Replacing old subway cars

Bolwerk wrote:

> Alex L wrote:
>
>> The L does not use ATO (yet). The R143s in use on the L are the only
>> cars where ATO is available, but the system is not being used and will
>> not be until every train on the line is capable of both ATO and CBTC.
>
> It works on the L, but they are still using some older R44s I believe.
> But the system called for that since New York has so many interlining
> services. They'll be hybrids in service for decades probably.

I suspect you're confusing ATO with CBTC.

The only system in New York City currently using ATO is AirTrain.

Most of the cars running on the L are R143's, which are equipped with
CBTC, and CBTC (but not ATO) is in use on most of those cars. There are
also several trains of R160's running on the L, but they are not (yet)
equipped with CBTC.

There were never any R44's on the L. Until recently, there were R42's;
the last of the R42's on the line were replaced a few months ago by R160's.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY

David of Broadway wrote:

> Bolwerk wrote:
>
>> Alex L wrote:
> >
>>> The L does not use ATO (yet). The R143s in use on the L are the only
>>> cars where ATO is available, but the system is not being used and will
>>> not be until every train on the line is capable of both ATO and CBTC.
>>
>> It works on the L, but they are still using some older R44s I believe.
>> But the system called for that since New York has so many interlining
>> services. They'll be hybrids in service for decades probably.
>
> I suspect you're confusing ATO with CBTC.
>
> The only system in New York City currently using ATO is AirTrain.
>
> Most of the cars running on the L are R143's, which are equipped with
> CBTC, and CBTC (but not ATO) is in use on most of those cars. There are
> also several trains of R160's running on the L, but they are not (yet)
> equipped with CBTC.

You're right, I was. Didn't have my coffee when I thought of the term, and
just stuck with it. :)

> There were never any R44's on the L. Until recently, there were R42's;
> the last of the R42's on the line were replaced a few months ago by
> R160's.

So let me just be clear...

The rate at which any given subway line replaces its cars, does not have
any direct link with when that line will adopt ATO or CBTA. Is that
right? I can only assume that the MTA can replace cars even though they
might not have those technologies ready yet.

Meaning, the MTA isn't holding up replacing a particular line's cars
just because ATO or CBTA might not be ready?

--
"Drop the One Ring! Drop it NOW!"
- Jack Bauer in 'Lord of the Rings'

Babaganoosh wrote:
> So let me just be clear...
>
> The rate at which any given subway line replaces its cars, does not have
> any direct link with when that line will adopt ATO or CBTA. Is that
> right? I can only assume that the MTA can replace cars even though they
> might not have those technologies ready yet.

Maybe it had a direct link for the L Train, and maybe it is having one
for the 7? I'm not sure what current CBTC plans are.

Any new cars the MTA orders presumably will be able to upgrade easily
when the need arises.

> Meaning, the MTA isn't holding up replacing a particular line's cars
> just because ATO or CBTA might not be ready?

It may have an indirect link, but no, probably not a direct link.
They're probably going to need the cars before CBTA/ATO/Snakeoil is
available on most lines anyway.

Also, they get their cars more cheaply by getting them in bulk, so they
probably order for many lines at once.

I'm not sure how I see how any of what they're doing, at least in this
case, is bad. They're planning ahead; that's a welcome change for them!

>Meaning, the MTA isn't holding up
>replacing a particular line's cars just
>because ATO or CBTA might not be
>ready?

The new cars have the ability to be upgraded for CBTC at a later date.
In fact, several R160's running on the L already have been.

--
"Whatever you do, don't stick your head in the oven" - Keith Hernandez,
on how to end a batting slump

On Nov 6, 11:05 pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> In <fgrd8f$at...@reader1.panix.com> i...@analysisandsolutions.com (Analysis&Solutions) writes:
>
> >The E line is 100% underground, keeping those cars out of the rain.
>
> Hey, when did it stop going to Euclid Ave and the Rockaways?

Some time between 1972 and 1979. (I don't have any maps in between.)

Analysis&Solutions wrote:

> In <iBOQi.1274$CR4.875@newsfe12.lga> Vince <holvbphoto@> writes:
>
>>Babaganoosh wrote:
>
>
>>>I definitely hope they can take a crack at replacing those *really* old
>>>cars on the C and E lines.
>>>
>>
>>Which look better and newer than the ones after them that are running on
>>the M, J, Z, W etc.
>
>
> The E line is 100% underground, keeping those cars out of the rain.
>
> --Dan
Saw one on the R tonight and they still using them on the F as well

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Nov 6, 11:05 pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>In <fgrd8f$at...@reader1.panix.com> i...@analysisandsolutions.com (Analysis&Solutions) writes:
>>
>>
>>>The E line is 100% underground, keeping those cars out of the rain.
>>
>>Hey, when did it stop going to Euclid Ave and the Rockaways?
>
>
> Some time between 1972 and 1979. (I don't have any maps in between.)
>
I haven't been on that line in years and I knew about it.