AndrewJC

I hope to see a set by the summer I would wait for it considering how poor the a/c is on the r62a

In my experience R62A's are quite cool in the summer, if anything more consistently than on the R142's.

I did say "Any numbers not covered up to R142 are taken by work cars". After R146 MANY numbers are not taken by anything. Not even equipment. And that wouldn't be a secret code. That would be, "Let's group up each Generation"

That's just plain false. There is no grouping system.

Actually IIRC, CBTC is already installed on half, if not more of QBL, and the expected completion date is in 2017. Not to mention, the R211's won't be coming until past 2020, and the odds are, this project will be completed by then. 

You mean the QBL CBTC job that's scheduled for a late 2014 award?

Actually, they will be very similar under the hood to the R160. That was known for a long time.

No they won't. The car builder is different and many of the components will be different. They will look similar, and that's about it.

It seems that nowadays, major design changes are reflected by the first digit number of the contract. The first design change will obviously be the R211 which was again, already stated..

Nonsense. Contract numbers are assigned sequentially.

This isn't a question of car design; it's a question of components. Two very different components can provide identical functionality, and it's up to the car builder to select the exact components. Bombardier is making different decisions with the R179 order than Alskaw made with the R160 order.

I'm waiting for someone to explain the logic in the R179s going to the .

I've explained it already: so that only two shops, not three, need to stock the equipment and train the personnel to maintain R179's. While R179's will look very similar to R160's, they will be very different cars under the hood. Minimizing the number of shops that need to work with them minimizes costs and maximizes reliability.

I'm waiting for someone to explain the logic in the R179s going anywhere else.

Other than because of the C having them and maintaining them over in Pitkin, not much. I think the r179s would be better off going to CI yd so the Q will have the trains needed to be sent up to 96th st. Or they could send the r179s to jyd to push off some r160s for the Q.

There is no question that the net increase in trains, or at least most of it, will be at Coney Island. (There may be a few additional trains added elsewhere due to ridership growth, but most are for SAS.) That doesn't mean that the new cars themselves need to go directly to Coney Island. They can go to 207th St. for the A (sharing a maintenance facility with the C), freeing up some R46's to go Jamaica for the F, freeing up some R160's to go to Coney Island for the restored W.

Keep waiting, cuz there is none lol.

 

I think that the R179 4-car sets will be split between the and the Eastern Division Lines ( / / and maybe ) while the R179 5-car sets go to Jamaica ; they were talking about QBL CBTC and how new trains would have them...

Only the R143's and 64 R160's have Canarsie CBTC packages; those are the only cars that will run on the L.

Even if the R179's were to displace 36 R46's out of Jamaica (incidentally, where would they go?), there would still be hundreds of R46's left - not helpful for CBTC. By the time QBL CBTC is completed, the R211's will probably have replaced all of Jamaica's R46's. (The only other alternative would be a major swap of Jamaica R46's and Coney Island R160's, but that's messy, and it leaves Coney Island stuck having to maintain a fleet of car that it's never maintained before, but for only a year or two before they're retired.)

I thought CBTC will go everywhere eventually soon. Aren't the R160s on the  , , ,  and gonna be CBTC compatible? I would also like to include the other NTT fleets (R142/142A).

All R143+ cars are CBTC-ready. They don't come with CBTC packages preinstalled - the final CBTC specs haven't been determined yet (Canarsie and Flushing have their own unique CBTC systems that won't be compatible with each other or with the rest of the system).

CBTC will eventually go everywhere, but it will take decades - recently resignaled lines, like Concourse, won't need their signals replaced for probably 50+ years.

To cover the 16 R46s that were flooded at 207th Street station during the Sandy. Even if those 40 R179s go to Jamaica, what will be the problem if Pitkin gets more trains? Remember the now runs 36 trains at rush hour, formerly 38.

I highly doubt that a contract signed in March 2012 included enough cars to replace cars damaged in October 2012.

The MTA didn't order 40 cars as a feel-good measure to arbitrarily increase the fleet size. (At $2 million per car, that would have been an $80 million feel-good measure.) The 40 cars are needed to open SAS, so wherever the new cars actually end up, the net increase will be at Coney Island.

I think Eric B means Pitkin Avenue depot where the and the Broad Channel-Rockaway Park are maintain, AndrewJC.

Why does Pitkin need four more trains? SAS will require more trains at Coney Island, not at Pitkin.

Not necessarily. If the 179s are similar enough to the 160s (and it's pretty much guaranteed they are), it wouldn't be any different to how East New York maintains both the 143s and the 160A1s. So in theory, the new cars could still go to Jamaica or Coney Island without having to upgrade either barn.

I didn't say anything about barn upgrades. While the R179's will look very similar to the R160's, under the hood they will be very different. They will require different parts and the maintenance procedures will probably be quite different.

The situation at East New York, with R143's, R160's, and soon R179's, is unavoidable. The R179's could go to Jamaica or Coney Island, but why would they?

If the 5 car R179's go to the A, that frees up 36 R46's to go to the F, which frees up 40 R160's to go to the reinstated W. Jamaica still only maintains R46's and R160's, and Coney Island still only maintains R68's and R68A's and R160's.

True. So I imagine they'll be to fill out on the , to push out those 46's running there.

To push them where, Coney Island? Then Jamaica would be stuck maintaining a small fleet of R179's on top of its primary fleets of R46's and R160's, and Coney Island would be stuck maintaining a small fleet of R46's on top of its primary fleets of R68's and R68A's and R160's. What's the point?

They could put them on the (Which I always thought should have NTT's, because of the long OPTO on the weekends), move the 68's back to the other CI lines, and then some of the CI 160's would go to the .

R160's could go to the G today if there were a desire to do so - no need for R179's.

Which the MTA is considering ,I doubt they are going to do put automated announcements and route strip maps on a 25 year old fleet, to costly, but The LED signs will be the only major upgrade just like they did when they rebuild the R-32 and R-46. I hope am wrong.

The R62's and R68's aren't getting LED signs.

No excitement going on. But i do not have faith R188 will run on   ...  What so silly about ... What does have it deal third track.. When new cars .... When sometimes fail what next.? 

Once the Flushing CBTC project is completed, the 7 will only be able to run R188's. The only purpose of the complex R188 order, with conversions and everything, is CBTC. If not for CBTC, a small order would have been placed for a few new trains (probably 10 car trains to go to the 1, freeing up R62A's to go to the 7) to accommodate the extension to 34th St.

Any of the other IRT cars can in principle go anywhere (except the shuttle), but the 7 will only have R188's.

I also noticed that both the CIS and the C/R were talking about shuttle buses running between 161 and 205. This was the first I was hearing of this - I thought they were only running the buses between Mosholu and 205? I also didn't see any evidence of buses at Kingsbridge, and I walked by both the and stations.

You were right - the buses were only running between Mosholu and 205th.

But this is a special case. So it's technically already known. It's a small enough order that will have no choice to go to the lines already specified and that's further reinforced by the way the order is set up. When it comes to subway cars, their minds don't change too much.

Most of the order is in 4 car sets. There's no choice but to run those cars on lines that run 8 car (480 foot) trains. Most will run on the C, completely replacing the R32's there. Some will run on the J/Z or the M, replacing the R42's now on the J/Z. (The only other line with 480 foot trains is the L, but the R179's won't be equipped with CBTC packages, so they can't run on the L.)

Only 40 cars are in 5 car sets. They could run on any 600 foot line, but my very strong hunch is that they will run on the A so that they can be maintained at the same shop that maintains the R179's on the C. Running them on any other line would require adding a small car class to a shop that wouldn't otherwise need to be set up for it.

Contrary to popular belief, transit employees can be wrong - we are all human, and until I see REAL proof that the 42s won't last to the arrival of the 179s I'm going to take any information you post regarding their demise with a very large grain of salt.

 

I don't have proof one way or the other, but is there any SMS work scheduled (or budgeted) for the R42's? If not, that suggests that they may be on the way out sooner rather than later. The current spare ratio on the R32's is extremely high, and running 24 R32's on the J/Z would still leave a lot of spares. If SMS improves reliability on the R32's, they could probably replace the R42's until the R179's arrive.

