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 8 of 9

Next Page >  

(1147373)

view threaded

Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum

Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Mar 29 16:48:48 2012, in response to Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum, posted by Widecab5 on Wed Mar 28 22:02:19 2012.

I agree with Raymond. They need to bring back the R16-style seating. I hate longitudinal seating. Yes, it allows for more standing room, which is exactly what you have to do when someone decides to take up two, three or even four seats. Then there are the folks who think their big hulking bodies are made out of Silly Putty who wedge themselves into a tiny space on the bench. Just plain wrong.

(1147381)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 29 17:25:07 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Wed Mar 28 17:24:28 2012.

Lets not forget that the Bomabdier R179 will likely not be compatible with Jamaica's Alstom R160, and maybe not anything in C.I. either.

(1147382)

view threaded

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

Posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 29 17:26:11 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Thu Mar 29 16:34:17 2012.

You are correct. However, by eliminating the V (and the W as well) the MTA did not reduce fleet size. They actually increased it with the R160 order. So, in theory, there should be more cars sitting around, not less, and the R179 order need not be as large.

(1147383)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 29 17:26:28 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Wed Mar 28 21:02:43 2012.

How do you know how the 4 car sets will be divided between ENY and Pitkin ?

(1147384)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 29 17:30:34 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Thu Mar 29 16:34:17 2012.

I believe when the V was in essence taken over by ENY, about 90-100 R46's in 1 weekend were transferred from Jamaica to Pitkin/207th, which dealt sudden blow to as many R44's.

(1147386)

view threaded

Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum

Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 29 17:35:44 2012, in response to Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Mar 29 16:48:48 2012.

I am not convinced longitudinal seating lead to more standing room. People do stick their feet out into the aisle and take up more room.

(1147388)

view threaded

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

Posted by Edwards! on Thu Mar 29 18:00:01 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 29 12:11:14 2012.

LOL!

You've got jokes..and its all good.




(1147392)

view threaded

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

Posted by randyo on Thu Mar 29 18:24:42 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 29 17:25:07 2012.

If the MTA specifies that it will be compatible then it better be!!!

(1147393)

view threaded

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

Posted by randyo on Thu Mar 29 18:25:51 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 29 17:25:07 2012.

If the MTA specifies that it will be compatible then it better be!!!

(1147394)

view threaded

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

Posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 29 18:26:21 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 29 17:26:28 2012.

I've seen the potential car assignments.

(1147395)

view threaded

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

Posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 29 18:27:00 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by randyo on Thu Mar 29 18:25:51 2012.

It won't be.

(1147398)

view threaded

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

Posted by randyo on Thu Mar 29 18:33:11 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 29 18:27:00 2012.

Why not? Now that NTT specs are pretty much standardized, all NTTs should be fully compatible and that includes the IRT ones with the BMT/IND cars for yard moves. Standardization of standardization of standardization to the nth degree of infinitely infinite infinity MUST be an absolute and non negotiable requirement.

(1147399)

view threaded

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

Posted by R30A on Thu Mar 29 18:35:52 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by randyo on Thu Mar 29 18:33:11 2012.

I think they are standardized only in appearance...

(1147407)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 29 19:53:47 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by randyo on Thu Mar 29 18:33:11 2012.

Well, they are not.
Kind of a throw-back to the 1950's when the Staten Island cars were shipped over and found to be uncompatible with the Standards. The best laid plans...

(1147411)

view threaded

Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum

Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Mar 29 20:37:19 2012, in response to Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum, posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 29 17:35:44 2012.

Indeed they do. Another strike against longitudinal seating.

(1147432)

view threaded

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

Posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 29 22:32:09 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by randyo on Thu Mar 29 18:33:11 2012.

In today's world of proprietary components, the only way such a compatibility could be achieved would be requiring every bidder to use the same components. Sole sourcing of the components would drive the price up significantly, and likely dissuade some companies from bidding at all. For example, Alstom, Kawasaki and Bombardier all have different propulsion packages. How would you mandate that these be made compatible?

