|
|
| Re: R-160 Update (313363) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 9 |
||
|
| (314350) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Sep 22 17:39:23 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Subterranean Railway on Fri Sep 22 17:16:15 2006. It was just a simple question. |
|
|
| (314352) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Fri Sep 22 17:41:43 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Sep 22 17:39:23 2006. You posted: "There (sic) not getting rid of the R46's on the F."Sounds like speculation to me. |
|
|
| (314353) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Sep 22 17:43:36 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Subterranean Railway on Fri Sep 22 17:41:43 2006. So? I don't care now. I just want the R46's to stay on the (F). |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (314354) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Fri Sep 22 17:47:21 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Sep 22 17:43:36 2006. Ah, the post was expressing your desires, not your beliefs about actual car→line assignments.*Subterranean Railway understands.* |
|
|
| (314356) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Sep 22 17:49:14 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Subterranean Railway on Fri Sep 22 17:47:21 2006. Thank you.*SBK respects you* |
|
|
| (314382) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Fri Sep 22 18:57:41 2006, in response to R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Sep 22 16:28:28 2006. Probably the 6. |
|
|
| (314488) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sat Sep 23 00:43:41 2006, in response to R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Sep 22 16:28:28 2006. Dont know about that yet havent heard a peep about the 7 getting any tech's yet as well.. |
|
|
| (314491) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sat Sep 23 01:01:30 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Fri Sep 22 14:43:16 2006. (Hits self on head) yeah my bad on that one. Im sure they will keep some of the wayside protection anyway. Still lots of work to be done.. |
|
|
| (314503) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sat Sep 23 03:42:38 2006, in response to R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Sep 22 16:28:28 2006. Last I heard, the (6) and (7) lines would trade cars.But I've heard NOTHING in the past month or two. So for now, things are staying the way they are. |
|
|
| (314517) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Sep 23 07:38:43 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Fri Sep 22 13:33:04 2006. I'm not sure how you can get more trains onto the QB express tracks CBTC or not. As it is it is rather congested out there. CBTC does nothing to reduce station dwell time, especially at Roosevelt Ave. for example. |
|
|
| (314518) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Sep 23 07:40:06 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Fri Sep 22 18:57:41 2006. I don't think they'll appreciate losing their new cars. |
|
|
| (314519) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Sep 23 07:42:36 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by This is Grand on Thu Sep 21 17:13:49 2006. At least 50% of the psots on this board are speculative. |
|
|
| (314522) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Sep 23 07:54:22 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Sep 23 07:38:43 2006. CBTC does nothing to reduce station dwell time, especially at Roosevelt Ave. for example.More trains means shorter headways. Shorter headways mean fewer people on platforms. More trains means fewer people in each train. Fewer people on trains and on platforms mean fewer people trying to move in and out of trains in the station. Fewer people trying to move in and out of trains in station means less dwell time. A 600 foot train composed of 60 footers has 25% more door space than a 600 foot train composed of 75 footers. More door space means that more people can get in and out of cars simultaneously. More people getting in and out of cars simultaneously means that all the people will get in and out of cars more quickly. All the people getting in and out of cars more quickly means less dwell time. |
|
|
| (314530) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 08:52:41 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Eric B on Thu Sep 21 22:10:27 2006. I beg your pardon but I have the memo in front of me, now. It is 64 cars (8 trains) to fill out the 'L line. |
|
|
| (314531) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sat Sep 23 08:56:17 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 08:52:41 2006. So basically, those cars will replace all the remaining R42's on the (L), right? |
|
|
| (314536) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 09:16:19 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sat Sep 23 08:56:17 2006. IF the 64 additional cars are desiganted to fill out the L line and there are R-42s there, now, I'd assume that you are correct. |
|
|
| (314545) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Sep 23 09:47:06 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Railman718 on Sat Sep 23 00:43:41 2006. Well,Its in the Capital Program report @MTA.info.I believe 47 single R142 cars will be purchased to INSERT between sets to make 11 car trains. Now the questions remains what MAIN LINE will lose their NTT cars,swapped with the 7's R62A? |
|
|
| (314547) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sat Sep 23 09:54:07 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Edwards! on Sat Sep 23 09:47:06 2006. Yes i know about those 47 "A" Cars that are to be brought..Thats has been talked about for a year heck almost 2 years as a matter of fact So far havent heard that they are on TA property yet... So you are looking at another year or two maybe... I will be over in the B Div messing around with those trains when they get here.. |
