Kamen Rider

Though… what’s better PR than thousands of beach goers getting to see the new train more often than once every couple hours?

The tunnels still exist, it’s just the street the elevated part ran over was removed to build New Yankee Stadium.

also, Wally, Woodlawn hasn’t had the “Road” suffix in eons.

In CBTC mode, the computers take over the door enable function from the train operator. So ideally speaking, the computers could also control which side lights up. 

does the phrase “Beta testing” mean anything on this site? 
 

First of all, The indicators are not part of the door control system. That is still in the hands of the crew.

if it had to hazard a guess, they are pre-programmed based on what route program in entered into announcement system. And those things are not as simple as you guys might think they are. 

28 minutes ago, JustTheSIR said:

What happened to the R211 pilot set? I’ve heard it’s been out of service due to propulsion problems but damage? I thought it just stalled out on a grade and they’re finding out why

… multiple times I said “we who work for transit don’t even know”. I then said it could be anything, and began to discuss a worse case scenario. Don’t make me think you’re only reading bits and pieces of what I said.

1 hour ago, zacster said:

But it was also wrong, maybe misinformation to keep the foamers away. 

 

No, that was an on the clock conversation between myself and a TSS who was literally in the process of certifying me to crew an R211. 
 

I asked him if he knew when they’d be on the road and he said “may-June-ish”

15 minutes ago, zacster said:

If anybody here really knew what the issue and timing was we'd have heard already.  It is just like when everybody here was saying June for the testing and instead it started the next day.  It is all speculation here. 

that wasn't speciation, that was straight from supervisions mouth. 

53 minutes ago, Chris89292 said:

 Seems very exaggerated how much time is being wasted to fix one issue, someone clarify to me what and where is the issue located, maybe I’ll change my mind

It will be back on the road when Car Equipment and the Kawasaki techs say it's ready. 

Could you guys, like, just accept that sometimes there are things we're not supposed to share, even if we knew. Which we don't anyway, but that's beside the point. Last time I checked no one from DCE hangs out here on a regular basis, you just have us RTO folks, and last time I checked, the nearest one of us to that train when it all went wrong was me, and I was a few miles away working a on D train. 

So we do not know exactly what happened. We know that it was a propulsion system issue and in theory, that could have been anything, up to and including something that damaged the train, but was not caused by the train.

Just as an example of what I mean by that:

Several years ago, BART had a problem where there was a voltage spike on the Yellow Line between it's second to last and last stops, where the voltage somehow doubled and overloaded the DC traction motors on the C type cars. Their resister grids were out of the circuit, and you suddenly had 1kv DC turning into 2kv. Boom! bye-bye motors. the other cars us AC traction so this didn't harm them, it was just the still DC equipped C type cars. 
https://abc7news.com/normal-train-service-bart-stations-repair-work/1273495/

Who on God’s green Earth would find that funny?

10 minutes ago, RandomRider0101 said:

So this essentially means that the R179 had more power in this scenario, right? 'cause we know either way this would only happen during yard moves. Apologies in advance if my post is worded incorrectly.

The 179 had ALL the power, the 142 was dead. You can clearly tell is that there is no motor noise coming from the 142. It only shows up once the 179 exits the portal. 

for an operation such as this, you would have a qualified crew member, such as myself, riding in the leading cab of the 142. I would be constantly communicating via radio with the train operating crew member (could be a TO. could be a TSS), feeding them information on the status of the line ahead. 

7 hours ago, MJHmarc said:

But in theory that mix could run in passenger service. 

And "in theory" I could go to work in my Cinderella cosplay gown. "In theory" can be used to try to justify a lot of things that just simply won't happen in practice. As i said, that is not how the folks at Car Equpiment do things. They LIKE uniformity, and nothing says the exact opposite of that like coupling a 211A to a 211T and trying to run them in service.

Any other service patterns would have all been out the window the second the Port Authority got final approval to construct the Airtrain. 

“Iron to iron” you can get away with almost anything for the sake of moving things around, so long as you have matching couplings or an adapter. It’s when you try to make the electric connections you’re going to be hitting problems. 
 

that 142/179 shop move was definitely done with the two units electrically isolated and the 179 being operated under “other than head car” procedure while pushing.

Actually no, they both have the same Westinghouse 1447JR motors and the same Adtranz controllers.

