Bosco

I'm under the impression EMI has more to do with the AC propulsion system than the on-board computers, but hey, what do I know? lol

 

So far, all of the e-brake testing has occurred on F5 track in the Broad Channel flats, so there wouldn't be any up-close footage of that happening. Maybe later, when the production cars come in and they do some testing elsewhere, say perhaps on the El between B-Junction and Myrtle.

Yeah, I meant the propulsion system in particular.  To be honest I consider all the components to be computers because essentially they are.

That location would explain why we haven't seen any e-brake testing.  Speaking of which, since the 10-car train is still on Brighton, I'm guessing they're using that track in the Rockaways to test the 8-car train?

You're probably right.  lol I have no idea what they do with the trains in terms of testing.  I was wondering myself what EIS referred to in the context it was being used in and in my world, we use that a lot.  Thanks for clarifying, but I would think they must test the buses and trains for such things I mentioned above as well.  Only makes sense.

Well first, there's a mileage requirement that says that before the 30-day revenue test, the train has to perform a certain distance (500 miles IIMN) without any problems.  As for the test runs that are done, some of them include but are not limited to:

• Clearance testing (the train runs through every line in the division it's built for, making sure it clears the tunnels and platforms)

• Simulated stop testing (this trains the employees and ensures the FIND and tachometer are working properly)

• EMI (Electromagnetic Interference) testing (the strength of the magnetic field generated by all the computers on the train can't exceed a certain amount)

• Emergency brake testing (self-explanatory, not sure if there's footage for the R179s but there is for the R188s)

If I missed any or if I'm wrong on the ones I mentioned, please feel free to correct me.

What I'm getting from this is that we will still get the promised number of cars, the order will just be confirmed and paid for at a later date. I think. If that is the case, I can live with that, as long as we still get the cars.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The bigger issue is that Cuomo continues to play politics with infrastructure at the worst possible time.  We shouldn't even have to worry about the cars coming in later than possible, especially with all the fleet problems we've been having.  The R179s are way behind schedule (given that they're doing EMI testing now, I wouldn't be surprised if the delivery schedule has slipped even further), and the R32s, R42s, and R44s are hanging by threads.  We need new subway cars yesterday.

It's something more like 9-21 Sts. IMO, that's actually perfect, because if you really wanted to you could build an extension to Brooklyn from those pocket tracks without royally screwing up SAS service.

My guess is that would be the plan assuming the MTA gets the money to do it (and as is evident from the impending train shutdown, it's needed badly).  But we are getting ahead of ourselves.

I have to look back at the plans, but would it be possible to make 2 island platforms at 14 Street?

this supposed SAS-queens service where would they build the pocket track or will they make it go to 2nd ave?

The current plan is for SAS to connect to the 63 Street Line east of Second Avenue.  The bell mouths exist for it and are visible on the Manhattan-bound just before Lex-63.  The connection will be similar in layout to the split at 64 Street.  The only tentative pocket tracks are to be between 14 and 23 Streets (someone correct me if I'm wrong), which won't connect to anything according to the current Phase 3 plan.

BrooklynBus came up with a good point in the past that they should put down the ending times of different services such as the & . Something like "Last train scheduled at XX:XX" so people know offhand if they should wait for their train or take their alternate route.

There's an exact timeline for when the stops at Woodside.  The sign reads, "To Main St, Flushing via Express, weekdays 3:10pm-9:55pm."  I'm having trouble posting the image here.

When Montague got rebuilt after Sandy, they installed new equipment, and I think they raised the roadbed slightly, so only the R46 and up clears the tunnel.

 

Yes, that's why. Originally the would swap every summer but since the was 10 cars or 8 75 footers, it wasn't an even swap plus the is outside longer. In 2015, they made it permanent, which was a recommendation that came out of the study.

 

After 2018, both lines will have R160's/R179s.

IIRC, isn't the supposed to be all R179s eventually?  It would make sense as it would reduce the amount of fleets each yard has to deal with.  That, and the will get R179s too and the uses 207 Street as well.

