Dan05979 Posted January 9, 2010 Share #26 Posted January 9, 2010 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? Since when does Siemens build subway cars? 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. Even Foreign cars are better than american cars, but I agree the 142, and the 160 are very bland, they dont have that snazzyness of the older generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 9, 2010 Share #27 Posted January 9, 2010 Even Foreign cars are better than american cars, but I agree the 142, and the 160 are very bland, they dont have that snazzyness of the older generation. I see it the other way around. But everyone's entitled to their opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan05979 Posted January 9, 2010 Share #28 Posted January 9, 2010 I see it the other way around. But everyone's entitled to their opinion. I dont think the 142 is that great of a design, personally I think the r-62 & 68 were the best. The interior of the 142 is very gray and cold as a 62 or 68 is bright and inviting, but at the end of all this, its said and done with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 9, 2010 Share #29 Posted January 9, 2010 I dont think the 142 is that great of a design, personally I think the r-62 & 68 were the best. The interior of the 142 is very gray and cold as a 62 or 68 is bright and inviting, but at the end of all this, its said and done with. True. Fleet built after the 90s took a drastic turn for the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted January 9, 2010 Share #30 Posted January 9, 2010 True. Fleet built after the 90s took a drastic turn for the worst. Your opinion, but ok. Also there are no more American subway car builders because of the R44/46. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmouse Posted January 9, 2010 Share #31 Posted January 9, 2010 Wasnt Amrail (builder of R68s) American? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan05979 Posted January 9, 2010 Share #32 Posted January 9, 2010 Wasnt Amrail (builder of R68s) American? built in France Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted January 9, 2010 Share #33 Posted January 9, 2010 built in France Correct and the R68s were a mess when they can in because Amrail used too many different vendors which caused ALOT of problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 9, 2010 Share #34 Posted January 9, 2010 Also there are no more American subway car builders because of the R44/46. Really? So the TA decided to go foreign because of the R44/R46 fiascos? If you ask me, that seemed more of a risk than just giving the contract to Budd who desperately wanted the contract. Correct and the R68s were a mess when they can in because Amrail used too many different vendors which caused ALOT of problems. So exactly how long did it take for the MTA to rectify the longlasting problems the 68s gave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted January 9, 2010 Share #35 Posted January 9, 2010 I dont think the 142 is that great of a design, personally I think the r-62 & 68 were the best. The interior of the 142 is very gray and cold as a 62 or 68 is bright and inviting, but at the end of all this, its said and done with. The R62s [kawaski] are pretty dim and could use the same flourescent bulbs the R142s-R160s have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Louis Car 09 Posted January 9, 2010 Share #36 Posted January 9, 2010 Really? So the TA decided to go foreign because of the R44/R46 fiascos? If you ask me, that seemed more of a risk than just giving the contract to Budd who desperately wanted the contract. So exactly how long did it take for the MTA to rectify the longlasting problems the 68s gave? As the story goes.When the R62 Contract was put on the table,Budd wanted the piece of that pie,giving their expertise in stainless steel technology,but lost to Kawasaki for 325 Cars.Now The (NYCT) wanted 825 built,but Kawasaki stated that it would "tie up " their plant IN Kobe,so the 825 cars was given to Bombardier.Budd protested this heavily,before changing their name to Transit America,which didn`t help them one bit before being sold out to the germans.The reason Kawasaki won the order was because of financing that they were offering (NYCT).Now thr R68`s were indeed Built in France.Westinghouse built the chassis for the trains here in the U.S.others were Jeumont-schneider,Alsthom(Alstom which is todays spelling) And ANF industries which is now bombardier.Their supply network and communication was sooo crappy that this order was almost cancelled altogether,but when the smoke cleared 425 R68s were born.3-4 years later,Kawasaki would complete 200 R68A`s from Kobe Japan.Believe it or not to this day there are still a few problems on R68`s due to this french-American connection,but the quality has greatly improved due to the engineers of the MTA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted January 9, 2010 Share #37 Posted January 9, 2010 Really? So the TA decided to go foreign because of the R44/R46 fiascos? If you ask me, that seemed more of a risk than just giving the contract to Budd who desperately wanted the contract. So exactly how long did it take for the MTA to rectify the longlasting problems the 68s gave? 1. I think Budd did not enter a bid because of what happened with the R44/46. 