Maserati7200

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

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:  

Quote

"An army of old buses also rolls up and down the west side of Manhattan, through some of the city’s wealthiest neighborhoods."

Exactly!!  So why even write this article? The MTA is clearly sticking it to the rich people on the Upper West Side amirite?!

2 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

Called CBTC.  

1 hour ago, Fan Railer said:

Nah, they should go back to line of sight running on straightaways with signalling only at curves and interlockings 

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

3 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

He sure had somewhere to go!! Think he got the call from home  

Bae: come over 

Me: I can't I'm busy

Bae: I got 4K HD RARE pics of the R211

Me:

34 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Indeed. Faster speeds would mean more wear and tear on equipment more spend on maintenance in the long run. CBTC is meant to be more efficient overall with power consumption and breaking and power return and you said runs could sustain speed longer with the CPU handling braking curves. Your also correct in the saying the NTT's are load balanced I worked at Kawasaki 2000-01 and got the extreme tail end of the R143 project with Interior CAD and basic simulation stuff. These cars could hit 60 easy with 5,000-5,500 ft level run. I remember talking to some of the senior staff /engineers about the 142a's which I wasn't around for during for Q/A. These cars were tested for speeds up to 70mph. And the power out was about the same as a 143 with a 5 ton lighter body. So weight to ratio the 142a's might be the fastest cars in the MTA fleet?  As far as express runs I remember a ole timer that had about 30-35 years with MTA started in the 60's be told me when he started as a M/M some of the Lo-V cars on the Lex Express would operate normally at about 60-65mph. He talked about the 86st-GC/42 run before 59th street opened as an Express station. Something about all the cars having two sets of motors? Been about 17-18 years now and I later came to find out most car classes didn't have speed gauges in those days so not sure if that's exaggerated.

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.

On January 28, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Bosco said:

I would say no, but the big thing is efficiency (so timers would be rendered obsolete since CBTC can ensure the trains are as close together as possible but still safe to avoid a collision).  Unnecessary slowdowns could be eliminated.  As for a greater top speed, even if it were allowed, how many stretches exceed 55 as it is?  Besides the flats, some of the tunnels hit pretty close to that (60 St), but that's in part due to gravity helping out.  There aren't that many express stretches otherwise that could handle above 55.  For reference, I've been on southbound  and  trains that get close to 50 mph at around 50 St before slowing down for Times Sq.

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.    

6 hours ago, U-BahnNYC said:

What would an appropriate terminal look like? I know the 8th Ave one isn't good enough, but I want to know how a high-throughput terminal might look like, and why the isn't building one for the ?

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. 

15 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’m going to have to disagree. Yes, the R68/As are about 10 years younger (actually, they’re more like 12-16 years younger). And they certainly are reliable cars (it certainly helps that most of them are running on part-time services like the  and  and the relatively short  line). But you are not seeing the big picture here. There are a total of 625 R68 and R68A cars. That sounds like a lot of subway cars, and it’s more than many other cities’ entire subway car fleets. But it’s a very small portion (under 10 percent) of the entire NYC subway car fleet.

Let me ask you, where are you getting 45-50 years as a “new standard” for subway car service life? And why? Especially when there are transit agencies withdrawing subway cars much sooner than that. PATH withdrew its 1987 PA4 cars from service in 2011 and MBTA is planning to withdraw its 1993 1800-series fleet so they can operate just one type of car on their Red Line (they currently have three types on the Red Line, many of which are much older than 1993). Granted, in both PATH’s and the T’s cases, the premature retirement of those cars also included the retirement of many more cars that were much older (the PA1 cars dated back to 1964). Retiring the R68/A cars wouldn’t be much different. Even the Redbirds and SEPTA's M3 "Almond Joy" cars didn't last that long. Those cars averaged in the 35-40 year range, which really is a more reasonable subway car life expectation than 45-50. The technology is advancing so much and you don't want to have rolling stock that ends up being obsolete for many years before being replaced. If the R68/As are replaced in the late 2020s (they will not be replaced in 2024; if anything, we may still have some R46s in service by then, so any option orders would come after that), the oldest of them will be more than 40. And that is not a "very young age" to retire a subway car.

