Over heard a T/O talk..

[S78 via Hylan]

I guess that means the won't be R142A anymore:(

[MTR Admiralty]

I guess that means the won't be R142A anymore:(

 

Well IMO, it's kind of early to know. We really haven't gotten the specifics, like how they will do it. Only time will tell.

[2 Av]

Why the line to get a new subway cars anywho? The should get new cars, the R62/A look like junk.

[MTR Admiralty]

Why the line to get a new subway cars anywho? The should get new cars, the R62/A look like junk.

If you have read every single post in this thread, it would be clearly obvious to you why the will be getting new cars.

 

Just to sum it up for you:

The is getting them because of CBTC. The MTA plans to install CBTC on the

[2 Av]

Well at least the line will get new cars.

[MTR Admiralty]

Well at least the line will get new cars.

Yes, but remember, these cars will not retire any existing fleet.

[2 Av]

I never saw the point of putting R142A on the anyway. At least it wil get the R62 back

[MTR Admiralty]

The 142A's are on the for a reason. Go and ride the Pelham line during rush hours. Also, observe the platform at Grand Central. You have got a lot to learn. The wide doors on the 142A's decreases dwell time which is something the Lexington line needs. Taking away the NTT from the Lex would be a disaster waiting to happen. I know what I'm talking about. Just take a cold hard look at my username.

 

Exactly. The Lexington Avenue line is already known for its overcrowding. The whole point with wide doors on the R142/As is to speed up loading. On R62/As, when they were still on the and then, trains were held up because of the loading issue. That is probably the reason why R62/As disappeared from the . I recall a year or two ago, when I still took the to school. I wounded up with a R62 and it was a tough time getting in. It was, in a way, priority for the Lexington lines to be fully NTT, to try to alleviate the overcrowding crisis by having cars with larger doors.

[2 Av]

I believe that the should split its R142A with the line. The should run R62 and the R188. The should run R142A and R62. So some R142A of the are converted into R188 not all its R142. I wonder how the crew feels about using R62.

[MTR Admiralty]

I believe that the should split its R142A with the line. The should run R62 and the R188. The should run R142A and R62. So some R142A of the are converted into R188 not all its R142. I wonder how the crew feels about using R62.

Why should it do that?

If the line is made for CBTC, all trains are expected to have the technology. Having half the trains without the technology would effectively render the CBTC system fruitless. The R62As could not take advantage of the technology.

[2 Av]

What I'm trying to say is that both R188 and R62 can run on the and . Lex is just as overcrowded as the next line, people will just have to wait until the and helps Lex in the Future.

[2 Av]

Lets just see what will happen when the gets the R62 back.

[MTR Admiralty]

Lets just see what will happen when the gets the R62 back.

I'm a Lexington Avenue daily rider, do you expect me to wait X years till the SAS is completed, so that I could find breathing room on the and ?

When the gets the R62A back, numerous repercussions will surface. Let's use common examples. I take a milk carton and poke a hole through it. A stream of milk will flow out, right? How about if I enlarge the hole? More milk comes out, so on and so forth. That's analogous to passenger flow and doors. I hope you understand this common concept here.

[Maserati7200]

I'm a Lexington Avenue daily rider, do you expect me to wait X years till the SAS is completed, so that I could find breathing room on the and ?

When the gets the R62A back, numerous repercussions will surface. Let's use common examples. I take a milk carton and poke a hole through it. A stream of milk will flow out, right? How about if I enlarge the hole? More milk comes out, so on and so forth. That's analogous to passenger flow and doors. I hope you understand this common concept here.

 

He won't understand that concept because it seems this guy is filled with foam.

[MTR Admiralty]

He won't understand that concept because it seems this guy is filled with foam.

Let him foam on, we're moving on with the conversation.

[2 Av]

I'm still new to the interest of nyc subways. I'm still in the learing process of how things work. Thanks and have a nice day.:cool:

[SubwayGuy]

What I'm trying to say is that both R188 and R62 can run on the and . Lex is just as overcrowded as the next line, people will just have to wait until the and helps Lex in the Future.

 

While the wider doors are not the only reason, that's one reason it is VERY unlikely that two car classes will run on both those lines. It's not as dramatic as it's being played up to be in this thread but remember a few things:

 

-New Techs have full width cabs in one end of the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 10th cars. Five car R62A's have full width cabs in all those cars, and half width cabs in every other end of every car in the consist. Though no one is using those cabs, they take up space that could otherwise be used to fit additional passengers.

-Loading times are a very big deal on Lexington Avenue because the trains run at very frequent intervals and particularly on the have a lot of station stops close together. The seemingly smallest delays (of say 2 minutes) actually jack up the entire line. Likewise most of these delays happen between 14th St and 96th St, and a lot of the corporate types there believe they have the right to get on the train before people trying to exit, which slows things down considerably.

-To "catch a late train up", trains can go on Battery runs (sending a late train express on the local track to make up time). As it is, Battery runs happen very often on the in particular so they wouldn't want to do anything to cause more of them. Also, what they can do is limited by the numbers of passengers who use certain key stops. For instance, When it's done between 14th and Brooklyn Bridge, a train will still have to stop at Bleecker because of the connection to the IND. Were they to Skip this key stop, the train would be delayed further at 14th while half the riders get off and wait for the one making normal stops, which in turn makes THAT train late also. So the orders will come down to make certain local stops but not others. In general, any ops planning would be done with this in mind to avoid anything that would lead to more battery runs, like increasing station dwell time.

-From mechanical standpoints, it makes no sense to have both Westchester and Corona yard servicing two different types of equipment. It means the skills that car inspectors would need are different for the different cars, and also more importantly it means that parts would need to be kept in store for BOTH car classes at BOTH yards. Logistically this is more expensive and makes no sense.

 

This is RTO and anything can change at the drop of a hat or the snap of a finger, so don't go spreading rumors (and everything is a rumor until it actually happens, no matter how concrete the "plan" is) or believing what you hear or see in regards to equipment until it actually starts to happen. It's way too far off in the future to say what will happen because things have a way of changing as the date gets closer. If it happens exactly the way it's drawn up well then hey, there will still be plenty of time to post all about it, but I'm willing to bet there's going to be a few "tweaks" in there...there always are. At the end of the day it's just where equipment is running, nothing more.

[Trainmaster5]

but remember, once they are done with the extension there are supposed to be several layup tracks down at 11th ave and 23rd street.

also, it is known that they lay up extra cars on the express track when it is not in use.

 

with the planned fleet expansion, there will be an additional 9 trains (37 R62A to 46 R188). I'm sure that they will be able to store the extra trains in the layup at 23rd street.

 

Trains are not generally laid up on structure for any length of time in the IRT. This dates back to the graffiti era. You may be correct but I'm not aware of any layup yard planned for the extension. There may be a provision for tail tracks like at Parsons-Archer or Dyre but storage for 9 trains sounds problematic. Maybe you could link me to this plan 'cause they don't tell M/M this info.

[Y2Julio]

Not to sound rude, you don't know anything.

 

Please refrain from future comments of this nature. You were rude by "trying" not to be rude.

[Trainmaster5]

While the wider doors are not the only reason, that's one reason it is VERY unlikely that two car classes will run on both those lines. It's not as dramatic as it's being played up to be in this thread but remember a few things:

 

-New Techs have full width cabs in one end of the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 10th cars. Five car R62A's have full width cabs in all those cars, and half width cabs in every other end of every car in the consist. Though no one is using those cabs, they take up space that could otherwise be used to fit additional passengers.

-Loading times are a very big deal on Lexington Avenue because the trains run at very frequent intervals and particularly on the have a lot of station stops close together. The seemingly smallest delays (of say 2 minutes) actually jack up the entire line. Likewise most of these delays happen between 14th St and 96th St, and a lot of the corporate types there believe they have the right to get on the train before people trying to exit, which slows things down considerably.

-To "catch a late train up", trains can go on Battery runs (sending a late train express on the local track to make up time). As it is, Battery runs happen very often on the in particular so they wouldn't want to do anything to cause more of them. Also, what they can do is limited by the numbers of passengers who use certain key stops. For instance, When it's done between 14th and Brooklyn Bridge, a train will still have to stop at Bleecker because of the connection to the IND. Were they to Skip this key stop, the train would be delayed further at 14th while half the riders get off and wait for the one making normal stops, which in turn makes THAT train late also. So the orders will come down to make certain local stops but not others. In general, any ops planning would be done with this in mind to avoid anything that would lead to more battery runs, like increasing station dwell time.

-From mechanical standpoints, it makes no sense to have both Westchester and Corona yard servicing two different types of equipment. It means the skills that car inspectors would need are different for the different cars, and also more importantly it means that parts would need to be kept in store for BOTH car classes at BOTH yards. Logistically this is more expensive and makes no sense.

 

This is RTO and anything can change at the drop of a hat or the snap of a finger, so don't go spreading rumors (and everything is a rumor until it actually happens, no matter how concrete the "plan" is) or believing what you hear or see in regards to equipment until it actually starts to happen. It's way too far off in the future to say what will happen because things have a way of changing as the date gets closer. If it happens exactly the way it's drawn up well then hey, there will still be plenty of time to post all about it, but I'm willing to bet there's going to be a few "tweaks" in there...there always are. At the end of the day it's just where equipment is running, nothing more.

 

Amen, and thank you.

[Princelex]

As a train rider, this is nothing but BAD NEWS. First I got to say that I love both the R62A's and the R142A's. It is true that the had these trains for many years prior to 2000 but ever since the R142A's have been on the , those trains have been a big help to many riders on that line. This is a line that not only carries lots of regular residents but tourists too. A line like the needs these trains for the strip maps and automated announcements alone. The 142A's seems to have more room on them then the 62A's do, even though I could be off but that's from what I see regularly. Personally, I love that the Lexington Ave Line is 100% NTT. It's long overdue. I pray that the R142A's don't leave the . I think it will be a very poor choice if that happens. We need these trains here.

[Maserati7200]

As a train rider, this is nothing but BAD NEWS. First I got to say that I love both the R62A's and the R142A's. It is true that the had these trains for many years prior to 2000 but ever since the R142A's have been on the , those trains have been a big help to many riders on that line. This is a line that not only carries lots of regular residents but tourists too. A line like the needs these trains for the strip maps and automated announcements alone. The 142A's seems to have more room on them then the 62A's do, even though I could be off but that's from what I see regularly. Personally, I love that the Lexington Ave Line is 100% NTT. It's long overdue. I pray that the R142A's don't leave the . I think it will be a very poor choice if that happens. We need these trains here.

 

I honestly think if those are your reasons why you are opposed to this (however 33rd street's are justifiable IMO) are very selfish. You the R62A's are good cars and your complaining that you won't have the nicest and newest cars, which is why this switch is bad. The needs those R142A's for CBTC and in return you still get more than decent cars, but you act that the needing CBTC is less important than you having the nicest car on your home line.

[Princelex]

I honestly think if those are your reasons why you are opposed to this (however 33rd street's are justifiable IMO) are very selfish. You the R62A's are good cars and your complaining that you won't have the nicest and newest cars, which is why this switch is bad. The needs those R142A's for CBTC and in return you still get more than decent cars, but you act that the needing CBTC is less important than you having the nicest car on your home line.

 

Well that's your opinion. I never said that the shouldn't get new cars for CBTC. Looking back on what I said, I didn't speak about the . You made assumptions about what I said and you know what they say about those who assume right? It was talking about why a line as busy as the Lex line needs these cars, cars that I happen to use everyday.

 

Look, the should have gotten R142/A's from the start and when the MTA saw that the shoes for the 3rd rail or whatever that is wasn't connecting, then they should have fixed it up so that they could run them on there. I'm not even against the getting new trains but I would prefer that the R142A's on the don't get sent away in the process. If it happens, then it is what it is but the should get their own new cars. From what I've heard of the R188's, it sounds like a waste of money to make, what looks to me, like a caboose for a R142A trains set. The deserves their own cars like what the has with the R143's but with CBTC already inside the trains. It would work for everyone, not just me.

[R44 5278]

Princelex has an excellent point and I have to go with him. If the MTA knew since 1999 that all individual lines (L, 7) without connections with other lines would be the first to receive CBTC/ATO, then they should've definitely put NTTs on those lines. This would avoid an expression of "betrayal" to the commuters on the 6. They made the correct choice by putting the R143s on the L, but failed by avoiding a direct replacement with the R142A/S and the remaining Redbirds. I personally love the R62As but as an ordinary passenger that rode R142As on the 6 for 9 years, I'm definitely going to think that the 7 swapping cars with the 6 is a regression. Put it this way, it's like taking away a kid's Wii and replacing it with a Super Nintendo.

[KTrainExp]

If the MTA knew since 1999 that all individual lines (L, 7) without connections with other lines would be the first to receive CBTC/ATO, then they should've definitely put NTTs on those lines.

 

Plus, spending all of that money buying CBTC un-compatible R160s.