Why would you even need it anyway? Even the R32-R42 classes were often not interoperated, and they were mechanically very similar. And with today's maintenance proceedures, fleet availability of individual car classes is such that you wouldn't need to mix classes.

(1147436)

view threaded

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

Posted by grand concourse on Thu Mar 29 22:42:50 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 29 17:30:34 2012.

Yup, pretty much. That service change killed 2 birds with one stone: fewer cars overall on the rails and bumping off more R44s with displaced R46s.

(1147437)

view threaded

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

Posted by grand concourse on Thu Mar 29 22:43:35 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 29 17:26:11 2012.

Yeah, probably so.

(1147438)

view threaded

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

Posted by grand concourse on Thu Mar 29 22:47:28 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by randyo on Thu Mar 29 18:33:11 2012.

What I don't understand is that the R143s were supposed to be compatible with the R160s, but are still not mixed together in a train. If the R160s were compatible with the R143, that 'Canarsie yard set' should've had an R160 car as a replacement and be in service right now.

(1147439)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract is palmed off on....

Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 29 23:11:56 2012, in response to And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by G1Ravage on Fri Mar 23 18:07:14 2012.

Oh, whence the grease.

(1147440)

view threaded

Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum

Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 29 23:12:30 2012, in response to Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum, posted by Widecab5 on Wed Mar 28 22:02:19 2012.

Raymond this, Raymond that. Speak for yourself next time.

(1147449)

view threaded

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

Posted by WillD on Fri Mar 30 01:03:27 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by randyo on Tue Mar 27 14:23:46 2012.

In addition to what Wado said, a 70% low floor car is fully compliant because the wheelchair spots will be in the low floor, level boarding portion of the car.

(1147482)

view threaded

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

Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 30 12:10:26 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 29 22:32:09 2012.

In today's world of proprietary components, the only way such a compatibility could be achieved would be requiring every bidder to use the same components. Sole sourcing of the components would drive the price up significantly, and likely dissuade some companies from bidding at all. For example, Alstom, Kawasaki and Bombardier all have different propulsion packages. How would you mandate that these be made compatible?

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of compatibility. Some of the private railways in Japan have been mixing equipment of different generations in the same consist. For example, the Odakyu Railway mixed older equipment with resistor grids and HSC-D braking with modern equipment with IGBT VVVF inverters and regenerative braking successfully.

It's not the difference in components and propulsion packages that make car classes incompatible. You need to specifically design them to be compatible.

(1147499)

view threaded

Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum

Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 30 16:44:31 2012, in response to Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Mar 29 20:37:19 2012.

What they should do for SIR is make a R179 stretch job: add 15 feet in the middle of just windows and transverse seating.

(1147500)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 30 16:53:29 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 29 22:32:09 2012.

Everything from R10 to R42 (and R12 to R36) mixed at one time or another. It should not be that hard. It's not like we are talking about MU'ing an IC electric with an MP54.

When you have just 4 of these and 4 of those available, the train cannot go out.

(1147501)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 30 16:57:11 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Thu Mar 29 22:42:50 2012.

While the V is gone, the Orange M eats up more trainsets than the Brown M.

Likewise, the defunct W was donor organs to an extended Q to Astoria.

The service cuts save some equipment, but it is hard to calculate it.
Also, like CTA'a Doomsday, the overall cuts were designed to shift ridership from Bus to Rail, in general. Again, hard to quantify.


(1147554)

view threaded

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

Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 30 20:01:33 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 30 16:57:11 2012.

the Orange M eats up more trainsets than the Brown M.

Are you sure about that? While the orange M is more frequent, I think its running time is shorter than the Bay Parkway brown M.

(1147557)

view threaded

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

Posted by R30A on Fri Mar 30 20:10:49 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 30 20:01:33 2012.

