|
|
| R-160 (warrenty); R-211 (little update); R-188 (little more info on 11 car link) (1141489) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (1141489) | |
R-160 (warrenty); R-211 (little update); R-188 (little more info on 11 car link) |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Feb 24 14:58:39 2012 PDF pages 9 to 14 [ LINK ] .... or click the images to see it BIGGER . . .R-160  R-211  R-188  →  → →  R-179... it maybe discuss in the CPOC meeting this month or March transit meeting if there is no further delays. |
|
|
| (1141558) | |
Re: R-160 (warrenty); R-211 (little update); R-188 (little more info on 11 car link) |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Fri Feb 24 19:27:39 2012, in response to R-160 (warrenty); R-211 (little update); R-188 (little more info on 11 car link), posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Feb 24 14:58:39 2012. Very interesting.Thanks for posting. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1141617) | |
Re: R-160 (warrenty); R-211 (little update); R-188 (little more info on 11 car link) |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 25 07:27:01 2012, in response to Re: R-160 (warrenty); R-211 (little update); R-188 (little more info on 11 car link), posted by Newkirk Images on Fri Feb 24 19:27:39 2012. Quite impressive MDBF on the R160 |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1142028) | |
R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Mon Feb 27 14:23:20 2012, in response to R-160 (warrenty); R-211 (little update); R-188 (little more info on 11 car link), posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Feb 24 14:58:39 2012. MTA is design the car to be "GREEN" environmentally friendly.Standardizing the fleet = R160 look/interior/parts is the same. It looks like the end of 75 foot car orders meaning, 60 foot car order on the B division is now on. |
|
|
| (1142029) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Mon Feb 27 14:26:45 2012, in response to R-211 some info, posted by Gold_12TH on Mon Feb 27 14:23:20 2012. Another generic, cookie-cutter NTT.FML |
|
|
| (1142030) | |
R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Mon Feb 27 14:33:10 2012, in response to R-160 (warrenty); R-211 (little update); R-188 (little more info on 11 car link), posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Feb 24 14:58:39 2012. MTA is not discussing the R-179 car project in this month's board meeting, they are still on going issues. More info/discussions will be in March or April meeting.I believe MTA will not be award by March so they keep procrastinating... |
|
|
| (1142031) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 27 14:41:37 2012, in response to R-179 order saga, posted by Gold_12TH on Mon Feb 27 14:33:10 2012. Meanwhile, the R(usty)-42's will be abused for longer and longer. |
|
|
| (1142032) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Feb 27 14:56:19 2012, in response to R-211 some info, posted by Gold_12TH on Mon Feb 27 14:23:20 2012. LION has said that the 75 footers are finished. Those who wish to disbelieve the LION may well be right, but probably not.Either the LION eats crow, or he eats you. ROAR |
|
|
| (1142034) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Feb 27 14:57:02 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 27 14:41:37 2012. And just what else would you do with them? Dump them in the ocean?ROAR |
|
|
| (1142036) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Feb 27 15:14:33 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Feb 27 14:56:19 2012. I never liked the concept of the 75 ft car anyhow unless the system was specifically built for them which the NYCTS was not. I recall an article in an old issue of the ERA Headlights in which the then chairman of the B of T, Sidney Bingham indicated that the ideal size for a rapid transit car on the NYCTS was 60 ft long by 10 ft wide, the exception of course being the IRT which had insufficient clearances for those dimensions. |
|
|
| (1142037) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Feb 27 15:18:34 2012, in response to R-179 order saga, posted by Gold_12TH on Mon Feb 27 14:33:10 2012. If the MTA is up to R-188 and R-211, it may be possible that either the R-179 number has or will either be given to another car type like work equipment or be unused entirely as was the case with the R-39 which was intended to be an el car fleet for both 3rd and Myrtle els. When I was in the schedule office in the 1970s, there was discussion of an R-55 contract for IRT cars but by the time the contract was assigned, the number had gone up the R-62. |
|
|
| (1142039) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by BigBusDriver on Mon Feb 27 15:29:06 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Feb 27 14:57:02 2012. And just what else would you do with them? Dump them in the ocean?Only if thye MTA board is safely inside...... STILL LOL@BUBBLES FROM THE BOARD |
|
|
| (1142043) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 27 16:08:14 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Feb 27 14:57:02 2012. You think the MTA would like to go back in time and save 50-60 R32's from the reef right about now? |
|
|
| (1142047) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Mon Feb 27 17:21:19 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 27 14:41:37 2012. Meanwhile, the R(usty)-42's will be abused for longer and longer.And the R-42's RFW would live on even longer ! Bill Mangahas |
|
|
| (1142055) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 27 17:34:31 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by Newkirk Images on Mon Feb 27 17:21:19 2012. Unlike the C train, you never know when an R42 will show up on the J/Z |
