Culver Posted March 10, 2013 Share #2576 Posted March 10, 2013 I always thought it was foaming imo. But survey says that if this ever happens in our lifetime, it's possibility that it could cut down crowding on the and maybe even the . Sounds like a cute idea, but in reality the would of done it a long time ago and it just seems pretty.... well.... unlikely. If there were extra trains ordered.... maybe..... The people on subchat are just really thirsty for something brown of the West End line, I'm guessing. You decide because it just an opinion.... Probably. The biggest problem with running the down there is the J/Z thing. Can't run only trains there since technically some of those will be on the way back. As is, it very likely isn't happening. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted March 10, 2013 Share #2577 Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) I had one today... I thought that was an issue with LIPA's piece of shit electrical system. I don't think it's different voltage, it was something else that had to do with LIPA. Good thing you brought it up, will have to research how Con Edison vs LIPA serves power to industrial and Mass Transit entities, I can get back to you on that unless you already know what the deal is. If you do know in detail already please share. This is an important aspect as to how the entire R160 order all in all was rolled out throughout all the train yard complexes in this system. Far Rock Depot gave a clue as well in the original discussion I can vaguely remember. I will have to find his post. OK so this is what I found out from some internet surfing on the subject: The Con Edison electrical transmission system uses voltages of 138,000 volts, 345,000 volts and 500,000 volts. It distrubutes voltages of 33,000, 27,000 and 13,800 volts. LIPA's transmission voltages are 345,000, 138,000 and 69,000 volts, subtransmission voltages are 33,000 and 23,000 volts, and distribution voltages are 13,200 and 4,000 volts Now with the R160’s Siemens or Alstom ONIX propulsion systems will respond adversely to the reduced voltage conditions. As the distribution voltages are different on the Rockaway Branch as compared to the rest of the system. As LIPA again is the supplier of electricl power to the power grid that electrifys the third rails and signaling on the Rockaway branch while Con Ed handles pretty much the rest of the system. The third rails produces 600 volts of DC power, and the R160 therefore needs to run at 600 volts. Speculation on my part and an educated guess, but the variation of voltages between the different branches on the B division in question could be underpowering the power needed for the traction motors on those R160’s to run as well as it’s electrical/computer systems as well as it's batteries and low voltage power supply systems even. Also my understanding is that, as you stated as well, LIPA’s performance in it’s services of supplying power is questionable, all leading to the MTAs decision to not run the R160’s on the or anywhere near the Rockaway Branch. Note that R160’s can run on the Fulton Street Subway itself as demonstrated during the GO’s to Euclid or Lefferts with no problems. But never ever on the Rockaways. If there's any thing to add or if I missed something please feel free to highlight that for me. Sources: General info, R160: http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1087193 Con Edison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Edison LIPA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Power_Authority R160 Contractual Drawings: http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/cars/sheet-r143.jpg Edited March 10, 2013 by realizm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lance Posted March 10, 2013 Share #2578 Posted March 10, 2013 The problem isn't Fulton Street or the Lefferts branch. Unless that problem on the Rockaways is fixed, it severely limits where the trains can go, especially during track work or an emergency. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted March 10, 2013 Share #2579 Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) They might eventually do a to 9 Av on the West End, though, right? At least I remember lurking on SubChat and some posters there bringing the idea up. unless you were to take a few r32s for this extension, there's no extra trains to support it since the M has taken over the former V line and there went all the available 8 car r160s. Plus the old M to bay pkwy weren't well used and ran almost empty. If there's a need for more services they'll just run some extra D and/or R trains. Edited March 10, 2013 by Grand Concourse 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GojiMet86 Posted March 10, 2013 Share #2580 Posted March 10, 2013 I remember about a year(s) ago a thread about the to Bay Ridge was created, and that never happened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynIRT Posted March 10, 2013 Share #2581 Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) ATS really messed up today. I see a northbound descend from the el to the tunnel as I approach the entrance to the northbound platform of the 137 St station. as I descend the staircase, the ATS announcer states that the arriving train (the one I saw descend from the el) is not in service and is terminating at 137. and the conductor was one of those people who announces as little as possible and closes the doors mad quick, so I had to run onto the train once I realized it was going past 137 (I realized this when she said the next stop was 145, which seemed to come out of nowhere since ATS led me to believe the train was terminating at 137). it also says "this train is NIS" or "this train is NIS" at Flatbush when there are weekend GOs with those lines terminating at