|
|
| (314553) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Sep 23 10:32:05 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Railman718 on Sat Sep 23 09:54:07 2006. Yeah..None of the cars have be PURCHASED yet. I feel it was a statement of intentions..what they plan to do before CBTC is introduced on the 7. In any case..I believe somebody WON'T be happy. Perhaps the Number 5 riders? The line only operates into Manhattan PART TIME...so replacing its NTT cars with R62A's won't hurt as much.. Whats your thoughts on this? |
|
|
| (314554) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sat Sep 23 10:34:56 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Edwards! on Sat Sep 23 10:32:05 2006. Im a Train Operator..To me a train is a train and if im taught how to operate it i will.. |
|
|
| (314556) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Sep 23 10:38:35 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Edwards! on Sat Sep 23 10:32:05 2006. I dunno if it should be the 5 since the 2 and 5 swaps cars from the yard and during the rush hours.The 6 would be the most likely choice since it is isolated and there's more than enough to swap w/the 7. And if there's some R142A's left over on the 6 then they could swap those R142A's for te 4's R142's. |
|
|
| (314557) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Sep 23 10:43:06 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Sep 23 07:54:22 2006. But I still don't see them moving all those R46's over to another yard. If they were moved where would they go? |
|
|
| (314558) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Sep 23 10:45:09 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Sep 23 07:40:06 2006. Yeah, but it's either the 6 or the 2/5. And since I ride the 2 more often now, I say make it the 6. |
|
|
| (314560) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Sep 23 10:49:48 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Edwards! on Sat Sep 23 09:47:06 2006. Only if they can get the CBTC thing to work on the L and so far the L is still manual. Besides I still say they should just give the 7 brand new trains rather than hand me downs. |
|
|
| (314561) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Sep 23 10:57:46 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Sep 23 07:54:22 2006. Very nicely argued.It will be interesting to see what actually happens with railcar assignments and retirements over the next 5 years. |
|
|
| (314563) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Sep 23 12:07:44 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 09:16:19 2006. Additional cars?Im wondering..340 cars are due to run in service over on the Eastern Division.. Are they going to place the ALREADY PURCHASED cars in L service or is this going to be an ADD ON to the PRESENT contract in between the OPTION ORDER CARS[912 car order]? |
|
|
| (314565) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 12:46:46 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Sep 23 10:49:48 2006. CBTC on the L works and works well. I've seen it in operation and was impressed with the system. The problem with CBTC now is similar to the problem that keeps R-160s off of the old BMT lines and that should be resolved easily. |
|
|
| (314567) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Ian Lennon on Sat Sep 23 12:53:00 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Sep 22 13:29:19 2006. The R-46's were originally designed to operate with ATO. I am guessing it wouldn't be hard to install the CBTC equipment, as many of the provisions necessary are probably still there. |
|
|
| (314569) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 13:03:21 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Ian Lennon on Sat Sep 23 12:53:00 2006. That would be wholey incorrect. By the early to mid 80s, most of the ATO equipment had been removed from the R-46s. By 1991, the balance was removed along with P-wire and the old control groups. The R-46 of today is basically a 75' long R-42 with no ATO capabilities. Even as such, the old ATO equipment delivered with the R-46s used technology that's now 30 years old. I doubt that it would be salvagable even if it was still in place. |
|
|
| (314575) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Ian Lennon on Sat Sep 23 13:43:38 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 13:03:21 2006. I meant the provisions necessary, not the equipment itself. |
|
|
| (314580) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 14:47:26 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Ian Lennon on Sat Sep 23 13:43:38 2006. Sorry that i misunderstood your comments. By provisions, what are you referring to? |
|
|
| (314581) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Sep 23 14:53:15 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 14:47:26 2006. If they removed the ATO equipment during GOH..would the "slots" still be present?"IF so"..couldn't the CBTC equipment use it..? |
|
|
| (314585) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Sep 23 15:02:42 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Sep 23 07:42:36 2006. 50%? More like 95% .... |
|
|
| (314589) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Sep 23 15:05:29 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Sep 23 10:43:06 2006. Most of Jamaica's R46's run on the local tracks (or the G) anyway. All the R32's are assigned to the E or F (except for one or two R32 R trains, including an afernoon put-in from Coney Island at 59th St). |
|
|
| (314605) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Sat Sep 23 15:42:00 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Railman718 on Sat Sep 23 09:54:07 2006. Who said you can come over to the B Div. The B Div already is flooded with A Div personal. |
