Home · Maps · About
Home > SubChat
 

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

 

view flat

Re: Railfan windows to be removed from the 7

Posted by Widecab5 on Thu Jul 19 17:17:56 2012, in response to Re: Railfan windows to be removed from the 7, posted by G1Ravage on Thu Jul 19 05:29:11 2012.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
It would appear the "1's" and "6's" are the ends losing the full-width cabs.

However, these are being buried in the middle with the "0's" and "5's" RETAINING the full-width cabs.

The bigger issue is where the available Master Door Control (MDC) panels will be located. That determines where the Conductor works vs. where the existing C/R Boards are.

On the 7 line, the C/R Boards are between 6th and 7th cars Flushing- (north) bound, and between the 5th and 6th cars Times Square- (south) bound.

Based on the information that's floating around so far, here's how things line up:

--The 0's and 5's, in linked unit, retain the FWC's and become north and south end motors on a permanent basis.

--The 1's and 6's, in linked unit, LOSE the FWC's and become middle transition cars (5th and 7th cars on the 7 line specifically).

--The remaining single units (car numbers still 1901 to 1970 with exceptions for the GC Shuttle) become the "middle" (6th) car in each train and have the existing quarter cabs mate with the "transition" cars on each unit.

This was seen already with a few (test?) trains out there:

(S) 1766/1770-2047-1656/1660 (N) on July 14;
(S)1721/1725-1967-1651/1655(N) and (S)1781/1785-1944-1666/1670(N) on July 15.

In these cases, both the Train Operators and Conductors were working out of FWC's, but if the trains were faced the other way the C/R would have been crossing between 2047 and 1656, 1967 and 1651, and between 1944 and 1666, respectively.

As additional links get their cabs taken down at one end and become transition cars this actually should become the case. What the MTA's institutional barriers are to this procedural change (if any) I do not know.

There probably are a number of valid reasons this is being done, but I offer these:

The most obvious is to allow permanent 5-car linkage of the existing 224-car fleet of single units heretofore assigned to Corona. That saves on individual maintenance of Master Door Control, windshield wiper, controller, brake valve, coupler and draft gear componentry, which would reduce necessary inspection cycles and cost, perhaps significantly.

Since the 7 line uniquely requires 11-car trains, a way had to be found to add single units to each 10-car set, yet retain the ability to station Conductors as they have been. Whereas the remaining single units will retain their complete quarter cabs in any case, it evidently makes sense to someone that they be employed along with a quarter cab in one end of the new linked sets, as opposed to the alternative of having two 5-car links with FWC's at both ends (with only one middle one in use at any time) plus two unused and completely-equipped quarter cabs in between. Apparently that is considered to be a waste of resources.

There is perhaps also a saving to be derived from the elimination of one additional MDC station in each of the reconfigured links.

Another factor is possibly the cost associated with maintaining the WABCO brake valves that were re-fitted into one end of the existing single units in recent years. As you may know, "WH R-62A single units ending in 0, 2, 4 and 6 have modified WABCO brake valves and are to be used as North Motors."

By arranging the trains with "0's" and "5's" as permanent operating motors, the problem of drilling single units into a specific configuration, as well as the maintenence cost of many WABCO brake valves, could thereby be eliminated entirely.

The next things to watch is when (or if) these "5-1-5" train sets begin turning around and force Conductors to again work between cars. Secondarily, the first set of newly-linked single units, which have been out of circulation for some time, should soon appear (2151-2155) and it will be of interest to see how the cabs on it are configured (my bet is it will have a FWC on 2155 but a quarter cab on 2151).

One final thing (FWIW), I take this as a sign that it may be some time (perhaps QUITE some) before there will be any progress on completing the R-188 order. Though the 33 pilot cars are progressing (given the 7811 sighting in Yonkers) and should also soon appear, there seems to have been no news on enactment of the Option, or any additonal R-142A moves to KRC in Yonkers. Were the R-62A's soon to be definitely headed to the 6, it would have been nigh senseless to make such operational concessions on the R-62A's at this stage, presumably given that they'd all (GCS excepted) be unitized with FWC's for 10-car train operation in any case. These actions seem to indicate the existing R-62A fleet is expected in some quarters to remain on the 7 for the longer term.

Regards,

George Chiasson Jr.
(Widecab5@aol.com)

Responses

Post a New Response

Your Handle:

Your Password:

E-Mail Address:

Subject:

Message:



Before posting.. think twice!


[ Return to the Message Index ]