2Line1291 Posted March 30, 2012 Share #451 Posted March 30, 2012 207th Yard can't maintain 75 footers. It's looks like the C would be gettin NTT's ultimately. the Q mind as well get R179s if this is for SAS expanision and the C get the Q's R160s. @ArtVandelay: Where does it say R179 would mostly be 4-car sets? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted March 30, 2012 Share #452 Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) @LTA:MTA's 'logic' is to replace just enough to fill the demand. Obviously giving the C longer headways would piss people off even though: longer trains at longer headways = shorter trains at current headways, same total amount of cars on the tracks. 207th Yard can't maintain 75 footers. It's looks like the C would be gettin NTT's ultimately. the Q mind as well get R179s if this is for SAS expanision and the C get the Q's R160s. @ArtVandelay: Where does it say R179 would mostly be 4-car sets? There is Pitkin yard which handles the A. Edited March 30, 2012 by Grand Concourse 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted March 30, 2012 Share #453 Posted March 30, 2012 There is Pitkin yard which handles the A.There's 207th yard maintaing the C lol... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted March 30, 2012 Share #454 Posted March 30, 2012 Your point was what would happen to the C if it was 600' trains. There is Pitkin yard that can handle such longer trains. From what some posters {MTA employees} said: there was/are plans to move the C to Pitkin and 're-purpose' 207th for work trains and IRT equipment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova RTS 9147 Posted March 30, 2012 Share #455 Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) 207th Yard can't maintain 75 footers. It's looks like the C would be gettin NTT's ultimately. the Q mind as well get R179s if this is for SAS expanision and the C get the Q's R160s. @ArtVandelay: Where does it say R179 would mostly be 4-car sets? I wouldn't count on the © nor the getting R160s once the R179s come. I dont have any proof, but a gut feeling and looking at how the MTA operates. Edited March 30, 2012 by Nova RTS 9147 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted March 30, 2012 Share #456 Posted March 30, 2012 207th has no problem handling 75 foot cars. Until they decided to retire the R44s instead of the R32s and R42s, 207th was going to have entirely 75 foot cars. They cannot handle 600 foot trains without uncoupling them however. It isn't obvious at all that most of the R179s are going to be in 5 car sets because hardly any are going to be. 40/300 is not a majority. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted March 30, 2012 Share #457 Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) It's seems like the C would probably only run 480 foot long trains. Maybe the MTA believed that demands aren't high enough to warrant for 600 foot long trains. Edited March 30, 2012 by Roadcruiser1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pelhamlocal Posted March 30, 2012 Share #458 Posted March 30, 2012 So basically all the R179's are just a slightly updated model of the R160's to replace all the 60' SMEE's...to be honest not really suprised, but the thing i am suprised about, is that they awarded bombardier the contract. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted March 30, 2012 Share #459 Posted March 30, 2012 So basically all the R179's are just a slightly updated model of the R160's to replace all the 60' SMEE's...to be honest not really suprised, but the thing i am suprised about, is that they awarded bombardier the contract. It's quite possible that the MTA saw that Kawasaki had their hands full, and that is why Bombardier won by default. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lance Posted March 30, 2012 Share #460 Posted March 30, 2012 No. The contract was awarded to Bombardier because Alstom-Kawasaki wanted $57.5 million more for the order. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted March 30, 2012 Share #461 Posted March 30, 2012 Yes, I cannot imagine that cost was not the primary reason here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68 Subway Car Posted March 31, 2012 Share #462 Posted March 31, 2012 Cool to see this but they should change up the design somewhat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted March 31, 2012 Share #463 Posted March 31, 2012 The design change may come with the R211. And considering that it's a new first digit, it may be so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted March 31, 2012 Share #464 Posted March 31, 2012 It isn't obvious at all that most of the R179s are going to be in 5 car sets because hardly any are going to be. 40/300 is not a majority. Do you have a source? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayJay85 Posted March 31, 2012 Share #465 Posted March 31, 2012 Their was reports that 4car units sets was only for the JMZ lines and 5car units for was A/C lines (or any other B division) unless mta change their minds on keeping C at 480ft that lead for 4 cars units being order 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 31, 2012 Share #466 Posted March 31, 2012 Do you have a source? I heard the same thing, and yep he has, from insiders in the transit industry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted March 31, 2012 Share #467 Posted March 31, 2012 (edited) Meanwhile more news sources seems to point to the C line. New York MTA selects Bombardier to supply 300 metro cars 30 March 2012 USA: The New York MTA board selected lowest bidder Bombardier for a contract to supply 300 metro cars on March 28. Bombardier's bid of $600m beat a rival offer from a consortium of Alstom and Kawasaki Heavy Industries. From late 2016 the R179 cars will replace R32 vehicles which entered service on the C Line in 1964. The new trains will feature 'bright' interiors, digital voice announcements and passenger information, 'state-of-the art' climate control, airbag suspension and regenerative braking. Maintenance costs are expected to be 40% lower than the current cars once the new fleet is out of its two-year warranty period. The order will be financed by $306m of federal funds which is already secured, and other pending and future federal grants. The cars are to built at the Plattsburgh factory in New York State, where Bombardier is developing a Transportation Center of Excellence. This will be equipped to undertake the complete production and assembly of stainless steel bodyshells, which previously used components manufactured elsewhere in Plattsburgh. After a four-year hiatus MTA and the Poetry Society of America are reinstating the Poetry in Motion programme to display poems on trains. 'Our customers tell us again and again that even a small investment in art and music underground makes a huge difference to them,' said MTA Chairman Joseph J Lhota. 'It can really improve the entire experience of riding the subway.' http://www.railwayga...metro-cars.html There is no doubt in my mind that even though it doesn't say it exactly the R179's are going to be on the C. Edited March 31, 2012 by Roadcruiser1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 31, 2012 Share #468 Posted March 31, 2012 If the news say the so we can only now say, it should be the . I would think people who use the would be furious if they get hand me downs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted March 31, 2012 Share #469 Posted March 31, 2012 Well, the C and B are both part time lines, so as bad as it is, some group has to be stuck with the older trains. The older trains have to go somewhere for service and most of the other yards have what they need or pushed out the older cars in the first place. I would think even R46s would be a better option than nothing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted March 31, 2012 Share #470 Posted March 31, 2012 Well, the C and B are both part time lines, so as bad as it is, some group has to be stuck with the older trains. The older trains have to go somewhere for service and most of the other yards have what they need or pushed out the older cars in the first place. I would think even R46s would be a better option than nothing. Well it's certain that the R32's will be scrapped so the R46's would be sent to the A line for a while. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoTimer Posted March 31, 2012 Share #471 Posted March 31, 2012 Well CCY will remain with its 68s, those aren't going anywhere. Yes, the article meant that the cars will replace the R32 (which currently run on the C), not specifically saying that they will run on the C line, however (that decision probably hasn't been made as of yet, and will be made as it nears delivery time). Remember when the R160 came out on the A and everyone thought it was going to be a staple of that historic line, and it wasn't. It was bound for Queens and the packs of riders that desperately need the local recycle feature on those trains. As I said earlier, it will depend on which barn gets updated to accept the cars. If I don't see new shiny equipment being hauled into 207 and perhaps Pitkin in the next couple of years in preparation (but I see work being done in Jamaica and CI, for example), then it's safe to assume the 179's won't "home port" at 207, which services the C line. They will be tested of course on the A as that has the infamous test track in the flats where it can run out there, and might even do a run or two on the A (with a train full of railfans and buffs), but it too could disappear just like the R160 did. Either one or the other will happen... (along with finishing off the R42) 1. As said by others - will run on the C as was interpreted in the article. 