|
|
| R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet (639063) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (639102) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 19:07:46 2008, in response to R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by Jeffx on Tue Jun 24 18:03:45 2008. This is nice.Note how they have the same dimensions as BMT standards for the overal length, and bolster to bolster length.  So those cars could run even on the JMZ,and L lines. |
|
|
| (639104) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 24 19:09:16 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 19:07:46 2008. Actually, no.Check out the measurements more carefully. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (639105) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by Jeffx on Tue Jun 24 19:10:02 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 19:07:46 2008. That was probably the original intent of the cars - so they can run anywhere on the B division. |
|
|
| (639114) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by joe c on Tue Jun 24 19:15:19 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 19:07:46 2008. The Standards ran on the BMT Jamaica and Canarsie(mostly on the Canarsie)lines,but i think the R110B cars wouldhave a problem running on those lines. til next time |
|
|
| (639116) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 19:18:35 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 24 19:09:16 2008. truck wheelbase is different(smaller on the STEELS), but that is unimportant for this. Wheel base is important for tight radiuses, and wheel detectors. Since the current stock on the JMZL lines have the same wheelbase on the trucks as the R110Bs, they could go there too. |
|
|
| (639125) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 24 19:25:50 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 19:18:35 2008. Why don't you make up a list of differences in measurement, and then take into account what would happen on sharp curves? Report back to us on your findings. |
|
|
| (639128) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 19:28:44 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 24 19:25:50 2008. you must be misreading the measurments.Bolster to bolster length for STEEL, and R110B: 47 ft Bolter to anticlimber for both cars: 10 feet. Overall car lengths: 67 ft. |
|
|
| (639131) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Jun 24 19:31:50 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 19:18:35 2008. And also unlike the steels, the 110B's shamefully lacked frames. It would have been a shame for the Eastern Divsion had these things been ordered. |
|
|
| (639133) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 24 19:32:57 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 19:28:44 2008. The list isn't long enough. Go on..... |
|
|
| (639136) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 19:35:44 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Jun 24 19:31:50 2008. Yeah, but here come the R160, which are also frameless. I looked under a NJT Comet 5, and i couldn't see a frame, just wires, on older comets, i DID see some frames, and ARROWS have frames and SIDE SILLS which are strong.So i don't know if these R110Bs had frames or no. Supposedly, R62s lack frames as well, so maybe these cars do to? |
|
|
| (639138) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 19:38:06 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 24 19:32:57 2008. Are you talking about end to end coupler length? that doesn't count, they could still run there. |
|
|
| (639141) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 24 19:41:42 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 19:35:44 2008. I looked under a NJT Comet 5, and i couldn't see a frame, just wiresWhere and how did you look under a Comet 5 railcar? |
|
|
| (639143) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 19:44:50 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 24 19:41:42 2008. At the newark broad street station, with the elevated structure there, the trains move slowly, and you can climb the stairs, and get a good look up. I discovered this recently, it is a plus side of the new side platform openning. I want to look under the railcars at hoboken terminal since it is low platform, but i don't know if they will let me. |
|
|
| (639297) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by j trainloco on Tue Jun 24 22:47:44 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Jun 24 19:32:57 2008. From what I see, the only difference is in the trucks. Please tell me what the issue is. I've always thought that the biggest flaw in the R160 order is the fact that they used 60' cars and not 67' cars. |
|
|
| (639303) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by R33/R36 mainline on Tue Jun 24 22:52:12 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Jun 24 19:31:50 2008. Are you being serius or joking around?? |
|
|
| (639309) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Tue Jun 24 22:54:32 2008, in response to R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by Jeffx on Tue Jun 24 18:03:45 2008. The buff load spec caught my eye - I thought NYCTA cars were typically designed for (much) higher than 400k? |
|
|
| (639319) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 23:00:51 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by j trainloco on Tue Jun 24 22:47:44 2008. It has nothing to do with the length, guy, it has to do with truck placement. If they made 67 footers with trucks closer to the anticlimbers, they still wouldn't fit on the eastern division. I think MTA got some of the dimensions from the BMT standrds here.Other than that, i think the R110bs cab run there. |
|
|
| (639325) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 23:06:39 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by nasadowsk on Tue Jun 24 22:54:32 2008. Actually if you read other car specs, you will see BUFF load is at 200 k for other cars, even NTTs. That 400k spec is for both cars, 200k for each car. I bet the NTTs will buckle at a lower rating though, they don't have frames. |
|
|
| (639326) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by j trainloco on Tue Jun 24 23:06:40 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 23:00:51 2008. According to both drawings, the trucks are placed 10' from the car coupler faces on both cars. Only differences are in axle centers: 6'8 on Standards, 6'10 on R131s. |
|
|
| (639327) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by j trainloco on Tue Jun 24 23:07:28 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 23:06:39 2008. Generally, they buckle at a HIGHER rating. |
|
|
| (639331) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 23:11:25 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by j trainloco on Tue Jun 24 23:07:28 2008. i know, but they will buckle at a lower rating than say the BUDD R32s, and i bet the BMT Standards can hit the FRA rating of 800,000.I wonder if PATH cars are rated for 800k buff load. |
|
|
| (639358) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Jun 24 23:41:14 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by R33/R36 mainline on Tue Jun 24 22:52:12 2008. 
|
|
|
| (639364) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 23:43:44 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Jun 24 23:41:14 2008. Jean-Luc Picard is the best captain in the fleet of all time. And he is cool looking, and very aerodynamic. |
|
|
| (639469) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Jun 25 09:57:19 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 24 23:06:39 2008. What? Buff loading does not add arithmetically. Buff loading is the maximum static force before there is deformation of the end of the frame. The buff loading is per car, 400klbs, and that is it, no dividing it in half. They simply say cab and trailer car to illustrate that the trailer car is designed the same way. |
|
|
| (639490) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Jun 25 10:20:50 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by WillD on Wed Jun 25 09:57:19 2008. Oops, you ARE correct here. The cars are in series, not paralel. So then they have a 400k buff load capacity each, my thinking too fast.So the BUDDS must have a higher BUFF load and the same for the older SMEEs, because they have robust frames. |
|
|
| (639554) | |
Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Jun 25 13:36:07 2008, in response to Re: R-110B Bombardier Publicity Sheet, posted by WillD on Wed Jun 25 09:57:19 2008. "Buff loading"Thanks for defining it. So it isn't the maximum number of foamers you can squeeze into a subway car? :0) Seriously now: http://www.volpe.dot.gov/sdd/docs/2003/rail_cw_2003_12.pdf |
|
|
