Comrade96 Posted September 29, 2023 Share #101 Posted September 29, 2023 4 hours ago, Travis Mcnonald said: True, but look at the MTA's design language over the last 23 years or so. All the recent car orders from 1999-2000 onwards (until the R211s) were modeled after the most recent previous car order. For the IRT, it was the R142 that lead to the R188 (although in that case, the R188 cars were more or less the equivalent of a DLC expansion pack for the R142/As). Meanwhile, the R143s were followed by the R160s and more recently, the R179s. With this in might, I would not be surpised if the R268s turnout to be damn near identical to the R211s. I mean sure yes but you still cannot know that right now 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Travis Mcnonald Posted September 30, 2023 Share #102 Posted September 30, 2023 6 hours ago, Comrade96 said: I mean sure yes but you still cannot know that right now Past behaviors more often than not predict future ones. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R142A-6-Train Posted January 18 Share #103 Posted January 18 I'm pretty sure the R268s will be 75-Footers. Am I right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustTheSIR Posted January 19 Share #104 Posted January 19 2 hours ago, R142A-6-Train said: I'm pretty sure the R268s will be 75-Footers. Am I right? We’re not sure about anything besides what it’s replacing yet, but the reasonable answer would be no since as far as we can see, the MTA wants everything to be as standardized as possible. Examples: R143, R160, R179, R211 are all 60 feet and can run on the Myrtle, Jamaica, and Canarsie lines since they’re short enough to not clip other trains, and they can have cars removed from their sets to put them into passenger service on the mentioned lines. We won’t see the MTA experiment for a while… 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade96 Posted January 19 Share #105 Posted January 19 (edited) 5 hours ago, R142A-6-Train said: I'm pretty sure the R268s will be 75-Footers. Am I right? you will most likely never see another new 75 foot car order gain. Transit learned it wasnt worth it with its restrictions Edited January 19 by Comrade96 typo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R142A-6-Train Posted January 19 Share #106 Posted January 19 3 hours ago, Comrade96 said: you will most likely never see another new 75 foot car order gain. Transit learned it wasnt worth it with its restrictions Perhaps you should blame the Cypress-Crescent curve on the / line. I don't know about the 's sharp curves tho', but I feel like we need to improve them both to gain back the 75-Footers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJHmarc Posted January 19 Share #107 Posted January 19 Can’t have platform doors unless all fleet are the same size. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted January 19 Share #108 Posted January 19 21 hours ago, R142A-6-Train said: I'm pretty sure the R268s will be 75-Footers. Am I right? 60 footers. Don’t know if you notice but has been trying to unify the car lengths among different car types. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metro CSW Posted January 19 Share #109 Posted January 19 21 hours ago, R142A-6-Train said: I'm pretty sure the R268s will be 75-Footers. Am I right? Nice gaslighting skills LOL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris89292 Posted January 19 Share #110 Posted January 19 8 hours ago, MJHmarc said: Can’t have platform doors unless all fleet are the same size. We don’t need platform doors in the subway system, this is MTA not London Underground 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ale188 Posted January 19 Share #111 Posted January 19 22 hours ago, R142A-6-Train said: I'm pretty sure the R268s will be 75-Footers. Am I right? Most likely 60-footers. Ain't no way the MTA gonna purchase anything longer than a 60-footer for the rest of their existence after what cons the 75-footers got against the Nassau St line, the Canarsie line, the M line in Bklyn and to Met Av. But then again, if the MTA do want it to be that way, let it be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ale188 Posted January 19 Share #112 Posted January 19 12 minutes ago, Chris89292 said: We don’t need platform doors in the subway system, this is MTA not London Underground But they're planning on it, aren't they? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustTheSIR Posted January 19 Share #113 Posted January 19 1 hour ago, Chris89292 said: We don’t need platform doors in the subway system, this is MTA not London Underground We do actually need it in some stations, it's just that the infrastructure won't allow it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris89292 Posted January 19 Share #114 Posted January 19 1 hour ago, JustTheSIR said: We do actually need it in some stations, it's just that the infrastructure won't allow it. Yes that’s exactly my point, with our current infrastructure, it’s just not possible to install it on all stations, people will still complain that their home station don’t got platform screen doors 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted January 20 Share #115 Posted January 20 18 hours ago, R142A-6-Train said: Perhaps you should blame the Cypress-Crescent curve on the / line. I don't know about the 's sharp curves tho', but I feel like we need to improve them both to gain back the 75-Footers. No we don't. First of all, 75 foot cars weigh more. Second, an 8 car train of 75-footwrs has 64 doors versus the 80 on 10 60-foot cars. This increases dwell times and contributed to many delays. That's exactly why as soon as the got their 160s, the and were next. Second, if we are to ever get platform screen doors, we need standardized door placement. Third, the ends of 75 foot cars swing at switches. It's fine for systems designed for 75-footers, but our B Division was designed to handle 67-foot cars without mods. That includes BMT East. It took quite a bit of modification for the things to even fit our tunnels. Last, but not least, they cost more to construct and operate. Every extra pound must be built. Every extra pound must be accelerated and braked. Every extra pound costs money. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted January 20 Share #116 Posted January 20 (edited) 4 hours ago, JustTheSIR said: We do actually need it in some stations, it's just that the infrastructure won't allow it. There are a shitload of PSD types. I'm sure there's one out there suitable for us. And if not, one will have to be made. If the BMT could figure out a subway car design that could work on the demolished Els, something can be figured out for this Edited January 20 by LTA1992 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted January 20 Share #117 Posted January 20 19 hours ago, R142A-6-Train said: Perhaps you should blame the Cypress-Crescent curve on the / line. I don't know about the 's sharp curves tho', but I feel like we need to improve them both to gain back the 75-Footers. Perhaps you can elaborate on your point about the Crescent Street curve ? I don’t know your age but BMT Standards , 67 foot cars, ran along the line from Broad Street to 168th Street and Jamaica Avenue. As far as the line’s sharp curves perhaps you should ride it sometime before belittling the route. It’s the 75 foot equipment that was a waste of money in my opinion. The BMT didn’t demolish the Lexington or Myrtle Avenue Elevated lines. The City of New York did it because they would be too costly to repair or replace. The NYCT wouldn’t go back to an oddball fleet again. My experience with the agency tells me that. Carry on. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R142A-6-Train Posted January 20 Share #118 Posted January 20 75 Feet or 60 Feet, the R268 needs to have a difference between it and the currently-operating R211 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade96 Posted January 20 Share #119 Posted January 20 23 hours ago, R142A-6-Train said: Perhaps you should blame the Cypress-Crescent curve on the / line. I don't know about the 's sharp curves tho', but I feel like we need to improve them both to gain back the 75-Footers. its not just the curves, the tracks on the williamsburg bridge can not have 2 75 foot trains travelling on it at the same time in opposite directions 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulturious Posted January 20 Share #120 Posted January 20 3 hours ago, R142A-6-Train said: 75 Feet or 60 Feet, the R268 needs to have a difference between it and the currently-operating R211 My guy, you're worried about the wrong things right now. We have trains like the R143 and R160 that are almost identically the same in terms of looks all around and the same with the R179's to it's predecessors. Best you move on from this because it's literally not worth talking about anymore. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R142A-6-Train Posted January 20 Share #121 Posted January 20 44 minutes ago, Vulturious said: My guy, you're worried about the wrong things right now. We have trains like the R143 and R160 that are almost identically the same in terms of looks all around and the same with the R179's to it's predecessors. Best you move on from this because it's literally not worth talking about anymore. Perhaps changing the propulsion would be best? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metro CSW Posted January 20 Share #122 Posted January 20 (edited) 7 hours ago, R142A-6-Train said: Perhaps changing the propulsion would be best? Nice try, bruh..... Edited January 20 by Metro CSW 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade96 Posted January 20 Share #123 Posted January 20 9 hours ago, R142A-6-Train said: Perhaps changing the propulsion would be best? again, worrying about the wrong thing 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R142A-6-Train Posted January 20 Share #124 Posted January 20 51 minutes ago, Comrade96 said: again, worrying about the wrong thing Okay I'll stop. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted January 20 Share #125 Posted January 20 10 hours ago, R142A-6-Train said: Perhaps changing the propulsion would be best? Propulsion, Motors, Trucks, Car Bodies. None of that matters in the long Run. ...well, outside of maintaining the trains and keeping them in a good state of Repair of course. Heck, I don't think anybody here really cares is the 268's are nearly identical to the 211's. As long as there's enough trains to provide Service, thats all thats really important at the end of the day. 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.