Jump to content

What Will the B Division Roster Look Like After all R160's are delivered?

Maserati7200

By Maserati7200,
in New York City Subway

Recommended Posts

Maserati7200

Maserati7200

Posted
  • Author
Posted
If R179 were to be delivered right after R160

 

I believe maybe 2 line maybe doing swampping cars that:

 

 

(A) R68 , R179

(C) R68 , R179

(N) , R179 , R160

(Q) , R179 , R160

 

(A) , (C) will reiecve R68 from (N) , (Q) . and (N) , (Q) will

have R179 , R160. it will be nice to see (A) , (C) line get

R68 from (N) , (Q) line

 

Dude?! Where are you coming from? I made this thread about R160's! Not R179's or anything else! R179's are too far in the future. Okay then, kngmn, kawasaki3, and landofthelost?? And why did you make 3 accounts anyway? Your other ones weren't even banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

R44 5278

R44 5278

Posted
Posted

 

I was wondering the same thing, this guy has 3 handles already.
I always thought that this guy was a little kid since my days at Riders Diaries. It's best if we leave him alone anyhow b/c he's harmless and never started any fights. I guess all he ever wanted was to "add reputation" to his new account via his old accounts. We should get back on topic or have this thread closed b/c it really served its purpose in terms of facts and speculations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MTR Admiralty

MTR Admiralty

Posted
Posted
I vote getting back on topic.

Well, frankly, that isn't doing much to get us on topic.

 

As for the topic, we should see how everything plays out. The E is now 100% R160s (or almost) and the F is filling up on them. The trend should continue, probably making the F either close to 100% R160 or fully R160. This is based on the fact that the second option order is also going to Jamaica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maserati7200

Maserati7200

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Well, frankly, that isn't doing much to get us on topic.

 

As for the topic, we should see how everything plays out. The E is now 100% R160s (or almost) and the F is filling up on them. The trend should continue, probably making the F either close to 100% R160 or fully R160. This is based on the fact that the second option order is also going to Jamaica.

 

let this thread just sit here, not being active, and when new info comes along, we'll use it again. Closing threads isn't always the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KTrainExp

KTrainExp

Posted
Posted
Let the C have 20 R160 trains!

That's unnecessary. Jamaica will probably send a few more R46s over to Pitkin and the (C) could get those once the R32s are done. That would actually be the better option because the rest of the R160s will fill up the (E) and (F) positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
R44 5278

R44 5278

Posted
Posted
That's unnecessary. Jamaica will probably send a few more R46s over to Pitkin and the (C) could get those once the R32s are done. That would actually be the better option because the rest of the R160s will fill up the (E) and (F) positions.

 

I never wanted the R160s at Pitkin b/c I'm eager to wait for something even better in the future. But you're absolutely right, the R46s should continue to fill Pitkin and eventually 207th while Jamaica gets more R160s. Anyhow, ease of operation is always dominant over variety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
R32 3348

R32 3348

Posted
Posted
So when will they fix these power issues? For the umpteenth weekend this year there was no (A) in the Rockaways today, just a shuttle running between Far Rock and Rock Park and a shuttle bus from the terminals to Howard Beach (which took 30 minutes, and the train at Howard Beach started 10 mins after I got there), meaning I left Howard Beach 50 minutes after getting to Beach 67th. For this kind of painful service changes, I hope these problems get fixed soon. The (MTA) simply doesn't seem to know what to do with the Rockaways (A) trains.

 

Whether or not the power issues are solved, there aren't any R160s likely on the (A). The ones you saw where only being tested at Broad Channel.

That G.O. doesn't necessarily have to do with these "power problems".

Apparently Concourse didn't want the R160s (that's what another user said on a different thread; I do not know the specifics myself). I do not know if Pitkin or 207th was offered R160s.

 

So what could possibly be reasons for not using R160s on the (A)? Any chance (though it seems unthinkable) that they are prone to rusting from the salt-laden sea air at Jamaica Bay? The R40 slants didn't run on the (A) until nearing retirement for this reason. I would think modern cars would be made rust-resistant.

IINM, weren't R160s supposed to go to the (A) first? I don't know why they didn't go to the (A) though I'm wanting to see a source for all of these "power problems".

I don't know who came up w/ that sorry & lame ass excuse w/ R160 can't run on the Rockaways cause of the whole salt and rust issues but if R44's can run in the Rockaways so can R160's.

I agree, the salt & rust issue is complete BS. Same goes for the reason the R44s "suck" being the salt in the Jamaica Bay. If the R44s were so bad, then how come the R32s and R38s flew across the bay without having the same problems?

There will be no R68/As on the A/C and there will be no R179s on the N/Q. Please stop speculating b/c it's already predicted that the first R179s will go to the F. The first R179 order is only 208 cars meaning that it will only cover part of one line.

They will either go on the (F) or the (A) but this is not an R179 thread so I'll leave it there.

I calculated it myself a few weeks back with estimates on the number of trains in layup and concluded that the F would be all R160 with around 2-4 sets of R46s. Even though it is expected that the Q would become entirely R160, CI is currently at full capacity. Unless the W gives up all of its R160Bs, the Q would still have R68/As.

CI isn't at full capacity, they recently lost 40 spare cars to Jamaica so they have at least 40 cars' worth of free space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KTrainExp

KTrainExp

Posted
Posted

I agree, the salt & rust issue is complete BS. Same goes for the reason the R44s "suck" being the salt in the Jamaica Bay. If the R44s were so bad, then how come the R32s and R38s flew across the bay without having the same problems?

