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.


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

31 Excellent

About Maserati7200

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

845 profile views
  1. I'd actually look very much forward to R46's on the B, because they're considerably faster than the R68/A's, and the B needs that speed for the express runs
  2. It's sad for me that RTS' are gone. I've never really been a bus fan but they've always been my favorite ones. They're iconic and will be missed. Just like the Ford Crown Victoria Yellow Taxis, of which there are *literally* a few still left, but not for long. But even if that article had an effect on the MTA's retirement of the RTS, what really bothered me about it was it's SJW tone - creating a problem that doesn't exist. The whole premise is that the MTA puts the oldest and worst busses in poor neighborhoods, with the implication that they are doing this on purpose because they don't care about poor people. No, that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. The article even contradicted it's own premise with this key and true point: Exactly!! So why even write this article? The MTA is clearly sticking it to the rich people on the Upper West Side amirite?!
  3. You're being misleading. They aren't banned from there "because" they're 60 footers. They're banned because they don't have the same profile as the R46/R68/R160 where the top of the train is narrower than the bottom. They just happen to be 60 feet. Also, this wasn't the case until they rebuilt the tunnel after Sandy, and put some infrastructure on the top of the tube as opposed to the bottom. Before Sandy they ran in the tunnel just fine.
  4. I mean, some timers are definitely necessary for safety, but many of them really aren't; the balance is definitely tipped in the wrong direction. They could stand get rid of quite a few without risking anyone's safety. But CBTC will definitely help in the long run
  5. Bae: come over Me: I can't I'm busy Bae: I got 4K HD RARE pics of the R211 Me:
  6. I think 65 is probably pushing it a bit considering there was no speedo. I could believe 60 considering how fast it is now even with the stop at 59th street and that big downhill. Check this out: EDIT: Also, I think saving power should be a very low priority for NYCTA. Of all places to cut costs, power consumption should be towards the very end. The subway is already one of the cleanest, greenest and most energy efficient ways to get around. Increasing performance and speed to make the subway more attractive, if anything, is the greener thing to do.
  7. Just so you are aware - the NTT's are neutered. They could hit 60+ on level ground out of the factory but the MTA changed the power profile to make them perform like the rest of the fleet. The power profile can be increased with CBTC, and already has on the . Now with CBTC, the L train accelerates very quickly between tightly spaced local stations, sometimes getting to 40 MPH or so. In the 60th street tunnel, the computer system cuts power at 55 MPH. If allowed its full power capabilities it could go much faster downhill and on level ground. As of right now, the non-CBTC NTT acceleration between 35-40 MPH is slow, and PAINFULLY SLOW between 40-50 MPH. Like you were alluding to earlier, the power profile as set up on non-CBTC NTT's means it's basically impossible to get above 50 without the help of gravity. Considering how powerful they are, considering how quickly the NTT's on the get to 40 right now, and considering how long it takes for the non-CBTC NTT's to go from 40 to 50 MPH, I would guess uneuttered under CBTC conditions, the NTT's can get to 50 about twice as quickly as they could now. Because of this, 55 could easily become a good cruising speed on most express runs, as opposed to now where the high 40's is 'fast', and low 50's is on the very high end and rare. I would also guess that they could get to 65-70 MPH about as quickly as they get to 50 MPH now un-neutered, so 65-70 would be the speed for really long stretches. I could think of multiple examples besides the tunnels and flats where such speeds could be achieved. This includes, but isn't limited to the Brighton Express, 4th ave express, CPW between 59th and 125th, Flushing express, and Queens Blvd express. However, doing so would mean the MTA would have to maintain their equipment and and tracks better than they do now, which I don't foresee happening. However, I do think that realistically, with CBTC, 55 MPH will be normal for most straight express runs, and it'll get to 55 much quicker and thereby staying at 55 for longer.
  8. In addition to what others said - they could add a couple of more trains per hour with the current terminal situation right now, the limiting factor is power supply. Others, including Ben Kabak from Second Avenue Sagas, suggested that the MTA take advantage of the opportunity to start building tail tracks west of 8th ave. The MTA responded, and basically said the amount of extra capacity tail tracks would add wouldn't be necessary because they don't project such extra capacity would be needed in the near future. Agree or disagree, that's why they're not doing it.