...because it has a full fleet of R142's and R142A's.

 

And, if the decision is made to place the 7's R62A's on the 4, then the cars currently assigned to the 4 will go to the 6.

(Just like the cars that used to run on the Q were moved to the B, rather than replacing the R40's on the B with R160's on the B.)

Dude, that's a T/O, I think he knows what he's talking about...

 

I have nothing at all against Snowblock - he's certainly one of the better posters around here - but T/O's don't decide on car assignments.

That leaves only the . The wouldn't need the cars, so that leaves only one place for them to go...

 

Why wouldn't the 4 need the cars?

Why are people quick to assume that the is getting the r62A's. What if the MTA thinks that the workers can manage switching the rollsigns and still be on time if they were placed on the or ?

 

There are 42 signs that need to be changed if a 2 becomes a 5 or a 5 becomes a 2. That cannot be accomplished within a matter of minutes by a train crew of two. (It could be accomplished an extra ten or so people assigned to the platform to roll signs, but that's an unnecessary expense.)

So I guess these sets being trucked to the Rockaways will remain on the even after Rockaway service is restored? What about the R42s on the ?

I doubt R32's will run on the shuttle once through service is reestablished - they can't run in OPTO service.

And by the time they get to Phases 3 and 4 (IF they ever do), then we might also see them decide to connect the SAS to the Nassau Street line instead (remember, we are a LONG way off before that would happen and anything can between now and then).

 

That would require extending platforms at the Nassau Street stations, which is easier said than done. I don't even know how it would be pulled off at Fulton Street.

It also wouldn't serve the Water Street corridor, and it would probably require cutting the J back to Chambers, cutting direct access to the Financial District from a lot of Brooklyn and Queens residents.

Plus the will need some of those spares when it is extended to the Javits Center.

 

According to the R188 section of the October 2012 CPOC book, "Eight new trains forecasted to be conditionally accepted in time for opening of 7 Line Extension."

Can a switch problem really knock out 3 out of 4 tracks around 14th Street? Must've been more than that...

 

A switch problem can certainly knock out the two southbound tracks.

As for the northbound express, either service was so thin that it effectively had to all run local (with the 4 and 6 not running south, they couldn't come back north, so really the only service available after this was going on for a while was the 5), or the switch repairs required the track to be occupied by employees or a work train.

Reference Guide:

 

R142M's will be/are converted R142's to CBTC and use on the .

R142AM's will be/are converted R142A's to CBTC and use on the .

R188 will be/are new subway cars and are not converted. R188's may be referred to as R142C's.

 

Call them what you like, but don't be surprised if NYCT calls them all R188's.

Also, no R142's are being converted - only R142A's.

Please. PLEASE. Read before you post. Second person I have told this to about the exact same thing. I said R142M, for those of us who do not know, this is what they call the modified R142As. People also call them R142AMs.

 

You can call them whatever you want, but "they" don't call them R142M or R142AM. (I assumed it was a typo.)

The R142A's are being modified as part of the R188 contract, and I believe both the converted cars and the new cars will be known as R188's.

To be honest, I originally thought that they would retire the R62s, or R62As for the literal people. Then I find out they pull an R160 and make some slight modifications. I never knew that anywhere in the subway had 11 Cars. I thought it was always for R46 length trains, 2 Car, 4 Car, 6 Car, and 8 Car; And for R160 length, 4 Car, 6 Car, 8 Car, and 10 Car.

 

If the goal were to retire R62A's, it would have been far simpler (and cheaper) to buy new cars in the configuration required by the Flushing line. The only reason for the expensive conversion process is that the R62A's aren't being retired - they're just being moved elsewhere.

I never knew that the and the R142M/188 had CBTC, I never knew what CBTC was. I knew they were going to the , but I thought they were just trying to get rid of the R62s out there, or R62As for the people who want to be super specific.

