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 3 of 9

Next Page >  

(1146456)

view threaded

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

Posted by Edwards! on Sat Mar 24 23:12:55 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 24 06:09:25 2012.

not so..50 cars to the J/M/Z.
The rest head over to Pitkin for A service.

(1146459)

view threaded

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

Posted by HANDBRAKE on Sat Mar 24 23:15:56 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 22:17:42 2012.

Cars from the IRT West Side Broadway line (#1) can access the 207th Street yard easily via a ramp just north of the 207th Street elevated station. So sending Broadway IRT cars due for inspections, and light repairs to 207th Street in a consolidated facility is a possibility, and add switching moves. 240th Street is a tight place to begin with, but as far as a complete shutdown, I don't believe it will be.

(1146462)

view threaded

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

Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 24 23:17:36 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 17:45:03 2012.

Does anybody remember when the C train became 8 cars outside of rush? Before or after the R27/30 was gone?

(1146463)

view threaded

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

Posted by HANDBRAKE on Sat Mar 24 23:20:16 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Railman718 on Sat Mar 24 22:32:27 2012.

B Division line up.

60'6" Cars
Car Numbers - Car Class - No.of Cars - Years Built - Mfr.

3348-3949 R32 222 1964-65 BUDD
4840-4949 R42 50 1969-70 St. Louis
8101-8312 R143 212 2001-03 Kawasaki
8313-9974 R160/A 1662 2003-05 Kawasaki

75' Cars
Car Numbers - Car Class - No. of Cars - Years Built - Mfr.

5482-6258 R46 752 1975-77 PULLMAN
2500-2924 R68 425 1986-88 WE/AM
5001-5200 R68A 200 1988-89 Kawasaki

(1146467)

view threaded

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

Posted by LRG5784 on Sat Mar 24 23:27:12 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by HANDBRAKE on Sat Mar 24 23:15:56 2012.

240th would probably become a layup yard if anything. That's my guess.

(1146470)

view threaded

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

Posted by Edwards! on Sat Mar 24 23:34:51 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 18:26:22 2012.

hold on..dont you mean 40-50 4 CARS FOR THE EASTERN LINES..with the balance going to the A line?

(1146471)

view threaded

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

Posted by WillD on Sat Mar 24 23:37:00 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by J trainloco on Sat Mar 24 18:02:31 2012.

How is the vehicle shown in the picture you posted substantially different than a typical metro vehicle?

It isn't! And that's the beauty of ordering something like that. You can effectively create one large fleet from what otherwise would be two smaller fleets, thereby reducing O&M costs. It is the commonality with the light rail North Shore fleet which is the primary selling point ordering something along those lines for the South Shore lines.

You said you wanted to order LRVs for SIR. If something is totally grade separated and using high platforms, IMHO its not light rail anymore.

But I didn't say totally grade separated. There are plenty of LRT systems which have some segment that is grade separated. What the LRT provides is flexibility in routing while a heavy rail alternative is entirely wedded to the North Shore line alignment.

If you're going to go to the trouble of building rail infrastructure, I would think we would want to keep it grade separated. If we're going to make significant parts of the line street running, then maybe the studies evaluating BRT will show that it is a better option. As we all know, MTA doesn't exactly have plentiful capital dollars laying around.

That may well be, but light rail occupies the sweet spot combining low capital and low O&M costs with some flexibility in using the alignment. The 2004 study is valuable because it's the last one before the BRT figures become so optimistic they go off into the realm of science fiction.

As SEPTA has demonstrated with the Market-Frankford line, and NYCT has shown with the crosstown line, you can operate heavy rail with OPTO.

Oh of course. But you'd have to push the OPTO arrangement past the UTU. Going with an LRT makes it easier to do OPTO from the beginning.

Additionally, just because the capacity would be there doesn't mean it would be used. The present SIR doesn't operate anywhere near 12 minute headways for most of the day.

Those figures were for peak headways, my apologies.

At the end of the day, how would a "light rail" vehicle that was designed for high platforms, ran on 3rd rail and matched NYCT car dimensions be significantly different from a heavy rail vehicle that did the same?

