Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.


Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

289 Excellent

1 Follower

About Bosco

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sheepshead Bay & KRC, Yonkers

Recent Profile Visitors

954 profile views
  1. The brighter FINDs are because, despite being a similar design, the parts are 10 years newer. That's why the LCD screen is bigger. Bombardier's problem. In case any one else is curious, they're officially called: Fault Light: Lights up when the corresponding door is open Interior Guard Light: Lights up when any door on the corresponding side is open Exterior Guard Light: Lights up when any door on any side is open The reason they are bigger on the R179 is probably parts similarity. They are the same as the Interior Guard Lights on the R142s. One can hope...
  2. I think some depots (such as Ulmer, Quill) have higher priority over what fleet they want, would explain why all the remaining ZFs are still at Ulmer and the final batch of RTSs is at Quill. That said, this article is just inflammatory and whoever wrote it probably has no knowledge of how the bus system works. Not surprising being from one of the tabloids, but still poor journalism nonetheless. Gleason doesn't have any RTSs because they aren't CNG. Speaking of which, Gleason operates many routes in the poorer areas of Brooklyn, including Sunset Park and Brownsville.
  3. I may have been mistaken on what is defined as "museum fleet," but I meant that at least one is preserved, not necessarily at Court St. This is the case with all fleets. If by the original you mean the rejected pilot set (with the slightly different bonnet), then probably not. AFAIK, they're not allowed to reuse parts from the rejected set.
  4. At least one car is part of the museum fleet, and 3005 is at the NYCTA Training School and used for training purposes (I believe for NYPD, but not entirely sure).
  5. Similar to the R160 manufacturing, with the carbodies being built at Nebraska and final assembly and testing at Yonkers.
  6. I definitely wouldn't mind having one of these in New York. In addition to the rolling sound, they are also quieter than what we have here. The only one that I could find in Europe that sounds similar is the Metropolis 98B (which isn't in that video). Even if they use ONIX, I can't imagine it sounding like the R160. Besides the fact that the R142/R160 design is 20 years old, I'm sure the newer systems are quieter, lighter, and more energy efficient, all of which matter to the MTA as much as parts commonality if not more. Speaking of commonality: The only reason they had Bombardier bring back the 1508C for the R188 was because the other option would've been to replace the propulsion on all converted R142As. That was a special case. Also, as I mentioned, the newer systems are much lighter and smaller which are both big benefits for NYCT. The boxes for the 1508C are HUGE.
  7. The primary reason for expediting the upgrade of the R142s and R142As is to have them ready for Lexington Avenue CBTC. Given that the remaining R142As make up only half of the 's fleet, there's no way they can do just the R142As. The other half of the and all of the use R142s. I am curious to see who will bid on the R142 upgrade contract, given it's a much larger contract than the R142A upgrade even though they're similar contracts. Kawasaki probably won't as they have their hands tied with the R142A upgrades, plus the M9 and R211.
  8. In addition to the hardware/software differences, the power curves are notably different due to the fact that the B-divsion cars are bigger and heavier. The power-to-weight ratio is also different (all R160 cars have traction motors, while only one truck per R142 B car is powered). The audible sounds from the propulsion system are not from the motor itself, but from the IGBT (insulated gate bipolar transistor) inverters. The inverters take DC from the third rail and convert it to AC for the traction motors. However, changing the output speed on AC motors isn't as simple as turning a dial like it is for DC motors. Thus, the inverter works in such a way to maintain smooth acceleration, while meeting the performance curve which is set by NYCT.
  9. The jury is still out on that, but it will likely either be Siemens or Thales. The Alstom Onyx system on the R160s was CBTC ready. Yes, it is similar (and sounds very similar) to the R142 propulsion, but the hardware/software is significantly different. Also, the Alstom Onyx on the R142s is 20 years old, so it should be upgraded anyway.
  10. The garbage trains (R127/R134) are actually based on the R62 design, and those have always been stainless, so probably not. While we're on the subject, the R62, while conservatively designed, is significantly historic in that it was the first NYCT model not to be built in the US and by a foreign manufacturer. I am curious to see if any of the other Japanese manufacturers would be interested in working for NYCT in the future. Nippon Sharyo is probably out of the question since they just closed their US plant, but Hitachi has a relatively new plant in Florida.
  11. MDBF doesn't tell the full story (yard maintenance, etc.), but the MDBF for the NTTs in general isn't much better than the legacy fleets (in some cases, worse): https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/newer-mta-trains-beating-performance-starting-lag-article-1.3184932 Not sure if this is a new issue or if older cars had similar issues, but most fleets going back to the R142 not only had software issues, but quality issues. The R160As and R179s were delayed due to manufacturing issues. Even Kawasaki's quality isn't quite what it used to be 10 years ago. They've had quality issues with the WMATA cars. Given how some older trains wind up being used for work service, the bodies themselves should in theory be designed to last longer than the 40-year standard set. But if the quality issues we've seen across the board continue to persist, then there's no way even the car bodies will hit 40.
  12. For now, it's just speculation, and the bigger issue is that the parent company in Japan isn't happy with how last year went. They've been in the railcar industry for over a century and in the US market for almost 40 years and have good customer relations, so the only way it would get to that point is if the R211 is delayed like we've seen with the R179. As far as the Chinese, yes, they have won a few contracts here, but there is still a high level of skepticism when dealing with them. Not to mention the trade war, while it has affected some of Kawasaki's subcontractors, has hit the Chinese the most.
  13. It's actually more like a 15 year head start, but your point still stands. And yeah, as @MysteriousBtrain and @S78 via Hylan mentioned, the newer trains just aren't holding up as well as some of the older ones have. Worst case, those C cars become some sort of trailer work car (trailer as in they can't run on their own, nor can any A-car NTT IINM). I don't take the regularly, but the few times I've been on there at Times Sq before Hudson Yards opened, the line was fairly crowded during rush hour. Not as bad as Main St, but enough that SRO trains at 5 Ave weren't that uncommon.
  14. He was asking how extensive the modifications were on that set, since it has yet to be delivered.
  15. IINM, the cars were supposed to get some sort of touching up as part of the conversion. Even then, it's hard to believe the converted sets are almost 20 years old, so it will take little more than a power wash for those cars to look brand new.

  • Create New...

Important Information

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