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.

Proof for R160B option III possibility


Fan Railer

Recommended Posts


The second word of the article was used either incorrectly, or I need to see the previous page b/c the first "option" of 382 cars was referring to the base order. 2002 was when the R160s were ordered. The dates were projection perhaps due to the economy recession, and the next option was actually R160 Option I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second word of the article was used either incorrectly, or I need to see the previous page b/c the first "option" of 382 cars was referring to the base order. 2002 was when the R160s were ordered. The dates were projection perhaps due to the economy recession, and the next option was actually R160 Option I.

 

Base order was 660 cars

Option one was for 620 cars

Option two was for 382 cars

Potential option III is for 238 cars.

total without option three is 1662 (already ordered and majority in service)

total with opt III is 1900 cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bad. The date 2002 for the 2nd option is not correct as that was when the first R160 were ordered. I'm looking for a supplemental order for extra service if this is the case. And if R32 3838 is right about the car shortage, then off with the rest of those ruddy R32s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this order goes, The R44's and remaining SMEE's would be history. And If ordered, These cars will go straght to pitkin for (A) and possible (C) service,Or the (A) be 100% R160 and the (C) be 100% R46.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this order goes, The R44's and remaining SMEE's would be history. And If ordered, These cars will go straght to pitkin for (A) and possible (C) service,Or the (A) be 100% R160 and the (C) be 100% R46.

 

 

The (MTA) hasn't said anything about a 3rd option yet,but it's there if they

want it.

 

as far as the R44,their going through a SMS program(or something of

that sort)so that they'll be able to last till 2012 or 2014.and the remaining SMEE cars are likely going to be retired by the option II R160 order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this order goes, The R44's and remaining SMEE's would be history. And If ordered, These cars will go straght to pitkin for (A) and possible (C) service,Or the (A) be 100% R160 and the (C) be 100% R46.

 

You cannot be serious man! 238 cars= 24 trains. There are 272 R44s altogether or 34 trains. 24 trains is not going to replace 34 trains. What, are you convinced now that Option II would replace all the R32s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just remember one vital thing, Option III is NOT set in stone. I just want to make sure we see the same things.

 

Oh I see it sparkling well! With that being said, there's no need to flame something another doesn't want to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Option III is not only not set in stone, it is not to happen.

 

The purpose of Option III was to provide cars for congestion pricing related service increases(and a few other service increase initiatives). They were never intended to replace any cars, and since the increases didn't pass, they are not needed.

 

The R44 fleet is not the lemon it once was. It is more reliable than the R32, R42, and R46 fleets. Considering that they are also getting heavy SMS, any talk of their retirement in the immediate future is a bit misguided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Option III is not only not set in stone, it is not to happen.

 

The purpose of Option III was to provide cars for congestion pricing related service increases(and a few other service increase initiatives). They were never intended to replace any cars, and since the increases didn't pass, they are not needed.

 

The R44 fleet is not the lemon it once was. It is more reliable than the R32, R42, and R46 fleets. Considering that they are also getting heavy SMS, any talk of their retirement in the immediate future is a bit misguided.

 

Thank you, that was clearly straightforward!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Option III is not only not set in stone, it is not to happen.

 

The purpose of Option III was to provide cars for congestion pricing related service increases(and a few other service increase initiatives). They were never intended to replace any cars, and since the increases didn't pass, they are not needed.

 

The R44 fleet is not the lemon it once was. It is more reliable than the R32, R42, and R46 fleets. Considering that they are also getting heavy SMS, any talk of their retirement in the immediate future is a bit misguided.

 

That's the problem: when new subway cars are introduced to the system, there are some problems and it takes a little while to get used to them. The Slants' posed a problem with passenger safety, so they rectified the problem by installing handholds and other stuff on the slanted ends as a safety precaution. The R68s posed a problem as well; its on Wikipedia. The R44s are still plagued with technical problems because they were initially slated for the SAS had it been finished in the 70s. Even the GOH period didn't save them. The R44 is still considered a lemon, and the TA is wasting money giving them SMS; 33rd Street is right on the ball with that. They were supposed to be getting them since last year and Staten Island's R44s are in the process of Scheduled Maintenance already. The R32s and the R46s beat the R44s any day, as they are nothing but rolling junk. If the TA do SMS the cars, and they peel away that stripe, there will be so much rotted steel that it wouldn't even be funny and they would just pull the plug on the cars. I wouldn't be surprised if the TA decided to keep the R32s a little bit longer because their superior car body was made to last 50 years, and the R32s will be 46 when they retire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only see durability with the R32s, but they breakdown more often than you think. Come on guys, enough with the rusting issue.

 

But its true, and even with a grain of salt you just agreed with me. Why keep a rusting junk car if there is a car thats more durable than it? And every time I've been on an R32, I've never experienced a breakdown, just a door issue (this was in 2007 or early 2008 on an R32/38 consist on the (A)). But the R44s are becoming more of an eyesore everytime I see them, I'm sorry. I'm always glad to see an R46 everytime it passes by, I just wish it was railfan friendly or railfan viewable like the R160, at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I would like to know your source(s). SMS can't save the R44's. I'll say it again and again, the R44's have been on life support the second they first arrived. At the present, the R44's are experiencing a ton of issues. I have spoken to plenty of T/O's and they've said the same thing that I said. The R46's break down a lot less then the R46's. Because of the R44's, I feel sorry for T/O's and C/R's who have to deal with them on a daily basis.

 

 

 

The R32's hardly ever break down at all. I believe another member here stated that most of the issues with the 32's are door problems. The R44's are rusting so bad that its becoming a saftey hazard. Due to those factors, the NTSB is going to get involved and possible force the TA to get rid of the R44's. In addition, that can create lawsuits. SMSing the R44's won't even solve those issues which is why its a waste of money to do so.

 

I still hope that the next batch of R160's yet to arrive will retire some R44's than R32's. Now's a good time to reef/scrap the worst of the R44's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The R42s are due for an NTSB kick-off, not the R44. The R44 still has shiny roofs and their main problem revolves around the carbon strip. If you consider the window rims to be an issue as well, then you should check out the R46s' window rims as well. The R44s can run fine and their WH motors won't sqeak as badly as those GE motors. And 33rd St, most of the T/Os prefer the R44s over the R46s b/c they can brake better than the R46s. And please consider that braking the train is a major aspect of running a train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

R-44 should been gone

 

You've never experienced what I've experienced and they were always good to me. A train of R32s just broke down last Saturday night along the CPW like others did over 17 times over the last 10 years and I missed my train again back to NJ. As much as I'm alright with the R32s' durability, they really need to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've never experienced what I've experienced and they were always good to me. A train of R32s just broke down last Saturday night along the CPW like others did over 17 times over the last 10 years and I missed my train again back to NJ. As much as I'm alright with the R32s' durability, they really need to go.

 

The reason why the R32 broke down because it ran all day and all night without being layed up.

 

I do have NYCT soruces and what most of them had told me that the due date for the R44's is 2012-2014, That's the bottom line, Yes the R44's are reliable, But they are rusting real bad, The end bonnets are falling off, These cars need to go also, The R32's are really reliable the only thing that needs to be done is give them another SMS, But 100 of them the rest they can retire from passenger service but we all know that that's not going to happen, But it would make sense and it would be cheaper than SMS an whole fleet of R44's. If option order III does get awarded the R44's would be history but not all of them, if the order is 238 cars you will have over 30 R44's left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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