 

This is what I've been stressing about. There are no salt problems along the Rockaways. The R44s might have some trouble with rust because of their carbon steel bodies, but we see them traveling down everyday along the (A) line. If the salt really was slowly eating up the train, then (MTA) would have done something by now.

 

Plus, the R160s have the strongest durable steel that we've seen in existence in (MTA)'s entire fleet. They should have no problems at all.

 

And (A) trains I believe were supposed to get the NTTs in the first place. Otherwise, why would they do the 30 Day Test there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eric B Train Operator

Eric B

Posted
Posted

 

And (A) trains I believe were supposed to get the NTTs in the first place. Otherwise, why would they do the 30 Day Test there?
Because there was an electromechanical problem on the (N) where they first started testing, and the test resumed, and the cars finally went there as planned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
R32 3348

R32 3348

Posted
Posted
R160B8713, MTR, and Konvicted, salt water CAN affect the exterior of a train. The 32's and 38's did not rust because of the solid build quality and metal in which was used. The 160's, which is make of some form of steel that can rust very easily. By my observations of CIY's R160's, I noticed plenty of rust on them. If there was no salt water issues, then how come the R44's are rusting so bad on the bottom?

Like Art Vandelay said, that's steel dust, not rust on the R160s, which are only 1-3 years old and made of stainless steel. There is no way a stainless steel railcar of any kind will rust in 3 years. And the R44s are rusting on the bottom because that strip at the bottm is made of carbon steel, which is more prone to rust than stainless steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MTR Admiralty

MTR Admiralty

Posted
Posted
R160B8713, MTR, and Konvicted, salt water CAN affect the exterior of a train. The 32's and 38's did not rust because of the solid build quality and metal in which was used. The 160's, which is make of some form of steel that can rust very easily. By my observations of CIY's R160's, I noticed plenty of rust on them. If there was no salt water issues, then how come the R44's are rusting so bad on the bottom?

We had this debate a few months ago:

Rusting can be from different sources. In general, rusting is the oxidation of metals (if you read your chemistry textbook). With that said, it means rusting is related to the exposure of the metal to oxygen over a certain amount of period. The rusting depends primarily on the length of exposure of the metal to oxygen and what the composition of the metal is.

Adding to what Kris said, stainless steel doesn't rust that easily. "Stainless steel does not stain, corrode, or rust as easily as ordinary steel." On an atomic scale, there could be "rusting", as oxygen molecules are bombarding the metal. but on a visible scale, there are no traces of this, particularly in 1-3 years. Now, the reason for stainless steel to not to rust or corrode as other types of steel is primarily due to its composition. The composition of stainless steel comprises of multiple types of metals, including iron and chromium.

As for salinity, seawater does have an abundance of halide anions (the ions of fluorine, chlorine and bromine). And halides, with oxygen can play a role in redox reactions. However, there has been no major report that I've heard or witnessed that regards salinity and its effect on train composition. Or that seawater has wrought severe and visible structural damage to a train due to a million halide anions bombarding the train on an atomic scale. Seawater would only affect the train body if any of these circumstances are to arise:

1. The train has been left in an area adjacent to seawater for a long duration (for around 30 years or more)

2. The train has been left in an area adjacent to seawater without continuous maintenance

3. The train has not been maintained for a duration of time

 

The trains, I believe, are not continuously stationed at an area outside and adjacent to sea water. They are also maintained regularly, with inspections. Sometimes they are given SMS. The chances for a car to rust due to seawater are slim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LRG

LRG

Posted
Posted

Oh my gosh, all this talk on rust is making me want to rip the hair off my head!...X-D

 

I'm certain about the R160 power issue with trains not being able to run on the flats. One user stated his sources, and I believe him. You guys don't have to believe him, but I have my say on what's what. But I'll say this much: I was having a discussion about the trains with my family yesterday evening and we all agreed that the (A) and the (C) get the oldest cars!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MTR Admiralty

MTR Admiralty

Posted
Posted
Oh my gosh, all this talk on rust is making me want to rip the hair off my head!...X-D

 

I'm certain about the R160 power issue with trains not being able to run on the flats. One user stated his sources, and I believe him. You guys don't have to believe him, but I have my say on what's what. But I'll say this much: I was having a discussion about the trains with my family yesterday evening and we all agreed that the (A) and the (C) get the oldest cars!

Whatever the case is, regardless whether it is a power issue or a conspiracy, whether it is salt or rust, whether it is because the (A) and (C) are the "death line" for IND/BMT cars... we have to wait and see. That strategy is the best way to avoid troubling discussions regarding future car assignments. Speculating too much won't get anyone anywhere. Just nine months ago today, almost the entire forum believed that the (F) will get R160s before the (E). Late December, the (E) got its first train, before the (F) did. That example proves that we should all wait and see, sometimes the unexpected happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
R32 3838

R32 3838

Posted
Posted
Like Art Vandelay said, that's steel dust, not rust on the R160s, which are only 1-3 years old and made of stainless steel. There is no way a stainless steel railcar of any kind will rust in 3 years. And the R44s are rusting on the bottom because that strip at the bottm is made of carbon steel, which is more prone to rust than stainless steel.

 

Trust Me, I spoke to an (R) T/O that have been in the TA for over 25 years and He even told me that was rust, I know when a train is rusting, But I do see steel dust on an R160, But When I look at an R160 by the door, Its rust but I won't effect the train until 10-15 years, The R142A's don't even have that as well as the R142's and they been out for 9 1/2 years, In november the R142's will turn 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept