|
|
| R179 cars (1499440) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (1499442) | |
Re: R179 cars |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 9 10:13:03 2019, in response to R179 cars, posted by andy on Wed Jan 9 09:35:44 2019. I doubt that's an R179. That's probably the photo they found that carried the least headache with copyright. I'm not sure whether to hope they lied for convenience or that they ignorantly think every NTT is an R179. Neither makes me happy. |
|
|
| (1499446) | |
Re: R179 cars |
|
|
Posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Wed Jan 9 10:17:47 2019, in response to R179 cars, posted by andy on Wed Jan 9 09:35:44 2019. Yes, no R179 was running on the C line yesterday..... |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1499447) | |
Re: R179 cars |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Wed Jan 9 10:44:06 2019, in response to R179 cars, posted by andy on Wed Jan 9 09:35:44 2019. |
|
|
| (1499461) | |
Re: R179 cars |
|
|
Posted by Allan on Wed Jan 9 12:07:12 2019, in response to R179 cars, posted by andy on Wed Jan 9 09:35:44 2019. Well, Bombardier has done it again.Shades of R46s. |
|
|
| (1499463) | |
Re: R179 cars |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Wed Jan 9 12:22:02 2019, in response to R179 cars, posted by andy on Wed Jan 9 09:35:44 2019. 179s can't run on the L cause they don't have CBTC equipment installed.As for the article, I still think the 179s will turn out to be good cars. R46, 62A and R142/As had their issues when new and they were corrected and those cars are fine now. Also the article said the 32s will be retired by the 179s, I guess since Cuomo stopped the L shutdown the original plan is back on track. |
|
|
| (1499482) | |
Re: R179 cars |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Jan 9 14:43:49 2019, in response to Re: R179 cars, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Wed Jan 9 12:22:02 2019. New subway cars shouldn't have issues when they are delivered to the customer. They have a test track, they can do weight simulations, they can put a device onto one of the pins to simulate continuous door operation...……. |
|
|
| (1499501) | |
Re: R179 cars |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 9 16:14:37 2019, in response to Re: R179 cars, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Jan 9 14:43:49 2019. I agree, but all the cars with unfamiliar technology had problems when first delivered to the NYCTS and that goes back to the R-10s which had truck problems and brake problems which were eventually dealt with. Since problems with the safety springs were mentioned, why didn’t the MTA go back to pantograph gates between the cars since unlike 75 ft cars, the IRT cars and the BMT/IND 60 footers don't have clearance problems with them. |
|
|
| (1499505) | |
Re: R179 cars |
|
|
Posted by MorningsideHeightsM100 on Wed Jan 9 16:24:23 2019, in response to Re: R179 cars, posted by randyo on Wed Jan 9 16:14:37 2019. Because its assumed that the cars are coupled, at least, semi-permanently and panto gates are more beneficial for cars that are going to be uncoupled more often than not. In the case of the married pair models (R-32 to R-42 insofar as BMT/IND is concerned), the #2 sides were linked by spring-coil "barriers" at platform level, like everything after it. They only had pantos on the #1 end. |
|
|
| (1499532) | |
Re: R179 cars |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 9 18:18:16 2019, in response to Re: R179 cars, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 9 10:13:03 2019. Update: they changed the photo on the link!Anybody with a printed paper know what photo they used there? |
|
|
| (1499537) | |
Re: R179 cars |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Wed Jan 9 18:55:58 2019, in response to Re: R179 cars, posted by Allan on Wed Jan 9 12:07:12 2019. That sounds like an exaggerated comparison |
|
|
| (1499620) | |
Re: R179 cars |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 10 15:37:59 2019, in response to Re: R179 cars, posted by Allan on Wed Jan 9 12:07:12 2019. Bombardier die not build the R46.Plus the problem was the trucks, mechanically they were good cars, except for all the P-Wire failures! |
|
|
| (1499621) | |
Re: R179 cars |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 10 15:41:27 2019, in response to Re: R179 cars, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 10 15:37:59 2019. Correction and amend:Change "die" to "did" add: Pullman Standard built the R46 to TA specs, so don't blame them for P-Wire failures. If transit had better maintenance, namely taking better care of the batteries then, you would not of had P-Wire failures. |
|
|
| (1499663) | |
Re: R179 cars |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jan 11 00:04:12 2019, in response to Re: R179 cars, posted by MorningsideHeightsM100 on Wed Jan 9 16:24:23 2019. R-32s and 38shad pantograph gates at both ends of each car. When the R-40s came in, it was anticipated that due to the slope ends pantograph gates wouldn’t work and springs were to be used. When the TA modified the slant ends of the R-40s, the TA went with gates and did so with the R-42s as well. After experimenting with various types of barriers for the 75 footers including Lo-V style pantograph gates the MTA opted for springs on all 75 footers but returned to pantograph gates for the IRT cars until the NTTs on all divisions which have springs. |
|
|
