|
|
| R46 return to the C (1458517) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
|
| (1458519) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sat Dec 16 15:31:03 2017, in response to R46 return to the C, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sat Dec 16 15:04:54 2017. There's also 160s on the C, C is using three different fleets. From a railfan POV the C is quite exciting right now! |
|
|
| (1458532) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Sat Dec 16 16:43:40 2017, in response to R46 return to the C, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sat Dec 16 15:04:54 2017. I'd rather have them on express lines. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1458571) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Dec 16 21:02:35 2017, in response to R46 return to the C, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sat Dec 16 15:04:54 2017. I don't know how true this is but I read on YouTube that there is a 3-way swap between the A, C and J/Z trains. The A and C are swapping some R46s and R32s with the A getting 14 sets of R32s. In turn the C is returning some of the R160s to the J/Z.Somebody thinks it's preparation for the L train shut down in 2019. I might be wrong but I think it has something to do with the promise Joe Lhota made about lengthening the C trains. |
|
|
| (1458576) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sat Dec 16 22:08:38 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Dec 16 21:02:35 2017. I heard the reason for the swap has something to do with the week long G.O on 53rd street coming up, The C will run by itself on the 8th Ave that week and they want at least some of the trains to be full length. |
|
|
| (1458584) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Dec 16 22:21:19 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sat Dec 16 22:08:38 2017. Ok now that sounds more reasonable than implementing something for an event that's not going occur for almost 2 years. |
|
|
| (1458589) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Dec 16 23:14:35 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sat Dec 16 22:08:38 2017. Makes sense. The flexibility of the R32 to run in 8 or 10 cars sure comes in handy, eh... |
|
|
| (1458590) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 16 23:19:31 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Dec 16 23:14:35 2017. For customer convenience, knowing where to stand on the platform, every C train should be either 480' or 600', no matter what the class of equipment is. |
|
|
| (1458604) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by W.B. on Sun Dec 17 06:49:34 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Dec 16 23:19:31 2017. Technically, on R32's, eight-car train lengths would be 484' and ten-cars would be 605'. |
|
|
| (1458606) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Dec 17 07:13:32 2017, in response to R46 return to the C, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sat Dec 16 15:04:54 2017. There's at least 4 or 5 sets of R46s on the C and at least 3 sets of R32s on the A as of yesterday.Anyone know how long it'll last? Just this weekend? Until post-53rd Street shutdown? Permanently? |
|
|
| (1458628) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 17 12:06:52 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by W.B. on Sun Dec 17 06:49:34 2017. As a side, currently on the G, the R68/68A is 300' for a 4 car train. They tested the feasibility of running a 5 car R 160. No go because that's 300', 30 inches. There are monitors for c/r sight lines at some stations and some didn't line up due to the extra 30 inches.When the G adds cars for the L closure, if they want to leave the monitors alone, they have to run 8 cars of R68/68A. If they run 8 or 10 cars of 60' cars, monitors should be moved. |
|
|
| (1458630) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 17 12:21:30 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Nilet on Sun Dec 17 07:13:32 2017. Lhota said he wanted the C to have long trains as soon as he took over. So I say it's permanent.I guess the changeover will be gradual. Because of a weekend GO with no service from 168 to 207 it was difficult to make all of them 8 cars right away. My question is what are we going to do with all these 4 car units of R160/179? We can put them on the G, sure, but there still will be plenty of leftovers. IDK if we can simply modify them to 5 car units because every car has unique components. |
|
|
| (1458631) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 17 12:23:17 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 17 12:21:30 2017. Error in paragraph 2.Meant to say 8 cars of 75 footers or 10 cars of 600 footers. |
|
|
| (1458632) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 17 12:29:03 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 17 12:06:52 2017. Cancel that 10 car 60 foot trains. It should work because in a 5 car R160, the c/r works out of the 5th car, in a 10 car R160 the c/r would be in the 6th car. |
|
|
| (1458634) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Dec 17 13:22:45 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 17 12:21:30 2017. Where is the extra equipment to fill out C consists, which have 18 trains sets, so need 36 cars ? I thought they were already stretched with the SAS and W train. |
|
|
| (1458642) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Allan on Sun Dec 17 14:51:24 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 17 12:21:30 2017. "IDK if we can simply modify them to 5 car units because every car has unique components"IDK either but if they could where would they get the 5th cars from? Sacrificing whole 4 car sets to make the 5th car would just make matters worse. Can you imagine a 5 car set with 3 A units in it? Would have to cause some technical issues somewhere. |
|
|
| (1458659) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Dec 17 16:41:25 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Allan on Sun Dec 17 14:51:24 2017. The MTA could always order additional B cars to add to the consists like it did with the R-188s for the Flushing Line. |
|
|
| (1458676) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 17 18:32:47 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Joe V on Sun Dec 17 13:22:45 2017. I agree. IDK where these extra cars are coming from either. |
|
|
| (1458681) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sun Dec 17 19:35:35 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Joe V on Sun Dec 17 13:22:45 2017. IIRC after discontinuance of the V train, 414 R46s were assigned to the A train. Also there's supposed to be 232 R32s left. Where are these cars? |
