4P3607 Posted October 4, 2012 Share #1251 Posted October 4, 2012 that day i will stay as far as away from the line if thats the official date (i bet it wont be in service that day) there will be a pack of foamers looking for that train Me or anybody who has to take the every weekday are probably going to be the first ones seeing it testing / in revenue service. As of now Im trying to pack in as many R62A photos and videos as I can, remember that RFW to Main street isn't going to be there much longer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJC Posted October 4, 2012 Share #1252 Posted October 4, 2012 is it delivery of R188 supposed to be arrival in 2015? Or the order is cancel again for the east side rider or the Pelham riders. CBTC is under construction on the Flushing line. CBTC will not work if the cars are not properly equipped. The R188's will have CBTC equipment installed. Canceling the R188 order is not an option. Cheapest is to wait until the R62/62As retire in the late 2020s or past 2030s then the gets newer models that the can equipped for CBTC and automate the entire IRT Flushing Line, there they have it. The signal system on the Flushing line is very old and needs to be replaced. It's not going to be replaced with a new wayside system now and then with a new CBTC system in 15-20 years. May 13th is a Monday, but I think I'm gonna play hookey that day if the R188 is truly running. There is no possible chance that a precise date is set in stone over 7 months in advance. Even if a delivery schedule were set in stone - and delivery schedules are never set in stone - the first train will need to undergo extensive testing before it can run in revenue service, and the results of that testing can't be known in advance. May 13 may be a target date, but it can't be anything more than that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted October 5, 2012 Share #1253 Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) @AndrewJC CBTC and car convertibility costs WAY more than just a new wayside system for the IRT Flushing Line and Scheduled Maintance Service for the 's R62As...Transfering equipment to another yard means more money has to be spent too..There will also be stuck with some R142As at Westchester..There will only be 220 R142As left after this. The is also already frequent as it is and thus had scored better than the in the previous State of the Subways Report Cards. It also already handles the off-peak ridership without the need of reverse peak direction express service save for rush hours and ongoing sports games. Edited October 5, 2012 by RollOverMyHead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted October 5, 2012 Share #1254 Posted October 5, 2012 Transferring equipment from shop to shop is not even a consideration when talking about making the decision as to whether or not to convert a signalling system on a line. It is time for the Flushing signalling system to be replaced, and the cheapest solution in the long run is to convert it to CBTC now, instead of installing a new wayside system while waiting for new CBTC ready cars to be delivered to the line, and converting it to CBTC 10-15 years later. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJC Posted October 5, 2012 Share #1255 Posted October 5, 2012 @AndrewJC CBTC and car convertibility costs WAY more than just a new wayside system for the IRT Flushing Line and Scheduled Maintance Service for the 's R62As...Transfering equipment to another yard means more money has to be spent too..There will also be stuck with some R142As at Westchester..There will only be 220 R142As left after this. The is also already frequent as it is and thus had scored better than the in the previous State of the Subways Report Cards. It also already handles the off-peak ridership without the need of reverse peak direction express service save for rush hours and ongoing sports games. Replacing a signal system is a massive expenditure, and the lifecycle cost of a new CBTC system is comparable to, if not cheaper than, a new wayside system, especially on a line that needs to handle frequent service. (Much of the expense of a wayside system is in the physical signals themselves, and a high-capacity wayside system needs a lot of signals to meet the capacity requirements. A relatively low-capacity line can get by with fewer signals.) CBTC comes with additional benefits, such as improved capacity and safety and higher travel speeds. The additional car maintenance costs are tiny in comparison. And replacing a signal system twice in 20 years would be exceptionally wasteful. The only real alternative to replacing the Flushing signal system now is to keep the existing signals hobbling along until the time comes to replace the R62A's, and I'm not sure that's feasible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted October 5, 2012 Share #1256 Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) Transferring equipment from shop to shop is not even a consideration when talking about making the decision as to whether or not to convert a signalling system on a line. It is time for the Flushing signalling system to be replaced, and the cheapest solution in the long run is to convert it to CBTC now, instead of installing a new wayside system while waiting for new CBTC ready cars to be delivered to the line, and converting it to CBTC 10-15 years later. Replacing a signal system is a massive expenditure, and the lifecycle cost of a new CBTC system is comparable to, if not cheaper than, a new wayside system, especially on a line that needs to handle frequent service. (Much of the expense of a wayside system is in the physical signals themselves, and a high-capacity wayside system needs a lot of signals to meet the capacity requirements. A relatively low-capacity line can get by with fewer signals.) CBTC comes with additional benefits, such as improved capacity and safety and higher travel speeds. The additional car maintenance costs are tiny in comparison. And replacing a signal system twice in 20 years would be exceptionally wasteful. The only real alternative to replacing the Flushing signal system now is to keep the existing signals hobbling along until the time comes to replace the R62A's, and I'm not sure that's feasible. Wow, so you guys are telling me that the can't just convert the new wayside system into CBTC after the R62As retire from service come the late 2020s or past 