East New York Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share #226 Posted October 18, 2012 And where have you seen this RFP? Last year somewhere in some MTA documents where I get most all my information. Either way, an award is scheduled for February so this tells you right there the RFP has gone out. You can't award a contract if you never published a solicitation unless its a sole-source. That tells you all you need to know right there, on top of the fact that Lance posted the link to the milestone report on the retrofit. I may have been the first to post on this topic, but its in black and white on the MTA documents now. It's obvious that some of you will not believe it until the cars are actually shipped to SIR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted October 18, 2012 Share #227 Posted October 18, 2012 The Q itself will not need more cars. 96/2 to Coney Island is a lot shorter of a distance than Astoria to Coney Island. Where the cars are needed is the reinstated W, which cannot be run solely on the cars made excess by shortening the Q. And by shorter distance, I mean shorter by rail. I have no idea, but suspect Astoria may be closer as the bird flies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted October 18, 2012 Author Share #228 Posted October 18, 2012 The Q itself will not need more cars. 96/2 to Coney Island is a lot shorter of a distance than Astoria to Coney Island. Where the cars are needed is the reinstated W, which cannot be run solely on the cars made excess by shortening the Q. And by shorter distance, I mean shorter by rail. I have no idea, but suspect Astoria may be closer as the bird flies. I'm not sure of all the details, but I was informed that it had been worked out long before the decision to move forward with the retrofit was made or else they wouldn't be set to award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted October 18, 2012 Share #229 Posted October 18, 2012 Yes- The R46s were to be displaced to Staten Island by the 80 car option order of the R179s! The only problem is, that option has been cancelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJC Posted October 21, 2012 Share #230 Posted October 21, 2012 Well, I can't find the RFP for the order, but according to the MTA's Milestone Report (page 4), the contract for the retrofit is to be awarded sometime early next year. I'll believe it when I see it. Last year somewhere in some MTA documents where I get most all my information. Either way, an award is scheduled for February so this tells you right there the RFP has gone out. You can't award a contract if you never published a solicitation unless its a sole-source. Exactly. And since the RFP has not gone out ("somewhere in some MTA documents" is not a source), there will be no award in February - or, I suspect, ever. I may have been the first to post on this topic, but its in black and white on the MTA documents now. It's obvious that some of you will not believe it until the cars are actually shipped to SIR. The projected award date for this retrofit has already been postponed by a year. It will continue to be postponed until it is canceled. No RFP has gone out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted October 21, 2012 Share #231 Posted October 21, 2012 AndrewJC, I hope so. I would not be pleased to see any older subway car on the SIR for a few more years before retirement...Whatever that's going to replace the R46s in 2018 or so are those that IMO the should retrofit for SIR service! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted October 22, 2012 Share #232 Posted October 22, 2012 I'll believe it when I see it. Exactly. And since the RFP has not gone out ("somewhere in some MTA documents" is not a source), there will be no award in February - or, I suspect, ever. The projected award date for this retrofit has already been postponed by a year. It will continue to be postponed until it is canceled. No RFP has gone out. But it hasn't been canceled. It's still part of the MTAs plan whether we like it or not. "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". It's, as always, a wait and see. We can't say it's not going to happen based on a new car order, whether or not they were to coincide. All we know for sure is SI won't get 179s and they plan to have 46s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerdodge9 Posted October 24, 2012 Share #233 Posted October 24, 2012 These guys need some new trains. The MTA should use that option of up to 80 60ft cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted October 24, 2012 Share #234 Posted October 24, 2012 The option no longer exists, and so it cannot be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted October 27, 2012 Share #235 Posted October 27, 2012 Additional new cars for Staten Island mentioned as part of the R211 order. Further evidence that R46s will not be relocated to SI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJC Posted October 28, 2012 Share #236 Posted October 28, 2012 Additional new cars for Staten Island mentioned as part of the R211 order. Further evidence that R46s will not be relocated to SI. Found it here - http://mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/121029_1400_Cpoc.pdf - look under R211. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJC Posted October 28, 2012 Share #237 Posted October 28, 2012 I would like to know the source to. Because it's been updated back in august here, by someone very credible, that the bulk of the order will be in 5-car sets. Now if its the assumption that the bulk are to be in 4-car sets based on the fact that they're replacing the 32s which run on the C, I would have to say whoa nelly, hold your horses. the preliminary reports on the order showed a possible car shift along with the order of new cars. As always its a wait and see, but to just change the info based on an assumption, and possible misunderstanding can cause an uproar here. Maybe someone with credible info from inside can update...... Here's your source - see the R179 Project Overview. 