 

The R142's don't have CBTC. But hooking them up with CBTC is still a lot easier than hooking up R62A's with CBTC, not to mention that making a major investment in car retrofits is more cost-effective on a 2000-era car than on a 1985-era car, simply because the 2000-era car will stick around 15 years longer.

R142As never had CBTC, they were equipped to have CBTC installed.

 

Actually, they weren't - that's why the cars are going through an major conversion process. The R160's, on the other hand, are CBTC-ready (note how quickly East New York's 64 R160's were equipped with CBTC).

Actually, the Single R33s did not run during the summer so during that time, the ran 10-car consists.

 

You're both right. For the last two years or so of the redbirds, the 7 kept its full-length trains all summer. But until then, the R33 singles were removed for the summer.

Jesus man, what the the hell? All I did was give my damn opinion. Smh what is it with these newer members and bashing people who make a suggestion? Is that the way it is?

 

I wasn't bashing you - I was simply stating why your suggestion made no sense. I have nothing against you personally.

In the five months since I got here, I've posted 165 (make that 166) times and gotten 112 likes. That's a pretty good ratio, I think, and I don't shy away from controversial topics.

Ok. I am not a complete Transit devoted person who knows everything about what, when, where, and everything you know. I did not know that the cars were only were compatible on the . TBH, I don't even know what CBTC is.

 

Give me some slack, not all of us dedicate ourselves to this.

 

I'm just curious, what did you think the purpose was of the R188 order?

The cars will in principle be able to run anywhere (except Canarsie, with its incompatible CBTC system), but no other cars will be able to run on the Flushing line once CBTC is completed, so it's unlikely that any of the 5-car sets will wind up elsewhere, and the 6-car sets are completely useless on the rest of the IRT, since the Flushing line is the only one that can run 11-car trains.

Speaking of the R188, what do you think could have been done differently?

 

I honestly don't like that they upgraded the R142s, and that the R188s should have had FINDs.

 

Where do you expect 11-car trains equipped with Flushing CBTC packages to run aside from the 7? And if the cars are only going to run on the 7, why waste money replacing a perfectly functional strip map system that's perfectly adequate for the line and is more legible than a FIND?

The good old loop is the solution, just run right through it. That can be done at Hanover Square using the South Ferry loop.

 

The solution to what problem?

The reason the plans call for SAS to terminate at Hanover Square is to avoid the mess of BMT and IRT lines at South Ferry. You're proposing (for no reason that I can see) not only going through that mess but actually connecting with one of the tracks!

Really, If you do some huge rehab, it could work. The train won't stop in the loop, just go thru it.

 

"Huge rehab"? There are two tracks at South Ferry, both built to IRT specs. The tunnel is not wide enough for B Division cars.

Don't forget that the inner loop is used to turn 5 trains and that the outer loop is used to move trains between the East Side and the West Side and to stage gap trains.

But your basing your argument using lines that don't have cbtc. CBTC is a huuuuuuge factor in capacity. Your thinking a 21st century line will still use 100year old equipment. And as the Tokk man said, look at everywhere outside of NYC. Sure, they don't have the passenger flow like here(except for maybe tokyo), but those lines are also modern compared to NYC. So to say the terminal needs three tracks is basing it on 20th century tech.

 

CBTC increases capacity a bit - it doesn't create infinite capacity!

Three-track terminals have advantages and disadvantages, but they're not particularly advantageous in terms of capacity - compare the two ends of the Flushing line, where the two-track terminal has significantly greater capacity than the three-track terminal.

That said, the Phase 2 plans call for a three-track terminal at 125th and Lex - see page 2-12 of the FEIS - but I'm not sure I understand why.

What about the crossovers before and after EVERY station.

 

There aren't going to be crossovers at every station.

The question boils down to a simple cost-benefit analysis. The benefit of including a third track would have been an improved ability to operate service past blockages. The cost would have probably been in the hundreds of millions, potentially threatening the viability of the entire project. I don't think the benefit is worth the cost.

Virtually no new rail lines have more than two tracks. Especially on underground lines in areas with high construction costs, a third track is a luxury that we unfortunately cannot afford.