2. Push R46 equipment out of Queens altogether (and presumably to the C and A, allowing a few of the poorer performing R46 to be retired), making Queens fully NTT, just like the Bronx. I honestly think the latter will occur, as the barns in Jamaica/CI are already equipped for NTT, and whatever computer upgrades are needed will be cheaper than overhauling the 207 and Pitkin barns, which doesn't have the overhead equipment that Jamaica/CI have just yet. The C won't get 8 car units because the C and A have often shared equipment in the past (and presently during the summer), and giving the line linked 4 car units will also inadvertently hamper the A from getting spares. I feel this way as it is the cheapest option, further delaying necessary barn updates for the older barns. There is a chance that if the G is based out of Court sq again (as supposed to Church, which means it will terminate at Smith-9 again) that it could get some R160 5 car units as a result. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDTA Posted March 31, 2012 Share #472 Posted March 31, 2012 As a daily C train rider, I would prefer it, if we had the only non-tech trains. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted March 31, 2012 Share #473 Posted March 31, 2012 Well CCY will remain with its 68s, those aren't going anywhere. Yes, the article meant that the cars will replace the R32 (which currently run on the C), not specifically saying that they will run on the C line, however (that decision probably hasn't been made as of yet, and will be made as it nears delivery time). Remember when the R160 came out on the A and everyone thought it was going to be a staple of that historic line, and it wasn't. It was bound for Queens and the packs of riders that desperately need the local recycle feature on those trains. As I said earlier, it will depend on which barn gets updated to accept the cars. If I don't see new shiny equipment being hauled into 207 and perhaps Pitkin in the next couple of years in preparation (but I see work being done in Jamaica and CI, for example), then it's safe to assume the 179's won't "home port" at 207, which services the C line. They will be tested of course on the A as that has the infamous test track in the flats where it can run out there, and might even do a run or two on the A (with a train full of railfans and buffs), but it too could disappear just like the R160 did. Either one or the other will happen... (along with finishing off the R42) 1. As said by others - will run on the C as was interpreted in the article. 2. Push R46 equipment out of Queens altogether (and presumably to the C and A, allowing a few of the poorer performing R46 to be retired), making Queens fully NTT, just like the Bronx. I honestly think the latter will occur, as the barns in Jamaica/CI are already equipped for NTT, and whatever computer upgrades are needed will be cheaper than overhauling the 207 and Pitkin barns, which doesn't have the overhead equipment that Jamaica/CI have just yet. The C won't get 8 car units because the C and A have often shared equipment in the past (and presently during the summer), and giving the line linked 4 car units will also inadvertently hamper the A from getting spares. I feel this way as it is the cheapest option, further delaying necessary barn updates for the older barns. There is a chance that if the G is based out of Court sq again (as supposed to Church, which means it will terminate at Smith-9 again) that it could get some R160 5 car units as a result. Well, on the subject of the 207 and Pitken yard. They have to get overhauled sooner or later so it's technically not a waste of money. (Not saying you said that but others may) As a daily C train rider, I would prefer it, if we had the only non-tech trains. So, basically, you want your trains to be feet propelled? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R188 7857 Posted March 31, 2012 Share #474 Posted March 31, 2012 Look at story #1 in the MTA Home Page!! Theres a picture of the R179, well atleast a mockup. http://mta.info/default.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterious2train Posted March 31, 2012 Share #475 Posted March 31, 2012 Like I've been saying, I think it is shortsighted to limit the C to just 480' car trains because "that's all that's needed". Sure it won't see the jump in ridership the L has where it needed more trains to meet the demand, but at least if they have more cars now, they can always order fewer in the future. The C is needed more in Manhattan than Brooklyn. If it's so much about 'meeting demand' then have 600' car C trains and short turn some at WTC with the E or 2nd Av with the F and have the trains going to Euclid on slightly extended headways [maybe add an extra min or 2 b/w each train per hour]. That way the A and C can both be 600' trains and be interchangeable. IAWTP. Maybe, Maybe I could understand the staying at 8 cars if it would mean more service. But I think it's fairly clear the has little desire to increase service, because that would mean more $$ for crews. If you give the 10 car trains but keep headaways the same, that's not a problem and at least there's more capacity. Yes, the could decrease service with full-length trains, but I think full-length trains with current headaways is the best deal. Ideally, the could have full-length trains and more service, but beggars can't be choosers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.