RollOver Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1276 Posted October 6, 2012 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. *sigh* It depends on how they evaulate and set up the car assignments... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1277 Posted October 6, 2012 It doesn't matter what accidents happened... one accident doesn't define the cars... and they are subway cars. It's not worth stressing so much about it... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1278 Posted October 6, 2012 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... Exactly! 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. Weren't you the one who wanted them there? I don't see what's wrong with it. This is such a repeat of the same thread fifteen pages ago. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depotofrelax Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1279 Posted October 6, 2012 Exactly! Weren't you the one who wanted them there? I don't see what's wrong with it. This is such a repeat of the same thread fifteen pages ago. As car get older it was not me. The new car get purchase for the line that never get new cars . That line will receive old cars. Still i may kind of agree. I apologize . When R142A was purchase for 4 & 6 line. To replace what ever old cars they had . That next classic car will move to another line the yard well equipped with NTT cars yet. Like this topic R62A went to 6 line from 7 line. Now R62A might go back to 6 line. When R62A get retired. The 6 line or what ever yard had R62 will get new car for replacing R62A or R62. the R62A / R62 will turn 30 years old next year 2013? 10 years left to service for R62A/R62. I apologize. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1280 Posted October 6, 2012 As car get older it was not me. The new car get purchase for the line that never get new cars . That line will receive old cars. Still i may kind of agree. I apologize . When R142A was purchase for 4 & 6 line. To replace what ever old cars they had . That next classic car will move to another line the yard well equipped with NTT cars yet. Like this topic R62A went to 6 line from 7 line. Now R62A might go back to 6 line. When R62A get retired. The 6 line or what ever yard had R62 will get new car for replacing R62A or R62. the R62A / R62 will turn 30 years old next year 2013? 10 years left to service for R62A/R62. I apologize. R62/A's are not too old. No need to apologize. R62A's will not get retired anytime soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1281 Posted October 6, 2012 The 7 being isolated was certainly part of the reason it was given CBTC- It is actually possible to install prior to the systemwide standards being created. However, the other large reason is the age of the signalling system. (The age we are talking about here is referring to the age of the signals. The mainline IRT signals are actually newer than those on the IND, from around the 50s-60s. Much of the IND is original. ) The next CBTC contract will be the Queens IND. By then, the systemwide standards being established by Thales and Siemens on the Culver test tracks will be determined. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3838 Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1282 Posted October 6, 2012 The 7 being isolated was certainly part of the reason it was given CBTC- It is actually possible to install prior to the systemwide standards being created. However, the other large reason is the age of the signalling system. (The age we are talking about here is referring to the age of the signals. The mainline IRT signals are actually newer than those on the IND, from around the 50s-60s. Much of the IND is original. ) The next CBTC contract will be the Queens IND. By then, the systemwide standards being established by Thales and Siemens on the Culver test tracks will be determined. I still think Putting CBTC on queens Blvd is gonna be the biggest mistake they ever made, i don't agree with QB getting CBTC, i can deal with the , the its no big deal, but QB is a bad idea 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1283 Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) CBTC will eventually go everywhere. Some places probably won't get it for over 50 years(I wouldn't bet anything as things can change, but if the Dyer has CBTC before 2050, I'd be somewhat surprised.), but some places will get it sooner. Queens Boulevard isn't that far off. And why would QB be a bad place for it? That it is one of the few places which REALLY REALLY needs the capacity improvements offered by CBTC, and that it has some of the oldest signal installations in the system, combines to make the line top priority for CBTC conversion. Edited October 6, 2012 by Art Vandelay 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1284 Posted October 6, 2012 (edited) An isolated line that is already frequent as it is...... And I'm suprised how Art and Andrew never said what you had said..... I'm usually the one that throws the thing that people miss. Sometimes, it's still missed. Edited October 6, 2012 by LTA1992 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depotofrelax Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1285 Posted October 6, 2012 Which yard is R62A singles that uses for 42 street shuttle is based out of ? If those R62A single were to come back to Lexington Avenue line. the R62A singles are #1901 - #2155 ( 254 cars ) R62A #1909 is scrapped. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted October 6, 2012 Share #1286 Posted October 6, 2012 Which yard is R62A singles that uses for 42 street shuttle is based out of ? If those R62A single were to come back to Lexington Avenue line. the R62A singles are #1901 - #2155 ( 254 cars ) R62A #1909 is scrapped. The shuttle is based out of Livonia Yard which also serves the . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4P3607 Posted October 7, 2012 Share #1287 Posted October 7, 2012 Which yard is R62A singles that uses for 42 street shuttle is based out of ? If those R62A single were to come back to Lexington Avenue line. the R62A singles are #1901 - #2155 ( 254 cars ) R62A #1909 is scrapped. 2096-2154 are now in 5-car sets, only a few singles are used for the shuttle, the rest are on the . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted October 7, 2012 Share #1288 Posted October 7, 2012 Consecutive or just grouped within the 5 car range? I saw a 1920 group that had one or 2 of the cars out of sequence, but otherwise all 5 cars were there and could easily be set up for linking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vistausss Posted October 7, 2012 Share #1289 Posted October 7, 2012 CBTC will eventually go everywhere. Some places probably won't get it for over 50 years LMAO. I bet that ain't gonna happen. Or don't you think that they'd have a new and better system by then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted October 7, 2012 Share #1290 Posted October 7, 2012 I expect the signalling system to change somewhat as new technology is made, but whatever it is will be some form of CBTC. (Although I doubt such changes will be too extensive- they will need to be fully compatible with Queens Boulevard and all that follows it.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted October 7, 2012 Share #1291 Posted October 7, 2012 2096-2154 are now in 5-car sets Proof? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJC Posted October 7, 2012 Share #1292 Posted October 7, 2012 Those questions have both been nagging me for years now. This could have been foreseen well before the end of the R142/A order. Agreed. 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. You have (or had) it backwards. The signal system is what's driving the car assignments. Flushing is getting CBTC; therefore Flushing needs R188's; therefore the R62A's that currently run on Flushing will need to be swapped with the cars on one of the other lines. I agree but the issue topic you know . Why send R62 / R62A back to Lexington Avenue . Because they won't be able to run on Flushing once CBTC is installed, and retiring them this young would be wasteful. I still think Putting CBTC on queens Blvd is gonna be the biggest mistake they ever made, i don't agree with QB getting CBTC, i can deal with the , the its no big deal, but QB is a bad idea Putting a high-capacity signal system that will improve operations and speed up service on one of the busiest lines in the city is a mistake? What do you recommend doing instead, keeping the 1933 wayside signals even longer? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted October 7, 2012 Share #1293 Posted October 7, 2012 @AndrewJC As Far Rock Depot explain in a previous post, the lines where the run on are older than the IRT Flushing Line. I'd rather have CBTC installed on the ENTIRE Jerome Avenue, Dyre Avenue, White Plains Road, Pelham, and Lexington Avenue lines since the and EVEN the part-time are arguably buiser and way more demanding than the . Those lines have higher ridership and serve high pollitical hoods and that also includes the even though its fleet is R62A's while the , while it does have a good ridership, is mainly a supplement. I can bet that its feasible that they can keep the R62As on the Flushing line and the existing signals until the R62A's replacements finally arrive. The is already frequent as it is, even if it is isolated like the and has high ridership which scores better than many other lines ONLY because they are shorter and self contained lines. This is why I don't even agree with this Flushing CBTC/R188 plan any way. Since both the and 's cars get regularly maintained due to their shorter and insolated lines which is why they have well on-time preformances and higher MDBFs..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted October 7, 2012 Share #1294 Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) Its even pity that the makes the run every 12 minutes on weekends just because it spends a shitload on the entire elevated WPR Line except for 3 Av-149 St and 149-GC as well as the 149th Street Tunnel and that the is so butchered and neglected on weekends....Once CBTC/R188 is completed, there will be LEAST GO on the like the right now...... Edited October 7, 2012 by RollOverMyHead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJC Posted October 7, 2012 Share #1295 Posted October 7, 2012 As Far Rock Depot explain in a previous post, the lines where the run on are older than the IRT Flushing Line. I'd ather have CBTC installed on the ENTIRE Jerome Avenue, Dyre Avenue, White Plains Road, Pelham, and Lexington Avenue lines since the and EVEN the part-time are arguably buiser and way more demanding than the . Those lines have higher ridership and serve high pollitical hoods and that also includes the even though its fleet is R62A's while the , while it does have a good ridership, is mainly a supplement. As Art Vandelay said, what matters is the age of the signal system, not the age of the line itself. Almost all of the IRT, aside from the Flushing line, has had its original signal system replaced, beginning in the 50's and 60's. The signal system on the Flushing line is the oldest on the IRT. The signals on the Flushing line are failing at an increasing rate and are costing more and more to maintain. They need to be replaced. The signals on almost all of the rest of the IRT are newer and are not up for replacement yet. Again, you're reversing cause and effect. As I said, the driving force is the need to replace the signal system on the Flushing line. The cars will end up where the cars end up. I can bet that its feasible that they can keep the R62As on the Flushing line and the existing signals until the R62A's replacements finally arrive. The is already frequent as it is, even if it is isolated like the and has high ridership which scores better than many other lines ONLY because they are shorter and self contained lines. This is why I don't even agree with this Flushing CBTC/R188 plan any way. Since both the and 's cars get regularly maintained due to their shorter and insolated lines which is why they have well on-time preformances and higher MDBFs..... You are missing the point. The issue is that the signal system on the Flushing line is very old and has to be retired. Everything else is irrelevant. Without a functional signal system, trains can't run. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted October 7, 2012 Share #1296 Posted October 7, 2012 And to add to what you said, the fact that the and lines are isolated have NOTHING to do with ridership numbers. It's the areas they serve that just happen to be very dense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDTA Posted October 7, 2012 Share #1297 Posted October 7, 2012 @AndrewJC As Far Rock Depot explain in a previous post, the lines where the run on are older than the IRT Flushing Line. I'd rather have CBTC installed on the ENTIRE Jerome Avenue, Dyre Avenue, White Plains Road, Pelham, and Lexington Avenue lines since the and EVEN the part-time are arguably buiser and way more demanding than the . Those lines have higher ridership and serve high pollitical hoods and that also includes the even though its fleet is R62A's while the , while it does have a good ridership, is mainly a supplement. I can bet that its feasible that they can keep the R62As on the Flushing line and the existing signals until the R62A's replacements finally arrive. The is already frequent as it is, even if it is isolated like the and has high ridership which scores better than many other lines ONLY because they are shorter and self contained lines. This is why I don't even agree with this Flushing CBTC/R188 plan any way. Since both the and 's cars get regularly maintained due to their shorter and insolated lines which is why they have well on-time preformances and higher MDBFs..... I actually have to agree with Andrew... Remember that signal that caused the whole line to shut down? And what about all of the other times a signal has put a standstill to service? This needs to be done now, before the entire system fails. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depotofrelax Posted October 7, 2012 Share #1298 Posted October 7, 2012 @AndrewJC As Far Rock Depot explain in a previous post, the lines where the run on are older than the IRT Flushing Line. I'd rather have CBTC installed on the ENTIRE Jerome Avenue, Dyre Avenue, White Plains Road, Pelham, and Lexington Avenue lines since the and EVEN the part-time are arguably buiser and way more demanding than the . Those lines have higher ridership and serve high pollitical hoods and that also includes the even though its fleet is R62A's while the , while it does have a good ridership, is mainly a supplement. I can bet that its feasible that they can keep the R62As on the Flushing line and the existing signals until the R62A's replacements finally arrive. The is already frequent as it is, even if it is isolated like the and has high ridership which scores better than many other lines ONLY because they are shorter and self contained lines. This is why I don't even agree with this Flushing CBTC/R188 plan any way. Since both the and 's cars get regularly maintained due to their shorter and insolated lines which is why they have well on-time preformances and higher MDBFs..... I agree installed CBTC should be installed White plains Road Line ( that Unionport Yard & 239 street yard home of 2 & 5 line are capable to handle CBTC , Pelham Line capable to handle. That Westchester Yard can handle. ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depotofrelax Posted October 7, 2012 Share #1299 Posted October 7, 2012 Now i start to spot again but recently i don't at Westchester Yard. I mostly spot R142A of 4 line as Not in Service go to Westchester Yard. But when R142 of 4 & 5 line as Not in Service went to Westchester Yard. If some say Westchester Yard have bad maintence . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJC Posted October 7, 2012 Share #1300 Posted October 7, 2012 I agree installed CBTC should be installed White plains Road Line ( that Unionport Yard & 239 street yard home of 2 & 5 line are capable to handle CBTC , Pelham Line capable to handle. That Westchester Yard can handle. ) The signal system on the White Plains Road line is brand new! 2 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.