|
|
| (1142056) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 27 17:35:45 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by randyo on Mon Feb 27 15:18:34 2012. It is really laughable that they keep fantasizing about the R188, R211, etc, but can't pull the trigger with the R179, basically just more R160's. |
|
|
| (1142061) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 27 17:47:37 2012, in response to R-211 some info, posted by Gold_12TH on Mon Feb 27 14:23:20 2012. I suppose that goes for SIR too: they will get mostly 5 car trains, but may not link-bar them. The are really not going to like bowling alley seats. |
|
|
| (1142071) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Mon Feb 27 18:15:34 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 27 17:35:45 2012. Where do they get the numbers from? They seem random. |
|
|
| (1142075) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 27 18:45:49 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by N6 Limited on Mon Feb 27 18:15:34 2012. They're sequential contract numbers for "R(evenue)" ... few of those contracts are for railcars ... |
|
|
| (1142085) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Feb 27 19:07:59 2012, in response to R-211 some info, posted by Gold_12TH on Mon Feb 27 14:23:20 2012. Where'd you hear that? Last I heard, there was a study being performed, and a number of options for car lengths were being studied. |
|
|
| (1142088) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Feb 27 19:11:01 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 27 17:35:45 2012. Do you know the reasons the order has been held up?The R188 contract is underway, no? |
|
|
| (1142089) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 27 19:13:45 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by randyo on Mon Feb 27 15:18:34 2012. I agree. I suspect that the R-179s will be rolled into the R-211 order. |
|
|
| (1142093) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12th on Mon Feb 27 19:39:34 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by J trainloco on Mon Feb 27 19:07:59 2012. Todays MTA board meeting |
|
|
| (1142095) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Feb 27 20:03:29 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by J trainloco on Mon Feb 27 19:07:59 2012. For the love of all that is tax money, please tell me they might go with 75'... Otherwise for every 400 75' cars that go out, we will need to maintain 500 60' cars... a 25% increase in fleet size for exactly 0 additional benefit.If they choose 5 doors per side, 75' cars would have nothing but benefits over 60' cars: -More usable space on the train -Same number of doors per train as with a 10 car 60' -Less maintenance for same amount of length -Greater safety (less separation per train, less likely to be alone in a car). The only negative: -The .001% of the time there is an emergency, passengers will need to wait until a crew member unlocks the doors from the cab, or push out the (designed to be broken) storm door window. |
|
|
| (1142096) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 27 20:06:58 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Feb 27 20:03:29 2012. < exactly 0 additional benefit >Ingres/egress. They determined in the 1970's that 5 sets of doors would make a 75' car too structurally unstable. |
|
|
| (1142097) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 27 20:12:16 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 27 19:13:45 2012. If they made the decision that the R-211 is a 60' car, then it will be a huge order to replace R32 (220) + R42 (50) + R44SIR (80) + Growth (30) + R46 (940) = 1,320.It's going to be very dull around here with about 3,200 NTT's on just the "B" Division, almost as boring as Toronto. |
|
|
| (1142099) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 27 20:29:34 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 27 20:12:16 2012. There are at least 3 options:1) The R-211 contract could include 60 and 75 foot cars 2) or it could simply include enough cars to expand the C line to 600' trains, which will need to be done eventually 3) or the entire contract could be for more 60' cars. |
|
|
| (1142105) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Mon Feb 27 20:54:28 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 27 20:29:34 2012. OR!OR! OR, the 67 Ft. car could get another look! Dust off those R/110B's, they are in the middle of a 60 footer and 75 footer. 40 doors, 36 doors, 32 doors. 20 trucks, 18 trucks, 16 trucks. 10 cars, 9 cars, 8 cars. Other then bodies, most components could be shared. |
|
|
| (1142107) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 27 21:04:37 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by Avid Reader on Mon Feb 27 20:54:28 2012. Anything is possible as there is a new head of Car Equipment Engineering. |
|
|
| (1142109) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Mon Feb 27 21:16:49 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 27 21:04:37 2012. A little bit off topic but are there any more R38s left on property. |
|
|
| (1142110) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 27 21:17:37 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by FarRock on Mon Feb 27 21:16:49 2012. I know where 2 are hidden! |
|
|
| (1142112) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Feb 27 21:44:44 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 27 20:06:58 2012. Advances in structural engineering have happened since then. Behold, 6 doors on a 67' car: .
