NYC Subway Interchange

Can An IRT Subway car be coupled to or work and be compatible with an IND car?

Are there connecting track which links the IRT to the IND lines or vice versa?

I believe that the cars can work together, but the IRT cars have smaller dimensions because the tunnels are smaller. I am pretty certain that IND equipment physically doesn’t fit on the IRT portion, but the IRT equipment can run on all parts of the system. However there will be a large gap between IRT cars and IND platforms. The system does all connect together for maintainence equipment access.

Thanks. Makes sense. One day in the future the IRT tunnels has to be widened and new cars to be built.

I don’t think that will ever happen. The clearance dimensions of the IRT are literally carved in stone and enlarging them would be expensive beyond belief.

There is absolutely no possibility of converting IRT subway tunnels to accept the wider and longer IND-BMT equipment. And there is no reason to couple IRT and IND-BMT equipment together, even if they are electrically and air-wise compatile, with identacle couplers. Work equipment currently is based on the control and air systems of the now obsolete passsenger equip;ment of which only the R32’s are still in ipasenger service. There are sufficient ex-IRT-Red Bird “rider cars” to obviate the necessity of using regular passenger equipment in work-train service. There may be exceptions, but as far as I know, all current work equipment of all types, including diesel locomotives, can fit IRT lines and can be used system-wide. There is a slight difference in the third-rail location (pherhaps since changed) but not great enough to prevent IRT cars from running anywhere on the IND-BMT lines.

Recall that under-river tunnels are old and are largely cast iron. To accommodate larger cars, new tunnels would be required. And again, under-street subways with track spacings and locaiton of girders. Widening would be like consructing new subways.

I appreciate your kowledgable info but anything is possible.

Perhaps the ultimate ‘yes, but’ I have seen so far on these forums.

Do you not comprehend what would be required to build out the IRT tunnels even to suit BMT clearances, let alone IND? And what would be involved in time, cost, and temporary inconvenience to current ridership while that was being done?

It is technically ‘possible’ in the sense that Lofstrom loops are

but you have to ask whether the expense is worth the practical result. For the IRT in particular, it’s almost ridiculously clear that it isn’t.

You use more trains with better CBTC spacing to give your additional capacity at several orders of magnitude lower cost … most hours of the day, the passenger demand doesn’t require larger cars, so the same poor economics governing improvements of commuter rail would apply to tunnel size expansion projects.

By far the best and most economical way to increase capacity on New York City’s existing subway lines is to go to cab-signalling ATC, which allows 90 or 100 second headways instead of 120 second headways on the newest of wayside signal installaions and as long as 180 seconds on older ones. The work on the 7 Flushing Line is underway, and has been completed on the 14th Street - Canarsie Line.

To convert the IRT lines to IND-BMT standards (they are identacle, and the earliest R1 IND cars were test-operated in revenue service on the BMT Sea Beach Line before opening the first “8th Avenue Subway.”), we would be talking in today’s terms of billionjs, not millions, of dollars, and huge city disruptions similar to those encountered in building the sugbways in the first place.

I should note that there is regular non-revenue operation of IRT passenger equipment on IN D-BMT lines, since all major repairs and overhauls are dpne at Coney Island Shops, and medium-repair work and upgrading is done at 207th Street for most of the fleet and at Coney Islan for the 7 line. The 7 is connected to the N by crossovers at Queensboro Plaza, and the 1 has a ramp to the IND 207th Street shops (A). The old main 149th and Lenox IRT shops (3) have been gone for almost 50 years. There is also a ramp to the IND`(D and B) Concourse yard from the 4, Jerome Avenue, if my memory is correct.

I normally reply to that line, “EXCEPT MY GETTING PREGNANT”.

One thing I woiuld like to see is massive signal relocation (closer to walls, further from track, some relocation of piping and conduit, so PATH equipment could be accomodated on IRT lines. PATH equipment is slightly shorter than IRT equipment, but has a bulge at the belt rail, allowing wider aisles between longitudinal benches. IRT equipment could then be so constructed and increase capacity of the cars by 5 to 10%. And the PATH Wolrd Trade Center service could then be through routed with the 6.

I wonder if there are track connections from PATH to any of the NYC Subway lines.

I don’t know of any physical connecting track. There have been proposals to connect the 6 train to PATH, which the Port Authority & I believe Parsons Brinckerhoff said was infeasible but others find possible within limits. Much, much more than track and CBTC compatibility would be needed to run PATH service over MTA, and horrific cans of worms open up if the opposite is tried…

Since we are on the general subject of subway options, this page might be interesting.

The onlyl real track connections between PATH and NYCTA are via the NEC, Penn Stagion (or via CSX and Selkirk Yard, near Albany) and the LIRR. PATH equipment has been tested on the LIRR for speed capabiliity tests, and this was supposed to be kept secret. The movement was via Penn Station in both diriections. There is no usable track connection or even a usable tunnel for service now.

But one could be constructed.

The main problem with A-Division (IRT) NYCTA equipment on PATH is lenth and overhang on sharp curves. Plus signal system west of Journal Square.

My own dream is for large capacity 14th STreet Canarsie trains to run through to Journal Square, Newark, and Newark Airpot, and small capacity PATH trains running only to Journal Square, but the downtown line through routed with the 6. A 14th St. tunnel to NJ would be the most people per hour for new tunnel construction possible. A much better idea than extending the 7 to NJ.

An excellent source for questions such as this one is the book “Tracks of the New York City Subway” by Peter Dougherty. It’s not just track plans; history, power systems, yards, subway cars, and more are covered in detail.

I bought my copy from www.nyctrackbook.com

The one interchange not spoken so far is the money train. does it still run as often and how has the metro card changed its dynamics ?

As far as I know the money train still runs. I’ll try and obtain current equipment information. My impression is that there may be three, two serving IND-BMT lines plus IRT 7, and one for the remaining IRT lines. All converted “Red-Bird” IRT R-33-R-36 equipment.

Since the 1940s, all new work on the A Division is built to B Division loading gauge and standards with the exception of the platform edges. Of course, old work requires retrofitting or is not at all possible. The loading gauge for the A Division (IRT) is 8.5 feet. The B Division is 10 feet.

There’s a report published in the 1940s that describes how the IRT was a grand experiment and that New Yorkers will have to live with it, good and bad. It also mentions that all new work on the IRT will be built to the new standards designed for BMT from the lessons learned while building the IRT (except for platform edges, of course).

When the IND came out did people have to pay a different fare to make transfers to the IRT and vise versa? And I haven’t seen much history about the annexation of the two systems and the building of the free transfers when MTA took over.

Rebuilding the two major ex-IRT lines, which run the length of Manhattan under 4th and 7th Avenues, would disrupt a significant percentage of the entire island’s underground infrastructure. The alternative would be to fire up a couple of BIG tunnel boring machines and go deep - into rock that could double for ceramic armor. Either way, the total cost would probably exceed the present national debt.

Then there are the river crossing tunnels…

And the miles of elevated track built to yesterday’s clearances…

Granted anything is possible that doesn’t violate the laws of physics and chemistry, but anything that involves money has to have benefits that exceed the costs. I would be hard-pressed to make that claim for widening the A division tunnels and rebuilding the elevated structures to allow increased clearance.

Chuck (Native Noo Yawka)

Very loooooooooooong range work may have station platform work be equipped with quick removal platform extenders. 9" ?