MattTrain Posted March 27, 2011 Share #201 Posted March 27, 2011 You mean this Onix? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenEleven Posted March 27, 2011 Share #202 Posted March 27, 2011 Exactly. What's the point of doing this other than uniformity? I was given the reason that Alstom was cheaper than Siemens. It makes the looks backwards. If you take a look at every other rail system around New York, their cars are being delivered with Siemens propulsion... The PA-5s, the ALP-46As ... It goes on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayJay85 Posted March 27, 2011 Share #203 Posted March 27, 2011 they might go through with the plan to change it to ALSTOM propulsion or they might cancel that plan I also did heard that R179s won't be compatible with R160s due to they're getting propulsion package. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted March 27, 2011 Share #204 Posted March 27, 2011 I was given the reason that Alstom was cheaper than Siemens. It makes the looks backwards. If you take a look at every other rail system around New York, their cars are being delivered with Siemens propulsion... The PA-5s, the ALP-46As ... It goes on. But why bother replacing what's already there, is what I'm asking. Go ahead and order it for all new equipment if you want, but why replace it on existing equipment? It's just another waste of money unless there's something seriously wrong with the Siemens propulsion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
553 Bridgeton Posted March 27, 2011 Share #205 Posted March 27, 2011 But why bother replacing what's already there, is what I'm asking. Go ahead and order it for all new equipment if you want, but why replace it on existing equipment? It's just another waste of money unless there's something seriously wrong with the Siemens propulsion. Easier to service I suppose.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted March 27, 2011 Share #206 Posted March 27, 2011 I was given the reason that Alstom was cheaper than Siemens. It makes the looks backwards. If you take a look at every other rail system around New York, their cars are being delivered with Siemens propulsion... The PA-5s, the ALP-46As ... It goes on. Where did you get that the ALP-46A has Siemens propulsion?? 0__o the locomotive is made by Bombardier and has MITRAC propulsion systems.... The M8's have Mitsubishi propulsion, the Silverliner V's have Hyundai Rotem propulsion, and the 7000 series railcars for WMATA are to be fitted with Toshiba propulsion... so no, not every new railcar being purchased has Siemens propulsion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenEleven Posted March 27, 2011 Share #207 Posted March 27, 2011 Where did you get that the ALP-46A has Siemens propulsion?? 0__o the locomotive is made by Bombardier and has MITRAC propulsion systems.... Well what I meant is that Siemens did lend a helping hand with the propulsion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayJay85 Posted March 30, 2011 Share #208 Posted March 30, 2011 Well what I meant is that Siemens did lend a helping hand with the propulsion. TA is backwords Siemens just sign on to make the propulsion systems for R179's 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engineerboy6561 Posted March 30, 2011 Share #209 Posted March 30, 2011 When and where did you hear that? Not to be rude, but as things stand over on the R179 threads both here and on railroad.net no company has actually picked up the contract yet, and I would assume that specifications such as propulsion would be hammered out between the company building the cars and the MTA after the contract was awarded. I love the Siemens R143 and R160B propulsion and I would kill to see it (or something similar to it) on the R179. That said, it would probably be better if we avoided jumping to conclusions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princelex Posted March 30, 2011 Share #210 Posted March 30, 2011 I hope to God they don't put the Alstom propulsion on the R188's or R142A's. We don't need anymore Alstom crap on the trains. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lance25 Posted March 30, 2011 Share #211 Posted March 30, 2011 What's wrong with ALSTOM? I'm not being sarcastic I just want to know why some of you guys don't like it and I'm not big on the propulsion systems. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2 Train Master Posted March 30, 2011 Share #212 Posted March 30, 2011 What's wrong with ALSTOM? I'm not being sarcastic I just want to know why some of you guys don't like it and I'm not big on the propulsion systems. Every R-160 except 8843-9102(which are Siemens) are annoying with that Alstom Propulsion.I rather deal with the LOUD Bombs on the which also have Alstom but it doesn't repeat itself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lance25 Posted March 30, 2011 Share #213 Posted March 30, 2011 Every R-160 except 8843-9102(which are Siemens) are annoying with that Alstom Propulsion.I rather deal with the LOUD Bombs on the which also have Alstom but it doesn't repeat itself. But what's so "annoying" about them? That's not really an answer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted March 31, 2011 Share #214 Posted March 31, 2011 This doesn't prove a point how are they annoying, and besides they didn't sound bad on the R143's when they temporarily fitted the propulsion system on them. Here is proof. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayJay85 Posted March 31, 2011 Share #215 Posted March 31, 2011 When and where did you hear that? Not to be rude, but as things stand over on the R179 threads both here and on railroad.net no company has actually picked up the contract yet, and I would assume that specifications such as propulsion would be hammered out between the company building the cars and the MTA after the contract was awarded. I love the Siemens R143 and R160B propulsion and I would kill to see it (or something similar to it) on the R179. That said, it would probably be better if we avoided jumping to conclusions. TA insiders did a study again on which propulsion system are better they find out siemens actually better and/or siemens must have drop the price on propulsion system before things was the other way around. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted March 31, 2011 Share #216 Posted March 31, 2011 But what's so "annoying" about them? That's not really an answer. it actually is an answer.... if you read into his response, he's just saying that the sound that they emit (that high-pitched, squealing sound) is disagreeable... personally i don't really mind much, i find that the fact that it is different from the typical smooth rolling sounds provided by Bombardier and Siemens propulsions is refreshing, although i can understand why after over 2000 cars have been equipt with Alstom propulsion, railfans would like to see some more variety... hope that explains it a little better... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Louis Car 09 Posted April 3, 2011 Share #217 Posted April 3, 2011 Personally Siemens have a better sound.Which ever propulsion the R142A's have cannot handle 3rd rail gaps.They buck like a fat prostitute on top.Its like when Airline companies order a fleet of planes,the customer has a choice of engines to choose from various manufactures like GE,SNECMA,Pratt & Whittney,Rolls Royce.Im not sure if it works the same with Mass transit orders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2 Train Master Posted April 4, 2011 Share #218 Posted April 4, 2011 But what's so "annoying" about them? That's not really an answer. The repeating of the Alstom Onyx propulsion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmouse Posted April 11, 2011 Share #219 Posted April 11, 2011 They're not annoying really. I enjoy the Musical note power up. lol Arent they faster than Siemens though? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vistausss Posted April 11, 2011 Share #220 Posted April 11, 2011 They're not annoying really. I enjoy the Musical note power up. lolArent they faster than Siemens though? They're at least more reliable than Siemens, that's for sure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted April 11, 2011 Share #221 Posted April 11, 2011 They're not annoying really. I enjoy the Musical note power up. lolArent they faster than Siemens though? The Siemens units actually give an impression of being faster, probably because of the louder sound... the difference, however, is probably negligable unless you are operating two sets of different propulsion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2 Train Master Posted April 12, 2011 Share #222 Posted April 12, 2011 Yes the R-160 Siemens sets are faster.If you notice the Kawasaki trains in the system are faster than the opposing trains. R-160 Siemens > Alstom R-62 > Bombardier 62A R-142A > Bomb 142 R-68A > 68 WH 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova RTS 9147 Posted April 12, 2011 Share #223 Posted April 12, 2011 The Siemens units actually give an impression of being faster, probably because of the louder sound... the difference, however, is probably negligable unless you are operating two sets of different propulsion. Apparently the Alstom/Siemens train was faster than it should be, according to some sources on this forum. I personally have not noticed any difference in speed between the Siemens and Alstom trains when running under normal circumstances. If there is its barely noticeable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted April 12, 2011 Share #224 Posted April 12, 2011 Apparently the Alstom/Siemens train was faster than it should be, according to some sources on this forum. I personally have not noticed any difference in speed between the Siemens and Alstom trains when running under normal circumstances. If there is its barely noticeable. I heard too that when R160A's are mixed with R160B-alstoms, the trains are faster too... idk where this is coming from though.... seems interesting.. once again though... probably too negligable for the average person to notice... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted April 12, 2011 Share #225 Posted April 12, 2011 During the snowstorm last December while daringly riding the to Coney Island that night we noticed a Siemens set of R160s on the opposite track trucking through the snow without too much trouble, as opposed to our train, which was an Alstom-equipped unit and had small difficulties navigating. I don't mind the Alstoms, but I do love the rolling sound of the Siemens and the AD Tranz units... 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.