FB, but that is not nearly as bad as when it happens at an irregular terminal. Edited March 10, 2013 by BrooklynIRT 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted March 10, 2013 Share #2582 Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) The problem isn't Fulton Street or the Lefferts branch. Unless that problem on the Rockaways is fixed, it severely limits where the trains can go, especially during track work or an emergency. I know. That's what I meant: The Rockaway Branch and the problems with voltage there. It would be. It's too bad that the R160's can't handle the different voltages of the IND Rockaway Line, (as the power there is supplied by LIPA not Con Edison according to what I know on this particular) which resulted in the switch of that fleet to Jamaica Yard, CI and I believe ENY. Also my understanding is that, as you stated as well, LIPA’s performance in it’s services of supplying power is questionable, all leading to the MTAs decision to not run the R160’s on the or anywhere near the Rockaway Branch. Edited March 10, 2013 by realizm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted March 10, 2013 Share #2583 Posted March 10, 2013 Worst case scenario the furthest an R160 can go on the Rockaway Line would probably have to be Howard Beach. South of that point and if you have TOO MANY trains down there, it can be a problem. Remember, R160s were tested on the in the Rockaways and passed the 30-day test, but it was most likely only one consist at a time and never more than that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted March 10, 2013 Share #2584 Posted March 10, 2013 I heard that the issue with the R160s in the Rockaways was fixed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted March 10, 2013 Share #2585 Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Worst case scenario the furthest an R160 can go on the Rockaway Line would probably have to be Howard Beach. South of that point and if you have TOO MANY trains down there, it can be a problem. Remember, R160s were tested on the in the Rockaways and passed the 30-day test, but it was most likely only one consist at a time and never more than that.Yes, that's what I remember as well. They ran at least one train set. So it isn't an issue about the r160 running to far rockaway, but I'm not convinced they can run only or mostly r160s there in a row. So if an r160 gets routed onto the A, they should turn back at Euclid or lefferts. Edited March 10, 2013 by Grand Concourse 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted March 11, 2013 Share #2586 Posted March 11, 2013 @ Grand Concourse @LRG We need to search for more official pdfs and suchfrom the MTA or something to see for sure WHY the MTA does not want to run the R160's on the . You both mentioned the 30 day test and the fact the farthest the R160 can go is Howard Beach..... Perhaps the problem could be the problem going east of Howard Beach then. Or just politics as usual, who knows? And yes GC I agree on your point on turnarounds @ Euclid and Lefferts because that's exactly what they did with the GO reroutes to the IND Fulton, no? All R160's and it was pretty much an outstanding success. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted March 11, 2013 Share #2587 Posted March 11, 2013 After 9/11, when the was rerouted to New Lots Av, did it run local south of 96 or express? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynIRT Posted March 11, 2013 Share #2588 Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) local, as did the . you really took me back with that one; I remember being surprised to see "New Lots Avenue Brooklyn" up on the signs of trains running over Broadway. I was in elementary school at the time. Edited March 11, 2013 by BrooklynIRT 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overclocked Posted March 11, 2013 Share #2589 Posted March 11, 2013 I think additionally to inferior power distribution system over there, the problem with NTTs going to Far Rock is simply because their motors consume more power than the rest of the stock. Ntt motors are 150 hp 46 are 115 32 are 100 Under ideal conditions (full load) a set of NTTs will need more than 2k more amps than 46, while the real life consumption would be less for both sets, the climb over the bridge in the flats will put the power system to a serious test. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted March 11, 2013 Share #2590 Posted March 11, 2013 local, as did the . you really took me back with that one; I remember being surprised to see "New Lots Avenue Brooklyn" up on the signs of trains running over Broadway. I was in elementary school at the time. Thanks! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowblock Posted March 11, 2013 Share #2591 Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) Probably. The biggest problem with running the down there is the J/Z thing. Can't run only trains there since technically some of those will be on the way back. As is, it very likely isn't happening. I'm amazed how many people (ESPECIALLY some of you on this board) seem to think that the is some separate line from the . There are no crews - they are all crews, which do half a trip designated as the , using the 's equipment. Furthermore there are only 6 runs in the morning and evening. You can't just say "let's send the here and the there" ... even if the MTA WERE to add distinctive service, they would need the added equipment to run it -- there are no longer any trains which come out of Coney Island Yard anymore, for example, so if they wanted to extend service to Bay Parkway, where would those trains come from? Believe me, if they had the available equipment, they wouldn't be running those R42 sets anymore..... Show of hands - how many of you want to see a " to ..... " service just as an excuse to use the Broad end of the Montague tube? Edited March 11, 2013 by Snowblock 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowblock Posted March 11, 2013 Share #2592 Posted March 11, 2013 Crap. I came home from work on the . Damn.... You would have been able to catch it going N/B a little after 11PM and then coming back south from 205 St a little after 1AM. It was originally an which got rerouted via Grand at W4 and then stayed in service on the for an extra roundtrip. I'm sure it got returned to the proper line when it finally found its way back to Stillwell the second time..