On The Subject of R44 Retirements: Possible Preservation

[Grand Concourse]

Well, some cars in the museum would have to be moved out. I would think they would at least save an R46 AA pair. They wouldn't just scrap everything would they? Worse comes worse it would sit at the very front where one car would sit outside the platform [so long as it doesn't sit on the switch].

[MTR Admiralty]

Well, some cars in the museum would have to be moved out. I would think they would at least save an R46 AA pair. They wouldn't just scrap everything would they? Worse comes worse it would sit at the very front where one car would sit outside the platform [so long as it doesn't sit on the switch].

To be honest, they should consider looking at another site to preserve additional subway cars (if they want to save one example from each fleet). Court Street really can't handle it all. Besides, Court Street is being considered for an active station along a future extension of the SAS into Brooklyn.

[St Louis Car 09]

 

R44's are NOT new tech trains!

I know this,but out of all the OTT`s in service R32,R42,R62,R68.The R44 resembles a NTT with the full-width cab,and Controller scheme.The R44 set the standards for these NTT`s never forget that.

[Grand Concourse]

To be honest, they should consider looking at another site to preserve additional subway cars (if they want to save one example from each fleet). Court Street really can't handle it all. Besides, Court Street is being considered for an active station along a future extension of the SAS into Brooklyn.

 

Well I've always said Bowery-Canal [platform connecting the two] would be a nice set up.

[MTR Admiralty]

I know this,but out of all the OTT`s in service R32,R42,R62,R68.The R44 resembles a NTT with the full-width cab,and Controller scheme.The R44 set the standards for these NTT`s never forget that.

Besides the full width cabs, the controller scheme, them being part of the MTA and the ding-dong, the R44s are in no way similar to the R160s.

Well I've always said Bowery-Canal [platform connecting the two] would be a nice set up.

I concur as well. It ties in nicely to the area, IMO.

[Grand Concourse]

thanks, glad you agree. I know the upper level mezzanine would be the main issue, as those areas might not have the space to accomodate all those things like the replicas of the R42 and RTS.

Those would require floor space of their own. [Plus the MTA really should look into a place where they can house all their museum fleet buses in one building.]

[MTR Admiralty]

thanks, glad you agree. I know the upper level mezzanine would be the main issue, as those areas might not have the space to accomodate all those things like the replicas of the R42 and RTS.

Those would require floor space of their own. [Plus the MTA really should look into a place where they can house all their museum fleet buses in one building.]

The other issue with that is that it takes away available tracks. Remember, during certain service outages, the (M2) or the uses these tracks.

[Grand Concourse]

Well that's true, but technically out of everything, the J/Z would really be the 'least' affected. Worse comes worse they can run a shuttle [broad-Essex] and have the 4/5 pick up the slack.

It's a sacrifice, if you want Court st to be used for revenue service.

[MTR Admiralty]

Well that's true, but technically out of everything, the J/Z would really be the 'least' affected. Worse comes worse they can run a shuttle [broad-Essex] and have the 4/5 pick up the slack.

It's a sacrifice, if you want Court st to be used for revenue service.

What if there's a sick passenger at Canal or Bowery, say

[Grand Concourse]

Well look at the G or L [and the L is the busiest], they are only two track lines. I don't think it would be that big a loss for a 'small segment' from Essex-Broad St. Plus at least they have the 4/5 lines to fall back on.

[MTR Admiralty]

Well look at the G or L [and the L is the busiest], they are only two track lines. I don't think it would be that big a loss for a 'small segment' from Essex-Broad St. Plus at least they have the 4/5 lines to fall back on.

True, but they won't be falling back on the or considering they are expresses. They are more likely to deal with the in any case.

 

They do need to find additional sub-level space immediately under the street to have a larger "mezzanine" to store equipment such as buses. I'd say that two sites should be used. One for an entrance, one for an exit. The Court Street location does take a lot of space, judging by the number of exhibits and the store.

[SubwayGuy]

If they don't save an R44 set, they'll probably save an R46 set. My only question is: Are they going to expand the transit museum, since there are so many old cars around now? It's unfortunate that for most of the *newer* old cars (like the R32s, R38s, R40 slants, the TOMC and the other Arnines) that they just sit in a yard when they could be on display for the public to see in a SAFE location.

 

No plans to do so at present, maybe someday in the future, but no money to do that yet.

 

To the OTHER posters: If that ever does happen it's NOT going to be some other location not connected to anything. The one place it makes ANY sense at all to "expand the transit museum to" is the side platforms at Hoyt-Schermerhorn. Mind you if that happens, that makes getting the museum equipment in and out MUCH more time consuming and difficult. It makes less than no sense to have a transit museum in Brooklyn Heights and use some random unused lower level for the museum "extension" somewhere else in the borough (or in Manhattan) that's NOT EVEN nearby or reasonably accessible.

