Eric B Posted April 16, 2012 Share #551 Posted April 16, 2012 I combed through the 2247 images of R46, no luck. First page of the R44, bam. This is what they are supposed to look like. Make that my mistake, beta tested on the R44. You're saying the new signs for the 68's are going to be flipdots? I seriously doubt it, as that is now outmoded technology, replaced even on buses by amber LED's (in addition to new trains).They'll probably be the same ones on the B-Div NTT's. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted April 16, 2012 Share #552 Posted April 16, 2012 How many R179 will be assigned to: East New York for the J/Z Pitkin for the A 207th for the C What will there new numbers be. trainguy97: Can you post up the picture on what the new side signs for the R68 will look like. Based on what we know, it seems it will go something like this: 208-212 cars to 207th for the since it runs 18 trains (144 cars) currently for peak service. 48-52 cars to ENY for the to replace 50 R42s. and the remaining 40 cars to Pitkin for the A. We don't know car numbers, but there are guesses that they'll be in the low 3xxx series. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted April 16, 2012 Share #553 Posted April 16, 2012 Trainguy, nice find but you are mistaken about the history of that flip dot set on the 44s. That wasn't a beta of what's coming on the 68s. That, my dear fellow rail fan, was one of two pilot test sets for electronic signs who's was from 1989-1990. The pic is of one 8-car set with flip dot signs including the front. The other set was a set of 46s testing the yellow lcd signs, which as we all now know, won. Every 44 and 46 got the yellow lcd. Some one did get a picture of what's to go into the 68s from a convention. Odds are it may have been the Legend, 'Vintage Soul' who may have posted about it. I'd check the archives but I'm at work. Lol. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted April 16, 2012 Share #554 Posted April 16, 2012 Some one did get a picture of what's to go into the 68s from a convention. Odds are it may have been the Legend, 'Vintage Soul' who may have posted about it. I'd check the archives but I'm at work. Lol. Odds are, you are correct: http://nyctransitforums.com/forums/index.php/topic/30577-automated-passenger-information-system-for-r-68-subway-car/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted April 16, 2012 Share #555 Posted April 16, 2012 Snazzy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m7zanr160s Posted April 17, 2012 Share #556 Posted April 17, 2012 With 222 R32 cars available for service, that's 27 trains (480') at most. If 260 of the R179's are arranged in fives (26 trains), that's a loss of only one train. The runs about 18 trains, at most, at any given time. Why would most of this order be arranged in fours? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted April 17, 2012 Share #557 Posted April 17, 2012 With 222 R32 cars available for service, that's 27 trains (480') at most. If 260 of the R179's are arranged in fives (26 trains), that's a loss of only one train. The runs about 18 trains, at most, at any given time. Why would most of this order be arranged in fours? Must have missed the above posts, or just did not bother to read them. There also happen to be 50 R42s that need replacing at ENY (refer to my above post). On a side note, I am speculating that the only reason they would reduce the number of cars to be assigned to the is because of the increased reliability of the new cars, thus justifying a reduction in the spare factor. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m7zanr160s Posted April 17, 2012 Share #558 Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) Must have missed the above posts, or just did not bother to read them. There also happen to be 50 R42s that need replacing at ENY (refer to my above post). On a side note, I am speculating that the only reason they would reduce the number of cars to be assigned to the is because of the increased reliability of the new cars, thus justifying a reduction in the spare factor. Yeah, the remaining 40 in fours (5 trains). Also, one less train for the Eastern Division. There are currently 6 (48 cars) R42 trains. Edited April 17, 2012 by m7zanr160s 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted April 17, 2012 Share #559 Posted April 17, 2012 Yeah, the remaining 40 in fours (5 trains). Also, one less train for the Eastern Division. There are currently 6 (48 cars) R42 trains. Or they would just do as I predicted above and give ENY 6 (48 cars) R179 trains and just give 26.5 (212 cars) R179 trains to the . They can afford to lower the spare factor for the by that much (from 222 to 212) since 212 cars would still leave the C with a 68 car spare factor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted April 17, 2012 Share #560 Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) I Expect the C's spare factor to be reduced a great deal. I highly doubt you'll even see close to 200 cars assigned, as no other line has nearly the spare factor that the C has. I'd expect to see the C's spare factor more balanced with ENY's spare factor. If you give ENY and the C an equivalent spare factor, it comes to roughly 27%, you get roughly 184 cars assigned to the C, including spares. (I just did the math, in case anyone is curious, the J, L, and M would get roughly 204, 224, and 232 cars assigned respectively, including spares. 