|
|
| (1458689) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Dec 17 21:38:25 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 17 12:21:30 2017. Update Sunday: The C looks like an even mixture of R160s and R46s. I only saw one train of R32s and I only glimpsed it in the tunnel as it went past so I couldn't tell if it was a C or an A. I saw a set of R32s with A signage laid up at 135th Street on my way home tho. |
|
|
| (1458690) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Sun Dec 17 21:44:46 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 17 12:21:30 2017. Theoretically, there is a way the 8 car R179 sets could be converted to 10 cars sets without having any cars left over. Right now there are exactly equal numbers of A and B cars in each 8 car set. The 10 car trains could be configured as follows:Half the trains would be ABBBA+ABBBA The other half would be AAABA+ABBBA Notice there are exactly equal numbers of A and B cars in the two sets. This assumes the cab end of the second A car in the second set would be coupled to the cab end of the third A car, and that the non cab end of the first A car could be linked to the non cab end of the second A car. In this way five 8 car sets could be converted to four 10 car sets. However there may be technical issues that preclude this. |
|
|
| (1458693) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Dec 17 22:02:38 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 17 12:21:30 2017. Could they get some dumb trailers with minimal mechanical components? Since everything needed for a set of cars is already in the other 4, they just need passenger space, maybe some motors, perhaps a compressor.Or, change their 179 order and turn some A cars into B cars. Same total, different configuration (and arguably less expensive, cab components probably are more expensive). |
|
|
| (1458694) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by checkthedoorlight on Sun Dec 17 22:11:42 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by VictorM on Sun Dec 17 21:44:46 2017. You can't have two A cars coupled together in one unit, let alone 3! Those B cars feed to the A units.ABBA ABBBA ABBBBA or 2 B's and a C unit thrown in are the only combinations that work. |
|
|
| (1458695) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Dec 17 22:17:22 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sun Dec 17 19:35:35 2017. There's 224 R32s, I think one set of 8 was sacrificed at some point after the great SMEE culling. |
|
|
| (1458700) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Ian Lennon on Sun Dec 17 23:01:33 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by randyo on Sun Dec 17 16:41:25 2017. Bombardier should throw us several for all the delays. |
|
|
| (1458703) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Dec 18 00:07:33 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Ian Lennon on Sun Dec 17 23:01:33 2017. Except that the R-160s are not Bombardier. In order to insure mechanical reliability they should be from the same manufacturer as the R-160s as was the case with the R-188s. |
|
|
| (1458707) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Dec 18 00:19:21 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Dec 17 22:02:38 2017. There were some rumors that the R-179 order was supposed to be modified to provide more 5 car units than originally planned but I haven’t heard any confirmation. |
|
|
| (1458713) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Dec 18 06:53:34 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Dec 17 22:17:22 2017. Does the 224 or 232 R32s left include the units that have been assigned to garbage trains? If so, that's even less cars in revenue service.But either way, maybe some of those sets could be pulled off the garbage routes. Couldn't those trains be operated with a locomotive and a rider? |
|
|
| (1458714) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Mon Dec 18 07:00:33 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Dec 17 22:17:22 2017. I think one set of 8 was sacrificed at some point after the great SMEE culling.Scrapped, reefed or cannibalized for parts ? Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1458716) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Dec 18 07:13:14 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sun Dec 17 19:35:35 2017. There's been 222 R32's for the longest time, and they are split between the C and J train.Still no explanation as to where the extra 36 cars are coming from. The M is running to ENY rather than Metro Ave, but then 24 R42's are captive to the M shuttle. There is no surplus coming from that. I think this is all about the 53rd Street outage. Why would they want a R32 with a MDBF of just 33,000 miles to takeover much of the A service. They still do have AC issues in tunnels in the summer. |
|
|
| (1458717) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Dec 18 07:14:42 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Dec 17 22:02:38 2017. Change orders cost money, such as if they vary the counts of A and B cars. |
|
|
| (1458738) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Mon Dec 18 09:31:36 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Joe V on Mon Dec 18 07:13:14 2017. I thought the 222 was the number of cars in passenger service and the rest in work duty. The rest meaning 18 extra cars. |
|
|
| (1458773) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Ian Lennon on Mon Dec 18 12:37:55 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by randyo on Mon Dec 18 00:07:33 2017. I am obviously talking about the R-179. |
|
|
| (1458778) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Dec 18 13:05:29 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Ian Lennon on Mon Dec 18 12:37:55 2017. OK, thanks. It would actually make sense for the MTA to put Bombardier’s feet to the fire by actually demanding the extra cars at no additional expense under possible threat of cancelling the contract entirely due to malfeasance. I seem to recall that the MTA had a similar problem with the second production run of the R-68s (not the 68As) and almost cancelled the remainder of that contract. |
|
|
| (1458786) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Dec 18 13:22:40 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 17 12:21:30 2017. Place them all on the J M Z lines... Move the 32s back to the A C, use some for the rush hour B,use 8 car 68s for the G. |
