East New York Posted March 18, 2016 Author Share #2276 Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) Oh your right lol by bad, was thinking about the 8 car sets before the switch up with the 4 and 5 car sets when I did that lol. So you are right ENY. Yeah I double checked to make sure. Are the 5-car sets being built before the 4-car sets? I remember hearing that the prototype train will be 10 cars long, but who knows if it's still this way. Yes. I already mentioned this, and you need to respond to my PM ASAP. Rumor has it, they'll be numbered from 3001-3300. Heard the same. No it doesn't, the small amount of R179's that ENY is getting can show up on any eastern div. route, those R160's that are on the will go back to ENY True. Plans are for the to go all R179. ^I thought the was going to have a mixed fleet of R160's and R179's while the has R160's R179's and R32's. It will until all the R179's come on line. My thing is that will they be built with compatibility with the 160s. Good question. Edited March 18, 2016 by East New York 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeayo Posted March 18, 2016 Share #2277 Posted March 18, 2016 You know, for trains that are half built by the same company, that's one hell of an oversight. It is not an oversight. Backwards compatibility limits what new technology can be put on train due to interface concerns. NYCT wants to move forward with every car order not backwards. I am certain the mechanical couplers are compatible between each other in the event a rescue is needed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted March 18, 2016 Share #2278 Posted March 18, 2016 It is not an oversight. Backwards compatibility limits what new technology can be put on train due to interface concerns. NYCT wants to move forward with every car order not backwards. I am certain the mechanical couplers are compatible between each other in the event a rescue is needed. The 143 and 160 were supposed to be so identical mechanically, "that the mechanics couldn't tell them apart". So you're saying they at the last minute decided to advance something, throwing backward compatibility out the window? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted March 18, 2016 Share #2279 Posted March 18, 2016 Exactly. Adding to that, the main differences between the R143 and R160 (as far as I know as I am not a mechanic) are the FINDS, propulsion, and kind of lights on the ends. The R160 was awarded in 2002. The R143s were still coming in then so how technology could have been too different is not a good excuse. We're not talking an R143/R160/R179 to R211 leap here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeayo Posted March 18, 2016 Share #2280 Posted March 18, 2016 The 143 and 160 were supposed to be so identical mechanically, "that the mechanics couldn't tell them apart". So you're saying they at the last minute decided to advance something, throwing backward compatibility out the window? Not sure what you are asking. If an authority wants backwards compatibility, it needs to be written in the tech spec. So far, NYCT hasn't had that requirement in any of their contracts. It would make sense if NYCT ran mixed consists in revenue service but from my understanding, they keep the fleets separated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeayo Posted March 18, 2016 Share #2281 Posted March 18, 2016 Exactly. Adding to that, the main differences between the R143 and R160 (as far as I know as I am not a mechanic) are the FINDS, propulsion, and kind of lights on the ends. The R160 was awarded in 2002. The R143s were still coming in then so how technology could have been too different is not a good excuse. We're not talking an R143/R160/R179 to R211 leap here. I am certain if the R143's and R160's were ran in a mixed consist the FINDS system wouldn't work. Different communication networks and different signals. Again, I am not electrical guy but that's just from my experience working on other projects. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwayboy Posted March 18, 2016 Share #2282 Posted March 18, 2016 Exactly. Adding to that, the main differences between the R143 and R160 (as far as I know as I am not a mechanic) are the FINDS, propulsion, and kind of lights on the ends. The R160 was awarded in 2002. The R143s were still coming in then so how technology could have been too different is not a good excuse. We're not talking an R143/R160/R179 to R211 leap here. Please tell me the differences in the FINDs from the R160s. Do you have any close-up pix of the FINDs in the 179s? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted March 18, 2016 Share #2283 Posted March 18, 2016 It is not an oversight. Backwards compatibility limits what new technology can be put on train due to interface concerns. NYCT wants to move forward with every car order not backwards. I am certain the mechanical couplers are compatible between each other in the event a rescue is needed. They can couple to each other since they have the same coupler head, but with the different mechanical portions, one would have to tow the other along. The R143/160/179 are all classified in the same subway car generation, with the R211 being the next generation of cars. Seems like a HUGE oversight. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeayo Posted March 18, 2016 Share #2284 Posted March 18, 2016 They can couple to each other since they have the same coupler head, but with the different mechanical portions, one would have to tow the other along. The R143/160/179 are all classified in the same subway car generation, with the R211 being the next generation of cars. Seems like a HUGE oversight. Again, I don't understand why it is a huge oversight. NYCT doesn't run mixed consists. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted March 18, 2016 Share #2285 Posted March 18, 2016 But they could. Look at the SMEE generations of cars, and how they were all able to run with each other. That was highly convenient and they didn't have to leave, say, 5 R33 cars in the yard because they didn't have another 5 to complement them, and otherwise scramble to make service. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted March 18, 2016 Share #2286 Posted March 18, 2016 Please tell me the differences in the FINDs from the R160s. Do you have any close-up pix of the FINDs in the 179s? Are you...trying to be funny or something? Did you miss the point of my post? Again, I don't understand why it is a huge oversight. NYCT doesn't run mixed consists. And then here, the SMEEs historically up to their end (in the cases of R32/R38 and R40M/R42 mixes), ran mixed. What stopped the MTA from running, say, an R32/R42 mix were differences in propulsion as they found that trains generally performed better when the propulsion was the same. Backwards compatibility equals operational flexibility, something that a system of this size should be capitalizing on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwayboy Posted March 18, 2016 Share #2287 Posted March 18, 2016 Are you...trying to be funny or something? Did you miss the point of my post? Sorry, I misread it. I thought I saw you said the FINDS were different in the 160s and 179s. I now see you were saying that the FINDs are one of the diffs between 143 and 160! LOL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted March 18, 2016 Share #2288 Posted March 18, 2016 You know what I just realized and found beautifully coincidental? Both the D and E cars for BART and the rumored numbers for the R179 start at 3001. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwayboy Posted March 18, 2016 Share #2289 Posted March 18, 2016 You know what I just realized and found beautifully coincidental? Both the D and E cars for BART and the rumored numbers for the R179 start at 3001. Very cool! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDTA Posted March 18, 2016 Share #2290 Posted March 18, 2016 Doubt it, but does anyone know the day the first set will be sent down? I live a few blocks away from the CP line that goes through the Adirondacks, so assuming it gets sent down by rail, it'll pass through here, and I'd be able to check it out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted March 19, 2016 Share #2291 Posted March 19, 2016 Well, the last update on the delivery of the pilot was July of this year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted March 19, 2016 Share #2292 Posted March 19, 2016 So propulsions must also be the reason why you don't see R62/R62A, R68/R68A mixes and why the R44 and R46's never ran together. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3F Posted March 19, 2016 Share #2293 Posted March 19, 2016 Also different brakes. R44s had the electronic P-wire while R46s had SMEE ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted March 19, 2016 Share #2294 Posted March 19, 2016 So propulsions must also be the reason why you don't see R62/R62A, R68/R68A mixes and why the R44 and R46's never ran together. The R44s used a higher brake pressure than other SMEEs, so it was basically in a category within a category. Couldn't run with anything. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R179 8258 Posted March 19, 2016 Share #2295 Posted March 19, 2016 The R44s used a higher brake pressure than other SMEEs, so it was basically in a category within a category. Couldn't run with anything. Always felt like the R44 had the best brakes. The driver never really had to break hard to stop or slow down coming into a station 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted March 19, 2016 Share #2296 Posted March 19, 2016 Well they were designed for high speed service, so it's not a surprise really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R179 8258 Posted March 28, 2016 Share #2297 Posted March 28, 2016 Which line is going to get the 8-Car R179 first ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted March 28, 2016 Share #2298 Posted March 28, 2016 Which line is going to get the 8-Car R179 first ? My money says so the MTA can brag to the 8 Avenue muggles hipsters that their getting rid of the rust buckets R32s. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted March 28, 2016 Share #2299 Posted March 28, 2016 My money says so the MTA can brag to the 8 Avenue muggles hipsters that their getting rid of the rust buckets R32s. Those complaints came from Riders Alliance In Brooklyn not from 8th Avenue Riders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R179 8258 Posted March 28, 2016 Share #2300 Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) My money says so the MTA can brag to the 8 Avenue muggles hipsters that their getting rid of the rust buckets R32s. I agree and they could send the R160 back to ENY to replace the R32 Edited March 28, 2016 by R179 8258 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.