Home · Maps · About

Home > SubChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9]

< Previous Page  

Page 2 of 9

Next Page >  

(1146354)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Mar 24 17:51:01 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by WillD on Sat Mar 24 15:53:58 2012.

How much of the North Shore line still exists after half a century?

(1146355)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 18:02:31 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by WillD on Sat Mar 24 15:53:58 2012.

Great,so order some thing like these:

It'll be largely mechanically compatible with whatever LRVs are ordered for the North Shore Line,and it'll still use the high platforms and third rail.


How is the vehicle shown in the picture you posted substantially different than a typical metro vehicle?

Who said anything about changing the South Shore line's infrastructure at all? Leave the third rail and platforms alone. Just order rolling stock which delivers some synergy with the rolling stock that would likely be utilized by the North Shore line.

You said you wanted to order LRVs for SIR. If something is totally grade separated and using high platforms, IMHO its not light rail anymore.

There's no reason light rail cannot be grade separated if the structures are in place and are structurally sound. But while the structural soundness or replacement of the elevated structures is critical to the implementation of a heavy rail line using subway cars it is merely optional with a light rail alternative. The LRT offers the possibility of taking down a particularly difficult to replace segment of structure and running at grade along the segment. It'd even be possible that they'd utilize some amount of street-running if that were required by local pressure.

In any event,the North Shore may have some grade separated elements,but it's definitely not fully grade separated. The approach to St. George will require a tremendous amount of work for a heavy rail line,particularly threading the heavy rail line along Richmond Terrace. Light rail opens up alternative approaches to implementing the line which may ease local opposition.


If you're going to go to the trouble of building rail infrastructure, I would think we would want to keep it grade separated. If we're going to make significant parts of the line street running, then maybe the studies evaluating BRT will show that it is a better option. As we all know, MTA doesn't exactly have plentiful capital dollars laying around.

The March 2004 study by URS for the SI Borough President and the Port Authority found that they could not keep O&M costs under the limit of $10 million a year if they ran the heavy rail mode at the same 12 minute headway that was proposed for all other rail based modes. The two person train operation presumably was simply too expensive. As a result the heavy rail mode was constrained by its costs to a 15 minute headway. This meant the LRT mode was projected to be capable of carrying around 2200 more passengers per day at around two thirds the annual O&M cost ($5.62 million vs $9.06 million) and 20 million dollars less in capital cost ($351 million vs $370 million

As SEPTA has demonstrated with the Market-Frankford line, and NYCT has shown with the crosstown line, you can operate heavy rail with OPTO. A SIR north shore line would likely have ridership capable of such an arrangement. Additionally, just because the capacity would be there doesn't mean it would be used. The present SIR doesn't operate anywhere near 12 minute headways for most of the day.

At the end of the day, how would a "light rail" vehicle that was designed for high platforms, ran on 3rd rail and matched NYCT car dimensions be significantly different from a heavy rail vehicle that did the same? You would essentially be able to take such a vehicle and put it on any subway line. For that matter, why couldn't you take an R68, strip its existing power collection system, throw catenary on it and run it on the street? Chicago's South Shore line runs even heavier vehicles in the street. I think we're getting to a point where making rigid descriptions of separate modes only serves to hinder what a comprehensive transportation system is capable of. So to be clear, if the light rail vehicle you want to see comes complete with high platform boarding and the ability to run on 3rd rail and catenary, I'm all for it.


(1146359)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 18:12:12 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 24 16:15:50 2012.

The LR/HR issue is bogus. CTA has third rail on the ground w/grade crossings,Cleveland has catenary LR/HR mixed equipment w/platforms to match.

You can have grade crossings with 3rd rail, but not street running. Also, you can mix low and high platform equipment, but they can't stop at the same platform. To me, that's the only tangible separation of modality. Rapid transit can serve low platforms (typically as light rail) or high platforms (as "metro", or heavy rail), but not both (typically because such solutions would either sacrifice time to vehicle capacity). Commuter rail can operate vehicles that accommodate both.

(1146360)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 18:13:19 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Mar 24 17:51:01 2012.