Brown M required 17 trains. Orange M requires 23.

(1147558)

view threaded

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

Posted by randyo on Fri Mar 30 20:27:17 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by R30A on Thu Mar 29 18:35:52 2012.

True, but you're missing my point. Full electrical and mechanical compatibility should be a non negotiable requirement.

(1147559)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 30 20:28:15 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by R30A on Fri Mar 30 20:10:49 2012.

Right. The run is about equal length, but it runs more often, and there's the fumigation at Continental Av, and relaying halfway out to the yard, which is more inefficient than simply relaying in the center track of Bay Pkwy.

That eats up 48 cars, which hit out with the 50 R42's they had to keep.

(1147561)

view threaded

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

Posted by randyo on Fri Mar 30 20:32:39 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Thu Mar 29 19:53:47 2012.

The only difference at that point was that the original SIRT and the BMT were 2 separate and distinct companies and there would be no reason for full compatibility to have been specified unless the 2 companies got together and decided to agree on it. In the case of the MTA, full compatibility is something that should be sought after for the sake of efficiency as was the case with the R-1s through 9s. After the SMEE design was developed, I recall seeing contracts for R-types that specified that the cars were to be fully compatible with all previous R types from the R-10s up to whatever the previous R contract number the TA was up to at the time.

(1147562)

view threaded

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

Posted by randyo on Fri Mar 30 20:33:40 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 30 12:10:26 2012.

Good explanation.

(1147565)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 30 20:44:22 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by randyo on Fri Mar 30 20:32:39 2012.

SIRT was trying very hard to be compatible with BMT for a Narrows Tunnel.
Likewise, Broad Street subway in Philly thought they might host RDG trains, so it was built to 4th Ave Subway standards.

CNJ, RDG, and B&O were all related.

(1147567)

view threaded

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

Posted by randyo on Fri Mar 30 20:48:02 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 30 20:44:22 2012.

True, but that was only in terms of the physical dimensions of the cars. SIRT cars had to meet ICC (pre FRA) standards which the BMT cars did not so there was no perceived need for compatibility. The H & M, on the other hand built their Newark extension cars to the identical specs as the MP-38s which were the PRR cars with which they did have to run so both of those classes were fully compatible.

(1147578)

view threaded

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

Posted by J trainloco on Fri Mar 30 22:03:05 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Thu Mar 29 22:32:09 2012.

I suppose that is the true definition of compatibility. For certain, the NTTs share enough components that they could be MU'ed together. This was even tested. However, regularly doing this is simply not feasible. Everyone is clamoring about the NTTs, but even the mechanically similar R68 and 68A don't mix. Ditto for the 62/62A. Doing this is possible, but there is not enough incentive to do so.

(1147580)

view threaded

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

Posted by J trainloco on Fri Mar 30 22:07:27 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 30 16:53:29 2012.

It's not that it's 'that hard to do'. Seems more like it results in maintenance issues.

When you have just 4 of these and 4 of those available,the train cannot go out.

The days of deferred maintenance, when such a scenario was a regular occurrence, are over. In the SMS era, has a shop ever had a situation where the only spares left out of the entire fleet was one set of one class, and one set of another?

(1147586)

view threaded

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

Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Mar 30 22:33:43 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Fri Mar 30 22:07:27 2012.

OTOH, at the prices paid, why can't the specs mandate seamless compatibility? EMD and GE diesels MU.

(1147587)

view threaded

Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum

Posted by Widecab5 on Fri Mar 30 22:38:29 2012, in response to Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 29 23:12:30 2012.

If Raymond could ever get a password--he's been trying for over one year!--he could speak for HIMself!

As far as the R-179 goes, there are facts and there are opinions and speculations.

Facts usually cost money, opinions and speculations are a form of freedom of speech, so Raymond is as entitled as anyone else to express his.

Some people do a good job of keeping them separated and others don't.