2030s....? If so, then they should have never placed the R142As on the and/or then...the would have been 100%, if not completely, R142s like the and , and the R62As would have still stayed on the ... Edited October 5, 2012 by RollOverMyHead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted October 5, 2012 Share #1257 Posted October 5, 2012 CBTC is under construction on the Flushing line. CBTC will not work if the cars are not properly equipped. The R188's will have CBTC equipment installed. Canceling the R188 order is not an option. The signal system on the Flushing line is very old and needs to be replaced. It's not going to be replaced with a new wayside system now and then with a new CBTC system in 15-20 years. There is no possible chance that a precise date is set in stone over 7 months in advance. Even if a delivery schedule were set in stone - and delivery schedules are never set in stone - the first train will need to undergo extensive testing before it can run in revenue service, and the results of that testing can't be known in advance. May 13 may be a target date, but it can't be anything more than that. But the first train is supposed to ARRIVE in the next couple months. Then begin revenue service May 13th as stated by Snowblock. Plenty of time to get out the kinks before 30-Day in service testing which would technically begin on that first revenue run. What happens AFTERWARD can be anything since anything can happen to cause the train to be pulled out of service for a bit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted October 5, 2012 Share #1258 Posted October 5, 2012 @Roll the main difference between wayside and cbtc is the fact that wayside has fixed blocks and cbtc allows for rolling blocks based on traffics speed distance. To convert the flushing line now to cbtc will cost less and give less headaches. Remember the signal fire at Chambers? The MTA first said a few years to fix because iirc, they wanted to use that mishap as a positive to install the newer system for later use but all the pubic heard was "years to fix" It's similar in model railroading switching a layout from traditional fixed blockage to DDC. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJC Posted October 5, 2012 Share #1259 Posted October 5, 2012 But the first train is supposed to ARRIVE in the next couple months. Then begin revenue service May 13th as stated by Snowblock. Plenty of time to get out the kinks before 30-Day in service testing which would technically begin on that first revenue run. What happens AFTERWARD can be anything since anything can happen to cause the train to be pulled out of service for a bit. Again, May 13 may be a target date, but it's over seven months away, and the work that needs to take place between now and then may take more or less time than anticipated. A lot of testing needs to take place before the first revenue customer boards the train. Revenue testing is only one piece of the puzzle. Wow, so you guys are telling me that the can't just convert the new wayside system into CBTC after the R62As retire from service come the late 2020s or past 2030s....? If so, then they should have never placed the R142As on the and/or then...the would have been 100%, if not completely, R142s like the and , and the R62As would have still stayed on the ... Once the MTA has already paid for a high-capacity wayside signal system, why would they then pay again for a CBTC system? Take a look at Canarsie - aside from the section between Broadway-Juncction and Canarsie (which needs to accommodate non-CBTC car moves), the only wayside signals are at interlockings. That's where the savings of CBTC come into play. The R142A's weren't placed on the 7 from the start because they only had 5-car sets. In retrospect, it would have made more sense to have purchased 6-car sets, and for that matter to have ordered CBTC-ready cars. But what's done is done. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted October 5, 2012 Share #1260 Posted October 5, 2012 AndrewJC is right about the testing. They may have already ran some test of the first set for clearence and the automated announcements etc, but have yet to test a full 11-car consist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted October 5, 2012 Share #1261 Posted October 5, 2012 The R142A's weren't placed on the 7 from the start because they only had 5-car sets. In retrospect, it would have made more sense to have purchased 6-car sets, and for that matter to have ordered CBTC-ready cars. But what's done is done. Those questions have both been nagging me for years now. This could have been foreseen well before the end of the R142/A order. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted October 5, 2012 Share #1262 Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) Once the MTA has already paid for a high-capacity wayside signal system, why would they then pay again for a CBTC system? Take a look at Canarsie - aside from the section between Broadway-Juncction and Canarsie (which needs to accommodate non-CBTC car moves), the only wayside signals are at interlockings. That's where the savings of CBTC come into play. The R142A's weren't placed on the 7 from the start because they only had 5-car sets. In retrospect, it would have made more sense to have purchased 6-car sets, and for that matter to have ordered CBTC-ready cars. But what's done is done. Fine, then I guess the entire reason why the is doing this is because the IRT Flushing Line is the oldest out of all the IRT lines in the subway. And or riders have to deal with the R62s or R62As. At first I thought they were doing this because they "want" the to use the R142As/R188s (making the strip maps of the 's R142As a waste of money and serving no purpose) until now since nobody (except you and Art) has explain why the is doing this. The only thing I can say here is the only alternative to replacing the Flushing signal system now is to keep the existing signals hobbling along until the time comes to replace the R62As like you said earlier and I'm sure its feasible... Edited October 5, 2012 by RollOverMyHead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted October 5, 2012 Share #1263 Posted October 5, 2012 I thought it was because, like the , it's a completely isolated line who's only variable is Local and Express service. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted October 5, 2012 Share #1264 Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) Exactly. Like the L, the 7 doesnt share tracks with other lines. Intact, unlike the 7, as mentioned earlier, the L has wayside signals for yard movements around Bway Jct. It will also be interesting to see cbtc in action with 2 different services (local and express). And if I recall correctly, the main lines are older than the flushing. By the time it went out to corona, main lines were serving Brooklyn and the Bronx. Not fully, but already out there. It not about rail cars or age, it's about current operating conditions. Edited October 5, 2012 by Far Rock Depot 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted October 5, 2012 Share #1265 Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) I thought it was because, like the , it's a completely isolated line who's only variable is Local and Express service. An isolated line that is already frequent as it is...... And I'm suprised how Art and Andrew never said what you had said..... Edited October 5, 2012 by RollOverMyHead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted October 5, 2012 Share #1266 Posted October 5, 2012 It's not just about frequency either. Yeah, you can run more tph, but you'll u can run them more safely without the constant go-no go of traditional block signaling. Plus it makes setting up wrong rail operation quicker and safer. But in both cases of the L and 7, it's reasoning for primary candidates is indeed isolation. In Philly, the streetcar lines that enter Center City underground were converted to CBTC in its tunnel portions. Their issue is once the cars go outside, cbtc ends. Everyone a streetcar enters the portal, it has to be recognized by the system. If it fails to, the whole segment in both directions gets locked up in "restricted" causing the speed limit to slow to 10 for every car in the tunnel in both directions unfilled the said car leaves the tunnel. Not imagine if the MTA implemented cbtc on a line that shares tracks or even installs it on only a portion of a line. That could tie up the entire line for hours in residual delays alone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted October 5, 2012 Share #1267 Posted October 5, 2012 That will be the challenge when CBTC goes to QBL... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depotofrelax Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1268 Posted October 6, 2012 When was the last time R142A/R188 had ran on the 7 line. Are they very sure after testing R142A/ R188 there will be no issue . Example did it R142A/R188 had 3rd rail problem for what reason. when was the last time it ran on the 7 line. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1269 Posted October 6, 2012 When was the last time R142A/R188 had ran on the 7 line. Are they very sure after testing R142A/ R188 there will be no issue . Example did it R142A/R188 had 3rd rail problem for what reason. when was the last time it ran on the 7 line. ¿Qué? Yo no hablo tu idioma. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depotofrelax Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1270 Posted October 6, 2012 ¿Qué? Yo no hablo tu idioma. I do not speak Spanish language. Si Senor mucho gracias . lol. I am not Spanish . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1271 Posted October 6, 2012 I do not speak Spanish language. Si Senor mucho gracias . lol. I am not Spanish . Now you are speaking English... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depotofrelax Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1272 Posted October 6, 2012 Fine, then I guess the entire reason why the is doing this is because the IRT Flushing Line is the oldest out of all the IRT lines in the subway. And or riders have to deal with the R62s or R62As. At first I thought they were doing this because they "want" the to use the R142As/R188s (making the strip maps of the 's R142As a waste of money and serving no purpose) until now since nobody (except you and Art) has explain why the is doing this. The only thing I can say here is the only alternative to replacing the Flushing signal system now is to keep the existing signals hobbling along until the time comes to replace the R62As like you said earlier and I'm sure its feasible... You mean R62 from 3 line #1301 - #1625 built by Kawasaki car not the Bombardier car is coming back to Lexington Avenue Line?The R62 was the worst car in Lexington Avenue Line. How many subway car accident was there. Who forgot #1431 - #1432 - #1433 - #1435 - #1436 - #1437 - #1438 - #1439 - #1440 had a subway accident or something or what ever. Now #1431 - #1432 - #1433 - #1434 - #1438 are paired up as 5 car unit. Now you are speaking English... being funny it like being a comedian. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1273 Posted October 6, 2012 You mean R62 from 3 line #1301 - #1625 built by Kawasaki car not the Bombardier car is coming back to Lexington Avenue Line?The R62 was the worst car in Lexington Avenue Line. How many subway car accident was there. Who forgot #1431 - #1432 - #1433 - #1435 - #1436 - #1437 - #1438 - #1439 - #1440 had a subway accident or something or what ever. Now #1431 - #1432 - #1433 - #1434 - #1438 are paired up as 5 car unit. being funny it like being a comedian. Why does that matter, It was 20 years ago... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1274 Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) When was the last time R142A/R188 had ran on the 7 line. Are they very sure after testing R142A/ R188 there will be no issue . Example did it R142A/R188 had 3rd rail problem for what reason. when was the last time it ran on the 7 line. They never ran on the because it uses 11 car trains in 5 car sets and a single, hence the and got them instead. Yes they tested on Flushing but that line only uses 11 car trains in 5-car sets and a single so they were never put into service there...R142As like R142s and R62s were all ordered to be 10 car trains in 5-car sets... Edited October 6, 2012 by RollOverMyHead 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depotofrelax Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1275 Posted October 6, 2012 Why does that matter, It was 20 years ago... I agree but the issue topic you know . Why send R62 / R62A back to Lexington Avenue . Sending back R62A to Lexington Avenue going out of touch . That i can say. 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.