  9. Why is this the case? Were the timers just installed incorrectly or is it just natural wear with age? What is the physical timing mechanism which determines when the signal clears? Is it gears like a watch? Would fixing the timer clearance time just require a readjustment like you would with a watch? Or would it be much more work? And for the timers the MTA has installed in the last 20 years or so - do they use different and newer technology? Do they suffer from the same problems?
  10. 45-50 years comes from the fact that that's how old the R46's will be when they retire, and that's how old the R32's would've been retired at had the R44's not completely crapped out. And again, both of those cars were around during the bad old days of deferred maintenance; the R68/A's were not. I honestly think the R68/A's could even last for 55 years of reliable service. The R32's are 54 now, and will be closer to 60 when they retire. And while their MBDF is the lowest, it isn't THAT bad considering their age. Not to mention it's really the A/C units that are the biggest problems. It bears repeating, the R68/A's were, and will continue to be, well maintained throughout their life, unlike the R32's and R46's. And why are you looking to the Port Authority, one of the most wasteful and corrupt public agencies in existence, as a good example of an agency properly spending public money? Have you seen their $3 Billion dollar subway station? Do you not remember how inept they were at finally rebuilding the WTC? Not that I even agree with the decision to prematurely retire the PA4's, but at least there were only 95 of them, and doing so allowed them to have a completely uniform fleet, which they needed for CBTC anyway. Apples to oranges. Our fleet is already pretty uniform. The R160 order replaced 7 car classes (Most R32's, R38, R40, R40M, R42, R44) with 1 - that's VERY good in terms of uniformity. The R142/A's replaced 8 car classes (R26, R28, R29, R33, R33 WF, R36, R36 WF) with 1, which, again, is VERY good. And 625 IS a lot of cars in the absolute sense, and ~10% IS a lot. You're also not considering the fact that they're 75 feet, so they're really equivalent to 781.25 60 footers ((625 ÷ 8) x 10) = 781.25). Furthermore, they'll probably want to expand the fleet with the R68/A's replacements, so I wouldn't be surprised if the R68/A replacement order is closer to 900 cars. I also think you're overstating how much it would cost to maintain them for another 15 years. Comparing SMEE train technology to the original 1930's IND signaling is apples to oranges. At MOST it would be in the tens of millions over the course of 15 years, probably a lot less. Those Billions for the capital budget would be much better spent on much needed system maintenance and expansion. Also, speaking of technology, I'm pretty sure only a small portion of the R211's are going to have open gangways - this is a very important technology. If the initial open gangway R211T set goes well initially, we'll get at most 650 of them, which would be about a 3rd of the entire order - not bad. But if it doesn't go well initially the MTA gets to test it out for 10 or so years and work out the kinks, we could end up having an entire 800+ car order with open gangways - a very important feature for our ever increasingly crowded subway cars. And in those 15 years or so extra, maybe even better technology will come along for the R68/A replacements. It'll also give sometime for the MTA to asses it's ever changing future needs, so it'll give them a chance to have more flexibility. So I actually think you have it the completely opposite way - your idea is penny wise pound foolish (lets spend a lot of money to save a little money). And evidently the MTA agrees with me considering there are no plans to replace the R68/A's with the R211's.
  11. The R68/A's were delivered between 1986 and 1988. In 2024 they will be 36-38 years old. That is a very young age to retire a subway car - especially reliable ones that were delivered after the bad old days of deferred maintenance. The R68/A's are about 10 years younger than the R46's, so their replacements should arrive 10 years after the R211. 45-50 years should be the new standard for subway car service life. There is no good reason to waste taxpayer dollars to retire trains that will likely have 15-20 years left of good life in them.
  12. Heres the thing though: $6Billion is way too much money for a project like this. Elsewhere in the world, like Western Europe where they have high wages, strong unions, environmental protections, and even older hidden infrastructure to avoid, they build subway extensions for half, even a quarter as much as we do per mile/km. There is no good excuse for these costs.
  13. What I don't understand is, why aren't all shops doing the best they can with maintenance as possible. Why do the higher ups within the MTA even tolerate sub-par maintenance from some yards? Also, which yards are notoriously the worst?
  14. Sorry for late reply, been away for a while:

    Actually Medusa was just repainted and given like flamethrowers and mist sprays and now called Bizzaro. The track itself should be about the same.

  15. Maserati7200


    welcome to the forums!
  • Create New...

Important Information

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