Because the North Shore Line would be unlikely to be operated with that vehicle. It'd be operated with a 70% low floor, catenary powered LRV similar to those used by NJT just north of there. They may be a different vehicle, but as with Cologne's Flexity fleet the high floor third rail equipped units would be largely mechanically compatible with the low floor units for the North Shore.

(1146472)

view threaded

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

Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 24 23:41:06 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 22:14:33 2012.

I'd rather have more frequent service than longer trains. And the C frequency and reliability isn't that great to begin with.

(1146473)

view threaded

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

Posted by WillD on Sat Mar 24 23:41:31 2012, in response to 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.

obviously the study ignored Cleveland Red Line OPTO w/ onboard fare collection at low ridership times

To be fair they did that with TPTO on Staten Island. Also it's worth noting that Cleveland is now a proof of payment system on the Red Line.

The LR/HR issue is bogus.

Yes, that's the point I'm trying to make. You can order equipment which is effectively the same but fulfills the same roles traditionally filled by an LRV and a subway car.

(1146474)

view threaded

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

Posted by WillD on Sat Mar 24 23:43:53 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 24 19:19:01 2012.

Except that the ADA will not permit such non-level boarding on new-build systems and wheelchair lifts are not operationally feasible. It's either level or you're not building anything.

(1146475)

view threaded

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

Posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 23:48:10 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by HANDBRAKE on Sat Mar 24 23:15:56 2012.

Ok, thanks.

(1146477)

view threaded

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

Posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 23:48:56 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by HANDBRAKE on Sat Mar 24 23:07:44 2012.

Very informative, thanks.

(1146479)

view threaded

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

Posted by WillD on Sat Mar 24 23:52:55 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Mar 24 17:51:01 2012.

As was mentioned you can follow the ROW on Google Maps. IMO most of the ROW appears to be clear, but the most challenging segment will be along Richmond Terrace, particularly past the shipyards west of Snug Harbor. This are would undoubtedly require a bypass of some sort, be it a new-build elevated structure, or simply some amount of street-running to avoid the area.


View Larger Map

(1146480)

view threaded

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

Posted by HANDBRAKE on Sat Mar 24 23:53:02 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Edwards! on Sat Mar 24 23:34:51 2012.

The cars are not yet on the property, so car assignments are like vaporware, just as train car lengths.

(1146481)

view threaded

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

Posted by WillD on Sun Mar 25 00:06:16 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by randyo on Sat Mar 24 20:31:40 2012.

Don't forget the entire CTA and I believe also Boston's Blue Line and also Philly's Broad St Line.

I'm not sure what this refers to. Yes, grade crossings as the CTA utilizes are a possibility, but more extensive grade level running may be required. Yes, the MBTA Blue line uses catenary, but the North Shore line's LRT operation has, in almost all studies, been contemplated as a low floor operation which is undeniably an LRT. I'm not sure in what way the Broad Street subway is in any way like the prior two examples because it is a heavy rail subway in the mold of the BMT.

To me it seems to be a foregone conclusion that if the North Shore line is build with the LRT alternative then it will be a low floor line largely compatible with the HBLRT on the other side of the Bayonne Bridge. To that end it would be advantageous to order rolling stock which is compatible with the 90 foor, 70% low floor LRVs to be operated on the North Shore but equipped with high floors and third rail shoes to operate on the South Shore. That way we maintain one large fleet with trucks, power electrics, and other components shared between the two variants instead of a small fleet of R179s alongside a small fleet of LRVs for the North Shore with no parts commonality.

(1146486)

view threaded

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

Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Mar 25 01:06:46 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Sand Box John on Sat Mar 24 22:28:09 2012.

Thank you for the explanation - and 4018 is still gadding about (last seen on the Blue Line @ L'Enfant) whilst 1077 is likely a bunch of aluminium cans by now.

wayne


(1146487)

view threaded

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

Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Mar 25 01:09:43 2012, in response to And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by G1Ravage on Fri Mar 23 18:07:14 2012.

Has it been determined how and IF there will be a split between the 4-units and the 5-units? Maybe 40 @5 cars and 25 @ 4 cars?

wayne


(1146488)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 01:13:41 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 18:39:04 2012.

You are absolutely wrong. Why don't you check your facts first before making a posting that really makes you look like a schmuck (Terrapin's cousin or brother, perhaps)..