|
|
| (1458789) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Dec 18 13:32:35 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Edwards! on Mon Dec 18 13:22:40 2017. You can't run R32's on the Southern Division and risk emergency detour via Tunnel. |
|
|
| (1458812) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Dec 18 15:04:49 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Joe V on Mon Dec 18 13:32:35 2017. You would think after all this time, that the clearance problem in the tunnel would be corrected! |
|
|
| (1458887) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Dec 18 19:56:21 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Bill Newkirk on Mon Dec 18 07:00:33 2017. Parts. |
|
|
| (1458935) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Tue Dec 19 08:26:09 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by randyo on Mon Dec 18 15:04:49 2017. There is no need. The cars will be retired by the early 2020s. |
|
|
| (1458936) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Dec 19 08:32:03 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Tue Dec 19 08:26:09 2017. I don't think that should matter. It decreases flexibility in the event of something happening. |
|
|
| (1458965) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by jrf2 on Tue Dec 19 11:53:25 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Dec 19 08:32:03 2017. What about the museum trains? |
|
|
| (1458970) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Tue Dec 19 12:06:37 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Dec 19 08:32:03 2017. It shouldn't matter after the R32s are retired. |
|
|
| (1458971) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by murray1575 on Tue Dec 19 12:08:19 2017, in response to R46 return to the C, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sat Dec 16 15:04:54 2017. I don't see the reasoning behind this swap. It seems to me that 8 car R46 trains should stay on the A and 10 car R32 trains should be run on the C since the seating arrangements on the R46 are better for the A line and the increased number of doors per train would be better for the C where the average trip tends to be shorter. Unfortunately there aren't enough R160 5 car sets to equip the C with them nor are there enough R179 5 car sets on order. |
|
|
| (1458973) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Tue Dec 19 12:24:29 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by randyo on Mon Dec 18 13:05:29 2017. Could these early R110 cars be separated, and added to lengthen some four section R179 sets.Shirly, the additional 15ft. total could still fit, and clear most IND platforms, and tunnels. The R110B cars were ordered from Bombardier in December 1989.[1] They were designed to test various new technology features that would eventually be incorporated into the R143 and were not intended for long-term production use. There were nine R110B cars, numbered 3001-3009. The cars were linked into three-car sets by consecutive numbers. The cab cars are powered with four traction motors each, while the center car of the 3-car set is an un-powered, cab-less trailer. The cars are typical B-Division size, except that they are 67 feet long, a length shared by the BMT Standards, and the SIRT ME-1, along with all of the SEPTA's Broad Street Subway cars and the current PATCO fleets. The R110B uses the standard subway train control stand, but with some added computerized features. The layout of the controls is desk-style, with switches, lamps, and a single lever to control traction and braking. A CRT with function keys on either side is used to monitor speed, train status, etc. The R110B's design is similar to that of the R68 cars now in use on the BMT and IND services, but the ends are more square and use Lexan glass in the windows. Car ends that do not have cabs have an expanse of glass. The seating configuration is the same as in the R68, but the materials are more advanced. A matte plastic is used that allows scratches, tags and stubborn graffiti to be buffed out using a light abrasive. The seats have a reduced bucket. Internal surfaces are tan fiberglass and plastic, with accents provided using a plastic mosaic applique. The floor uses linoleum with a pattern of slightly raised and textured squares. The R110B cars have handholds for shorter passengers. There are rollsign line indicators in the front of the train, LCD destination signs (on windows) and interior strip route guides on top of the ad space, and LED indication of stops ahead on both sides. Another new and important feature was the passenger intercom, which could be used for emergencies. |
|
|
| (1458977) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Tue Dec 19 12:44:05 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Tue Dec 19 12:06:37 2017. Yeah I suppose it shouldn't but it's still chump. |
|
|
| (1458982) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by checkthedoorlight on Tue Dec 19 13:57:39 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Avid Reader on Tue Dec 19 12:24:29 2017. No.Stop. Please stop. |
|
|
| (1458997) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Tue Dec 19 16:03:00 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by checkthedoorlight on Tue Dec 19 13:57:39 2017. Yes, proceed to GO! |
|
|
| (1459006) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Tue Dec 19 16:54:03 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Avid Reader on Tue Dec 19 16:03:00 2017. There's at least 2 sets of 32s still running on the C as of today. |
|
|
| (1459049) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Dec 19 20:39:21 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by murray1575 on Tue Dec 19 12:08:19 2017. Probably the same reason that when the G was out of 6 car R46s, the full length trains were 10 car R32s. The idea would be to stamp out any possible confusion over how long the train is. For the C I bet the thinking is, if you usually drive an R32 and it happens to be 2 cars longer, you might forget and pull up to the 8. But if you suddenly get an R46, it's a constant reminder that it's not business as usual. |
|
|
| (1459057) | |
Re: R46 return to the C |
|
|
Posted by r17-6599 on Tue Dec 19 21:25:23 2017, in response to Re: R46 return to the C, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Dec 19 20:39:21 2017. If you operate 8 car R32s, the marker is placed accordingly. An 8 car R46 would not be the same car marker position, but most likely at the 10. Could also lead to confusion. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
