Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
blkfire765

where will the R68's go????!

Recommended Posts

will the r179's replace some of the R68's or is it too early... what train cars will replace the R68's and what lines will they be moved to before their retirement? i'm sorry if this has been discussed or if this is a dumb question...

(T)(H)(A)(N)(K)(S)

Edited by blkfire765

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the R68/As are not replaced and neither are the R44s. Please reference other threads as they are in full depth analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry for the mix up... i meant the R179's not R160's... sorry.... so will the R68's be replaced by the r179's or something else... and where will they go before retirement....??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fuknomx9.gif

 

No, the R68's are not getting replaced by R179's. They still have 20+ years left before it may be time for them to go. What made you think then R179 would replace the R68 anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please take it easy on her fellas. She is still rather new to the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest its too early to tell. The TA might say that they want the entire subway fleet to be 100% NTT by 2016, you never know. I guess we just have to wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine or see R62/A's or at least R68/A's going away and being replaced by trains even more modern/futuristic than R160's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please take it easy on her fellas. She is still rather new to the forums.

 

thanks for that:] and your right i am still learning and new... sorry for asking such questions... and when the time for retirement of the R62 and R68's come will they be replaced by R188's for the R62's... and R179's for the R68's or will they be replced by a new train model?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks for that:] and your right i am still learning and new... sorry for asking such questions... and when the time for retirement of the R62 and R68's come will they be replaced by R188's for the R62's... and R179's for the R68's or will they be replced by a new train model?

 

Nobody knows. With the TA (and life in general sometimes) the plan can change at the last second. There's no way now to accurately say which trains will replace which. All we can do is speculate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

thanks for that:] and your right i am still learning and new... sorry for asking such questions... and when the time for retirement of the R62 and R68's come will they be replaced by R188's for the R62's... and R179's for the R68's or will they be replced by a new train model?
R188's are just for the (7) and isnt replacin R62's but that's another subject. I doubt that R68s are gonna be replaced by R179.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now, what is clear is, if the R179s do arrive, they will first replace the R44s. Then, if there is more funding, another option order will replace the R46s. This can be derived from some MTA documents. The R68s will not retire anytime soon, for they are close to "mid-life". The general state of the cars is fine and does not call for any major overhaul or replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is exactly what i keep telling a certain someone who hates the R68/68As so much. there are no plans to replace those cars with anything. they are very reliable, both structurally and mechanically. they can hit 50 before they have to go, which is like 2035. i really do not understand why anyone would hate the R68/68As. the only thing that i dislike about them is their crappy acceleration, but someone i know hates them primarily because the interiors are not to his liking and he prefers longitudinal to transverse seating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is exactly what i keep telling a certain someone who hates the R68/68As so much. there are no plans to replace those cars with anything. they are very reliable, both structurally and mechanically. they can hit 50 before they have to go, which is like 2035. i really do not understand why anyone would hate the R68/68As. the only thing that i dislike about them is their crappy acceleration, but someone i know hates them primarily because the interiors are not to his liking and he prefers longitudinal to transverse seating.

In any case, hating any class of cars just because of the aesthetics or how it appears is just inane. The fact of the matter is, the R44s will retire (long) before the R68s do. On a scale of fractions, I'll estimate the R44's lifeline as a little past 3/4. The R68s are not close to 1/2.

Aesthetics could be worked on, but the essential for any car is its performance. That's what counts most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its way to early to talk about the R179 or even the R188 for the IRT, replacing any car. The R68s havent even reich midlife and it wont be retired by the R179s. the R44/44SIRs yes, and maybe some leftovers from the R32 true R40M/42s may as well be retired. Plus we are still progressing on the R160s which has made it into Option 2 order. And lets not forget that the R179s have not been ordered nor theres funds and the moment for this, which ill occur after 2012 or around.

 

 

So i think the R179 related topic shoulds not be dicussed atm as its useless. Lets think about whats happening with the R160 vs. R32 thru R42s and all other fleets too.. That are current not future.. Except R160..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think its way to early to talk about the R179 or even the R188 for the IRT, replacing any car. The R68s havent even reich midlife and it wont be retired by the R179s. the R44/44SIRs yes, and maybe some leftovers from the R32 true R40M/42s may as well be retired. Plus we are still progressing on the R160s which has made it into Option 2 order. And lets not forget that the R179s have not been ordered nor theres funds and the moment for this, which ill occur after 2012 or around.

 

 

So i think the R179 related topic shoulds not be dicussed atm as its useless. Lets think about whats happening with the R160 vs. R32 thru R42s and all other fleets too.. That are current not future.. Except R160..

Thank you Mark (finds "thanks" button)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think its way to early to talk about the R179 or even the R188 for the IRT, replacing any car. The R68s havent even reich midlife and it wont be retired by the R179s. the R44/44SIRs yes, and maybe some leftovers from the R32 true R40M/42s may as well be retired. Plus we are still progressing on the R160s which has made it into Option 2 order. And lets not forget that the R179s have not been ordered nor theres funds and the moment for this, which ill occur after 2012 or around.