(1146489)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 01:15:54 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Mar 24 21:56:35 2012.

Another high/low platform operation was Pittsburgh, and I believe Brussels still has it (but am not certain).

(1146491)

view threaded

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

Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 01:35:25 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 01:15:54 2012.

And Hiroshima Electric Railway until recently.

(1146495)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 01:41:12 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by WillD on Sun Mar 25 00:06:16 2012.

What's left of the North Shore line is high platform. Certainly consideration must be given to the cost of removing the high platforms and installing low platforms. Perhaps the best solution is a vehicle which can operate high platform/low platform on both the HB system and the entire SIR.

(1146499)

view threaded

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

Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Mar 25 01:55:14 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 01:15:54 2012.

right you are. its been years since I was there, but I do remember the short low platform at the downtown loop station.

(1146500)

view threaded

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

Posted by WillD on Sun Mar 25 02:15:00 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 01:41:12 2012.

What's left of the North Shore line is high platform. Certainly consideration must be given to the cost of removing the high platforms and installing low platforms.

It'd be very straightforward to modify the track bed in the course of construction to raise the tracks by around 2 feet to provide level boarding for the LRV at the "high" platform. That would be a lot easier to do than to try to make a car work with level boarding at both high and low platforms.

(1146501)

view threaded

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

Posted by R30A on Sun Mar 25 02:20:02 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Edwards! on Sat Mar 24 23:34:51 2012.

No, it seems clear to me that is not what he means. He means 40-50 cars for the A, and the balance in 4 car sets for the C and eastern division.

(1146503)

view threaded

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

Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Mar 25 02:42:57 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 01:41:12 2012.

Certainly consideration must be given to the cost of removing the high platforms and installing low platforms

Except that presumes that platforms dating back to the 1920s or so which haven't been maintained in nearly sixty years are still going to be used. It's highly likely that if the line is (re-)built, anything resembling a platform will be removed and replaced with a modern structure, and at that point, it seems silly to put in a more expensive high floor platform, especially when there are plenty of low-floor light rail cars with level boarding on the market, and the line is unlikely to actually connect with the rest of NYCTA.

(1146506)

view threaded

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

Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 25 04:36:45 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Mar 25 02:42:57 2012.

it seems silly to put in a more expensive high floor platform

Not when St. George has them. You know what seems silly? Creating extra facilities and duplicate spare-parts inventories for nonstandard equipment that can't be used elsewhere on NYCTA.

(1146511)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 07:39:47 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by R30A on Sun Mar 25 02:20:02 2012.

Maybe the 50 cars for the A, and a reduced spare ratio for the R32/R42 replacemnents means up tp 64 R46's do go to SIR, so the rumor thay they will be modified in 2013 can make sense. All they need are 20 to relegate all R44SIR's to rush hour-only use.

(1146512)

view threaded

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

Posted by Jace on Sun Mar 25 07:41:28 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Mar 25 01:09:43 2012.

Yes. 65 fours and 8 fives.

(1146513)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 07:43:24 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by HANDBRAKE on Sat Mar 24 23:20:16 2012.

Does the 222 R32 count the 8 at Fresh Pond ?
Are there still 16 R42's laying around 207th, and the R41 pair some place else ? That would make 68.


(1146515)

view threaded

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

Posted by R30A on Sun Mar 25 08:57:58 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 07:39:47 2012.

I don't think the R179 order is doing anything for SIR. Otherwise they would have said such in the write up.

(1146518)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 09:13:45 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by WillD on Sun Mar 25 02:15:00 2012.

High level/low level cars work quite well elsewhere, surely it could be done here. San Francisco and Karlsruhe, Germany are good examples, and this method saves a lot in construction costs, especially at minor stations. While admittedly the maintenance cost for the cars themselves would probably be higher, the capital construction costs would probably be far less.

(1146532)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 10:55:01 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by R30A on Sun Mar 25 08:57:58 2012.

I was trying to make sense of the 2013 retrofit of R46's for SIR mentioned elsewhere.

(1146533)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 10:56:24 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 09:13:45 2012.

Pittsburgh cars can go either way.

(1146538)

view threaded

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

Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 11:05:44 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 09:13:45 2012.

For the record, Karlsruhe does not have any high platform stations. Its LRVs are low platform only.

