Home  Maps  About

Home > SubChat
 

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]

 

view flat

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 29 12:11:14 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Edwards! on Wed Mar 28 23:43:29 2012.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
you Did you say it "represented a reduction"..?,didn't you?

There are presently 1662 R160 cars in the B division fleet. Before the R160s arrived, there were approximately 1600 60' cars (less, due to various accidents and retirements). The R160 represented an increase in fleet size over the current 60' fleet. As we all know, the decision scrap the R44s instead resulted in 222 R32s and 50 R42 sticking around. Because these cars stuck around, the R44s were retired instead, meaning that what should have been 272 60' cars scrapped became, roughly 260 75' cars scrapped. If we translated those 75' cars to 60' cars, NYCTA lost 325 60' cars. Therefore, scrapping the R44 instead resulted in a net increased loss of 53 cars.

So it appears I was wrong then. The scrapped fleet represented 1653 cars (again, not accounting for R32-42 losses to accidents), while the R160 fleet is 1662 cars. NYCTA increased fleet size with the R160 order!

A small portion[option ORDER R179A] of the order could go to SIRT,plus begin replacement of the 46's..

There are no more option orders for the R179.

Again..I'm not new to this "hobby".

Where did I say that? You asserted an opinion, and I asked you to explain why you felt that way. You still haven't explained why NYCT needs 600 R179s. Especially when the fleet has already grown in size, and will get even bigger with the R179 order.

And besides, why would I think you're new to this. I know you're OLD! ;-)

Responses

Post a New Response

Your Handle:

Your Password:

E-Mail Address:

Subject:

Message:



Before posting.. think twice!


[ Return to the Message Index ]