2. I'm not sure, but it took a while. For some time they were considered a disaster of a car. By next week I can get more info on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 5278 Posted January 9, 2010 Share #38 Posted January 9, 2010 True. Fleet built after the 90s took a drastic turn for the worst. American products can never be good as long as there are unions for each industry. In my opinion, every company specialized in a specific field. Budd was always known for railroad as stainless steel was exclusively used for the Amfleets and the MUs of NJT and SEPTA. The R32 contract was only successful because it innovated stainless steel into the subway for durability (same with SEPTA's Broad St fleet). ACF was always known for making freight train cars such as hoppers, which are still in production today after producing the R28. St Louis Car Co was always known for their reliable PCC trolleys that ran on many systems, but all their subway cars were of mediocre quality one way or the other though they were best with the R38 and R44 (both in my opinion). Pullman Std. was always known for building commuter railcars such as famous Comet I, which lasted for well over 40 years (avg American Railcar life is 30 years). When they attempted their subway cars, they couldn't even produce their rightful trucks and trusted on a "no name" that led to a disaster. All I can say is that, at least they still used American Propulsion Systems and DC Traction Motors through the R68/A. I am still puzzled as to why WH is no longer making their E-CAM propulsion systems and gave up on innovating AC Traction motors for the NTTs. On the other hand, GE still stands to manufacture freight train components but like WH, it never turned to innovate AC Traction Motors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Louis Car 09 Posted January 9, 2010 Share #39 Posted January 9, 2010 Funny you mention unions,because during the R46 order,not only was the truck cracking was an issue,but Pullman was also on strike in 1978 delaying R46 deliveries.And to think that the R46 order was the largests ever at the time.How the hell did pullman manage to blow that? Another company Rohr Industries wqho specialized in aircraft manufacturing also made a few attempts to build railcars and actually won orders such as The Bart cars and rolling stock for Washington D.C.The company has folded as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted January 9, 2010 Share #40 Posted January 9, 2010 68's had problems because their (dynamic) brakes would apply when the handle was in release. There were also other problems with the group (controller - NOT master controller) underneath the car. They took a while to sort out but had, in almost every case, been fixed, within a few years of the cars' arrival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted January 9, 2010 Share #41 Posted January 9, 2010 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. 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. Well my friends, either with an option of 160s or a new order of 179's, 64-80 of them are to be built to FRA specs for SIR service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmouse Posted January 9, 2010 Share #42 Posted January 9, 2010 The R179 is currently planned for the SIR ONLY. But this is subject to change. Another car class would replace the ones[R44s] in the subway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted January 9, 2010 Share #43 Posted January 9, 2010 I really have to doubt they would have the factories configured just to build 64 cars. If the SIR is getting them, then the subway should also get them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 5278 Posted January 10, 2010 Share #44 Posted January 10, 2010 I really have to doubt they would have the factories configured just to build 64 cars. If the SIR is getting them, then the subway should also get them. It's actually 80 since they will be 60ft trains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 10, 2010 Share #45 Posted January 10, 2010 It's actually 80 since they will be 60ft trains. Correct; the MTA is NOT reverting back to 75 foot cars again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3348 Posted January 10, 2010 Share #46 Posted January 10, 2010 Bombardier for the time being is not an option after the "problems" on the R142 and M7/A orders. They will be an option for the R188 contract, if it goes through, since they built the R142s. I think they're still on the table. 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. R160Bs are actually built entirely in the US (carbodies in Nebraska -> rest in Yonkers) but other than that I agree with you for the most part. Really? So the TA decided to go foreign because of the R44/R46 fiascos? If you ask me, that seemed more of a risk than just giving the contract to Budd who desperately wanted the contract. Well, the R44 and R46 fiascos made both St. Louis and Pullman go out of business. The only American option left was Budd, and I remember reading on http://www.nycsubway.org that Budd was having problems at the time (another poster explained this already) so the decided to buy international. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 10, 2010 Share #47 Posted January 10, 2010 R160Bs are actually built entirely in the US (carbodies in Nebraska -> rest in Yonkers) but other than that I agree with you for the most part. Okay. I would have liked to see how Kawasaki went into making the cars preferably over Alstom as I saw on the NGC special in November. Well, the R44 and R46 fiascos made both St. Louis and Pullman go out of business. The only American option left was Budd, and I remember reading on http://www.nycsubway.org that Budd was having problems at the time (another poster explained this already) so the decided to buy international. Okay, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 5278 Posted January 10, 2010 Share #48 Posted January 10, 2010 I thought that the Penn Central Arrow I (Comet IB as MUs) was what drove St Louis out of business as those MUs only ran for 1 or 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted January 10, 2010 Share #49 Posted January 10, 2010 It's actually 80 since they will be 60ft trains. Well has it been confirmed that the R179s are going to be 60' car trains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3348 Posted January 10, 2010 Share #50 Posted January 10, 2010 It was confirmed in the Capital Plan but that was rejected by the governer a few days ago. So we're back to Square 1...(this also goes for all new car orders right now that were proposed...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.