Lastly, let’s talk about your “waste of taxpayer dollars” comment (oh boy, if only I had a dollar for every single time I’ve seen those four words together on the Internet or in print media or heard them on TV or radio, then I’d be able to buy subway cars for Transit once every 10 years!). Ok, so the State and MTA save a few billion dollars by hanging onto the R68/As for another 15-20 years. Those cars have to properly be maintained with the right parts, or else they won’t be the reliable cars they are now. Will the right parts still be available in the 2020s and 2030s to keep these back-to-basics, low-technology cars in reliable service? How much will it cost to procure parts that may have to be specially made by then? You have to remember, the R68s (along with the R62s) were purchased with a back-to-basics mentality the MTA took in the 1980s in response to the technology fiascos that were the R44s and R46s. But the industry moved on from that decades ago. It's like trying to get parts for classic sports cars from the 1950s and 60s. There aren't a whole lot of suppliers out there and those that do exist charge a lot of money because it's not profitable for them to mass-produce such old parts. Thus, it will cost Transit more to maintain them. Or they may have to pare down the R68/A fleet by cannibalizing some of the cars for parts. Look at how much trouble Transit has maintaining the extremely outdated signals, for why holding onto old technology isn't always such a great idea.

And then, eventually, they will have to be replaced. It will now have been years after the last R211s went into service. It’s not like the MTA can just negotiate another option order like they could have during the R211 procurement process. It'll be much too late for that. But they didn’t want to “waste taxpayer dollars,” so they kept them on for another two decades. Now, they have to go back and start over with a brand new subway car contract. For only 625 cars. It’ll probably cost more than an R211 option order would have. And it’ll certainly be more expensive per car. I’d say this is definitely an example of “penny wise, pound foolish.”

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. 

On January 7, 2018 at 11:54 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If that’s the case, then by the time the last R211 train enters service, it’ll be time to retire the R68/R68A cars. Maybe they should consider option orders to retire them too. That way, they can have more standardization within the B Division.

On January 8, 2018 at 3:58 PM, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

This dips into the R211 thread but certainly agreed, retiring all 75 ft cars would be better now than starting another car order that may not be delivered for even more years due to testing on an entirely new fleet, and imagine all the maintenance costs and line swaps that might go onto R68's during the entire process. The idea sure is elaborate and maybe expensive today but if done right, this could be a serious win for the B division. 

On January 8, 2018 at 7:55 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

Currently with all option exercised, 1695 cars can be delivered, but only 1175 are planned. Retiring all B-division OTTs would allow for 210 extra cars to expand the fleet (if 1695 are delivered), but I doubt the MTA is considering this as if they were, they would have ordered some non-SIR single units to replace the Franklin  R68s. However, considering how late new MTA rolling stock comes in, they could retire all 75 footers and then reconfigure some R160s or R179s to be married or triplet pairs for Franklin  service.

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. 

Honestly, if the MTA can't keep the phase 2 costs to a reasonable level, I don't think it should be built. The money can do more good elsewhere. Imagine if the city spent 6 billion on new schools, for example...

Ah this argument rears its ugly head again...

 

One thing you have to understand with public expenditures is that the money is just for that one purpose. The city is not allowed to just go divert the money to schools. It's not how it works...

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.

As for the rest of the fleet, the 142As in particular, I gave a response in the random topics thread, but it does bear repeating. It's becoming quite apparent that it's a maintenance issue rather than design problems that are causing the significant swings in performance. Since the shift over to the , the former 142As have drastically outperformed their non-converted counterparts. And as we know given the cars' appearance, nothing was changed on the converted cars besides the addition of CBTC equipment, so that cannot be a reason for the uptick. We've also seen a sharp drop in the MDBF numbers for the 62As since the move to Westchester. Obviously I don't know the cause of these performance drops for the Westchester cars, I do believe Transit should investigate these yard issues before these problems become major hindrances to operating service.

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?

Agreed. MJQ is by far the best.

^^^Dude!!

I can't wait for season 6!!

Oh HECK yeah!Yur gonna get tests weekly.These tests give yur TSS's an idea of who's slacking or picking up the information.If you fail these little tests(Quiz) they'll give you a second chance.After that you qualify for tutoring which you get paid OT for....Yur gonna get a midterm and a final.Yur gonna get a Yard practical exam,brake-pipe rupture practical,road practical.(all HANDS on)I'm telling you, once you pass schoolcar it's a BIG relief!

Lets hope he doesn't get bothered by the dik TSS ahaha :cool:

Quick question, do you get paid during the time of school car?

The Sony HDR-XR500V

Hmm

You would need special software.

click here

This is special software from my school. Its called smartboard. You can insert a picture and put text over it