Grand Concourse Posted April 29, 2012 Share #576 Posted April 29, 2012 R143s used to run on the plenty too, but GC is right, they are only on the now. Yes, key words being 'used to', because there were no R160s around then and only the R143s had full width cabs to allow for OPTO 4-car trains. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted April 29, 2012 Share #577 Posted April 29, 2012 Yes, key words being 'used to', because there were no R160s around then and only the R143s had full width cabs to allow for OPTO 4-car trains. I am sorry, all I saw was that R143s used to run on the , so I was simply adding in the . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted April 29, 2012 Share #578 Posted April 29, 2012 No, no just clearing up your post. What you said was correct. R143's did used to run on the , but now that ENY has their R160s, R143s are no longer needed on the shuttle now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted April 30, 2012 Share #579 Posted April 30, 2012 Last time I checked, the R160 and R143 are compatible. THe reason they don't run together are because the propulsion packages are different. It is known that trains run better when the two halves share the same propulsion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted April 30, 2012 Share #580 Posted April 30, 2012 The R160s and R143s are not functionally compatible. R179s will not be backwards compatible either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lance Posted April 30, 2012 Share #581 Posted April 30, 2012 Typical. You'd think that after having the remaining three cars of R143s sitting around 207th Street following the Canarsie launch, someone would think it'd be a good idea to have the newer cars compatible with the older ones just as a precaution. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted April 30, 2012 Share #582 Posted April 30, 2012 I just hope they don't pull and R143/160 or an R142/188 and make the car look just like an R160 with new features. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted April 30, 2012 Share #583 Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) The R160s and R143s are not functionally compatible. R179s will not be backwards compatible either. That makes no sense whatsoever. What's the point of being 99% identical if they aren't compatible? To the person above, the R179 will be R160s with cameras and Bombardiers trucks. The propulsion may be different as well. Edited April 30, 2012 by LTA1992 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted April 30, 2012 Share #584 Posted April 30, 2012 Reality is not always logical unfortunately. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted May 1, 2012 Share #585 Posted May 1, 2012 Sadly so. It would've been nice to see the MTA learn from that mistake since the R143s are isolated, but I could never understand how the R160B (which was built by Kawasaki) can't run with it's predecessor R143. Looks like those Canarsie yard cars will be donors unless they were 'converted' the way the R142As are into R188s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted May 1, 2012 Share #586 Posted May 1, 2012 It would of been good of them if they had of order more R143's to replace some of those R40's and R42's from the J,M,L, Z lines And more R160's could of been helpful for the A,C,R and J lines. MTA never thinks of always being ahead of themselves and stuff like the R44's body issues leaves them screwed. But they wants to spend lots of money for the SBS M34/M34A and that route is only 20 minutes and it basically is the same. And that silly repainting and wrapping of those OG's which are not even that old referring to the 06-07 batch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S78 via Hylan Posted May 1, 2012 Share #587 Posted May 1, 2012 But they wants to spend lots of money for the SBS M34/M34A and that route is only 20 minutes and it basically is the same. And that silly repainting and wrapping of those OG's which are not even that old referring to the 06-07 batch. Save that for a different thread.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m7zanr160s Posted May 2, 2012 Share #588 Posted May 2, 2012 Sadly so. It would've been nice to see the MTA learn from that mistake since the R143s are isolated, but I could never understand how the R160B (which was built by Kawasaki) can't run with it's predecessor R143. Looks like those Canarsie yard cars will be donors unless they were 'converted' the way the R142As are into R188s. What is 8277 doing right now anyway? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted May 2, 2012 Share #589 Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) The R143s were basically test cars for CBTC and replacements for the R27/R30s. They were never meant to be anywhere else other than the line. Not counting the shuttle back when they were new. Edited May 2, 2012 by LTA1992 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted May 2, 2012 Share #590 Posted May 2, 2012 Actually, at the time the R143s were ordered, the L required far fewer trains. As such, the R143s were anticipated to make up the entirety of the L fleet as well as a bit of the M fleet. The L has skyrocketed in ridership since then and needs more capacity every year! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted May 2, 2012 Share #591 Posted May 2, 2012 What is 8277 doing right now anyway? Sitting at Yonkers. Last I remember hearing of it, the car may have sustained frame damage, thus rendering it beyond repair, but that was almost a year ago now. If anyone has updates on that it would be nice, but this is not the thread for it. What interests me is that Bombardier has not yet updated its site to reflect the purchase award. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djreelz Posted May 8, 2012 Share #592 Posted May 8, 2012 After much anticipation, and delays, the MTA is finally set to awards a base contract for 290 cars in little more than 90 days.:cool: The order will consist of: *50 trains made up of 5 cars each. *10 trains made up of 4 cars each. Included in the contract are funds for training, spare parts, tools, diagnostic testing equipment, and other services that will be needed to support the fleet. The awards was originally scheduled for August of last year. Why are they buying trains that have a 19 year life span, this i don't understand 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lance Posted May 8, 2012 Share #593 Posted May 8, 2012 Since when do the R179s (or any of the new tech fleets) have a nominal lifespan of 19 years? All of the new cars ordered are expected to last at least 40 years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted May 9, 2012 Share #594 Posted May 9, 2012 Especially how now the MTA is taking steps to constantly maintain the trains (SMS) rather than to do a total overhaul after 20 years like in the 90s. There's no reason why those trains can't last at least 40 yrs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted May 9, 2012 Share #595 Posted May 9, 2012 We all know they are so drop it now lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted May 9, 2012 Share #596 Posted May 9, 2012 Lol, some folks need to be told the reason, otherwise it'll be brought up again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 Lexington Ave Posted May 9, 2012 Share #597 Posted May 9, 2012 Where was it said that the R179s will have a lifespan of 19 years? I can't even find it anywhere. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lance Posted May 9, 2012 Share #598 Posted May 9, 2012 Just the usual NTT-haters talking out of their asses again. 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overclocked Posted May 19, 2012 Share #599 Posted May 19, 2012 It's delayed...Again ALSKAW is joint venture between Kawasaki HI and Alstom All above is courtesy of Gold_12TH from subchat 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion VII 4 Life Posted May 19, 2012 Share #600 Posted May 19, 2012 Oh give me a f**king break! The one time Kawasaki isn't gonna be involved in a NYCT car order, and this happens! I swear if I have to hear that damn Alstom propulsion on these things I'm gonna flip! I really hope Bombardier gets to keep this one. They still got the BART contract even after Alstom protested Bombardier getting the award. 6 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.