|
|
| And the R-179 contract goes to.... (1146162) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 9 |
|
|
| (1146162) | |
And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Fri Mar 23 18:07:14 2012 BOMBARDIER! |
|
|
| (1146163) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Train2104 on Fri Mar 23 18:10:32 2012, in response to And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by G1Ravage on Fri Mar 23 18:07:14 2012. These will replace the R32's and R42's only, or also the R46's? |
|
|
| (1146164) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 23 18:16:00 2012, in response to And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by G1Ravage on Fri Mar 23 18:07:14 2012. By bagging the extra 80 cars (allegedly for SAS, not SIR), the flat-wheeled, grimy, junk on Staten Island has to keep running until at least the R211.I don't see how any R46's will get over there until then. We certainly don't want WMATA's 1000's. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1146165) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 23 18:17:30 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Train2104 on Fri Mar 23 18:10:32 2012. There's about 228 R32's (20 will be scrapped soon), and 50 R42's, so no R46's can go. |
|
|
| (1146169) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Lance52 on Fri Mar 23 18:33:16 2012, in response to And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by G1Ravage on Fri Mar 23 18:07:14 2012. It's about damn time. |
|
|
| (1146170) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Fri Mar 23 18:44:37 2012, in response to And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by G1Ravage on Fri Mar 23 18:07:14 2012. Excellent! |
|
|
| (1146179) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 23 19:51:00 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 23 18:16:00 2012. Too bad... MTA should consider order the 80 cars for Staten Island Railway; right away. |
|
|
| (1146180) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 23 19:51:41 2012, in response to And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by G1Ravage on Fri Mar 23 18:07:14 2012. way, way, way overdue. |
|
|
| (1146187) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 23 20:26:51 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 23 19:51:00 2012. Sure, bump off the R68s to SI and put the R179s on the N/Q. |
|
|
| (1146191) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Fri Mar 23 20:43:16 2012, in response to And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by G1Ravage on Fri Mar 23 18:07:14 2012. I wonder what number series the R-179s will occupy ?Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1146192) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 23 20:44:49 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 23 20:26:51 2012. Staten Island deserves new rail cars, handme downs is not the option. |
|
|
| (1146197) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Fri Mar 23 21:05:59 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Newkirk Images on Fri Mar 23 20:43:16 2012. Well, they could start at 3010 (or 3011) (behind the R-110Bs) which would take them to 3309 (3310). Or 4000/4001-4299/4300. Probably the latter. There isn't really room for 300 cars anywhere else. |
|
|
| (1146198) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Mar 23 21:10:58 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 23 20:44:49 2012. Why? Intermediate trips don't pay a fare. When they have a fare payment arrangement at every station then it can be said they "deserve" anything.But of course it is foolish to persist with this wasteful fiction that the Staten Island Railroad is in any way a subway line. They need to find a high floor LRV they can procure to provide economies of scale with the maintenance facilities to be provided for the North Shore line LRVs. |
|
|
| (1146199) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 23 21:12:17 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by FYBklyn1959 on Fri Mar 23 21:05:59 2012. or go back to three digit numbering scheme. |
|
|
| (1146200) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 23 21:13:08 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 23 20:44:49 2012. R68s are better than sending down R46s and are the same car lengths as the R44s. You can run R68s in the same arrangements as the R44s are there. |
|
|
| (1146201) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 23 21:14:59 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 23 21:13:08 2012. They are junk. New cars FTW. |
|
|
| (1146207) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri Mar 23 21:46:40 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 23 18:16:00 2012. I think the Rohrs would look quite nice outdoors. And since it's a fairly low-traffic line, they wouldn't be in much danger of banging into each other and causing each other telescopes. Maybe the 2000s when the second option order kicks in?Just a pipe dream, Joe - just a pipe dream. :o) -w- |
|
|
| (1146210) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Mar 23 21:50:00 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 23 21:12:17 2012. now..if they only looked like the R110B's..That would make this whole waiting game thing sweeter than sweet! |
|
|
| (1146212) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Mar 23 22:02:02 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 23 20:26:51 2012. And then what does the C use? |