As for Montague, I believe the reason the R32s are banned is they moved some of the wires that were in the duct banks to the ceiling to protect them from future floods.  As a result, all cars after the R42s, with their curved bodies, can clear the wiring, but not the straight-built R32s and R42s.

New renderings for the M9's. Rumor has it both MNR and LIRR units will have one shared paint scheme.

Cuomo is really obsessed about image, isn't he?

I actually like the sides of the cars, but I'm not big on the front end.  I like it better than the original color scheme (which IMO was just ugly), but this one looks really tacky, especially with the white stripe.

There's usually at least one set of R62As a day on the , but that's going to change fairly soon.  They're still installing and testing CBTC on the R188s so those R62As are just filling in until CBTC goes online.  After that, they'll go back to the main line, with a few singles still staying for work service.

As for the orange strips, the reason they put one on the was to indicate that it was a test train.  Now that most of them have the same system, there's no need.  Now the ones on the are to indicate the Digimove test trains (the R143s/R160A-1s are being fitted with Digimove CBTC equipment).  I'm not 100% sure on this, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Whether or not CSSR partners with BBD (which would be a nail in the coffin for their bid on the R211s), I'm not so sure the MTA will even consider their bid at all given the urgency and scope of this contract.  The last thing they need is any more headaches because they simply went with the lowest bidder.  And as has been the case, CSSR's other orders are not up to snuff.  If the MTA were logical about this (which they're unfortunately not always), they should just give this contract to Alstom/Kawasaki already and figure out how to split the order.

is it possible with the increasing options it could be enough to retire every old train which will result in the r68 being the old trains?

Tentatively, everything up to and including the R46s are supposed to go.  That would explain the increase in the order so the MTA doesn't wind up short like they did with the R179s.

I'm not liking how vague this amendment document is... Hopefully the next board meeting has more in depth information...

 Agreed.  More likely than not this document was for show--hence all the pictures and colors.  While this isn't the first time it's happened, the true number of R211s with options is still unknown but rapidly increasing.  Potentially this order could be larger than the R160 order by the time all is said and done, but we'll see next week.

It'd be nice if they eliminated 2 doors on each side to add more seats on R211S trains. 

While I'd love such a layout and think it would be better for capacity, I wouldn't get too excited.  Remember, the cars they're replacing (the R44s) are some of the worst cars in service right now and ordering them with slightly different specs could potentially delay the order, which is something the MTA doesn't want or need.

I thought it was posted somewhere on here that bombardier was disqualified from the R211 order.

I remember ENY saying something about that a while ago, but this is the MTA.  And even if that were the case, by default the contract should've been awarded already to Alskaw as they are the only qualified bidder ATM, and not considering CRRC's numerous problems, there's no way they'd be qualified in time if at all.

Smart move given bombardier's track record, if only the MTA had done the same thing with the R179 order... the R32s and R42s would been history by now.

The R32s and R42s staying for longer is not necessarily Bombardier's fault.  The MTA needs additional cars especially for the L train shutdown.  Remember, this contract was signed in June 2012, months before Hurricane Sandy hit.

That being said, the delays in their other contracts are inexcusable and it would be a travesty if they are even considered for the R211s.  The R179s aren't even anything new and they've been dropping the ball on them.

Yeah, it seems like a common trend now for buses to go to BC right before they retire.

Why is there still a shortage of buses at those depots right now?  Is the C40 recall still going or is it finished?

If they were to expand the Jamaica Yard, how much more space would they need? Are train yards ever double decked? (besides say179th Street/Hillside)

IINM, the reason the yard east of 179 and Hillside is double decked is because of provisions for the line to branch out further into Queens.

A slight correction if you will: the side signs on the 160s are not limited by the number of characters, but rather the number of pixels on the signs themselves. Apparently, there are 112 pixels across on the 160s' side signs and a few of the longer readings like "BROADWAY / 4 AV EXP" and "QUEENS BLVD EXPRESS" are just a bit longer than the maximum. Robert Marrero has a more in depth analysis of this here.

That's pretty cool.  Certainly the IRT's NTTs are limited by the number of characters as each character has its own display.  While we're on the subject, it appears the R179s would have room to display some of those readings--any word on that?

