Maserati7200 Posted July 20, 2009 Share #26 Posted July 20, 2009 The difference between an R142A and a "R142S" is the same as the R32 to R32A: none, just a different contract. So I don't see why anyone brought up "R142S" to begin with... its pointless. Moving on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted July 20, 2009 Share #27 Posted July 20, 2009 Wasn't R142's supposed to run on the then for some reason it went to the instead? They were, but it makes sense putting the R142/As down the 4 because the cars have larger doors, which are able to cope with the overcrowding. If you rode a R62 on the 4, and then rode a R142 on the 4 (you could do that 2 years ago), you would know the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted July 20, 2009 Share #28 Posted July 20, 2009 Wasn't R142's supposed to run on the then for some reason it went to the instead? That reason: Mayor Bloomturd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted July 20, 2009 Share #29 Posted July 20, 2009 The difference between an R142A and a "R142S" is the same as the R32 to R32A: none, just a different contract. So I don't see why anyone brought up "R142S" to begin with... its pointless. Moving on... It was brought up to disspell common misinformation before it got posted to the forum, because a lot of people read these and learn from them, so anyone that posts has a responsibility to make sure that anything that is posted as fact is correct and they are not posting wrong information. Opinions they can post whatever they want. But facts have to be right. If you don't know, ask. If you do, post away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted July 20, 2009 Share #30 Posted July 20, 2009 No wonder why there wasnt enough R142's to cover the . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 5278 Posted July 20, 2009 Share #31 Posted July 20, 2009 That reason: Mayor Bloomturd Haha. I think uniformity had something to do with it as the entire Lexington Line is NTT. The R62s rarely appeared back then b/c the R142As were still rolling in and that extra trains were needed during the rush. Now you don't see any more R62s b/c the R142As solved that problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted July 20, 2009 Share #32 Posted July 20, 2009 Haha. I think uniformity had something to do with it as the entire Lexington Line is NTT. The R62s rarely appeared back then b/c the R142As were still rolling in and that extra trains were needed during the rush. Now you don't see any more R62s b/c the R142As solved that problem. True, but you used to see R62's on the as recently as 2008, after all new techs had been delivered...sometimes on the weekends too. Originally the plan was to have half and half NTT/R62 on the and , but "our fearless leader" wanted more new techs on the east side so that is exactly what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted July 20, 2009 Share #33 Posted July 20, 2009 So the was gonna be half R62/R142 and the was gonna be half R62/R142A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 5278 Posted July 20, 2009 Share #34 Posted July 20, 2009 True, but you used to see R62's on the as recently as 2008, after all new techs had been delivered...sometimes on the weekends too. Originally the plan was to have half and half NTT/R62 on the and , but "our fearless leader" wanted more new techs on the east side so that is exactly what happened. As much as I dislike that guy, I don't think his opinion played much of a part here. I also remembered that the R62/As have a seat problem in that unlike the R44s-R68As, they have less seats than the A division bench seaters. I guess the T/A wanted more seats or more spaced seats for the heavy eaters (no offense) on the 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted July 20, 2009 Share #35 Posted July 20, 2009 As much as I dislike that guy, I don't think his opinion played much of a part here. I also remembered that the R62/As have a seat problem in that unlike the R44s-R68As, they have less seats than the A division bench seaters. I guess the T/A wanted more seats or more spaced seats for the heavy eaters (no offense) on the 4. If you don't think his opinion played a part then you don't understand how political equipment assignments really are. Also worth noting it's a well known fact Bloomberg often takes the , that was one of his big calling cards when he was a new mayor that "despite being a billionaire he was down to earth and rode the subway" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 5278 Posted July 20, 2009 Share #36 Posted July 20, 2009 Thanks for the wake up, I apparently forgot about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted July 22, 2009 Share #37 Posted July 22, 2009 That reason: Mayor Bloomturd No, it's not exactly about politics. The main reason is more of a capacity issue. As we all know, there has been overcrowding on the Lex lines since the latter half of the last century. R62s have narrower doors than R142s. By having R142s, the 4 decreases the dwell times experienced while using R62s. Trust me