65 4-car units (that's 260 cars) plus 8 5-car units (that's 40 cars). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted October 28, 2012 Share #238 Posted October 28, 2012 Here's your source - see the R179 Project Overview. 65 4-car units (that's 260 cars) plus 8 5-car units (that's 40 cars). Already known, check the R179 thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted October 29, 2012 Author Share #239 Posted October 29, 2012 Additional new cars for Staten Island mentioned as part of the R211 order. Further evidence that R46s will not be relocated to SI. This isn't further evidence of anything. If you go back to my original thread I mentioned that the plans were retrofitted R46's and R211's to operate alongside each other and serve as replacements for the R44's...... Nothing has changed except the date, and official word on the R211 which we were awaiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted October 30, 2012 Share #240 Posted October 30, 2012 There is no chance that more than one fleet will be assigned to Staten Island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vistausss Posted October 30, 2012 Share #241 Posted October 30, 2012 There is no chance that more than one fleet will be assigned to Staten Island. You know that for sure? Anything is possible these days. By the way, ENY is the one with inside information so I'm not sure why you're so... you know. Skeptiscism is one thing but you act like you have all sorts of magical powers aggregating the all information possible without ever naming any source. ENY clearly has more inside information than you so why don't you just either believe him or react less like 'Mr-I-know-it-all'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted October 31, 2012 Share #242 Posted October 31, 2012 Still, why in the hell of a cell would the want to retrofit old subway cars to operate alongside with newer ones...? I know Santa Claus doesn't exist nor do reindeers fly. So say they could convert the R42s and have them operate with the R143s? Impossible and never happening. Sure they can convert the R46s but how long would they last on SIR? Replacing it is more efficient. This isn't going to be like the R32s on the where the trains are plauged with problems in their older age and are less reliable... All I can say is that the 's current plans are a big mistake and least efficient..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vistausss Posted October 31, 2012 Share #243 Posted October 31, 2012 One thing could be that they want to have a higher frequency. Another thing could be that they want some backup trains (because even newer trains can have problems sometimes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share #244 Posted November 2, 2012 Thanks Vistausss, but it's ok. Whatever will happen will happen. I've gone through this for years with various topics and it happens. I just report what is provided to me by MTA, and other people in the know. I really couldn't care less what cars SIR or any other line gets for that matter. This is something the MTA said they were doing, so that is what I reported. Period. There is no point in going back and forth about it. Either they will or they won't. At the end of the day, who really cares other than the foamers anyway? So I will just see myself out of this conversation and wait for MTA to do whatever the hell they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share #245 Posted November 2, 2012 No, because R211's are replacing the 46's. We've known that for quite some time now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted November 2, 2012 Share #246 Posted November 2, 2012 I myself know I ain't no foamer just because I disagree about and dislike what will be done by anyone. SMH. Anyway, thank you East New York for your credible information and how well respected you are by other members of this forum..... I really wish I was like that too, if ever....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerdodge9 Posted November 3, 2012 Share #247 Posted November 3, 2012 The thing is, will MTA SIR even have enough room for both new trains and the rehabbed R46s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDTA Posted November 4, 2012 Share #248 Posted November 4, 2012 Still, why in the hell of a cell would the want to retrofit old subway cars to operate alongside with newer ones...? I know Santa Claus doesn't exist nor do reindeers fly. So say they could convert the R42s and have them operate with the R143s? Impossible and never happening. Sure they can convert the R46s but how long would they last on SIR? Replacing it is more efficient. This isn't going to be like the R32s on the where the trains are plagued* with problems in their older age and are less reliable... All I can say is that the 's current plans are a big mistake and least efficient..... Well that can be debated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJC Posted November 6, 2012 Share #249 Posted November 6, 2012 One thing could be that they want to have a higher frequency. Another thing could be that they want some backup trains (because even newer trains can have problems sometimes). Is there any need for a higher frequency? There already are backup trains (spares). The thing is, will MTA SIR even have enough room for both new trains and the rehabbed R46s? SIR isn't going to have two different fleets of cars, except during a brief transition period. The R211's are not going to supplement a car class in Staten Island that they are replacing in the rest of the city. The R211 order replaces all R46's. What was proposed several years ago was proposed several years ago. It is obviously no longer on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted November 6, 2012 Share #250 Posted November 6, 2012 Well that can be debated. Only in elementary school IMO, ages below 8..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.