Jump to content

Around the Horn

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    9,317
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

Posts posted by Around the Horn

  1. 17 hours ago, U-BahnNYC said:

    Interesting to think that the age difference between the youngest R160 (9942 delivered in June 2010) and the oldest R160 (delivered mid 2005), is greater than the age difference between the newest R179 (January 2020) and the oldest R211 (June 2021).

    There was a genuine concern back then when they had to pull the R179s from service the first time that Kawasaki would deliver the prototype R211 before the R179 order finished. In the end, Bombardier got their act (somewhat) together and COVID supply chain issues delayed the R211.

  2. Unless I'm Mandala effecting this somehow, they definitely said back in 2014 that the then only 5 10 car trains were fleet expansion for the (Q) for SAS until they got so delayed that there was no chance the cars would be ready by then.

  3. 8 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

    Ordering four car R179’s was absolutely unnecessary in the first place (except the ones for ENY). If the plan was to always have the (C) become full length, why order four car sets in the first place?

    Now you have this mess of fleet uniformity because the (C) has always been the oddball of 8th Ave. Sure the R211’s will sort of fix the problem, but where will you send the four car R179’s?

    the original plan did not have the (C) getting any of the R179s; they were originally only for the (Q) (later changed to (A)) and (J) (Z) and then the plans changed after the original (L) train shutdown was suspended

  4. 2 hours ago, Vulturious said:

    Right now, they can only run on the local tracks and only on the (C) line, any GO's or reroutes forces the R211T's to go out of service if it's affected. I'm not going to make any speculations on whether or not the R211T is allowed to reroute to other lines such as 6 Av for example. Probably for the better to not give myself a headache and probably make myself look like an idiot.

    I imagine that would be up to the RCC (a "game time" decision if you will) though I'd imagine if it wasn't allowed to run on 6th they would have also mentioned that in the memo

  5. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand the gearboxes are mechanically fine but the drip pans for the oil used to lubricate them were damaged in transit. This meant that they were leaking oil and then the lack of lubrication generated flat spots.

    To me this seems like the kind of minor thing that could have been fixed in days if the cars weren't still under warranty but neither side wants to admit this hence the tight lips.

  6. 14 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

    So then how do you guys do short platforms then? (If you had any). Like with the 211’s on SI, how do they isolate 2 cars?

    IIRC the 211S has a button on the dash for the short platforms that keeps the last 5 doors from opening

  7. 4 hours ago, MJHmarc said:

    Just keep this in mind people…the MTA President has already announced there will be no changes to service after the manhattan congestion pricing starts. He went on a late morning tv new program and said there’s plenty off room in the system for more people with additional service than what’s running now. 

    Anyone whose taken the subway on weekends lately knows this is full of shit. Like who do they even think they're fooling...

  8. 3 hours ago, Chris89292 said:

     the 211’s for the SIR could’ve been modified for SIR specifically instead of having everything the 211A sets has

    They are. While the passenger area may be the same, there are significant mechanical differences between the 211A and 211S in terms of specific equipment required for cab signaling and ATC vs waysides or even CBTC and it partially complies with some FRA regulations that the subway doesn't have.

  9. 14 hours ago, Ale188 said:

    I'd rather say 2025

    If they continue with two a month for the rest of the year, we'll have 13 R211s in service. If they can get to three trains per month next year (which I could have sworn I read somewhere but can't find right now), then we could have 49 R211s in service by the end of 2024. Pitkin has 44.5 trains of R46s assigned.

  10. 5 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

    honestly if i were in charge of operations you would still have the (M) running to/ from 71 Av despite the 63 St tunnel work. Service as follows:

    (M) - peak direction rush hour service reduced to every 10 minutes (AM from 71 Av, PM from Metropolitan Av - the other direction stays every 5-8 minutes)

    If they could run the (M) on Queens Blvd during this service change they would. It was the original plan until they ran simulations of the service pattern and found it would result in extreme delays. 

    Just the (E) and (F) together has already turned 53rd Street into a parking lot during rush hour; adding the (M) would make it even worse even if you cut Kings Highway trips (whihc would result in severe overcrowding in Brooklyn)

  11. 17 hours ago, foggymetro said:

    Not related to the R211, but PATH is technically a railroad under FRA jurisdiction and has full installation of PTC and CBTC.

    IINM if your CBTC installation meets the specific set of standards in the law requiring PTC, it counts as a PTC installation but I could be wrong.

  12. 2 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

    Because I can’t leave you children alone for hardly 10 seconds…

     

    the 211T set at Jamaica is for CBTC integration testing. See how well the train behaves while under CBTC operation.

    it is not there for passenger service. Not yet at least.

    Someone else on a discord (who claims to be in RTO) was making this claim over the weekend, which is where I think the poster got it from.

  13. 4 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

    Today was the first time I’ve seen an M102 to Lex Av-24 St.

    That's typically only used to turn around a very late bus before it reaches Cooper Union. Used to see them occasionally at Hunter with the old "M102 24 ST" sign up which got changed about a year ago.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.