Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share #76 Posted February 8, 2017 What's the math behind that? You only have but so many cars that can go around the takes the newer cars because technology dictates that. It's not ideal but what options do you have? The is also supplemented by the and newer fleets that also carry load. That's a data point to take into consideration. The is a solo rider. Whats MDBF on the R62's maybe 75k-90k less than NTT cars? It shouldn't be dismissed we know this but would you do to solve the issue? Not a zero sum game. What Around the Horn proposed makes the most sense IMO. The if anything often helps ease the pain when the becomes a mess. The often times runs via the which doesn't leave anything but the to help out, so there's that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted February 8, 2017 Share #77 Posted February 8, 2017 I'd just like to note that CBTC hasn't been activated yet (it will be activated in sections starting this spring) so its normal when two things that aren't designed to interface with each other have issues. We won't have an accurate view of the effect on the until this point next year at the earliest. Well frankly IMO, the should have received a completely new fleet of R188s with the R62A's moved to the and and the R62's retired, and the R142As still on the . That would have made sense. I guess my next question why wasn't that taken into consideration. As far as I can remember Kawasaki's 142a's always had been planned to be converted so these plans have been in place for some time. Seems they dropped the ball. VG8 in an alternate dimension the R62's are retired after 30 years you sure you wouldn't be on a rant about how they were built poorly and it was a total waste of funds? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted February 8, 2017 Author Share #78 Posted February 8, 2017 That would have made sense. I guess my next question why wasn't that taken into consideration. As far as I can remember Kawasaki's 142a's always had been planned to be converted so these plans have been in place for some time. Seems they dropped the ball. VG8 in an alternate dimension the R62's are retired after 30 years you sure you wouldn't be on a rant about how they were built poorly and it was a total waste of funds? Lol I'm all about being environmentally friendly, but at the same time, I do believe that we need to be upgrading more regularly, so I would be fine with those cars being retired in 30 years. They are outdated in many ways. If you're going to attract people to use the system, you have to make the services more attractive, which includes updating existing fleet, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biGC323232 Posted February 8, 2017 Share #79 Posted February 8, 2017 I'd just like to note that CBTC hasn't been activated yet (it will be activated in sections starting this spring) so its normal when two things that aren't designed to interface with each other have issues. We won't have an accurate view of the effect on the until this point next year at the earliest. Well frankly IMO, the should have received a completely new fleet of R188s with the R62A's moved to the and and the R62's retired, and the R142As still on the . That makes great sense..something the should have thought of years ago .But y'all know the ole saying... doesn't have enough money for a new fleet expansion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted February 8, 2017 Share #80 Posted February 8, 2017 What's the math behind that? You only have but so many cars that can go around the takes the newer cars because technology dictates that. It's not ideal but what options do you have? The is also supplemented by the and newer fleets that also carry load. That's a data point to take into consideration. The is a solo rider. Whats MDBF on the R62's maybe 75k-90k less than NTT cars? It shouldn't be dismissed we know this but would you do to solve the issue? Not a zero sum game. R142A MDBF: ~51K miles (12 month, 12/15-11/16) R62A MDBF: ~83K miles (12 month, 12/15-11/16) Swapping R142As for R62As gave the 6 a much more reliable fleet. The R62s are superstars compared to either at 189K, third to the R160 and new R188s. I doubt the MTA will prematurely retire them without being forced to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted February 9, 2017 Share #81 Posted February 9, 2017 R142A MDBF: ~51K miles (12 month, 12/15-11/16) R62A MDBF: ~83K miles (12 month, 12/15-11/16) Swapping R142As for R62As gave the 6 a much more reliable fleet. The R62s are superstars compared to either at 189K, third to the R160 and new R188s. I doubt the MTA will prematurely retire them without being forced to. That's artificially low due to the shrinking size of the fleet, due to R188 conversions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted February 9, 2017 Share #82 Posted February 9, 2017 A reduced fleet size results in greater fluctuation, not lower numbers. It has no real effect here as this is a yearlong figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted February 9, 2017 Share #83 Posted February 9, 2017 I'm all about being environmentally friendly, but at the same time, I do believe that we need to be upgrading more regularly, so I would be fine with those cars being retired in 30 years. They are outdated in many ways. If you're going to attract people to use the system, you have to make the services more attractive, which includes updating existing fleet, etc. That's not how it works. Outside from buffs I've never seen a passenger pass up a train and leave the system because something "old" rolled in. It was true back in the days when R10's were still running, and it's true now. I know business and politicians types love to talk about improvements like "improved signage" "better lighting" "wi fi" and "modern amenities" but in reality these do not grow the customer base. But if you stick a survey in front of some dumb sheep who ride the trains, they will happily sign up for these amenities even though what they really want is better service...because it's a leading question when you place it in front of them on a survey. OF COURSE they will want every improvement you offer them. But it doesn't make it the main priority just because someone checks a box on a survey. Ask anyone this question, and you will get a far better answer: Which of the following would you rather have? -A faster commute with a shorter wait for the train, where once it arrives, you are more likely to have a seat on the train, and overall experience significantly less delays in the system -The same commute you have now, with new state of the art trains, air conditioned platforms, free wi fi, and train arrival boards, with green solar powered LED lighting for a more inviting experience of waiting for your train. And you'll get your real answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10 2952 Posted February 14, 2017 Share #84 Posted February 14, 2017 Remember that those cars (R62A) are approaching retirement age. They are going to break down more regardless of how much maintenance is done. They're still over a decade away from retirement. And no, they don't 'break down more'; in some years the R62As have had better MBDF than the R142As. Age is not the primary factor equipment breaks down- maintenance is. You could not have placed them on the or because the two share fleets. The (2)/(5) shared SMEEs for decades; the use of rollsigns did not exactly derail service. Well frankly IMO, the should have received a completely new fleet of R188s with the R62A's moved to the and and the R62's retired, and the R142As still on the . And why in God's name would the TA do that? The R62s are perfectly fine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.