Grand Concourse Posted January 12, 2010 Share #101 Posted January 12, 2010 yet it is still seen as a big deal here when R-68s appear on the . Why shouldn't it be? R68/A's aren't very common anymore on the N or W. Also I was very surprised I saw an R68A N train in October. It's much like the R32 [if it still runs] on the B or Q lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayBuffer Posted January 12, 2010 Share #102 Posted January 12, 2010 I did say 60' fleet. As for me, I don;t see it as a big deal if I see a 68/A on the or . I just wish I was more lucky. I hope you're lucky, and I look forward to seeing the photos if you take any. :cool: But in response to the initial post stating that R-38s retired early in part due to salt air exposure, in conclusion, we have no proof of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayBuffer Posted January 12, 2010 Share #103 Posted January 12, 2010 Why shouldn't it be? R68/A's aren't very common anymore on the N or W. Also I was very surprised I saw an R68A N train in October. It's much like the R32 [if it still runs] on the B or Q lines. The & both ran R-68s for years and considering they're still use trains from CI Yd, they will likely continue to run there from time to time. Is it really that different being on an R-68 N as opposed to an R-68 Q or D which run on the same tracks? An R-32 on the ( or is more rare, not to mention since they'll be retiring soon, it might be nice to ride them one last time on those lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted January 12, 2010 Share #104 Posted January 12, 2010 While the R38s were retired largely for the purpose that their replacements had arrived, it is still worthwhile to point out that they were never particularly protected from the elements. They were never solely assigned to the C, and primarily ran on the A from prior to overhaul until their last year or so of service. Until the mid 1990s, R38s were fairly strictly A line cars while the R32s were fairly strictly C only cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 12, 2010 Share #105 Posted January 12, 2010 I hope you're lucky, and I look forward to seeing the photos if you take any. :cool: But in response to the initial post stating that R-38s retired early in part due to salt air exposure, in conclusion, we have no proof of that. I never stated that was the primary reason, but wouldn't exposing the train to such elements contribute to the carbon steel frames decaying more rapidly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted January 12, 2010 Share #106 Posted January 12, 2010 R32s are probably not going anywhere soon (See thread title for reason why) Either way, they probably wont stay at CIYD after the W is cut(provided the cuts go through.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayBuffer Posted January 12, 2010 Share #107 Posted January 12, 2010 I never stated that was the primary reason, but wouldn't exposing the train to such elements contribute to the carbon steel frames decaying more rapidly? OK. The R-38s were stainless steel, but regardless, I don't know for sure, which is why I said if someone here familiar w/ car equipment would chime in if I'm incorrect, but I would tend to think that it wouldn't make much of a difference considering Coney Island and C I Yds's proximity to the ocean as well. R32s are probably not going anywhere soon (See thread title for reason why) That's the problem ... there is no "probably" in this yet. After the surveys are completed we will have an idea. It seems whenever anything is posted it is misread and accepted as fact, whether it be this or the (M)/(V) combination which makes it difficult to discuss anything on this forum or SubChat other than photos of the CPW Line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 12, 2010 Share #108 Posted January 12, 2010 While the R38s were retired largely for the purpose that their replacements had arrived, it is still worthwhile to point out that they were never particularly protected from the elements. They were never solely assigned to the C, and primarily ran on the A from prior to overhaul until their last year or so of service. Until the mid 1990s, R38s were fairly strictly A line cars while the R32s were fairly strictly C only cars. I overlooked your post, thanks for clearing this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted January 12, 2010 Share #109 Posted January 12, 2010 As somebody who actually HAS looked at frames of R44s, I feel fairly safe in saying probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 5278 Posted January 12, 2010 Share #110 Posted January 12, 2010 As somebody who actually HAS looked at frames of R44s, I feel fairly safe in saying probably. They are fine. Like I said, this is just a quick peek as the number of R32+R42 now equals to the number of trains made up by the R44. This survey is conducted just to see whether the original slate or the current slate should be conducted, but not to the extent that the R44s are twisting to the extreme and need extreme attention. Those people that told you about the R44s needing extreme attention from rust and decay are only the people that wants them to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted January 12, 2010 Share #111 Posted January 12, 2010 But it is still enough to get people concerned over how much longer those R44s have and if it is worth keeping them over the R32s and R42s remaining on property. I personally don't care either way, but would slightly favor the R32/42 for the rfw and for more R46s to go to the A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedyracer90 Posted January 12, 2010 Share #112 Posted January 12, 2010 It's because the complex technology materialized for these trains never came to play; they were built for the SAS but as we know, it was never completed. Also, every car that ever served the (except the 32s and 46s due to their stainless steel composure; the never used anything newer than an R46 except 160s which only stayed on the line for 30 days) were exposed to sea salt from the Rockaways, making the rooflines on a majority of the 42s that ran on the before they went somewhere else look rusted as crazy, also doing a number