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted March 11, 2013 Share #2593 Posted March 11, 2013 I'm amazed how many people (ESPECIALLY some of you on this board) seem to think that the is some separate line from the . There are no crews - they are all crews, which do half a trip designated as the , using the 's equipment. Furthermore there are only 6 runs in the morning and evening. You can't just say "let's send the here and the there" ... even if the MTA WERE to add distinctive service, they would need the added equipment to run it -- there are no longer any trains which come out of Coney Island Yard anymore, for example, so if they wanted to extend service to Bay Parkway, where would those trains come from? Believe me, if they had the available equipment, they wouldn't be running those R42 sets anymore..... Show of hands - how many of you want to see a " to ..... " service just as an excuse to use the Broad end of the Montague tube? Wait, why was that response to me? I acknowledge that the is part of the in my post there. ??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted March 11, 2013 Share #2594 Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) I'm amazed how many people (ESPECIALLY some of you on this board) seem to think that the is some separate line from the . There are no crews - they are all crews, which do half a trip designated as the , using the 's equipment. Furthermore there are only 6 runs in the morning and evening. You can't just say "let's send the here and the there" ... even if the MTA WERE to add distinctive service, they would need the added equipment to run it -- there are no longer any trains which come out of Coney Island Yard anymore, for example, so if they wanted to extend service to Bay Parkway, where would those trains come from? Believe me, if they had the available equipment, they wouldn't be running those R42 sets anymore..... Show of hands - how many of you want to see a " to ..... " service just as an excuse to use the Broad end of the Montague tube? i agree. There are no more trains to support such a service with the new M running. That said, I have no need to ride that segment, rode it years ago and it wasn't anything special. At least with the new M, I wonder how many ppl are still foaming about going thru the Chrystie st connector? Edited March 11, 2013 by Grand Concourse 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowblock Posted March 11, 2013 Share #2595 Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) Wait, why was that response to me? I acknowledge that the is part of the in my post there. ??? No, not a response to you. It's something I've seen come up here and there on this forum though (including the post you were responding to) ....they'll keep foaming as long as the line-up at B/L continues to be a yard indication..... Edited March 11, 2013 by Snowblock 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted March 11, 2013 Share #2596 Posted March 11, 2013 No, not a response to you. It's something I've seen come up here and there on this forum though (including the post you were responding to) ....they'll keep foaming as long as the line-up at B/L continues to be a yard indication..... Oh alright then. Thanks for the clarification. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted March 11, 2013 Share #2597 Posted March 11, 2013 There are no crews - they are all crews, which do half a trip designated as the , using the 's equipment. Just curious, was the same true of the and trains as well? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowblock Posted March 11, 2013 Share #2598 Posted March 11, 2013 Yes, except that the ran throughout all of rush hour and in BOTH directions. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted March 11, 2013 Share #2599 Posted March 11, 2013 (edited) Yes, except that the ran throughout all of rush hour and in BOTH directions. I understand. On a semi-related note, I've been looking at some older maps of the subway on NYCSubway, this one in particular: http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/system_1987.gif Does anyone know what this means? Why is the bolded but not Kingston/Throop? I've been doing some 1980s FIND displays and they're probably massively inaccurate. Originally I thought that the and ran at the same time, because on CPW there's nothing designating that they don't. Edited March 11, 2013 by ttcsubwayfan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted March 11, 2013 Share #2600 Posted March 11, 2013 I understand. On a semi-related note, I've been looking at some older maps of the subway on NYCSubway, this one in particular: http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/system_1987.gif Does anyone know what this means? Why is the bolded but not Kingston/Throop? I've been doing some 1980s FIND displays and they're probably massively inaccurate. Originally I thought that the and ran at the same time, because on CPW there's nothing designating that they don't. stopped at Utica at all times but the local stops only on nights to cover the which didn't run at that time? 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.