You can follow a significant chunk of it on google maps.

(1146362)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Joe Saitta on Sat Mar 24 18:22:48 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 18:12:12 2012.

Wrong. Chicago North Shore & Milwaukee were high/low, and had both third rail and overhead trolley. Today, San Francisco lrvs are both street (low platform) and high platform (in the subway). Karlsruhe, Germany has lrvs that are similar to San Francisco (high/low platform) and also operate on the Deutsche Bahn (national railway system), sharing facilities with Acela-type trains and high speed freights. These are just a few examples; I suggest you check these out before saying "it can't be done." It has long ago and in the present.

(1146363)

view threaded

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

Posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 18:26:22 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 14:59:23 2012.

the R32s are the only reason why the C is still 8 car trains.

No. As was demonstrated last summer, there are enough R32s to operate both the A and C at 600'. The C, however, is not exactly packed with riders. Full length trains would be nice, but I'd rather see improved headways before full length trains.



[The A and C] both share the same yard

Not really. The C is 207, the A is Pitkin. At any rate, they're totally different fleets. The A doesn't run R32s, and the C doesn't run R46s. Nothing would change after the R179 arrives. Well, nothing except roughly 40 R179s will be in 5 car sets and the C's spare ratio will decline, so the Eastern Division will get R179s as well.

(1146367)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 18:39:04 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Joe Saitta on Sat Mar 24 18:22:48 2012.

You're getting your examples mixed up. CNSM was what you would call "heavy rail" on their interurban operations.

You really are turning back into Terrapin Saitta, aren't you?

(1146374)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 19:10:17 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Joe Saitta on Sat Mar 24 18:22:48 2012.

These are just a few examples; I suggest you check these out before saying "it can't be done." It has long ago and in the present.

Where did I say it can't be done? My typo not withstanding (should say or, not to in the parenthetical), I made it pretty clear that it indeed is possible to procure vehicles capable of handling both low and high platforms, but that such a solution sacrifices either time or capacity. The LRVs you mentioned do just that.

(1146375)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 24 19:19:01 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Joe Saitta on Sat Mar 24 18:22:48 2012.

While SF Muni does have moving step LRVs (the current Bredas having replaced similarly equipped Boeings), step malfunction is a serious maintenance issue. Secondarily, I have experienced driver lapses of raising or lowering as necessary for a given stop.

(1146376)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 24 19:24:29 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 18:12:12 2012.

Alley running? go visit the outer ends of the Brown, Pink, Purple Lines in Chicagoland.

(1146383)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 19:50:23 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 24 19:24:29 2012.

It's still operating in it's own right of way. Once you have to share it with other vehicles or pedestrians, it becomes problematic.

Chicago is the system I haven't seen yet that I most want to get to.

(1146385)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 24 19:53:02 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 11:21:10 2012.

CIY would have to be R46-Friendly, not an impossibility

(1146386)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 24 19:57:05 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 11:24:07 2012.

This uniformity that you would like would cause purchase of 36 more cars (18 trainsets). We don't need them. For that money, we could re-fleet half of Staten Island.

I'd cut back 50 cars from the M-9's, overhaul M-3's for Brooklyn Shuttles. It would be an easy, in door life for them. If its saves $50M, there are plenty of other better uses for it.

(1146388)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 24 19:59:20 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 11:27:30 2012.

When about 10 R32 train sets were shifted to the "A" last summer, it causes an equipment shortage, which caused 2 trainsets of Queens R46's and a 10 R42 cars to spend the summer reassigned to Pitkin for "A" service.

We just don't need that luxury.

(1146392)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Mar 24 20:22:00 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 18:39:04 2012.

You are wrong, Troll. North Shore was also street running (entering Milwaukee), Interurban and Elevated in Chicago. So Joe is correct.

(1146393)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Mar 24 20:24:05 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 18:13:19 2012.

Not on a Google map, in real life.

(1146394)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by randyo on Sat Mar 24 20:27:11 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 24 19:24:29 2012.

I'm sure you also remember the Garfield Pk service running with 3rd rail on Van Buren in the mid 1950s between the time the old Garfield structure was demolished and the Congress line opened.