76 R179 cars would be on the J or M.) This is all based on the assumption that a roughly even spare factor is desirable, but I don't see why such an assumption would be false. Also, I would expect all of the A and C's R179 cars to be assigned to the same shop. It makes no sense to assign the 4 A trains to a separate shop than the rest of the northern R179 fleet. So as I see it, 76 cars to ENY for the J/M , 224 to either Pitkin or 207 for the A/C. Edited April 17, 2012 by Art Vandelay 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDTA Posted April 28, 2012 Share #561 Posted April 28, 2012 They should give the L's R160's to the J, and give the R179's to the L. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted April 28, 2012 Share #562 Posted April 28, 2012 They should give the L's R160's to the J, and give the R179's to the L. Do R179's have CTBC? No. Won't work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion VII 4 Life Posted April 28, 2012 Share #563 Posted April 28, 2012 Do R179's have CTBC? No. Won't work. The R160s didn't have them, they were retrofitted with it. They can do the same with these. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted April 28, 2012 Share #564 Posted April 28, 2012 Why waste the R143s that already have CBTC? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted April 28, 2012 Author Share #565 Posted April 28, 2012 Do R179's have CTBC? No. Won't work. They will be CBTC ready, as will all new trains. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted April 28, 2012 Share #566 Posted April 28, 2012 Why waste the R143s that already have CBTC? How is this even relevant? The R143s weren't even part of the conversation and everyone knows that they're not going anywhere. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B17EastNewYorkDepot Posted April 28, 2012 Share #567 Posted April 28, 2012 (edited) They should give the L's R160's to the J, and give the R179's to the L. i think they should just sms those 143s & change the display to the FIND thingee, so any train can run on any line so the (J)/(Z)/(L) can run the 143/160/179 well besides the 160s that arent cbtc Edited April 28, 2012 by B17EastNewYorkDepot 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted April 29, 2012 Share #568 Posted April 29, 2012 R143's aren't compatible with the R160s so it doesn't make sense to move them off the . Now if there are enough R179s for the to displace their R160s, I can see the as R143/179 and the taking the R160s and sharing those with the . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDTA Posted April 29, 2012 Share #569 Posted April 29, 2012 R143's aren't compatible with the R160s so it doesn't make sense to move them off the . Now if there are enough R179s for the to displace their R160s, I can see the as R143/179 and the taking the R160s and sharing those with the . Looks like there are 63 R160's on the . It in theory COULD be done. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe C Posted April 29, 2012 Share #570 Posted April 29, 2012 Looks like there are 63 R160's on the . It in theory COULD be done. 64 would be the exact number. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B17EastNewYorkDepot Posted April 29, 2012 Share #571 Posted April 29, 2012 R143's aren't compatible with the R160s so it doesn't make sense to move them off the . Now if there are enough R179s for the to displace their R160s, I can see the as R143/179 and the taking the R160s and sharing those with the . Can you elaborate? didnt know that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted April 29, 2012 Share #572 Posted April 29, 2012 Can you elaborate? didnt know that Just means that they can't operate in mixed sets. That's all, it's nothing new. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted April 29, 2012 Share #573 Posted April 29, 2012 (edited) Exactly^. An R160 set can't run with an R143 set in a single train. That's why all the R143's are on the . Can you elaborate? didnt know that Other than being equipped with CBTC and not having the FIND (just an electronic strip map), there's no point in having the R143's anywhere other than on the . The R143s were intended to be for the and the only reason the needed R160s is because ridership jumped beyond what the was originally meant to handle. I mean it's not a big deal if the R143's ran somewhere else, but basically, there is no need to. Edited April 29, 2012 by Grand Concourse 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted April 29, 2012 Share #574 Posted April 29, 2012 R143s used to run on the plenty too, but GC is right, they are only on the now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted April 29, 2012 Share #575 Posted April 29, 2012 Only on the weekend shuttle, that is. 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.