 

Right now many spare cars are stored in the tunnel on A2 track. That's fine, it's indoor storage. Others are stored in 207th and CI Yds.

[Nova RTS 9147]

R44's are NOT new tech trains!

 

Technically they are (If you're comparing them to the train technology of the time they were built).

[SubwayGuy]

Technically they are (If you're comparing them to the train technology of the time they were built).

 

Yes buuuuutttt....

 

"NTT" or New Technology Train was specifically used in reference to certain car classes, R110A, R110B, R142, R142A, R143, R160. That's it.

 

R44 and R46 cars were referred to at the time as "space age" coinciding with the 1970's fascination with new technology after the successful Apollo missions. But never "NTT" or New Technology Train.

[MTR Admiralty]

R44 and R46 cars were referred to at the time as "space age" coinciding with the 1970's fascination with new technology after the successful Apollo missions. But never "NTT" or New Technology Train.

They were NTTs!! (Not now) :wink:

[SubwayGuy]

They were NTTs!! (Not now) :wink:

 

Posts like that just serve to confuse. They were never referred to as "NTT's" is all I am trying to get across so calling them that is misleading.

[MTR Admiralty]

Posts like that just serve to confuse. They were never referred to as "NTT's" is all I am trying to get across so calling them that is misleading.

My point was, at that time (Space Age), these things were new technology. Just a joke. Take it light, man.

[SubwayGuy]

My point was, at that time (Space Age), these things were new technology. Just a joke. Take it light, man.

 

I get what you're saying, and if it was in a PM, it's cool. I'm just saying if you post it here before long some jackass will go on a trip and start complaining about them reefing the "NTT's" and he will be talking about the R44's, and it will be because he read a joke here and thought it was serious.

 

Just trying to keep the info accurate is all, enough misinformation out there is all I'm saying and never underestimate a railfan's ability to misunderstand humor/sarcasm. Like I said I get where you're coming from...I just don't think they do hope that makes sense

[MTR Admiralty]

I get what you're saying, and if it was in a PM, it's cool. I'm just saying if you post it here before long some jackass will go on a trip and start complaining about them reefing the "NTT's" and he will be talking about the R44's, and it will be because he read a joke here and thought it was serious.

 

Just trying to keep the info accurate is all, enough misinformation out there is all I'm saying and never underestimate a railfan's ability to misunderstand humor/sarcasm. Like I said I get where you're coming from...I just don't think they do hope that makes sense

I get you, SG.

[Joe C]

To be honest, they should consider looking at another site to preserve additional subway cars (if they want to save one example from each fleet). Court Street really can't handle it all. Besides, Court Street is being considered for an active station along a future extension of the SAS into Brooklyn.

 

 

 

If your talking about the Court St station that's being used as the TM,i don't think it will ever be used as an active station.

[R10 2952]

Personally, I simply think that the Court Street station should be extended (in whatever way that it could be) to accomodate 20 cars on each side. And if that couldn't be done, then maybe they could build a lower level to it. Of course, I'm talking in terms of whenever there would be enough money to do such a thing.

[QM1to6Ave]

Since others have brought this subject of 44's vs. 46's, I will ask the following: do the 2 have identical controls in terms of functionality and set up? I.e. do the buttons do the same things in the same spots? I've always been curious...

[SubwayGuy]

Personally, I simply think that the Court Street station should be extended (in whatever way that it could be) to accomodate 20 cars on each side. And if that couldn't be done, then maybe they could build a lower level to it. Of course, I'm talking in terms of whenever there would be enough money to do such a thing.

 

No chance. That would literally cost more than 100 million dollars, likely more.

[mark1447]

If the t/a keeps preserving cars I wonder if a new yard will be needed. Becuz there is a Load of trains already in the system. Soon there won't be enough space to store all these old cars..

 

As for the R44 being preserved.. GOD IT WOULD BE AWESOME!!!

[MTR Admiralty]

If your talking about the Court St station that's being used as the TM,i don't think it will ever be used as an active station.

As for now, neither do I. That extension is really not that needed, in a timeframe of 50 years. A Bronx extension of the line or an extension down on 125th would seem more likely as there are people lobbying around for it.

Personally, I simply think that the Court Street station should be extended (in whatever way that it could be) to accomodate 20 cars on each side. And if that couldn't be done, then maybe they could build a lower level to it. Of course, I'm talking in terms of whenever there would be enough money to do such a thing.

Fat chance. The tracks are already occupied, how can you send down equipment to extend the tunnels and platform? Cut and cover would mean too much, as it would disrupt nearby buildings. Besides, why would the city let the TM do cut and cover on a project that would benefit very few? The money should be used somewhere else. On the eastern end, there is a crossover, IINM. And there are museum runs which use this crossover.