(1146395)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by randyo on Sat Mar 24 20:31:40 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 18:02:31 2012.

Don't forget the entire CTA and I believe also Boston's Blue Line and also Philly's Broad St Line. As I mentioned in another post, the distinction between heavy and light rail has become rather fuzzy since there are so called light rail systems that are high platform and grade separated.

(1146396)

view threaded

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

Posted by randyo on Sat Mar 24 20:33:51 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 17:45:03 2012.

Not only that but since NYCT bases their headways based on loading guidelines, operating 10 car C trains would allow a longer headway in the rush hour while still meeting loading guidelines saving crews.

(1146397)

view threaded

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

Posted by randyo on Sat Mar 24 20:35:14 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 18:26:22 2012.

Lately, however, during the summer due to A/C issues the A and C have swapped fleets between R-46s and 32s.

(1146402)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 20:41:32 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Mar 24 20:24:05 2012.

Google maps reflect real life. The provide satellite imagery of ground conditions. This is a concept that's good enough for the military, so it's good enough for railfans to figure out how much of a defunct rail line still exists.

(1146408)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Mar 24 21:04:18 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 19:50:23 2012.

Chicago is the system I haven't seen yet that I most want to get to.

Chicago and LACMTA are fighting for that status in the US for me. London and to a lesser extent, Madrid, Hamburg, and Stockholm for me in Europe.

(1146410)

view threaded

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

Posted by LRG5784 on Sat Mar 24 21:15:11 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 23 22:32:23 2012.

Agreed.

(1146411)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 21:15:22 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by randyo on Sat Mar 24 20:31:40 2012.

No, there's no truly fuzzy distinction. Heavy rail still has trains of up to eleven cars. High platforms and grade separation don't mean anything in particular.

They may share rails in Cleveland, but that's a traditional setup that wouldn't be paralleled today if it were new-build.

(1146412)

view threaded

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

Posted by LRG5784 on Sat Mar 24 21:15:52 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 23 22:27:11 2012.

...And new trains for Staten Island is just as needed as new cars for the subway.

(1146414)

view threaded

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

Posted by Neil Feldman on Sat Mar 24 21:27:31 2012, in response to And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by G1Ravage on Fri Mar 23 18:07:14 2012.

Wow, back to the big manufacturer that made the R142's! Well, see how things go. They made the R110B, so see how they do this time with the R179!

(1146415)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 21:28:23 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 19:10:17 2012.

Also sacrifices maintenance cost savings to a degree; more moving parts.

(1146416)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 21:29:26 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 24 19:19:01 2012.

Why didn't they leave them all low? I remember the MUNI's subway-surface PCC cars from the 70s. No reason to fix what wasn't broken.

(1146419)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 21:41:33 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 24 16:15:50 2012.

Cleveland has catenary LR/HR mixed equipment w/platforms to match

The Red Line cars can use only high platforms while the Blue and Green Lines can use only low platforms. They have shared-track operation, but not shared equipment where one type can use both high and low platforms (except for when the Trolleyville CA&E interurban cars run, that is).

(1146423)

view threaded

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

Posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 21:53:34 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 24 19:53:02 2012.

Or they can travel to Stillwell and reverse back on the F. Run all the way to Jay st and reverse on to the A to Pitkin yard. Not that different from how the TS S cars having to get to Livonia.

I mention R46s because they have AA pairs and you can have those replace those R68 singles it currently runs.

I do hope the platforms are extended to hold a 300' train. Then they can run a 4 car R68 train on it.

(1146424)

view threaded

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

Posted by blue8irt on Sat Mar 24 21:53:49 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by WillD on Fri Mar 23 21:10:58 2012.

Without an underwater connection to the real subway it doesn't matter. Let them eat cake.

(1146426)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 24 21:56:35 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 21:29:26 2012.

faulty memory. The Muni Metro Subway was built w/high platforms. While there were test runs w/ PCCs in the subway, never any revenue operations. Church, Castro, and West Portal were built new w/wall platforms; Forest Hill was raised to high. All of the BART built shared stations are island thus unsuitable for most PCCs even if low platforms.

