Javier Posted August 4, 2015 Share #26 Posted August 4, 2015 Speaking of retired, is that R143 that crashed in Carnarsie Yard retired or OFS? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted August 4, 2015 Share #27 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) It'll take decades actually, but yes, CBTC will eventually be installed throughout the entire New York City Subway. As long as the age of the signalling system on a New York City Subway corridor is new, don't expect CBTC on said corridor until years later. Remember that the only reason why the IRT Flushing Line is having CBTC installed is because the age of the signalling system is the oldest than all other corridors. If I'm not mistaken, all the other IRT corridors had their signalling systems replaced in the 1950's and in the 1960's, but Flushing never had its signaling system replaced (?). The Flushing Line being isolated like the Canarsie Line is also the reason for CBTC. After Flushing CBTC is finished, the Queens Boulevard will have the oldest signalling system, which will need replacing too and its CBTC won't be fully operational for years. It's the same as Canarsie (formerly) and Flushing (currently) went through/are going through with all the constant weekend and/or overnight shutdowns. There are several factors in the conversion to CBTC. Yes age is one of them, but line structure has been the other. The whole purpose is to run trains closer together which was needed very badly on the and lines. Queens Blvd. is next, followed by 8th Avenue IIRC. MTA actually wants the Lexington Avenue line CBTC as soon as possible also, but the train will come online way before that's done. Queens above will be the 4th line, as the will be CBTC ready from day one. Now that the Lex line is not fully NTT any more will further delay the process. Most likely buy new cars, possibly from different manufacturers in Japan interested in CBTC equipped subway trains (Mitusbishi Heavy Industries, Niigata Transys, Kinki Sharyo, Nippon Sharyo, Japan Transport Engineering Company, *Hyundai Rotem, etc). As for the 142's, they be either rebuilt to be CBTC compatible, last a few more years of revenue service, or retired altogether to replace to Rebird work cars since the were introduced/entered service into the transit system in 1999.*South Korean train manufacturer I have to disagree with you here. For the foreseeable future, we will only take delivery of cars from Bombardier or Kawasaki. Not only that, many of the current cars are supposed to retrofits in the future. They don't need to be rebuilt, only retrofitted... The soonest the cars will be retired unless some technical fault calls for it sooner than later, will be 2040-2049. Many cars should be retrofitted by 2028-2030. R179 and R211 cars will usher in the new wave of CBTC. Edited August 4, 2015 by East New York 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted August 4, 2015 Share #28 Posted August 4, 2015 Thank you. When I FOUND the set, it still said Jamaica Lcl, not Nassau St. Does this mean that when announcements are updated on the R160's, it might get updated on R143's too? Cuz I have a bad feeling that the brown has been erased :/ You've asked this question already. Yes all the cars were updated. More than likely it was erased. Speaking of retired, is that R143 that crashed in Canarsie Yard retired or OFS? Pending repairs ...pretty sure this was asked too many times as well 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewYorkElevated Posted August 4, 2015 Share #29 Posted August 4, 2015 Back up just a station, the R142's can't go into work service or become work trains (except pump trains) and the R142's are currently the newest subway cars for the IRT System, so they won't be retired anytime soon. Dude, by workcar I mean in the mid-21st Centruy, dammit! >_< 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted August 4, 2015 Share #30 Posted August 4, 2015 There are several factors in the conversion to CBTC. Yes age is one of them, but line structure has been the other. The whole purpose is to run trains closer together which was needed very badly on the and lines. Queens Blvd. is next, followed by 8th Avenue IIRC. MTA actually wants the Lexington Avenue line CBTC as soon as possible also, but the train will come online way before that's done. Queens above will be the 4th line, as the will be CBTC ready from day one. Now that the Lex line is not fully NTT any more will further delay the process. I have to disagree with you here. For the foreseeable future, we will only take delivery of cars from Bombardier or Kawasaki. Not only that, many of the current cars are supposed to retrofits in the future. They don't need to be rebuilt, only retrofitted... The soonest the cars will be retired unless some technical fault calls for it sooner than later, will be 2040-2049. Many cars should be retrofitted by 2028-2030. R179 and R211 cars will usher in the new wave of CBTC. Actually the is after Queens Blvd. Last I heard 8th Avenue got pushed back 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted August 4, 2015 Share #31 Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) 6th Avenue is next after the QBL. The is slated to be the first non-isolated route to get CBTC for almost all its length. From Union Turnpike to Avenue X. Edited August 4, 2015 by LTA1992 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewYorkElevated Posted August 5, 2015 Share #32 Posted August 5, 2015 There