Bosco

A lot has also changed since the R160 contract was awarded in summer 2002. While popular and growing, the internet wasn't nearly as powerful as it is today; and social media was just being planned out. Even MySpace didn't come out until about a year later. The usage of social media has changed the politics of many issues besides transit as leaks are much more common, making it easier to obtain information. If not for all these platforms, it's likely we may have never seen the mockup at all.

Ah, so the middle trucks used Jacobs trucks. Forgot about that (big difference as you pointed out). Has the MTA considered using Jacobs trucks for the R211 at all? It would mean less parts (and less weight), but I would imagine them not wanting to as it would make it that much harder to take the cars apart when working on them.

They were, although the gangways were very narrow (like two-thirds the width of the passageways on the R160s) and those cars were shorter too, so the sharp turns weren't as much of a problem. Between the delays with the R179s, the dire need for increased service, and the fact that there are hundreds of 40+-year-old cars hanging by a thread, I'd sacrifice that little extra capacity to have new cars here ASAP. Hell, most of the base contract is for traditional cars, plus the option order still isn't 100% (it depends on how the test train goes). The MTA moves way too slow on things, but sometimes it's better for them just to get it done and get it working, if not ideal.

I think at that time, the N had consistently been ranked one of the worst subway lines by Straphangers (which is a joke, but, you know, politics). I spoke to one of the guys testing it a month ago and he said mid-September, but at the rate things are going God only knows.

An extreme example of where a car-width gangway couldn't be used is through the old South Ferry loop. Imagine curves so sharp (and there are some on the original BMT as well, especially pre-Dual Contracts) that the left side between the cars are almost touching, and the right sides are extremely far apart that the springs are stretched to their maximum length. The accordion-like material would break either due to too much tension on one side, or too much compression on the other. By narrowing the gangway, there is less tension/compression acting on the accordion. There are also many tight switches in the subway system where the anticlimbers don't line up for a second (this is especially noticeable on the 75-foot cars). Again, there is a good chance the cars will rip apart. You might be thinking: but they do it on buses, so what's the big deal? Well, with buses the turning radius is determined by the mechanics of the bus itself. But for subway cars, it's determined by the radius of the curve of the tracks. If a turn is too tight for a bus, the driver simply avoids making that turn; if a curve is too tight for a train, there is no where to go. The pre-Dual Contracts BMT and IRT are some of the oldest metros on the planet. Even the original IND has some tight curves (although not nearly as bad where gap fillers or strict timers are always needed). Other metro systems built later (or around the same time or even earlier) had different standards for turning radius such that the infrastructure is more favorable to car-width gangways.

The width of the gangways is limited by the sharp curves of some parts of the system. That's why they tested an R143 around the system a while back. CRRC has proposed building a plant in Fort Edward to address this, although I think the bigger problem is getting them to be qualified in time to meet the schedule needed for these cars. *Please delete my first comment

CRRC has proposed building a plant in Fort Edward to address this, although I think the bigger problem is getting them to be qualified in time to meet the schedule needed for these cars.

As Turtle said, it's more than a little bit of tunneling, but it is still considerably less than Phase 1. Their incompetence isn't just hurting UES residents (whom, the most cynical of us would think, would be benefiting the most given their income); it's hurting people in the Bronx who also lost their extra subway line decades ago. In addition to the problems I mentioned, why do they need to redo 116 St anyway? I know it's been discussed a lot on here, but it's such a waste of resources on an already out of control project. Use the middle track as a relay track. Use that extra money to build the originally planned terminal station or storage yard. But no, that'd be too logical for the MTA. Just something to think about: the 10 Ave Station on the is projected to cost about half a billion. Ironically, even with all but the station shell scrapped, the project still cost a half billion more than the original cost. That original cost estimate also factored in building the 10 Ave Station, so that's the equivalent of a billion down the drain. And then of course, the station was leaking after that. No one at the MTA thought to check to see if the contractor was cutting corners? It almost seems like these contractors assume they won't get caught (which thankfully, in that case, didn't happen as the contractor had to pay for the repairs there).

It goes beyond that. The important projects that they do invest in are out of control. I understand Phase 2 will entail underpinning Metro-North, but there is no reason that Phase 2 should cost $6 billion with two-thirds of the tunnel work already done and with a scaled down terminal station and without the proposed yard at 129 Street. There is absolutely zero accountability held on the contractors at the moment, which has been mentioned in this thread and others ad nauseam.

The R142s and R142As were NOT delivered CBTC ready--hence the need for the major conversion of most of the R142As to R188s. I imagine they'll want to do the same with the R142s sooner or later (God knows how that's gonna pan out with all the problems Bombardier's been having) ... I'm aware that all new trains come "CBTC ready." However, when I asked if the R179s were CBTC ready, I meant to ask whether they had the necessary equipment already on board (i.e. so, for example, they could run on the on day one if need be). So the answer to that question is no. Thanks for the answers.