on this one, I'm a regular on the number 4 line. And I've ridden the R62 on the 4 a good amount of times. I can tell you that it is not really a political incentive. And look at the 3 line, does it have much incentive in running R142s? It's fine running R62s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted July 22, 2009 Share #38 Posted July 22, 2009 No, it's not exactly about politics. The main reason is more of a capacity issue.As we all know, there has been overcrowding on the Lex lines since the latter half of the last century. R62s have narrower doors than R142s. By having R142s, the 4 decreases the dwell times experienced while using R62s. Trust me on this one, I'm a regular on the number 4 line. And I've ridden the R62 on the 4 a good amount of times. I can tell you that it is not really a political incentive. And look at the 3 line, does it have much incentive in running R142s? It's fine running R62s. I am talking about the ORIGINAL reasons this happened, not the reasons used now to defend the status quo when people propose more nonsense car moves. The plan WAS for some of the new techs to go to the line back when the new techs were brand new, but Bloomberg had a big hand in that not happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted July 22, 2009 Share #39 Posted July 22, 2009 It's a little suspicious to pull R142's away from the . I hope this doesn't have nothing to do w/ the running through Brownsville & East New York. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted July 22, 2009 Share #40 Posted July 22, 2009 I hope this doesn't have nothing to do w/ the running through Brownsville & East New York. You can bet your bibles it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annalisa Posted July 22, 2009 Share #41 Posted July 22, 2009 1990s r62s (1)always,(3)always,(4)always,(5)rare trips untill 2001,&(6)sometimes,& (9)always Red Birds-(7)always & (6)sometimes 2000's r62s (3)always,(2)2002 only,(4)always until 2003. Now rare trips are made, (6)until 2001,(7)2001-present,(9)until May 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annalisa Posted July 22, 2009 Share #42 Posted July 22, 2009 It's a little suspicious to pull R142's away from the . I hope this doesn't have nothing to do w/ the running through Brownsville & East New York. Untrue 100% R142 &(5)make LTD rush hours trips to New Lots Av & R142/A trains run there late nights! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted July 22, 2009 Share #43 Posted July 22, 2009 1990sr62s (1)always,(3)always,(4)always,(5)rare trips untill 2001,&(6)sometimes,& (9)always Red Birds-(7)always & (6)sometimes 2000's r62s (3)always,(2)2002 only,(4)always until 2003. Now rare trips are made, (6)until 2001,(7)2001-present,(9)until May 2005 It was R62As that was running on the & before R142/A's came about. But my other point stayed the same Redbirds to R142 R62A to R62 Redbirds & R62 to R142 & R142A Redbirds to R142 Redbirds & R62A to R142A Redbirds to R62A Now out of all IRT lines that either stayed the same or got an upgrade/new trains in the 21st century why does it got to be the that haves to give up their orginal R142's to the and go down from running R62A's to R62's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedyracer90 Posted July 22, 2009 Share #44 Posted July 22, 2009 1990sr62s (3)always,(2)2002 only,(4)always until 2003. Now rare trips are made, (6)until 2001,(7)2001-present,(9)until May 2005 The no longer runs any R62's since around the time the new South Ferry Station opened. Also the didn't receive it's first set of R62A's until around February 2002. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 5278 Posted July 23, 2009 Share #45 Posted July 23, 2009 The no longer runs any R62's since around the time the new South Ferry Station opened. Also the didn't receive it's first set of R62A's until around February 2002. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. I think it was the summer of 2001 that the 7 received its first R62A train. I remembered it as an express facing Flushing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annalisa Posted July 23, 2009 Share #46 Posted July 23, 2009 1990-2001 R62s- R62As-(rare trips)(1991-present) Redbirds-(1990) 2001-2003 R62s- R62As-(2002 only) Redbirds-(01'-02')(01'-03')(01'-02')(01'-03) R142s- R142As- 2003-present R62s-(rare trips) R62As-(until May 2005) R142s- R142As- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted July 23, 2009 Share #47 Posted July 23, 2009 Annalisa, the no longer uses R62s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted July 24, 2009 Share #48 Posted July 24, 2009 But it's all good; 15 or 20 years from now the and lines are gonna have brand new and probaly better looking cars than R142/A's and politics better not think about putting R142's on the so the could look good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted July 28, 2009 Share #49 Posted July 28, 2009 The proposod IRT car assignment back in 2001. http://www.thejoekorner.com/carassignments/IRT2002-proj.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.