|Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....) (1146662)|
|Home > SubChat|
Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)
Posted by WillD on Sun Mar 25 18:41:00 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by J trainloco on Sun Mar 25 16:30:11 2012.Understand that using a subway fleet for the SIR would mean that it shares commonality with a substantially larger car fleet just across the narrows. You get an even greater savings when you can order parts for 2,000 cars instead of 200.
But what good does that commonality do when the small fleet on SI has to maintain its own parts inventory because they're completely disconnected from the rest of the network?
As it stands, SIR is already receiving SMS at CIYD.
Yes, undoubtedly at a premium for the cost to truck those cars over the Verrazano to Coney Island.
My whole point about the north shore in Chicago is that if you get the power supply up off the ground, what difference does it make if its a low floor LRV or a standard subway car?
It makes the platforms a bit easier to build. A wheelchair ramp to a 15-20 inch TOR platform occupies a lot less real estate than a ramp up to a 40+ inch platform.
Then maybe it should share a fleet with NJT...
That would be an excellent idea. But even with HBLRT being extended across the Bayonne Bridge to somewhere on SI, be it the mall, Eltingville, Travis, or Tottenville there would still be a need for a route from that southern point to St. George. If the MTA would allow NJT's contractor, URS, to provide that service within Staten Island, then it'd be fine. But the MTA is unlikely to do that. Instead it's likely that while they may allow URS to provide an interstate service, they'd push for an in-house intrastate operation. Even if the MTA gives their blessing for URS to provide the service, the UTU on the current SIR may push for the MTA to operate the line.
But even if the North Shore is a URS operated LRT, there is still a case to be made for an LRV-derivative to replace the R44s on the existing SIR.
(There are no responses to this message.)