(1146427)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 24 21:59:27 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 21:41:33 2012.

correct. Point is so called heavy and light rail on same tracks powered by same overhead. And a mix of barrier and pay on train.

(1146429)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 24 22:02:41 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by randyo on Sat Mar 24 20:27:11 2012.

Yes, I rode that line one summer while visiting my granddad. I also remember the street level w/ trolley wire outer end of the Lake st line before CTA bought space on the C&NW embankment west of Laramie.

(1146430)

view threaded

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

Posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 22:02:48 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 18:26:22 2012.

Wasn't there word that 207th was going to be the new IRT yard/maintenance facility and both A and C to be based from Pitkin?

(1146433)

view threaded

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

Posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 22:08:45 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 24 19:59:20 2012.

Longer C trains would be fewer C trains (same total amount of cars running, but a few less crews*) running and with that extra room you could run more A trains.

*80 cars now is 10 trains. But with a longer train you have 8 trains and a possibility to add an extra A train if needed. There's no need to restrict the C to shorter trains.

(1146435)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 22:09:50 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 24 21:56:35 2012.

What PCCs am I remembering, then? They also seem to be the same route that was featured in the movie Dirty Harry.

(1146436)

view threaded

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

Posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 22:09:57 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by randyo on Sat Mar 24 20:33:51 2012.

Yup.

(1146437)

view threaded

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

Posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 22:13:31 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 22:02:48 2012.

I'm not in DCE, so I can't say for certain, but 207 is where the mainline IRT and the 207/Pitkin shopped cars receive their SMS work, not where any IRT cars are, or will be, shopped.

(1146438)

view threaded

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

Posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 22:14:33 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by randyo on Sat Mar 24 20:35:14 2012.

It is better to have a surplus than a shortage.
R143s may have filled the void left by the premature retirement of the R27/30s, but weren't enough to meet the growing demands of the L. At least if the C gets 10 car trains (only to run fewer trains), there's always room to add more trains to that line if it ever needs it.

(1146440)

view threaded

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

Posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 22:17:42 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 22:13:31 2012.

I remember reading here about 242nd being closed down (temporarily or permanently and moving the operations to 207th). So if I'm wrong please correct me.

(1146441)

view threaded

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

Posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 22:18:14 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 22:13:31 2012.

I remember reading here about 240th* being closed down (temporarily or permanently and moving the operations to 207th). So if I'm wrong please correct me.

(1146442)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 24 22:20:25 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 22:09:50 2012.

see the write up on nycsubway.org about the shift from street to underground. PCCs operated on the streets and in the old tunnels--Sunset Tunnel on the N Judah streetside stops both ends nothingt bunderground, and the Twin Peaks Tunnel from Castro/17th to West Portal. The latter had two "subway" stations--Forest Hill and Eureka. The Eureka platform is still there for emergency egress, Forest Hill was converted to high platform. In low platform days the West Portal stop was on the street--now it is a station built partially into the hill.

(1146445)

view threaded

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

Posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 22:26:17 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 22:08:45 2012.

Understand that a practical balance must be maintained between consist capacity and headways. For example: the MTA could cut the headways of the G train in half and turn the G into full length trains. This would result in the same theoretical capacity on the line and would save on crews as you and randyo point out. However, it would also result in a rush hour headway of almost 15 minutes!

The C already features some pretty poor headways (so poor that I walk an extra 4 minutes to an express stop). Reducing its headways and running longer trains would be a serious disservice to local riders on Fulton and CPW. Additionally, the A doesn't really need more trains, it just needs more even spacing. At its peak, the A operates 18tph from Brooklyn during the AM rush. Without reducing C headways, one could increase that number, but the CPW express tracks are already close to max capacity, with 18 A's and 10 D's.

Leave the C at 8 cars, and if anything, cut the wait time for it.

(1146446)

view threaded

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

Posted by Sand Box John on Sat Mar 24 22:28:09 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sat Mar 24 14:16:19 2012.