Their brakes are from different manufacturers, but that doesn’t preclude standardization of the design from the start. Mechanically, you could couple them to an R10 and it would work, since they are effectively the end of that family line.

Coney Island has R68s and R68As... how often do you see them mixed?

I can tell you right now that's going to be extremely rare if not never. 

That's just not how car equipment rolls...

14 hours ago, EastFlatbushLarry said:

I'm glad you said it. no offense to anyone on here, but the fantasy bus lines people conjure up are NOT logistically possible or plausible. I'm not expecting anyone to think from the mindset of management, but from an aspect of living, breathing human beings operating a line from Fordham to jfk 24/7/365 is insane. there's no way to adequately account for runs/run pay, personnel/extra list personnel, equipment wear & tear... even with built in short signs, there's no way an operator is doing a full trip both ways without that run being at minimum over 8 hours. if a line like that did exist, it would suffer from the worst case of bunching, b/o's "abusing" personals at each end, incomplete trips, etc. i would know... i left 100 street to get away from the m101 for these reasons (and more)

I think a lot of these armchair transit planners would change thier tunes in a heartbeat if they had to drive the S78 or scrape the wall on the A the whole way from 207 to Far Rockaway.

As someone who’s done the latter multiple times, it is an endurance challenge, more so when there is flagging on the line and you’re rolling along for several stops at 10 MPH.

2 and a half hours I think is my longest trip.

Here’s the thing about us MTA employees… we’re not robots. We’re human beings.

you can’t just keep adding to a route or a line and expect us to be able to operate it just as easy as the old one. 
 

two hours is roughly a good yardstick for how long we can go without a break.

All large unions are double edged swords because for all the help they can give you, they are also another layer of bureaucracy for us to navigate.

plus there was that whole incident at Bedford Park Blvd… sometimes you can find yourself in a situation where one of the union leaders can be worse than the management. I don’t see Jano Leiber showing up with a goon squad to break someone’s leg…

this is one reason to get involved, so you can be sure the right people are representing you.

35 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I still think it would have been better to just have a regular window there. This giant “SI” bullet will look silly and is pointless since there’s only one line.

Well, for starters, there is a hardware cabinet there as there is on all the 60’ NTTs.

and honestly, if they’re going for a unified branding and appearance set up, this kind of makes sense.

2 hours ago, NBTA said:

Is it me or this specific topic has been in circles for about 50-75 pages? 

No. It’s not you. Some people keep looping back to the same issues. 

The thing about transit is people tend to think of the MTA and its decision making as monolithic…

it really isn’t. In the department of subways alone is seven subdivisions and each of those are subdivided further.

like, which car classes are used where, that’s not the decision those of us in RTO/“Service Delivery” make. That’s Car Equipment’s decision. If they want to relocate the R46s out of Pitkin yard tomorrow and swap in R68s, that’s well within their authority.

shuffling the 46s around is just kicking the can down the road.

The problems they are facing just become someone else's problem's... it doesn't actually fix them; it doesn't make them go away. 

Do we really need to beat this dead horse again?

3 hours ago, foggymetro said:

A little improvement, by the way, I replaced street names with major points near them.

That's not an improvement at all.

That makes more ambiguity, especially considering you tagged "Holland Tunnel" as more important than "Canal Steet" on the subway. IE, who's getting off the train and going to use the tunnel. Nobody! We don't even mention the tunnel in our announcements. 

We have procedures for our announcements for a reason. We have to assume everyone riding on our train is riding for the first time, and has no clue where they're going. So the best method is to include as much information as possible as quickly, but also as clearly as possible. 

And we are DEFINITELY not calling PATH at Penn station or west 4th. You want to hear Path, get a 6th avenue train or stay on to the Trade Center. More so it's wrong to call PATH at Penn station because people are just going assume PATH is in Penn  Station. You just said "33rd Street". you didn't quantify. 

"It's only a 10 mintue walk..." Or if you just take the D or go to WTC, you don't even have to go outside. 

Your average passenger is not one of US. They don't know nor care about 99% of the stuff we do. "Is this train going where I want to go." that is about all they care about. Thye want ease of use. They want simplicity. That's also my usual rant about deinterlineing because it removes that simplicity that passengers want. 

As we’ve actually kept saying, PSDs are impossible to implement properly without having a system that can detect and deal with trains of different lengths and configurations that works all the time.