So, I don't think there's a more specific thread to put this in, but I have a pretty wacky idea:

 

The BQX streetcar has been proposed, but at this point, it's unclear if it will actually go through. However, the fact remains that more and more riders are going from outer boroughs to other boroughs. Right now, I'm thinking the main way people from southern Brooklyn is to take whatever they take to get to Atlantic Terminal, then from there, get to Astoria on the N via Manhattan. It seems like a good system, right? But there continues to be more riders in Manhattan as well as around, and routes going through Manhattan become increasingly busier. But wait! The G train doesn't go through Manhattan! That's true. What if you could get from Brooklyn to Astoria easily without going through Manhattan?

 

Maybe there's a way via the G train. As of right now, you could potentially transfer 4 or 5 times to avoid Manhattan. How do you fix this? Basically upgrade the entirety of the G train route. As you all probably know, Brooklyn around hoyt schermerhorn is a mess. It's very hard to get to the G from some other routes. So I don't really have a solution to that (yet). But, here's something interesting. Extend the G from court square up to Astoria. Utilize existing tracks on the IND Crosstown line to the IND Queens Boulevard Line, then stop at Queens Plaza. From there, I believe new infrastructure would be needed to have new tracks emerge from the ground, and connect to 39th avenue and travel the BMT Astoria Line the rest of the way.

 

This all seems ridiculous even to me. The cost may not justify what we're getting. What do all of you think? Is it better just to go through Manhattan? Is there even demand for something like this? Could there be a feasable rout path for this? Thanks.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

There is a Subway Proposals/Ideas thread here: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/48571-department-of-subways-proposalsideas/page-448?do=findComment&comment=901709

That being said, while I agree with the idea of providing better travel options for traveling in-between the outer-boroughs (Queens-Bronx travel comes to mind), extending the as such would be an engineering nightmare given the existing infrastructure.  There are no true layup tracks, and even if you branched them from the existing connecting tracks between Queens Plaza and Court Square (which is where they're laid up now), you'd still have to work around the and underpin the .  And even if you were to connect them to the Astoria line, that line is already at capacity.

Nevertheless, service should be improved to reflect the surge in ridership and, yes, the shutdown.  Someone mentioned either on here or on the Facebook group the possibility of restoring Queens Boulevard service once CBTC goes online.

Thanks for the clarification on the R-type contracts.  

As for the put-ins on the or for any line, they're usually timed so that they don't interfere with other trains in service.  And during rush hour, 3 minutes is a long time, especially when the is supposed to run every 4-6 minutes.  So I don't think that would work, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe it's for revenue contract, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong. 

I'm not sure what the R stands for, but it's not revenue.  Examples: R127/R134 garbage trains, R156 diesel, TGC, etc.  So it would appear to pertain to anything ®olling stock.  That would be my best guess.

Fun fact: the true R-type contract names are actually R34XXX.  So the R160 contract is technically called the R34160, and the contract for the R211 is R34211.

There's some interesting stuff in there, including requirements that the cars be compatible with wireless platform CCTV cameras (which could enable OPTO), provisions for platform doors, and this note about interior displays:

 

"A minimum of 12 displays per car, 6 per side, shall be provided, which shall be at least 12 inches (305 mm) high and 46 inches (l ,168 mm) wide."

Good luck with getting the unions to be okay with that.  At least one crew member is required per 300 feet--cameras have nothing to do with it.  Even with the cameras, I would feel more comfortable with more crew members in case of an emergency (sick customer, etc).

Speaking of digital displays, is there any chance that the ads will also be digital?

Nostrand was supposed to be a local station like Kingston-throop and others at the time, with the "upper level" being a mezzanine. But of course plans changed and the mezzanine now holds express tracks. Don't know why the change occured though.

According to Wikipedia, there are unused trackways on the lower level of the station.  Is it possible the layout of this station was designed with the possibility of a connection to the Utica Avenue Line?

The now has signage indicating express service on Broadway and local service on 7 Av displayed as 'BWAY EXP/7 AV LCL'

My guess is that it will be used for certain GOs?  Like the one last weekend, where and trains ran local south of 42 St.  Is that how the stops are listed?

What happened with 3015-3019?  Another problem?