Then why did 4018 come away (relatively) unscathed at Woodley Park back in November 2004? 1077's apocalyptic damage can be understood, but I wasn't aware that the 4K cars had that issue too.

1077 is more then 25 years older then 4018. They also have 25 more years of wear and tare on them and were driven much harder and faster during the first 15 years of the life then their younger brothers and sisters. It take years before there are viable signs of medal fatigue.

John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore.

(1146447)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 22:29:25 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 24 22:20:25 2012.

What was the purpose of having high platforms in the Market Street MUNI tunnels then . . . ?

(1146448)

view threaded

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

Posted by Railman718 on Sat Mar 24 22:32:27 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 22:26:17 2012.

Leave the C at 8 cars, and if anything, cut the wait time for it.

Dont have the cars for it....



(1146451)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Mar 24 22:45:24 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 22:29:25 2012.

What was the purpose of having high platforms in the Market Street MUNI tunnels then . . . ?

Arguably, the same reason that Frankfurt went high platform for their Stadtbahn, superior loading characteristics and reduced dwell time at core stations. Mind you, most of those advantages went away with the development of 70% low-floor Stadtbahn units.

(1146453)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 24 23:07:05 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 22:29:25 2012.

Originally BART was to be double deck w/ the upper level taking over the Twin Peaks Tunnel to...maybe St Francis Circle? So the Muni platform are dimensionally the same as the Bart one level down. Further, at the Civic Center Station the stairs were clearly designed for plat to plat transfers. SS caging/handrails were an afterthought. On paper, the Muni Central Control bunker built above the West Portal station was a BART project.

(1146455)

view threaded

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

Posted by HANDBRAKE on Sat Mar 24 23:07:44 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 22:02:48 2012.

Both CIYD & 207th are overhaul locations for all NYCT & SIR equipment. Most of the cars up on horses at 207th Street have been IRT A Division equipment in part because all but one of the IRT's main line yards are located in the Bronx. IRT cars have easy access via a ramp from the Broadway #1 line into 207th Street YD.


207th Street Overhaul Shop is responsible for repairing any problems that pertain to the subway car itself. This will include anything from a simple truck change to major carbody repairs. Along with running repairs, this shop is responsible for maintaining a Scheduled Maintenance System (SMS) program as well.

In 2010, the Car Repair Shop was responsible for the SMS on the R-142, R-142A and the R-62 car classes. This consisted of work on all major subsystems of the subway car such as Air Brake, Propulsion, Trucks, Electronics Systems, Doors, Carbody and HVAC. The Car Repair Shop removes components from these subsystems and ships them to the various support shops that then overhaul these items. The parts are then returned to the shop for final assembly on the car and testing.

The Car Repair shop also is responsible for replacing any items on the car that cannot be overhauled in a support shop. In the past year they have replaced over 800 trucks, 1200 Door Operators, 700 Modular HVAC units and 800 Propulsion Units while also rebuilding over 900 Draftgears and 50 split system A/C systems.

In 2010 a major change to the propulsion system on the R-62 was begun. The original SCM based propulsion system is being replaced with an electronic controlled propulsion system or E-Cam. This requires the replacement of the entire Group Switch Box and Resistor Grid Assemblies. This system was prototyped in 2010 and production was completed on 85 cars with the rest of the cars to be completed this year.

The running repair staff also has been instrumental in maintaining the fleet of cars that are owned by the New York City Transit Museum. These cars have been painstakingly restored from years of neglect to bring them back to a state of repair that allows them to be used in passenger service on excursion trips throughout the year and during the Christmas Holidays.

While the primary focus of the Car Repair Shop is to keep cars “In Service”, they have also become experts at scrapping cars that have reached the end of their life cycle.

Special Projects and Prototypes:

•Provided museum cars for excursion throughout the year
•Restoration of the museum car 4902
•Car 6660- Removed flip up seats & heaters
•Conversion of 85 R62 General Electric group box to an E-Cam system
•Salvaged propulsion components from (44) R44 scrap cars to support the R68 SMS program in 2011


[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9]

< Previous Page  

Page 2 of 9

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]