|
|
| (1146214) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri Mar 23 22:03:51 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by WillD on Fri Mar 23 21:10:58 2012. Are we even sure the north shore line is going to use LRVs? |
|
|
| (1146216) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 23 22:26:22 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by WillD on Fri Mar 23 21:10:58 2012. I agree with the first half because they don't pay a fare and thus they don't need a brand new fleet of trains.I don't know if it would be a good idea to go with a lrt as a replacement. |
|
|
| (1146217) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 23 22:27:11 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 23 21:14:59 2012. R68s aren't going anywhere. Let them be SI's junk. New trains for the subway is better. |
|
|
| (1146218) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 23 22:28:25 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Fri Mar 23 22:02:02 2012. R46s; and when the R46s retire, R68s from CI or Concourse. |
|
|
| (1146219) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 23 22:32:23 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 23 22:27:11 2012. again...Staten Island deserves new rail cars, handme downs is not the option. |
|
|
| (1146222) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 23 22:41:37 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 23 22:32:23 2012. If they have fare collection at every station like the rest of the city, then fine. |
|
|
| (1146224) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 23 22:50:03 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 23 22:41:37 2012. so? |
|
|
| (1146226) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 23 22:53:09 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 23 22:41:37 2012. Majority of the riders is at Tompkinsville and St George where they get off and on. That doest affect the decision getting new rail cars that Staten Island deserves. |
|
|
| (1146243) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Mar 24 00:07:08 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Fri Mar 23 22:03:51 2012. It seems highly unlikely they'd adopt an alternative which costs more to implement, more to maintain, and carries fewer people just because it happens to share characteristics with the subway. |
|
|
| (1146247) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Sat Mar 24 00:37:18 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri Mar 23 21:46:40 2012. I think the Rohrs would look quite nice outdoors. And since it's a fairly low-traffic line, they wouldn't be in much danger of banging into each other and causing each other telescopes. Maybe the 2000s when the second option order kicks in?The only value the WMATA 1k cars have is recycling them into soft drink and beer cans. They are well beyond the length of their useful life. They began to developing stress crack in them at lower corner of the door openings nearest the end of the car.  The 2 and 3k cars were made little more stiffer after their mid life rehabilitation. The 4k cars are almost structurally identical to the 1k cars. John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (1146252) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Mar 24 01:41:50 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 23 21:13:08 2012. The R68s, however, do accelerate a good bit slower...slow enough where schedules may have to be re-done. Also, SIR runs 2-car trains overnight. |
|
|
| (1146254) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 02:08:44 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by AMoreira81 on Sat Mar 24 01:41:50 2012. Then what about R68A's?Are R68/A's fixed 4 car sets or can they be run as 2 car sets? As for the Franklin S, since they have to rebuild that line again, they may as well make all the platforms accommodate a 300' train. |
|
|
| (1146263) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 24 06:09:25 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 23 20:26:51 2012. R179's are to be all 4 cars sets. So Eastern Division and the "C". |
|
|
| (1146264) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 24 06:11:54 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 02:08:44 2012. The Franklin Shuttle could also get several of those A-A sets of R46's.Then the 9 R68 singles could be sent to SIR with some 4 cars sets, to make some 2 & 5 car trains |
|
|
| (1146265) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 24 06:12:46 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Fri Mar 23 22:28:25 2012. R179 means no fleet expansion, and 600' "C" requires fleet expansion.No Gin. |
|
|
| (1146266) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 24 06:13:57 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Sand Box John on Sat Mar 24 00:37:18 2012. Are you saying the 4K car should be bellied like the 1000's as they are just as telescopic ? |
|
|
| (1146270) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Sat Mar 24 08:59:43 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 24 06:13:57 2012. Are you saying the 4K car should be bellied like the 1000's as they are just as telescopic ?If you want to put it that way, yes. WMATA's rolling stock is basically an aluminum cans with holes cut in them for doors and windows.  The only reason why the 5 and 6k cars are heavier then their older brothers and sisters is because they have a center sill beam between the end under frames. John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (1146271) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sat Mar 24 09:15:14 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Sand Box John on Sat Mar 24 00:37:18 2012. I seem to remember the R-32, R-38, and R-44's having similar treatments to their upper door corners and beneath the doors. |