|
|
| (314625) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Sep 23 18:40:49 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Edwards! on Sat Sep 23 14:53:15 2006. You could equip an R44,R46,R68 for CBTC. It would be a question of how much it would cost to do it, and of course, would CBTC start operating on any of the lines that these cars serve before they are retired?Obviously the R32/38/40/42s will not be getting CBTC equipmeent because they are going to be headed for the scrapper before long. |
|
|
| (314645) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Sat Sep 23 20:35:28 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 08:52:41 2006. Oh, so you must be talking about those additional cars they recently announced for the L line service increase requirement. I was talking about the 160A-2 base order of 60 cars in 5 car sets, which of course can not be for the East. |
|
|
| (314646) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Sat Sep 23 20:39:29 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 12:46:46 2006. As a T/O on the L line, I say CBTC is working fine. The problem I see mostly now is with the older signal going down and causing the CBTC system having to be bypass thought that Signal. I like how it works and what it can do for a line by having less spacing between trains.Robert |
|
|
| (314655) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Sep 23 21:14:26 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Sep 23 10:45:09 2006. Sounds NIMBY like to me! You are saying "give the #7 new cars but take them away from another line, not mine". |
|
|
| (314656) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Olney Terminal on Sat Sep 23 21:17:07 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Sep 23 21:14:26 2006. Actually the ideal line to give up its cars would be the 4. The 2 and 5 share equipment and the 6 has local and express service, so cars with electronic signs are more needed there. |
|
|
| (314657) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Olney Terminal on Sat Sep 23 21:18:16 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Edwards! on Sat Sep 23 10:32:05 2006. http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=314656 |
|
|
| (314678) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Sep 23 22:26:24 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Railman718 on Sat Sep 23 01:01:30 2006. Yeah, even on the L they seem to plan on keeping some wayside protection. |
|
|
| (314680) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 22:32:35 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Eric B on Sat Sep 23 20:35:28 2006. them's be the one |
|
|
| (314681) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Sep 23 22:34:02 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Sep 23 07:38:43 2006. CBTC does nothing to reduce station dwell time, especially at Roosevelt Ave. for example.No, but it does allow the train directly behind the one at Roosevelt to get in the station more quickly. That means less people crowd onto this train, and it gets out quicker, so that the next one can enter, etc. But even the MTA's assessment of CBTC's benefit has been reduced. They used to claim operation of up to 40tph. Now, they're claiming 33 tph. Typical. |
|
|
| (314683) | |
R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Sep 23 22:39:27 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 13:03:21 2006. While we're on the topic of the R46's and their various removed technologies, was there ever a function known as 'selective speed service'? I've heard that this feature allowed trains to operate at speeds up to 65 mph, on revenue trackage, but that this practice was discontinued due to a rear ending at 53rd/Lex. If this feature DID exist, when was it removed? And for the record, when did R44/46s loose the ability to achieve high speeds? I'm assuming that it was at their GOH, and that they had standard motors installed. But before then: did they still have the capability to reach 75mph, if their governors (of whatever type) were removed?I hope my questions weren't too confusing. |
|
|
| (314686) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Sep 23 22:48:28 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Sep 23 15:02:42 2006. That's why he precluded it with 'at least'. |
|
|
| (314690) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Westinghouse XCB248S on Sat Sep 23 22:51:35 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Sep 23 18:40:49 2006. I think heard somewhere that the Westinghouse Amrail R68 Subway Cars have CBTC capabilites. Is this true? |
|
|
| (314691) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by 9 local on Sat Sep 23 22:53:22 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Olney Terminal on Sat Sep 23 21:17:07 2006. hmmmm..."This is a Manhattan-bound 6 Express train. The next stop is 77th Street." The 6-train riders managed with the R-62As and the Redbirds before the R142As showed up; why don't you think they can manage now? |
|
|
| (314692) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Sep 23 23:01:39 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Westinghouse XCB248S on Sat Sep 23 22:51:35 2006. It was reported on one of these boards that at least one R68 had the cabinet for the equipment installed. But, none of the equipment itself was installed.In reality, with enough capital, you could install CBTC on any car class. |
|
|
| (314693) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Sep 23 23:02:41 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by 9 local on Sat Sep 23 22:53:22 2006. I don't think it's that they can't manage, i think its that they would be better off with electronic signs. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 9 |
||