Regards,

George Chiasson Jr.
(Widecab5@aol.com)

(1147589)

view threaded

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

Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 30 22:58:32 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Fri Mar 30 22:03:05 2012.

Again, the issue is not really about common components than it is about accelerating/braking characteristics and how those are controlled electronically. There is also the issue of passenger information system compatibility such as automated announcements and electronic displays but those don't directly affect the performance or safety of the trains.

The point randyo and myself are trying to make is that they could have ordered the cars to be mixable but they didn't do it.

Modifying the cars to be compatible is possible, as it was painfully done on the PA1-3 of PATH, but it would be much easier to do if done during the design process of the cars. It probably is one of the "minor" matters where the TA shouldn't have made decisions based on costs.

(1147594)

view threaded

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

Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 30 23:30:47 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by R30A on Fri Mar 30 20:10:49 2012.

Thanks for the info. So (cars needed for the V) - (480' x 6) became surplus.

(1147596)

view threaded

Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum

Posted by Railman718 on Fri Mar 30 23:49:02 2012, in response to Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum, posted by Widecab5 on Fri Mar 30 22:38:29 2012.

Olg=Owned

(1147597)

view threaded

Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum

Posted by Rockparkman on Fri Mar 30 23:54:59 2012, in response to Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum, posted by Railman718 on Fri Mar 30 23:49:02 2012.

Olog= Son of a WHORE.

(1147598)

view threaded

Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Mar 30 23:55:12 2012, in response to Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum, posted by Railman718 on Fri Mar 30 23:49:02 2012.

Nah ... merely rented. Nobody wants to keep that one. :)

(1147606)

view threaded

Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum

Posted by Edwards! on Sat Mar 31 01:25:03 2012, in response to Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum, posted by Widecab5 on Fri Mar 30 22:38:29 2012.

LOL!

You tell'em.

(1147609)

view threaded

Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum

Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Mar 31 06:10:44 2012, in response to Re: The R-179 contract, ad nauseum, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 29 23:12:30 2012.

You are a very nasty person.

(1147613)

view threaded

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

Posted by merrick1 on Sat Mar 31 07:33:45 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Fri Mar 30 22:03:05 2012.

On the B Division R10 thru R42 cars were theoretically compatible but rarely operated together. The IRT did operated R12 thru R36 cars together but they did not always play well with each other. In the worst days of the 1970's - 1980's the most reliable cars on the IRT were the R-36 Worlds Fair cars which stayed together on the Flushing line.

(1147617)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 31 08:21:12 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Fri Mar 30 22:07:27 2012.

Throughout the 1990's Pitkin and ENY had a hell of a time keeping their R32/R38's and R40M/R42's separate, and those cars were in fairly good shape.


(1147618)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 31 08:23:44 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 30 23:30:47 2012.

Well I'd say whatever the V needed, subtract 48 60' cars, then you got it.

(1147620)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 31 08:30:58 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by randyo on Fri Mar 30 20:48:02 2012.

Were the regular H&M "black cars" and the MP38 compatible ?

Later on there were K cars and MP51's, both of which were really the exact same car. I think Conrail held title to the MP51 for a short period until PA bought them out.

My point about SIRT is everyone thought they were compatible, so some effort must have been put forth in the 1920's to make them so, then found out in the 1950's they do not dance.

(1147622)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 31 08:36:37 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by merrick1 on Sat Mar 31 07:33:45 2012.

Rare is a little too strong a description.

There were a couple of dozen R36WF's on the west side IRT in the 1970's and early 1980's, all mixed up with eveything.

In 1969 - 1971, everything on the "B" Division got mixed. The craziest consist I saw was on a QJ; R42-R27-R32-R42

In the mid-1980's R16/R27 were deliberately mixed , at least on the L train to keep the R16's going.

R32/R38 and R40M/R42 was common until the end.


[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9]

< Previous Page  

Page 8 of 9

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]