ctrain Posted January 8, 2010 Share #1 Posted January 8, 2010 I was recently looking at the January 3rd subway car data sheet and noticed that it said that they were currently inspecting the R44's for structural problems and was wondering about it. Also it said they might retire some R44's before the remaining R32 and R42's. If anyone can tell me anything they know about this! Thanks-(I) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted January 8, 2010 Share #2 Posted January 8, 2010 R44s have problems. That is all I will say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted January 8, 2010 Share #3 Posted January 8, 2010 The search button is your friend. http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15874 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3348 Posted January 8, 2010 Share #4 Posted January 8, 2010 In a nutshell: They were inspecting the R44s for structural problems, and if they find that the R44s have significant structual problems then retirement is a possible course of action. Currently, the reefing program has been suspended for this reason. If they decide to retire the R44s then the R32s and R42s will probably be here to stay until the next round of new subway cars. The would also stay 8 cars long for now, as the currently needs all the cars it can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Louis Car 09 Posted January 8, 2010 Share #5 Posted January 8, 2010 NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! They can`t retire early.Is the R44s really that bad in shape?:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted January 8, 2010 Share #6 Posted January 8, 2010 NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! They can`t retire early.Is the R44s really that bad in shape?:confused: Too early to tell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted January 8, 2010 Share #7 Posted January 8, 2010 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3348 Posted January 8, 2010 Share #8 Posted January 8, 2010 Lets Wait and See, too early to decide yet, ! Er, AWWang, the person directly above you said the exact same thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova RTS 9147 Posted January 8, 2010 Share #9 Posted January 8, 2010 Wasn't there a third R160 option order that would have retired the R44s? Or was that just a rumor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted January 8, 2010 Share #10 Posted January 8, 2010 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted January 8, 2010 Share #11 Posted January 8, 2010 Wasn't there a third R160 option order that would have retired the R44s? Or was that just a rumor? I heard the same thing myself :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 5278 Posted January 8, 2010 Share #12 Posted January 8, 2010 The R160 Option III order was all foamed out of speculation from the R142S supplement order of 80 cars. In fact, the T/A is already starting to hire engineers to design the R179s as indicated in this thread: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15361. ...It really sucks to only be in high school when you want this positions so badly in the engineering field anticipating that the next one may not come in a couple of decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted January 8, 2010 Share #13 Posted January 8, 2010 ...It really sucks to only be in high school when you want this positions so badly in the engineering field anticipating that the next one may not come in a couple of decades. Don't worry, they want who ever gets the job to have decades of experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted January 8, 2010 Share #14 Posted January 8, 2010 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 5278 Posted January 8, 2010 Share #15 Posted January 8, 2010 Don't worry, they want who ever gets the job to have decades of experience. Thanks a lot... Well, there is still a chace that something might happen at 2025's when the R68 and R62 retire... Which is why I said "a couple of decades." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3348 Posted January 8, 2010 Share #16 Posted January 8, 2010 Wasn't there a third R160 option order that would have retired the R44s? Or was that just a rumor? From what I heard it was considered a WHILE ago, for a rather short period of time, but it was not acted upon. This is what I heard, someone please correct me if I'm wrong (but it's all a moot point anyway). The next new car order will be either a third option of R160s, or an R179 order but the two orders will be of the exact same new cars (the only difference is the name). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 8, 2010 Share #17 Posted January 8, 2010 From what I heard it was considered a WHILE ago, for a rather short period of time, but it was not acted upon. This is what I heard, someone please correct me if I'm wrong (but it's all a moot point anyway). The next new car order will be either a third option of R160s, or an R179 order but the two orders will be of the exact same new cars (the only difference is the name). I wonder why the MTA would even order a separate car fleet. The prices always increase every time a new subway car is ordered. If anything, the MTA should go for an Option 3 order but I think they are running out of time to do so because the plants will shut down production after an extensive period of moratorium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3348 Posted January 8, 2010 Share #18 Posted January 8, 2010 I agree. They should just go for a 3rd option order with maybe slight spec changes if necessary (i.e. changing the master controller in the T/O cab to be in the middle instead of to the right to give lefties a break ) but the price goes up if they order an entirely new car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 8, 2010 Share #19 Posted January 8, 2010 I agree. They should just go for a 3rd option order with maybe slight spec changes if necessary (i.e. changing the master controller in the T/O cab to be in the middle instead of to the right to give lefties a break ) but the price goes up if they order an entirely new car. An R160C maybe??? If they are going to alter the cars in any way, may as well give it that 'C' designation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 5278 Posted January 9, 2010 Share #20 Posted January 9, 2010 An R160C maybe??? If they are going to alter the cars in any way, may as well give it that 'C' designation. Like the last 80 R142As, they will most likely name this R160S for supplement order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 9, 2010 Share #21 Posted January 9, 2010 Like the last 80 R142As, they will most likely name this R160S for supplement order. Probably, but it depends on who's building it. I wonder why Bombardier didn't take the supplemental order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 5278 Posted January 9, 2010 Share #22 Posted January 9, 2010 Probably, but it depends on who's building it. I wonder why Bombardier didn't take the supplemental order. Bombardier for the time being is not an option after the "problems" on the R142 and M7/A orders. I'm hoping for Siemens to build the future rolling stocks for the MTA in the future as they are one of the newest versatile RR companies out there presently. But then again money is all that matters, which was why Kawasaki was chosen over other companies. Remember one thing, "Asian products are cheap but durable (until around 20 years)." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmouse Posted January 9, 2010 Share #23 Posted January 9, 2010 Bombardier for the time being is not an option after the "problems" on the R142 and M7/A orders. I'm hoping for Siemens to build the future rolling stocks for the MTA in the future as they are one of the newest versatile RR companies out there presently. But then again money is all that matters, which was why Kawasaki was chosen over other companies. Remember one thing, "Asian products are cheap but durable (until around 20 years)." Bombardier isnt a bad company. They've been swamped with orders. QFT @ Asian products. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted January 9, 2010 Share #24 Posted January 9, 2010 An R160C maybe??? If they are going to alter the cars in any way, may as well give it that 'C' designation. Like the extra R142As for the 4 which some called the R142S, it's still an R142A, just additional cars. Whoever builds the extra cars if it's one or both, it'll still be called R160A or B. Either way I too agree it makes more sense to build those than new train types as the factories are already set up to build the R160s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 9, 2010 Share #25 Posted January 9, 2010 Bombardier for the time being is not an option after the "problems" on the R142 and M7/A orders. Wow, so Bombardier is shut out from future bids? Does this mean they may not even play a part in bidding in the R188 contract? I'm hoping for Siemens to build the future rolling stocks for the MTA in the future as they are one of the newest versatile RR companies out there presently. But then again money is all that matters, which was why Kawasaki was chosen over other companies. Since when does Siemens build subway cars? Remember one thing, "Asian products are cheap but durable (until around 20 years)." You know, what I'm about to may is something that we can most probably agree on: this is what makes me like the R44s over the newer generation of cars: because of the fact that they were built by reliable American manufacturers. Despite the problems R44s had during their lives, they were, in my opinion, "okay" cars, because they were American-made. The MTA had to shut out Budd from the R62 contract; they could have won and made a good ass subway car just like they did with the R11/34 and R32. After the R46, the closest thing they came to American was the R62A and the R142 because they were made by Canadian Bombardier. I wish the MTA would go back to making subway cars based on domestic reliability than cost. Equipment would go past 50 years if that happened. After the R46 retires, the New York City Subway is going to contain nothing but foreign-made crap, and I really won't be looking forward to railfanning the New York City Subway anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.