 

 

So i think the R179 related topic shoulds not be dicussed atm as its useless. Lets think about whats happening with the R160 vs. R32 thru R42s and all other fleets too.. That are current not future.. Except R160..

 

there will not be any leftover R32/40M/42s for the R179s to replace. R160 Option II totals 1662 cars, more than enough to replace all pre-R44 cars.

 

aesthetics is the primary reason why i hate the R42s and R44s so much. one is covered in rust and cosmetically horrible while the other is ugly and full of unsolvable mechanical and technical problems.

Edited by FlushingExpress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there will not be any leftover R32/40M/42s for the R179s to replace. R160 Option II totals 1662 cars, more than enough to replace all pre-R44 cars.

 

aesthetics is the primary reason why i hate the R42s and R44s so much. one is covered in rust and cosmetically horrible while the other is ugly and full of unsolvable mechanical and technical problems.

 

Agreed. It's just like judging women: some can be so good looking but in the long run they may just turn out to be the witchiest person you'll ever meet. So it's okay not to like the older cars, or even the newest cars for that matter, because of how they look, but remember these questions: is this train taking me where I want to go? Is service reliable enough? If you answered "yes" to either of these questions, then my point has been proven, basically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there will not be any leftover R32/40M/42s for the R179s to replace. R160 Option II totals 1662 cars, more than enough to replace all pre-R44 cars.

 

aesthetics is the primary reason why i hate the R42s and R44s so much. one is covered in rust and cosmetically horrible while the other is ugly and full of unsolvable mechanical and technical problems.

Point 1: If the math is done properly, mathematics show that all SMEEs will be replaced by the R160s. The combined order totals to 1,662. The SMEEs total 1,600 when they were first built. Remember some were scrapped earlier on.

 

Point 2: A car's appearance doesn't give you the right to hate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the R68/As a lot and I've always known them on the West End and Sea Beach Lines. Since the N had became all R160B, it wasn't the same b/c all I do in a R160 stand due to the lack of seats and to avoid pains on my bottom and back. I used to sleep on a transversed bucket seat from 34th St to CI. Now I grasp a pole on a A end R160 car hoping not to fall asleep standing. The R160s have excellent suspension and braking especially on the R160As, but not as comfortable as trains with bucket transversed seats. Most of the time, I would rather ride the slower D train from 34th St to the beach just for the comfort. It would be very frustrating have the last decent bucket seated line (excluding the Q in Brooklyn) taken of its comfort. As a regular A rider, I don't want it to end up with the oldest trains again after the R46s are gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those IRT NTT are a joke. Why when it rained hard a few days ago, water came into the cab through the cab door bottom. What kind of cheap seal was put on there? I was doing a Yankee baseball special, sitting and waiting on M track, when my cab tried to become an aquarium. Never had this happen on an R62 or 62A, yet.........

 

I can see the R62A (and R62 after getting an overhaul), outlasting the IRT NTT trains. I really think the hippos will outlast the R160 (and R179 if that even happens).........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love the R68/As a lot and I've always known them on the West End and Sea Beach Lines. Since the N had became all R160B, it wasn't the same b/c all I do in a R160 stand due to the lack of seats and to avoid pains on my bottom and back. I used to sleep on a transversed bucket seat from 34th St to CI. Now I grasp a pole on a A end R160 car hoping not to fall asleep standing. The R160s have excellent suspension and braking especially on the R160As, but not as comfortable as trains with bucket transversed seats. Most of the time, I would rather ride the slower D train from 34th St to the beach just for the comfort. It would be very frustrating have the last decent bucket seated line (excluding the Q in Brooklyn) taken of its comfort. As a regular A rider, I don't want it to end up with the oldest trains again after the R46s are gone.

Oh man, I love sleeping in those bucket seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh man, I love sleeping in those bucket seats.

 

 

i know wat u mean... i love it too... especially when the train is empty!!! it's so comfty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i know wat u mean... i love it too... especially when the train is empty!!! it's so comfty!

 

The only disadvantage about the bucket seats is that they can't hold a fat person (their seats were designed with a Japanese person's dimensions in mind). How dare Kawasaki thinks we are similar to the Japanese! (Not cutting on the Japanese cuz I love my Chinese food but still, they should hae tested this out).

 

But I especially like sitting on the transverse seats and have my feet on the regular seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only disadvantage about the bucket seats is that they can't hold a fat person (their seats were designed with a Japanese person's dimensions in mind). How dare Kawasaki thinks we are similar to the Japanese! (Not cutting on the Japanese cuz I love my Chinese food but still, they should hae tested this out).

 

But I especially like sitting on the transverse seats and have my feet on the regular seats.

 

Those bucket seats on the R68As are much wider than those in the Japanese subway systems. In fact, they are no different from the ones on the R44s. Don't forget, the obese population dominates NYC and elsewhere in the USA only and therefore needs those awful bench seats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh man, I love sleeping in those bucket seats.

 

lol Too bad the bucket seats dont have a hole in center like the buses. Cuz when it rains and people enter soakinh wet, and they get up from the seat makes it sound like they left a leak xD . Or the umbrella of course..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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