Jump to content

A Question About the R44 (C)'s

ctrain

By ctrain,
in New York City Subway

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Ftrainfan

Ftrainfan

Posted
Posted
thats not enough. the (E) runs 26 trains and the (F) runs 45 trains = 71 sets...the (R) uses about 2 to 3 R160's...leaving 8 sets of R160's as spares, therefore NOT ENOUGH for the (G). plus the (R) runs 29 trains...im curious to see where 290 R160's come from...jamaica has 81 R160 sets = 810 cars. do the math buddy :P

 

Holy Crap. You're right. Darn!

 

Well I guess the (R) would be the only line with R46s on the QB. But can't we always reduce the amount of R160s the (F) runs by a tad bit to fill up at least the (G).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NX Express

NX Express

Posted
Posted
Holy Crap. You're right. Darn!

 

Well I guess the (R) would be the only line with R46s on the QB. But can't we always reduce the amount of R160s the (F) runs by a tad bit to fill up at least the (G).

 

No!

Either you (or the MTA in general)

-leave the (R) with R46s(good idea)

-take R160s from Coney Island in exchange for R46s (bad idea, 46s can't run on the Brighton anyway)

-reduce (F) train frequency (horrible idea, this would totally wreck the QBL Exp and Culver Lines).:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
R32 3838

R32 3838

Posted
Posted
True, but you also have to remember that poster is obsessed with anything R160s or stuff like that.

 

 

 

The problems with the R32s are the a/c. They are still better than the R44s in terms of structural integrity. Also for the moment the (C) is staying 480' long trains.

 

As for the (G), since Jamaica yard would give it up. The alotment for the (G) would be sent to CI. And I would imagine that would mean JYD would have to send down a few R160s to give CI enough trains to run it. - Nm, if anything it would be simpler to just have a direct swap with JYD's R46s and Pitkin/207th yards' R32s.

 

And as for the (C) if they were to make it 600' trains, I would have to guess it would mean they would run fewer trains or: same total amount of cars, with fewer but longer trains.

 

207th have 244 R32's, they can make the (C) 600" , the (A) is 100% R46's including the shuttle, they can make the (C) 600", if the problems are fixed and yes the (C) can run 600"

 

as for what what F train fan said, I kinda agree, its possible to make QB 100% R160, there was talk and still talk of doing that, I hope not, long story short, they want QB to 100% 60 footers, even if they brought the R32's back, that's what they are gunning for, the (R) will always be a line with old equipment, so putting an R32 on the (R) wouldn't hurt anything,

 

things can happen at anytime, we all do not work for the (MTA) but I do see a change happening soon, so I think we should keep our eyes open,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest lance25

Guest lance25

Posted
Posted

Well, the (MTA) will have to wait until Option 3, er the R179s arrive in 2015 (if they do order them) for Queens Blvd to be completely 60 footers. I doubt they'll move the R32s from yard to yard just for uniformity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VIP

VIP

Posted
Posted
207th have 244 R32's, they can make the (C) 600" , the (A) is 100% R46's including the shuttle, they can make the (C) 600", if the problems are fixed and yes the (C) can run 600"

 

as for what what F train fan said, I kinda agree, its possible to make QB 100% R160, there was talk and still talk of doing that, I hope not, long story short, they want QB to 100% 60 footers, even if they brought the R32's back, that's what they are gunning for, the (R) will always be a line with old equipment, so putting an R32 on the (R) wouldn't hurt anything,

 

things can happen at anytime, we all do not work for the (MTA) but I do see a change happening soon, so I think we should keep our eyes open,

 

i really wanna know how 81 sets of R160's can make the QB line 100% NTTs? AND who is this "They" you speak of??

and i also want to know why would the (R) get old equipment from 207? when the R46's are fine. The R32's on the (R) or (C) will be the same thing. so why spend time and $$ transferring R32's because you want them on the (R) and you want the (C) to be full length with R46's

...idk man...something seems to be a tad off :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SubwayGuy

SubwayGuy

Posted
Posted
I thought that was only during the 1980s they had that problem, which was due to the cracked Rockwell trucks and possibly flat wheels. IDK if anyone will agree, but those Rockwell trucks looked good on the R46s if you ask me.

 

They could "look good" all they want but they cracked up like the audience for a Mitch Hedberg show.

 

If a chick looks good but she's bad in bed it's a no go, same for the Rockwell trucks...

 

As for the rest of the SPECULATION in this thread it's all "what if" and "could be" so i'm not gonna comment on it except to say it's a waste of brain cells considering those commenting on it don't have the authority to make "what could be" become "what is"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LRG

LRG

Posted
Posted
Nothing is keeping R46s from the Brighton. (Theyre lighter than the R68s and R160s so rumbling is not an issue, at least not relatively.)

 

So why were they pulled back in 2001, causing the (Q) to use 99.9% R32s out of Jamaica?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eric B Train Operator

Eric B

Posted
Posted

But the 46's had the codes for the (Q) to Continental as well.

If the cars are lighter, then it is some other reason they made more noise. IIRC, I heard it was something about the brakes or the trucks, though I'm not sure how that would create more noise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
R32 3838

R32 3838

Posted
Posted
i really wanna know how 81 sets of R160's can make the QB line 100% NTTs? AND who is this "They" you speak of??

and i also want to know why would the (R) get old equipment from 207? when the R46's are fine. The R32's on the (R) or (C) will be the same thing. so why spend time and $$ transferring R32's because you want them on the (R) and you want the (C) to be full length with R46's

...idk man...something seems to be a tad off :o

 

This is what management want's, but they will have to bring more 60 footers, I don't see this happening, I didn't say this was going to happen, They want QB to Be 100% R160's due to CBTC crap that they want to install in the near futrue, If The TA is forced to transfer R32's they have to do it, they have the money, im sick of people saying, they are broke, they are not broke, they are going to do a big swap in the Fall in the IRT, You are going to see car re assignments in the futrue, no matter where, and I didn't just say the R32's, they can get the R160's from CI (60 footers) I hear alot of shit from TA workers and supervisors that gets their info from management that wants to go on with these plans, the only line next to get R160's for full service is the (G) for OPTO reasons, as their R46's will migrate to the (R). its basicly the trainsets of R160's off the (R) for an exchange of addtional R46's,thus making the (R) 100% R46's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sterlin91

Sterlin91

Posted
Posted
They R44's have been on the (C) for a few days now, and I was wondering if maybe it would be possible they will stay there until retirement? Just wondering please give me and others your thoughts.

Thank YOU! (C)(T)<R>(A)(1)(N)

 

According to the data sheet, yes they are still going to retire, also according to that data sheet they should stay in service until the end of the summer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept