|
|
| R179 Specs (662102) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 5 |
|
|
| (662102) | |
R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Aug 6 08:29:45 2008 I heard from someone that at 130 Livingston there are drawing of the New R179's. The drawing show a 75ft car with get this 5 sets of doors per side. The T/O controller will be put in the center and the T/O will need a Brake Handle for the train. Monitors will be on either side of this. From what this person said it look like it's meant for OPTO service better then the R143-R160's.We shall see if anything comes of these drawings down the raod. |
|
|
| (662107) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by R33/R36 mainline on Wed Aug 6 08:53:49 2008, in response to R179 Specs, posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Aug 6 08:29:45 2008. Huh? T/O would need a brake handle, is the train gonna be SMEE?Also will it have a master conroller like 32-42 or a T conroller like 142/143/160? |
|
|
| (662111) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Aug 6 09:11:57 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by R33/R36 mainline on Wed Aug 6 08:53:49 2008. I not seen the drawing myself so I just posted what I heard. The guy said it LOOKed like it might need a Brake Handle, so it just might not. I should have been a little more specific over how I said this part. Drawing can be misinterpreted, so we won't know untill there are actually one build and we are trained on them. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (662155) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 10:58:35 2008, in response to R179 Specs, posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Aug 6 08:29:45 2008. IN THE MIDDLE?!?!?!?!? NO!!!!! That is BS!!!! Offset cabs are the WAY TO GO!!!It is good that they will need a brake handle, the T handle is uncomfortable, from what i read. I have a feeling the design will be a lot different though. Probably a regular cab, and maybe a cineston instead of a t handle. |
|
|
| (662160) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed Aug 6 11:09:47 2008, in response to R179 Specs, posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Aug 6 08:29:45 2008. 5 sets of doors? |
|
|
| (662164) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by mr_brian on Wed Aug 6 11:13:58 2008, in response to R179 Specs, posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Aug 6 08:29:45 2008. Looks like say goodbye to the railfan window forever? |
|
|
| (662168) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Aug 6 11:19:45 2008, in response to R179 Specs, posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Aug 6 08:29:45 2008. How will the seats be configured inside? |
|
|
| (662170) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 11:20:33 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by mr_brian on Wed Aug 6 11:13:58 2008. Not necessarily. It would be stupid to put the operator in the middle of the train. I have a feeling they will change the design from the one mentioned, and if anything, they can go with the MFL type OPTO, which doesn't require a full width cab. |
|
|
| (662173) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 11:25:43 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 11:20:33 2008. centering the console makes sense from an operational standpoint, as it relates to visibility for the operator. However, this is moot if you don't have a full-width windsheild with no pillars, similar to that of an automobile. And since such a design will make it impossible to move swiftly through a pair of cab cars connected together, or to exit a train from a car end in an emergency, I doubt that we will see it, from a safety standpoint. |
|
|
| (662175) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Aug 6 11:33:01 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 11:20:33 2008. River LINE, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, and Newark Light Rail have the same kind of cabs that the R179 might have according to the description. |
|
|
| (662180) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Aug 6 11:43:03 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Aug 6 11:09:47 2008. If the emphasis is on more room for standees and easier entry/exit under crowded conditions, that's a logical consequence.Your 60' car today has 4 sets of doors. One door every 15 feet. Now add 15 feet = 75 foot car, with one more door. Ergo, 5 sets of doors. |
|
|
| (662183) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by ajpardi on Wed Aug 6 11:48:06 2008, in response to R179 Specs, posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Aug 6 08:29:45 2008. where woould the fifth door be placed? On the roof? |
|
|
| (662184) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 11:48:07 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 11:25:43 2008. The cars could be coupled together in permanent 4 car sets, with unique A car ends (one has the door on the right, the other has the door on the left, so that pass-through is possible). This is a terrible idea, though, for obvious reasons.A full-width windshield would also require a completely new zoning system. |
|
|
| (662186) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by vfrt on Wed Aug 6 11:53:52 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Aug 6 11:43:03 2008. Maybe the doors will be slightly narrower than the doors on current 75' equipment? |
|
|
| (662187) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 11:54:03 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by ajpardi on Wed Aug 6 11:48:06 2008. Just space them at more regular intervals, as with the six door JR East 205 series and 231 series shown here. |
|
|
| (662189) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 11:55:49 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 11:48:07 2008. It's a terrible idea because the safest (fastes) path to take in an emergency is a straight line, and the zig-zag that would be required of off-set doors will slow down an evacuation and possibly cost a life. |
|
|
| (662195) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 12:05:32 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Aug 6 11:33:01 2008. Yeah, but those are essentially trolleys. PCC cars didn't have storm doors either, but from an operational standpoint, such a standpoint is no good for mass transit, especially NYCTA, since it is very poorly organized. Moscow metro uses such a setup though, and it is BS. they used to have the offset cabs, and some cars were rebuilt to the more modern look. |
|
|
| (662196) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 12:09:56 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 12:05:32 2008. Huh? You started making sense, but then it seems your time was up with the great brain cell. It won't work on the NYC subway because of the tunnels, and the best established evacuation proceedure, especially from the older parts of the system. Moscow's setup is good for their system, I suppose, but since I'm sure you've never ridden it, and neither have I, we are not in a position to say if it is good or bad. |
|
|
| (662202) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Wed Aug 6 12:27:44 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 11:54:03 2008. At least those cars have grab handles which are easier to reach than the extremely uncomfortable high bars that NYC Transit insists on installing... |
|
|
| (662204) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 12:29:41 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by BMTLines on Wed Aug 6 12:27:44 2008. Japanese people are short. |
|
|
| (662205) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 12:30:52 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by BMTLines on Wed Aug 6 12:27:44 2008. i agree, they should bring back the grab handles. PATH still has them. Though i think the new PA cars won't have them :(The NTTs are so poorly designed, comfort wise, they even make passengers grab for the cieling sometimes. |
|
|
| (662206) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 12:31:22 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 12:29:41 2008. Not all american are tall. |
|
|
| (662208) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 12:36:30 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 12:30:52 2008. Don't get me started on the quality (or lack thereof) of Antenna Design's products. If what the OP says is true (i.e. that the R179 will differ from current NTTs), I urge the MTA to find another design firm. Bring back the R110B's design with comfortable non-transverse seating in 60" or 75" carlengths, and we'll have a winner. |
|
|
| (662210) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 12:38:48 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 12:36:30 2008. A 60 inch car would have significant decrease in standee space.:) |
|
|
| (662212) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 12:42:10 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 12:38:48 2008. I'm a large-scale model hobbyist. :-) |
|
|
| (662213) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 12:43:20 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 12:31:22 2008. I was being facetious.The phrasing of your sentence is fitting, although saying "all American are tar" would've made me keel over with laughter. |
|
|
| (662221) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 13:01:18 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 12:43:20 2008. I don't get you. |
|
|
| (662225) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 13:19:12 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 13:01:18 2008. Japanese has no plural. Furthermore, it does not differentiate between R and L sounds.So the sentence "not all American are tar" would be very Japanese sounding. |
|
|
| (662226) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Lou from Brooklyn on Wed Aug 6 13:26:08 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by vfrt on Wed Aug 6 11:53:52 2008. How much narrower?Got to keep it within ADA for wheelchairs. |
|
|
| (662227) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Aug 6 13:26:30 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 13:19:12 2008. Right....I would love to learn the language... I mean you pick up a smattering here and there from watching anime'..but the Real goal is to speak it fluently...! Wouldn't that be great? |
|
|
| (662228) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 13:29:04 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 13:19:12 2008. Oh, i see, thanks. |
|
|
| (662236) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Aug 6 13:36:00 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 13:19:12 2008. Japanese has no plural.Not necessarily true. More like "Notto o-ru amerikan a- to-ru". |
|
|
| (662240) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Aug 6 13:42:06 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Edwards! on Wed Aug 6 13:26:30 2008. It's great! Next, learn to read and write it. |
