklyn News Service, “Community Seeks More Representation With Interborough
Express Line Planning,” September 26, 2024, available at https://journalism.blog.brooklyn.edu/ community-seeks-more-representation-with-interborough-express-line-planning/.
[27] See, e.g., PEL Report.
[28] Available at https://bqrail.substack.com/p/railcars-for-new-york-city-transit.
[29] 2025-2029 MTA Capital Plan, p. 187, available at https://new.mta.info/ document/152161.
[30] See “Unattended Train Operation for the Interborough Express,” available at https://bqrail.substack.com/p/unattended-train-operation-for-the.
The fundamental problem with buying R262s for the IBX is that they are trying to do two different things. The IBX should be fully automated (GoA4 UTO with no cab at all) and it should use 1.5 kV DC catenary and thus have pantographs.
Having no cab at all is crucial, because it removes a way for the unions to fight against full automation. With no cab, it can't be manually driven outside of emergencies. And with no cab, you enhance the passenger experience with more room and a beautiful, expansive front and back window.
Forcing the R262 to accommodate all of these variants would make it more expensive, rather than just buying the right stock in the first place for the IBX.
Furthermore, while the MTA claims B division cars won't fit in the East NY Tunnel (debatable, as you pointed out) and A division cars do, there's a significant gap between them. The IBX could go in between and thus have more room for passengers. The Alstom Metropolis Saint Laurents would fit, for example. And if you want to preserve running on existing NYCT tracks for heavy maintenance yard access, all of the nearby tracks are B division, so both A division cars and ones in between would fit.
> I do not believe that the MTA and some public officials understand that the proposal to use Light Rail Vehicles on the IBX line may be perceived as disrespectful to its IBX constituency when they compare it to the Second Avenue Subway, with its frequent 8-car subway trains and cathedral-like stations, serving the more affluent riders on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and those who will transfer at 125th Street from Westchester and Connecticut commuter trains.
If IBX is built as an ALM and runs ~80 m automated, high-floor cars every 90 seconds with PSDs vs. SAS running 50-year-old R46s every 6 minutes with no automation and no PSDs, I don't think people will care. IBX would rightly be seen as far more advanced.