|
|
|
| (1142113) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 27 21:47:27 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Feb 27 21:44:44 2012. I don't doubt it but that looks longer than 67 feet |
|
|
| (1142114) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 27 21:53:41 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Feb 27 21:44:44 2012. Wow, ain't that a waste; very few revenue seats. Lotta maintenance on those twenty-four door leaves . . . |
|
|
| (1142125) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Feb 27 23:23:18 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 27 21:53:41 2012. Only 2 cars on the 11 car train have that... the rest have 4. I can imagine it working pretty well actually. Passengers only going one or two stops aim for the cars with more doors, passengers going farther use the other cars.Sadly they no longer use those cars on that line as it is getting platform doors, and other lines that might be diverted to the same platform for trackwork wouldn't be able to line up with them if the platform doors accommodated the 6 door cars. |
|
|
| (1142134) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Tue Feb 28 00:34:17 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Feb 27 14:56:19 2012. Here, here Lion, well said! |
|
|
| (1142153) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by CJ on Tue Feb 28 07:51:53 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 27 21:17:37 2012. Let me guess the pair is 4028-4029 right? |
|
|
| (1142166) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Tue Feb 28 11:34:56 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by randyo on Mon Feb 27 15:14:33 2012. The BMT Standards fit all or most with the exception of the original teeny weeny IRT lines.Why would Sidney Bingham be the last word on anything ideal? |
|
|
| (1142180) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 13:30:46 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by Newkirk Images on Mon Feb 27 17:21:19 2012. Most are impossible to see out of, retaining decade old scratchitti.If they are going to be needed for at least another 5 years, their windows should be replaced, protected and their roofs should be painted. I can't imagine what they must look like under the hood, but whenever they pass my house they are LOUD and never seem to top 20 MPH. |
|
|
| (1142182) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 13:43:24 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Feb 27 23:23:18 2012. I can imagine it working pretty well actuallySure, if you're the maintenance chief. |
|
|
| (1142190) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Feb 28 15:16:05 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by Avid Reader on Tue Feb 28 11:34:56 2012. The problem with the BMT steels was that the BMT tunnels were actually designed for 60 ft cars so when the design was adapted to provide for a 67 ft car, the trucks had to be relocated which caused a long end excess on the cars. That is why the bulkhead doors on the steels had to be locked between cars. A 60 ft car allowed for passage between cars which is why it was considered the ideal length for a rapid transit car. |
|
|
| (1142195) | |
Re: R-179 order saga |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Feb 28 16:51:10 2012, in response to Re: R-179 order saga, posted by CJ on Tue Feb 28 07:51:53 2012. I'm not saying |
|
|
| (1142200) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue Feb 28 17:22:53 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by randyo on Tue Feb 28 15:16:05 2012. Why were the tunnels designed for 60 ft cars, if the first cars were 67 ft? |
|
|
| (1142203) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 28 17:28:16 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by randyo on Tue Feb 28 15:16:05 2012. What about Standard counterparts on Staten Island, Boston and Philly, did they shove their trucks closer together ? |
|
|
| (1142223) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Feb 28 19:30:44 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 13:43:24 2012. Extra maintenance, so what? Considering that Japanese trains can be so crowded that they employ people to stuff passengers inside, the extra doors were probably quite welcome, and may even have saved on personnel costs for the two positions/train those cars occupied since stuffing would be less necessary (easier to get to the inner parts of the car from the door if there are more doors). |
|
|
| (1142228) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Feb 28 21:22:45 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by 3-9 on Tue Feb 28 17:22:53 2012. The cars were designed AFTER the tunnels were designed and built. The actual original design for a BRT car was a 51 ft car of similar dimensions to the IRT cars of the period. Since most although not all of the dual contract tunnels were designed for the commuter railroad coaches of the day, the BRT decided to see what the dimensions of the longest cars could be. With the placement of the trucks as they were on the steels, a length of 67 ft was possible. However with the truck placement as it was, the cars had a long end excess so that the bulkhead doors had to be kept locked between the cars. |
|
|
| (1142229) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Feb 28 21:24:52 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 28 17:28:16 2012. I'm not sure about the other cities, but the SIRT cars were built to the same dimensions and clearances as the BRT/BMT since it was intended to have the SIRT eventually operate over BMT routes. |
|
|
| (1142240) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Feb 28 23:48:15 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by randyo on Tue Feb 28 21:24:52 2012. according to David Pirmann's site the original BSS cars for Philly are 67'6" x 10' and the first Boston Red Line cars 69' x 9'6" Note that PATCO 75' cars use tunnels built as part of the Philly Subway. |
|
|
| (1142246) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Feb 29 02:09:10 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 27 21:47:27 2012. They're actually slightly shorter, since they are 20 meter long. |
|
|
| (1142247) | |
Re: R-211 some info |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 29 02:11:56 2012, in response to Re: R-211 some info, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Feb 28 23:48:15 2012. PATCO's cars are 67 or so feet long. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
