RollOver Posted September 1, 2012 Share #901 Posted September 1, 2012 Well I don't think there's that many R143s to cover the full line's needs, but I'm saying it's not the end of the world if they were given to the . Again assuming the R179s for the turns out to be 8 car trains over 10 car ones. Had those R143s go to the , only 144 out of the 212 cars will be in service every day (not night). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted September 1, 2012 Share #902 Posted September 1, 2012 I have to say that I agree. Might as well put the R46s on the . I am sure it could run R32s if it wanted to. MTA prefers opto on that line and I believe the platform can only hold 150' trains. So at best you can only run a 2-car R32 train or 120' and then you'd need a c/r. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3838 Posted September 1, 2012 Share #903 Posted September 1, 2012 those R143's are gonna stay on the , made it clear that those cars are for the , i see the R160A-1's going to 207th but not the R143's MTA didn't waste money getting those cars ready for the ATO and CBTC upgrade for nothing, i don't believe they are gonna send the R143's to the i just don't see it happening 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtattrain Posted September 1, 2012 Share #904 Posted September 1, 2012 ^^^ Agreed lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted September 1, 2012 Share #905 Posted September 1, 2012 R143s are not leaving ENY or the L. Such would never be seriously considered. ENY will have three car fleets- R143, R160, R179. Even if the C became 100% R143, you'd still be stuck with some on the L. It makes no sense whatsoever to split a small fleet like the R143 unless you had to. There is no reason you have to. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted September 1, 2012 Share #906 Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) I actually love the post you've made! Then all subway yards will have one or two car types assigned! I can see why R143s being possible for the makes sense (not because of ridership, service increase, and CBTC) but will reduce maintenance costs at East New York Yard and provide better service for the BMT Eastern Division by simply making the 100% R179s, 100% R143s, and the 100% R160s like the so the doesn't borrow any of the other BMT ED lines. Of course, this is just mute disscussion. Just discussing what's possible that would actually help prevent ENY from maintaining a third car. Damn that makes plenty of sense. R143s from the to the R179s to the and the It seems a lot more efficient than my plan. MTA prefers opto on that line and I believe the platform can only hold 150' trains. So at best you can only run a 2-car R32 train or 120' and then you'd need a c/r. But I can't understand why you can't run a 2 Car Consist R46. Is it because the MTA wants to have a car that is able to be operated from the front and the back? Because an A-A R46 would work fine if that is not the case. those R143's are gonna stay on the , made it clear that those cars are for the , i see the R160A-1's going to 207th but not the R143's MTA didn't waste money getting those cars ready for the ATO and CBTC upgrade for nothing, i don't believe they are gonna send the R143's to the i just don't see it happening ^^^ Agreed lol R143s are not leaving ENY or the L. Such would never be seriously considered. ENY will have three car fleets- R143, R160, R179. Even if the C became 100% R143, you'd still be stuck with some on the L. It makes no sense whatsoever to split a small fleet like the R143 unless you had to. There is no reason you have to. Do we really have to go back to this? Edited September 1, 2012 by Brighton Express 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted September 1, 2012 Share #907 Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) DISREGARD THIS POST Edited September 1, 2012 by Brighton Express 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted September 1, 2012 Share #908 Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) @Art Vandelay We're just going through the 's internal disscussion. We're not saying it as if the R143s ARE leaving ENY and going to 207th. We're just keeping this as civil and to prevent fights from happening again... Edited September 1, 2012 by RollOverMyHead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted September 1, 2012 Share #909 Posted September 1, 2012 @Brighton, you misunderstood. R46s would be fine (as that's what I keep saying), it's R32s that won't be good for that . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDTA Posted September 1, 2012 Share #910 Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) Thanks RollOverMyHead! I did't realize that the point of moving the 143's was to have ENY only maintain two fleets! Having said that, seeing how everything besides the 46's at that point would be less than 15-20 years old, and the 68's are staying on the and , means that the cars will very rarely (if it all) be moved around until the 143's retire! Meaning, that it actually might be cheaper to install CBTC on the 179's, if it means it can be a lot more efficient for 20+ years. In addition, because the is a light line, and the will beat cars to death, that would decrease life on the 179's, and increase life on the 143's meaning that they could both be retired with the 160's, so that even more of the fleet will be uniform, thus making maintenance costs go sharply down. Edited September 1, 2012 by CDTA 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted September 1, 2012 Share #911 Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) Either way I think the R143 thing is a moot point. I think the big thing is people need to calm down about IF they were moved off the . 