|
|
| (1146295) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 11:21:10 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 24 06:11:54 2012. Exactly about the Franklin S, I'd give that line 4 AA pairs. |
|
|
| (1146296) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 11:24:07 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 24 06:12:46 2012. So this order means another 480' or 8 car train? Why? They should just make the C a full length train to allow better flexibility b/w the A and C. |
|
|
| (1146297) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 11:27:30 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 24 06:09:25 2012. I see. But now would be a good time to make the C have full length trains so that the A could borrow sets from the C if they need to.R32s you can add on 2 more cars to put on the A and cut 2 cars to have 8 for the C. But if the C has these new 8 car trains, in fixed sets, then you lose that flexibility. |
|
|
| (1146311) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 13:45:51 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 11:24:07 2012. Why exactly do you need flexibility between the A and the C? |
|
|
| (1146314) | |
Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 14:06:07 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by WillD on Sat Mar 24 00:07:08 2012. It seems highly unlikely they'd adopt an alternative which costs more to implement,more to maintain,and carries fewer people just because it happens to share characteristics with the subway.Currently, the SIR uses third rail, high platforms and the same cars as the subway. Converting the existing SIR to a light rail format wouldn't be worth what you might save on the North Shore. In addition to that, as the North shore is grade separated, I don't know what one gains by making it light rail. How do you figure light rail would carry more people? |
|
|
| (1146315) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sat Mar 24 14:16:19 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Sand Box John on Sat Mar 24 08:59:43 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.wayne |
|
|
| (1146317) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 24 14:35:18 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Mar 23 22:53:09 2012. The majority of those riders are "XFER OK" one way or even both ways. The revenue is minimal. I don't see any new cars in the near future. |
|
|
| (1146323) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 14:59:23 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 13:45:51 2012. Why not? They both share the same yard and the R32s are the only reason why the C is still 8 car trains. Why does the C have to stay with just 8 when they can just make it a full 10 car train? |
|
|
| (1146325) | |
Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Mar 24 15:13:00 2012, in response to Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 14:06:07 2012. Not only that, but some "light rail" systems like St Louis and LA have high platforms like "heavy" rapid transit anyhow so the line between light and heavy rail transit is fuzzy at best. Even differentiating them by 3rd rail vs overhead wire doesn't work since Boston's Blue Line uses overhead past Maverick anyhow. |
|
|
| (1146332) | |
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, in response to Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 14:06:07 2012. Currently, the SIR uses third rail, high platforms and the same cars as the subway.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. Converting the existing SIR to a light rail format wouldn't be worth what you might save on the North Shore. 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. In addition to that, as the North shore is grade separated, I don't know what one gains by making it light rail. 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. How do you figure light rail would carry more people? 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). |
|
|
| (1146336) | |
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, 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. obviously the study ignored Cleveland Red Line OPTO w/ onboard fare collection at low ridership times as well as CTA's Evanston line in the 50s/60s doing the same.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. |
|
|
| (1146348) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Sat Mar 24 17:18:07 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 14:59:23 2012. It seems the MTA wants to keep the C as an 8 car train for the forseeable future. |
|
|
| (1146353) | |
Re: And the R-179 contract goes to.... |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 17:45:03 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Sat Mar 24 17:18:07 2012. That would be a shame. 8 car trains should be eastern division only imo. The B division ML should be 600' trains as long as they don't go past the Willy B or Broad st via Montague. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 9 |
|