|
|
| (662242) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Aug 6 13:43:30 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Aug 6 13:42:06 2008. Yes..! |
|
|
| (662245) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 13:47:21 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Aug 6 13:36:00 2008. Not necessarily true.Counters, yes. Inflected plural, no. More like "Notto o-ru amerikan a- to-ru". I'm only half-Japanese. That's too far for me! :-) |
|
|
| (662250) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by joe c on Wed Aug 6 14:02:54 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 10:58:35 2008. He mentioned the controller in the middle,not the cab.til next time |
|
|
| (662252) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 14:09:31 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by joe c on Wed Aug 6 14:02:54 2008. Oh, i see, so he meant the controller will be placed in the middle of the console, not the middle of the cab. |
|
|
| (662254) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 14:18:51 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 14:09:31 2008. R110A style... boy, did that train have a cool console! |
|
|
| (662257) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by brightonr68 on Wed Aug 6 14:40:55 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 12:29:41 2008. Not all Have you ever heard of hidiki matsui |
|
|
| (662260) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by joe c on Wed Aug 6 14:50:34 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 14:09:31 2008. Yup.that is if it is true.til next time |
|
|
| (662265) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Aug 6 15:02:05 2008, in response to R179 Specs, posted by North-Easten T/O on Wed Aug 6 08:29:45 2008. I don't see the need for offset cabs in this day and age. Wouldn't placing the operating cab in the middle (as they want to) increase visibility? And it's easier to implement OPTO.Also, if that's the case, there should be a redesign of the front bulkhead as well. Hopefully they'll come up with something better than the R143/160 front end. |
|
|
| (662267) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Aug 6 15:03:46 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 11:20:33 2008. It would be stupid to put the operator in the middle of the trainWhy, exactly, is that? |
|
|
| (662268) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 15:10:31 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Aug 6 15:03:46 2008. I meant in the center of a full width cab. Why would you go through the complex issues to implement such a cab? |
|
|
| (662270) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 15:12:59 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Aug 6 15:02:05 2008. Robert M. didn't mean that the operator's position would be centered; he meant that the master controller itself would be centered on the console, R110A style. I think Joe's interpretation is right. |
|
|
| (662271) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Aug 6 15:13:55 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 15:10:31 2008. I know what you meant; I meant the same thing. How is it complex to implement it? |
|
|
| (662272) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Aug 6 15:14:47 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by Subterranean Railway on Wed Aug 6 15:12:59 2008. Ah, I see. |
|
|
| (662276) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 15:19:49 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Aug 6 15:13:55 2008. Think about it. How will you be able to pass from car to car? The complexities of such a design have already been discussed. Best to keep it simple. Also, the signals are on the right hand side, and supposedly, they are a lot brighter, and more visible from the right hand cab than from the RFW. It is a different view. |
|
|
| (662279) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Aug 6 15:22:49 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 15:19:49 2008. How would one pass from car to car through a conventional full width cab? Moreover, what's the need to do that? I assume that it might be an issue in an emergency, but this design would probably implement some kind of fold-out emergency end door to include that.Also, virtually all vehicles with centrally-mounted operating positions have one large window in the front for the operator to operate from. Not only does this increase visibility, it doesn't make the wayside signals any less visible. |
|
|
| (662281) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed Aug 6 15:29:49 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Aug 6 15:22:49 2008. Sometimes crews have to change ends on cars with full width cabs too. That would make yard work more difficult too. A huge window like that would add a lot of money to maintanence if that got cracked. Plus, you need collision posts, otherwise, the trains will telescope right through each other. We need robust railcars. |
|
|
| (662302) | |
Re: R179 Specs |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Aug 6 16:15:33 2008, in response to Re: R179 Specs, posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Aug 6 15:22:49 2008. IF NYCT were to go this route, we'd see more of what we are getting now as far as new cars; four- or five-car linked sets, with a cab on each end. No need to pass through the linked sets. Only issue is evacuation through the cab ends. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 5 |
|