'If it happens, it happens. If not, then whatever.' Edited September 1, 2012 by Grand Concourse 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted September 2, 2012 Share #912 Posted September 2, 2012 (edited) Either way I think the R143 thing is a moot point. I think the big thing is people need to calm down about IF they were moved off the . 'If it happens, it happens. If not, then whatever.' Well. the R179s will be caple of CBTC which is why the R143 swap makes sense to me at least. That's also because 64 R160s assigned to the are CBTC. I still wonder how much costs ENY has over maintaining a third car (R143, R160, and R42 (later R179) fleets) though... Edited September 2, 2012 by RollOverMyHead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted September 2, 2012 Share #913 Posted September 2, 2012 The could sure as hell use all those 300 R179s (with only 160 in service and the rest on standby) as well as to keep those CBTC 64 R160As there. Though since the R143s are CBTC, that's the only reason I can go against of putting all of them on a non-isolated line lol.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depotofrelax Posted September 2, 2012 Share #914 Posted September 2, 2012 Remember East New York Yard will receive 50 cars of R179 it will be 4 car unit example you know A+B+B+A divison 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted September 2, 2012 Share #915 Posted September 2, 2012 I will bet anybody here one million dollars that the total number of R179s assigned to ENY will not be 50. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted September 2, 2012 Share #916 Posted September 2, 2012 I will bet anybody here one million dollars that the total number of R179s assigned to ENY will not be 50. You said it there, pal. The said amount of number 50 R179s isn't just to retire those remaining 50 or 48 R42s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted September 2, 2012 Share #917 Posted September 2, 2012 All I know is, anything is possible. 20 years ago me and me railfans friends swore up and down that "we'll never see the R110B on the C". 3 scrapped cars later....... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted September 2, 2012 Share #918 Posted September 2, 2012 Remember East New York Yard will receive 50 cars of R179 it will be 4 car unit example you know A+B+B+A divison We know that... that's why we're saying the R143's could go to the and get rearranged to 5 car sets, and the 4 car R179's go to the . Seriously, it's not funny, it's spam. Use some grammar. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted September 2, 2012 Share #919 Posted September 2, 2012 Who said the 143s if they get sent to the C will get arraigned into 5 car sets? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted September 2, 2012 Share #920 Posted September 2, 2012 Who said the 143s if they get sent to the C will get arraigned into 5 car sets? The needs 14 trains. There are enough R143's to make 14 full length trains. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted September 2, 2012 Share #921 Posted September 2, 2012 Who said the C would 1)become 143 only and b)allow of the 143s would go to the C? From past movements, logically I see the MTA mixing the C with 143s and 179s. We ALL know a subway line does not have to only have one type of car. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted September 2, 2012 Share #922 Posted September 2, 2012 We know that... that's why we're saying the R143's could go to the and get rearranged to 5 car sets, and the 4 car R179's go to the . Seriously, it's not funny, it's spam. Use some grammar. NO. Stop it RIGHT THERE. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted September 2, 2012 Share #923 Posted September 2, 2012 NO. Stop it RIGHT THERE. What? It's a possiblity. Quit jumping the gun... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted September 2, 2012 Share #924 Posted September 2, 2012 But that possibility isn't the same possibility as 143s moving to the C. Those four car sets are not only hard linked, but designed for use as four car sets. We're discussing what the MTA internally said was possible. Big difference. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted September 3, 2012 Share #925 Posted September 3, 2012 I've been thinking about this, and since there are so many possibilities that could theoretically work, we have to understand that it's better spread car types over as few yards as possible. Thus, putting R143s on the seems attractive because it would leave ENY yard with only two car types (R160 and R179) and 207 St yard with only one (R143). The question is whether there are enough R179s to displace all of the R143s from ENY, because if there are any R143s left there, there's no point in moving any to 207 St in the first place. The other issue is that if the is supposed to get R179s too, the R179s are no longer isolated to ENY and the cost savings of displacing the R143s are gone. 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.