are several factors in the conversion to CBTC. Yes age is one of them, but line structure has been the other. The whole purpose is to run trains closer together which was needed very badly on the and lines. Queens Blvd. is next, followed by 8th Avenue IIRC. MTA actually wants the Lexington Avenue line CBTC as soon as possible also, but the train will come online way before that's done. Queens above will be the 4th line, as the will be CBTC ready from day one. Now that the Lex line is not fully NTT any more will further delay the process. I have to disagree with you here. For the foreseeable future, we will only take delivery of cars from Bombardier or Kawasaki. Not only that, many of the current cars are supposed to retrofits in the future. They don't need to be rebuilt, only retrofitted... The soonest the cars will be retired unless some technical fault calls for it sooner than later, will be 2040-2049. Many cars should be retrofitted by 2028-2030. R179 and R211 cars will usher in the new wave of CBTC. Oh. But I'm just sayin. Other companies could potentially have interest in the NYC subway system, not just Bombardier or Kawasaki. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted August 5, 2015 Share #33 Posted August 5, 2015 It'll take decades actually, but yes, CBTC will eventually be installed throughout the entire New York City Subway. As long as the age of the signalling system on a New York City Subway corridor is new, don't expect CBTC on said corridor until years later. Remember that the only reason why the IRT Flushing Line is having CBTC installed is because the age of the signalling system is the oldest than all other corridors. If I'm not mistaken, all the other IRT corridors had their signalling systems replaced in the 1950's and in the 1960's, but Flushing never had its signaling system replaced (?). The Flushing Line being isolated like the Canarsie Line is also the reason for CBTC. After Flushing CBTC is finished, the Queens Boulevard will have the oldest signalling system, which will need replacing too and its CBTC won't be fully operational for years. It's the same as Canarsie (formerly) and Flushing (currently) went through/are going through with all the constant weekend and/or overnight shutdowns. Well, that's partially true. The big reason that it was installed on the Flushing Line second was because that and the Canarsie Line are the only two subway lines which almost never interact with trains running on other lines, so if they f**ked up the CBTC, at least there would be limited damage. (It also made installing CBTC easier since the required signalling didn't have to be nearly as complex.) Oh. But I'm just sayin. Other companies could potentially have interest in the NYC subway system, not just Bombardier or Kawasaki. The MTA has pretty stringent bidding requirements. For starters, the trains need to be made in a New York factory. They also have a cost advantage in that the NTT design has not really changed very much, but any new competitor would have to either make their own design from the ground up or somehow get the plans for the NTT. It works the same way in the commuter railroads, too; the M7s, M8s, and M9s are all very similar in structure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QM1to6Ave Posted August 5, 2015 Share #34 Posted August 5, 2015 Seems kind of silly to not make an entire length of a line CBTC. Like, if the F stop being CBTC after union tpke, won't you get a conga line back up to Jamaica since the trains will need to be spaced further apart? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowblock Posted August 5, 2015 Share #35 Posted August 5, 2015 After Union Turnpike, the doesn't share the line with the or anymore, so they'll be less trains in front of and behind it anyway. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted August 5, 2015 Share #36 Posted August 5, 2015 Seems kind of silly to not make an entire length of a line CBTC. Like, if the F stop being CBTC after union tpke, won't you get a conga line back up to Jamaica since the trains will need to be spaced further apart? CBTC, at its most optimal, allows 40 TPH on a pair of tracks. If that were to be evenly split with the and you just alternated trains, you'd be running only 20 TPH on non-CBTC sections, which is perfectly fine. Granted, to make things work out they might have to make the to 179 run on the express tracks, but it should be fine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QM1to6Ave Posted August 5, 2015 Share #37 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) After Union Turnpike, the doesn't share the line with the or anymore, so they'll be less trains in front of and behind it anyway. CBTC, at its most optimal, allows 40 TPH on a pair of tracks. If that were to be evenly split with the and you just alternated trains, you'd be running only 20 TPH on non-CBTC sections, which is perfectly fine. Granted, to make things work out they might have to make the to 179 run on the express tracks, but it should be fine. Great points, thanks guys! It's also an interesting move by the , since they won't really be able to try to push for OPTO on those lines since the line isn't entirely CBTC. It seemed like the MTA has really been trying to push OPTO from what's been posted here in the past. Edited August 5, 2015 by QM1to6Ave 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted August 6, 2015 Share #38 Posted August 6, 2015 Great points, thanks guys! It's also an interesting move by the , since they won't really be able to try to push for OPTO on those lines since the line isn't entirely CBTC. It seemed like the MTA has really been trying to push OPTO from what's been posted here in the past. It's technologically possible to run OPTO today. Whether it's wise to do so is another question entirely. CBTC is basically the signalling system they have chosen to upgrade with now. As far as I know the MTA is not really upgrading signals with non-CBTC at this point, although I could be wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted August 6, 2015 Share #39 Posted August 6, 2015 Isn't the rule that if a train is over a certain length, there has to be a second person on the train. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priincenene Posted August 6, 2015 Share #40 Posted August 6, 2015 (edited) It's technologically possible to run OPTO today. Whether it's wise to do so is another question entirely. CBTC is basically the signalling system they have chosen to upgrade with now. As far as I know the MTA is not really upgrading signals with non-CBTC at this point, although I could be wrong. Think about it, like now, the isn't CBTC based, but the R143 is still running on the line, the isn't either but it COULD run on the if it wanted to, and the wasn't CBTC based back in 2007, still isn't and the 143 was STILL running on the . Only leaves the the only CBTC based line in the whole B Division along with the that serves the A Division. Doubt the MTA's focusing on CBTC in the Eastern Division Edited August 6, 2015 by Priincenene 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted August 6, 2015 Share #41 Posted August 6, 2015 Think about it, like now, the isn't CBTC based, but the R143 is still running on the line, the isn't either but it COULD run on the if it wanted to, and the wasn't CBTC based back in 2007, still isn't and the 143 was STILL running on the . Only leaves the the only CBTC based line in the whole B Division along with the that serves the A Division. Doubt the MTA's focusing on CBTC in the Eastern Division If you think the R143 is a type of signalling, I have a bridge to sell you... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted August 6, 2015 Share #42 Posted August 6, 2015 If you think the R143 is a type of signalling, I have a bridge to sell you... I got a $2 bill, name your bridge 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted August 6, 2015 Share #43 Posted August 6, 2015 (edited) Someone was saying that the was gonna get r160's due to "political pressure" from the hipsters and that tacky 1950 protest and the that the or were gonna get r143's and r32's in september is there any truth to this? hell that political pressure should be going to the Edited August 6, 2015 by BreeddekalbL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priincenene Posted August 6, 2015 Share #44 Posted August 6, 2015 I got a $2 bill, name your bridge LOL BRUH 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3838 Posted August 6, 2015 Share #45 Posted August 6, 2015 Someone was saying that the was gonna get r160's due to "political pressure" from the hipsters and that tacky 1950 protest and the that the or were gonna get r143's and r32's in september is there any truth to this? hell that political pressure should be going to the Someone was saying that the was gonna get r160's due to "political pressure" from the hipsters and that tacky 1950 protest and the that the or were gonna get r143's and r32's in september is there any truth to this? hell that political pressure should be going to the Again the isn't loosing any R32's as of yet, they're putting R32's on the for now to even out the mileage on the J/Z then next year the line will have a go where they will be redoing the concrete on the Myrtle Ave junction and they want the R32's to run on the because they're lighter than the R160's 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priincenene Posted August 6, 2015 Share #46 Posted August 6, 2015 Again the isn't loosing any R32's as of yet, they're putting R32's on the for now to even out the mileage on the J/Z then next year the line will have a go where they will be redoing the concrete on the Myrtle Ave junction and they want the R32's to run on the because they're lighter than the R160's Really? R160's heavier than 32? Damn boi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted August 6, 2015 Share #47 Posted August 6, 2015 Really? R160's heavier than 32? Damn boi. Why is that surprising? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priincenene Posted August 6, 2015 Share #48 Posted August 6, 2015 (edited) Why is that surprising?Cuz R32 looks heavier with all that metal that its built with, but I could understand R160's, its got a shitload of machinery. No wonder why it doesn't run on the Edited August 6, 2015 by Priincenene 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted August 6, 2015 Share #49 Posted August 6, 2015 The R160 isn't on the because of power issues in the Rockaways, not due to weight concerns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted August 7, 2015 Share #50 Posted August 7, 2015 Cuz R32 looks heavier with all that metal that its built with, but I could understand R160's, its got a shitload of machinery. No wonder why it doesn't run on the The R32 is one of the lightest R-Type cars built for the system by B Division standards. 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.