The relatively recent "rehabs" at Parkside AV, Beverly Rd, and Cortelyou Rd are another example of this. They just finished three years ago and you would have no idea that they closed them for 6 months at a time just for a fresh coat of paint which is now wearing away.

The bolded ideas are ones that the MTA already plans on doing. Granted, it will be tricky to have the be 100% 10-car trains before the R211s come in. And are the R179s CBTC ready? IIMN, they should be.

Which is roughly the same size as the FIND displays already. And given the current specs for the R211s which call for multiple LED displays in each car, I think that would be a great and practical idea. Remember, LED screen technology is dirt cheap nowadays as opposed to when the R160s were designed/built.

IIMN, it has to do with the storage tracks at 174 Street Yard, because not all of them are long enough to accommodate 600' trains. The total order, with all options exercised, could be as big if not bigger than the entire R160 contract. There are a few factors that affect how many options, if any, will be exercised: • CBTC Installation (QBL, 8 and 6 Aves, Culver, etc, are being worked on ATM, even if just in design) • SAS Phase 2/3 (even Phase 2 is not likely to open before the last R211 wraps up, but they should have the cars at the ready anyway) • Fleet expansion to meet ridership demands ( , , , , and just to name a few) While the R211 is supposed to be a major contract anyway, I hope the MTA learns two things from the R160 and R179 projects. First, never scrap cars prematurely; if they aren't needed, at least keep them in working condition in case there is a problem with any cars that need to be taken OOS for an extended period of time for some reason (this happened with the R142s in 2006-7). And also, order more cars if needed rather than less to accommodate spare factor, CBTC, increase in ridership, etc.

While I agree that the should run on weekends, even if not until the R211s come in, the was designed as a part-time route and, like the , all the track work would prevent the extra service from being added anyway. The runs local to accommodate the heavily-used local stops; although, of course, running the on weekends would allow the to be express on weekends also. As for the proposals for alternatives, none of them would truly get rid of the problem with 60 Street and the merges, but rather move them. IMO, I'd rather see more money be focused on expediting the rollout of CBTC, as that would help the capacity issue and possibly alleviate the need to reconfigure Broadway. While I'm not a fan of some of the MTA's outdated service patterns, we have to remember that 1. changing service patterns, even for long-term construction, is a years-long process, and 2. the number one problem affecting service capacity right now is the infrastructure.

Yeah, there is no way they are going to cut Astoria service. And as it is, there are some trains that go up SAS, but that's only because of capacity constraints. Why would you need to do this at all? There is extra space just west of Brighton, so I'd just send some trains to Brighton at rush hour. That and increase the number of dispatchers and operators on the field so they can fumigate/turn back quickly enough so as not to interfere with service.

In a sense it's actually in some ways costing the MTA more money to reconfigure 116 St. Between widening the existing structure and the approaches (as have been mentioned), the area around the tunnel has to be widened anyway. And the MTA's hard-on for island platforms and full-length mezzanines isn't an excuse as the elusive 10 Avenue station on the was supposed to be two side platforms as well, with no mezzanine. It would likely save money and would make a Bronx extension (getting ahead of ourselves) easier. At the very least, that middle track could be used as a storage track.

Just saw that, thanks. I must say, why is it taking them so long to review the proposals? Given the scope of this contract in terms of timing and engineering--along with recent events--you'd think it'd be a fairly clear cut decision. Bombardier can't be trusted, and the Chinese haven't built anything in the US as of today.

Yeah, not really sure what's happening there. The longer they wait, the longer the old trains will have to hang on. R32 3671, do you have a source to confirm this? I wouldn't put it past the MTA given how long they've already pushed the award date but just so we know.

I would imagine they would; lighting technology is dirt cheap these days and the design used in the rendering would cut down on parts.

For areas that are being built from scratch, yes, it would make sense that an island platform would be cheaper. However, the area around 116 St is different in that the 1970s plan on which the existing tunnel work was based did not include a station there. So currently there's room for three tracks, except the MTA can't just place an island platform in the middle track since it wouldn't be wide enough (10 feet). This means that putting an island platform there requires widening that middle area, and thus rebuilding that stretch of the SAS.

As for the new roll signs on the , I've noticed that the sets that have been washed recently have the different roll signs. It's a good thing for them since 240 Street doesn't have a wash and some of those sets are filthy, especially being mostly underground.

I hope so. I think it's helped dispatching on the A division. Usually when I take the , if a train is running late, they'll send it express; if the train behind it is late, they'll hold it for a minute.

Good point. 3050-3057 did simulated stop testing last week. Speaking of which, where are 3058-3065 ATM? I know they were moved but have they been in the field for testing since then?

This. Case in point: the MTA originally planned for the R160s to go on the . I'm not going to enumerate all the times the MTA has changed their mind on things, but whether justified or not, the MTA's plans are subject to change at any time for a variety of reasons. In fact, sometimes those reasons are beyond their control. Emperor Cuomo stepping in to the picture actually caused delays with many awards--not just for the R211s, but with the buses as well.