on their carbon steel body frames. The majority of R42's that ran on the already had severly rusted roofs when they were on the lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 12, 2010 Share #113 Posted January 12, 2010 They are fine. Like I said, this is just a quick peek as the number of R32+R42 now equals to the number of trains made up by the R44. This survey is conducted just to see whether the original slate or the current slate should be conducted, but not to the extent that the R44s are twisting to the extreme and need extreme attention. Those people that told you about the R44s needing extreme attention from rust and decay are only the people that wants them to go. Dude, face the facts! That's just ONE of the reasons why the R44s are in such a state that they are in. They have taken their toll and if they can't hold or stay intact any longer, face the music and deal with it. Not trying to sound harsh or anything, but c'mon, nothing is going to stay around forever. No one heard me complaining when the Slants faced retirement and went on June 12th, MMIX. Besides, you still have 60+/- R44s in Staten Island which won't be going anywhere for the next five years anyway. Be grateful that there will still be some left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted January 12, 2010 Share #114 Posted January 12, 2010 I agree, if it comes time to retire them, then it's time. We don't own these cars, the MTA will do with them what they wish. Obviously I will admit partial bias in favor of keeping the R32/42s longer, but again, it is just an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 12, 2010 Share #115 Posted January 12, 2010 I agree, if it comes time to retire them, then it's time. We don't own these cars, the MTA will do with them what they wish. Obviously I will admit partial bias in favor of keeping the R32/42s longer, but again, it is just an opinion. Same here, we're eye to eye on that one for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted January 12, 2010 Share #116 Posted January 12, 2010 I don't think there is anything more to say on this topic until the survey is complete. All the speculation in the world won't change the facts. If the system safety survey comes back recommending retirement of the R44 fleet, then there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss what might happen at that time. But to do so now when the survey is not complete would be premature, and it's not exactly leading to a lot of factual discussion at the moment anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted January 12, 2010 Share #117 Posted January 12, 2010 I don't think there is anything more to say on this topic until the survey is complete. Dude, saying that is like talking to an F'ing wall. Let'em keep foaming, it's a funny read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted January 12, 2010 Share #118 Posted January 12, 2010 Dude, saying that is like talking to an F'ing wall. Let'em keep foaming, it's a funny read. I find it amazing how there's so much more foam over the subway trains! The buses don't get that kind of treatment! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted January 12, 2010 Share #119 Posted January 12, 2010 I find it amazing how there's so much more foam over the subway trains! The buses don't get that kind of treatment! LOL I hope your joking, every time I have read the bus forums, it has been people foaming over things I can't even explain. Maybe it's just me since I hate buses and would rather walk then ride one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted January 12, 2010 Share #120 Posted January 12, 2010 I hope your joking, every time I have read the bus forums, it has been people foaming over things I can't even explain. Maybe it's just me since I hate buses and would rather walk then ride one. I wish I was, it's amazing to see how long these threads wind up being after a day or two! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 12, 2010 Share #121 Posted January 12, 2010 I find it amazing how there's so much more foam over the subway trains! The buses don't get that kind of treatment! LOL What??? At the UTC meeting in December, I heard that people were foaming over buses during the presentation like there was no tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 5278 Posted January 12, 2010 Share #122 Posted January 12, 2010 Dude, saying that is like talking to an F'ing wall. Let'em keep foaming, it's a funny read. Face it, everyone foams endlessly! The fact is that all the subway fleets are safe to run on tracks! Let's just sit back and relax before the tossup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted January 12, 2010 Share #123 Posted January 12, 2010 Dude, saying that is like talking to an F'ing wall. Let'em keep foaming, it's a funny read. SubwayGuy seems to convince people well enough in his posts. He was the first person who brought up the R44's inspection survey while everyone else didn't. The only thing I was aware of was that 14 R42s were reactivated at around Christmastime, and now it has been confirmed. Face it, everyone foams endlessly! The fact is that all the subway fleets are safe to run on tracks! Let's just sit back and relax before the tossup. Not if the train's body frame is warping to the point where they are unsafe to operate. This is the first case I'm hearing of any warping body frames. Something as extreme as that would definitely require immediate attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 12, 2010 Share #124 Posted January 12, 2010 Dude, saying that is like talking to an F'ing wall. Let'em keep foaming, it's a funny read. I agree, some of these buffoons are hilarious. I find it amazing how there's so much more foam over the subway trains! The buses don't get that kind of treatment! LOL Sure they do, the bus bunnies cream themselves every time an RTS goes by... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted January 13, 2010 Share #125 Posted January 13, 2010 Sure they do, the bus bunnies cream themselves every time an RTS goes by... Oh yeah, that's out in the outdoors! LOL You hear a good RTS pass by you're finished!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.