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.
The perception is today. I agree that automated, high-floor cars every 90 seconds with PSDs would be impressive, but that is not what has been publically proposed to date.
While dual third rail, catenary power is pretty common, it's much more commonly done in the reverse: third rail for tunnels, catenary for yards. You see this pretty common in third rail lines in China. The majority are pure catenary, but the third rail ones almost always have pantographs for catenary in depots, as this is much safer for workers, which are very common in yards. So doing this backwards for the IBX would be a bit odd.
Furthermore, the only yard that the IBX would have simple access to would be the Linden Shops, which do not even have third rail, as it's mostly used for track maintenance. The next closest is East NY Yard, which could be useful for heavy maintenance.
Pretty much seen it on Discord only and maybe references to it on reddit? I mean it was always a bit far-fetched in the sense that Hochul or someone high up would have interfered with the Feasibility Study just to get a slightly better deal on new rolling stock for the NFTA. As if Hochul knows the nitty gritty of this stuff.
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.
Hi Khyber,
Thanks for your several comments.
How about this idea: Build all new NYC Transit cars for UTO, and add temporary partitions for operator for cars used on lines not yet automated.
> 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.
The perception is today. I agree that automated, high-floor cars every 90 seconds with PSDs would be impressive, but that is not what has been publically proposed to date.
While dual third rail, catenary power is pretty common, it's much more commonly done in the reverse: third rail for tunnels, catenary for yards. You see this pretty common in third rail lines in China. The majority are pure catenary, but the third rail ones almost always have pantographs for catenary in depots, as this is much safer for workers, which are very common in yards. So doing this backwards for the IBX would be a bit odd.
Furthermore, the only yard that the IBX would have simple access to would be the Linden Shops, which do not even have third rail, as it's mostly used for track maintenance. The next closest is East NY Yard, which could be useful for heavy maintenance.
Where have you seen rumors that the MTA wants to share an IBX LRT order with Buffalo?
Orally and in social media. I have not saved any links. But it was not my idea and I have heard it from multiple sources, so it should be addressed.
Pretty much seen it on Discord only and maybe references to it on reddit? I mean it was always a bit far-fetched in the sense that Hochul or someone high up would have interfered with the Feasibility Study just to get a slightly better deal on new rolling stock for the NFTA. As if Hochul knows the nitty gritty of this stuff.