(1146546)

view threaded

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

Posted by grand concourse on Sun Mar 25 11:31:35 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 07:43:24 2012.

You referring to the pair at Av X? It was there last I saw it maybe 3 weeks ago.

(1146556)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 11:57:54 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Neil Feldman on Sat Mar 24 21:27:31 2012.

Let's just hope they do not have a CTA 5K's experience. BBD have proven to be masters of cover-ups.

(1146565)

view threaded

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

Posted by Avid Reader on Sun Mar 25 12:15:36 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Neil Feldman on Sat Mar 24 21:27:31 2012.

Were there major or significant safety or service flaws noted and corrected with the R110B project?

It has been a while and it would be nice to see the benefits from the prototype.

(1146575)

view threaded

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

Posted by merrick1 on Sun Mar 25 12:53:30 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 11:57:54 2012.

I wonder if CTA had their own inspectors in the BBD plant?

You have to have your own inspectors in the contractor's plant to make sure that the work is done properly.

The Chicago "L" cars that Boeing built in the 1970's were OK because CTA had their own inspectors in the Boeing plant. MBTA and Muni did not and the Boeing LRV's they bought had major problems.

I know MTA had their own inspectors in the Orion bus plant in Oriskany, NY and the Nova bus plant in Roswell, NM in the 1990's.

I hope they do the same in subway car contractors' plants.




(1146577)

view threaded

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

Posted by HANDBRAKE on Sun Mar 25 13:00:30 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 07:43:24 2012.

The list reflects the total number of subway cars available for RT service.

(1146579)

view threaded

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

Posted by HANDBRAKE on Sun Mar 25 13:07:23 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sun Mar 25 11:31:35 2012.

The R40M/42 mixed pair are not scheduled to be retained for service, and will, unless transferred to the NYTM, are destined to be scrapped, thus far. Anything can happen.

IMO the cars should be saved for one reason The mixed R40M/42 pair represent two revenue car classes that typically are deployed as married pairs within each class. The mixed pair will save the NYTM physical space to exhibit the cars. Two cars are easier to store that four.

(1146580)

view threaded

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

Posted by HANDBRAKE on Sun Mar 25 13:12:59 2012, in response to And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by G1Ravage on Fri Mar 23 18:07:14 2012.

Where were those numbers obtained from?

(1146581)

view threaded

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

Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Mar 25 13:14:18 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by HANDBRAKE on Sun Mar 25 13:12:59 2012.

What numbers?

(1146582)

view threaded

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

Posted by Amtrak guy on Sun Mar 25 13:15:58 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Railman718 on Sat Mar 24 22:32:27 2012.

So am I wrong in assuming that "c" line and "j" line will get these new car? Also I guess that also means that the "c"line will stay at 8 cars?

(1146590)

view threaded

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

Posted by Kriston Lewis on Sun Mar 25 13:54:18 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 02:08:44 2012.

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.
In a perfect world, it would be 660 feet.

(1146591)

view threaded

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

Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Mar 25 14:01:52 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Mar 24 20:24:05 2012.

LOL!

(1146592)

view threaded

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

Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Mar 25 14:13:24 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 10:56:24 2012.

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!

(1146594)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 14:26:24 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by HANDBRAKE on Sun Mar 25 13:07:23 2012.

What I always wanted to see are 2 mismatched pairs of an R40S/R40M, coupled as 4 car set with slants facing out. It would actually look more acceptable than the R41 pair with different side fluting.

(1146596)

view threaded

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

Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Mar 25 14:35:02 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by merrick1 on Sun Mar 25 12:53:30 2012.

IINM, the CTA specs for the Boeings were fairly specific whereas the LRVs were a Boeing misdesign from the get go.

(1146601)

view threaded

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

Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 14:38:25 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Kriston Lewis on Sun Mar 25 13:54:18 2012.

240' is sufficient. Then run either:

4 car set of R160's

or

3 car R46 singles. Break up some A-A pairs.

(1146604)

view threaded

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

Posted by Avid Reader on Sun Mar 25 14:43:18 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 14:26:24 2012.

I'll call you and raise you.
The S.O.A.C. cars on opposite ends of a string of R-44's

[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9]

< Previous Page  

Page 3 of 9

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]