Jump to content

R62/68 Rehab & upgrade thread


Recommended Posts

Posted

The front gates on R62A's on the (7)...will the MTA remove those and put chains to make it look 21st century, the (7) would look nice without the front gates? Anyone know if this is possible??


Posted

I don't mind the gates or pantographs, or whatever you want to call them. I just wish they'd push the ones on the ends of train back. R32s too.

Posted

I don't mind the gates or pantographs, or whatever you want to call them. I just wish they'd push the ones on the ends of train back. R32s too.

 

 

Bro. Pantographs give power to trains. They are located on the top.

 

pantograph.jpg

Posted

I don't mind the gates or pantographs, or whatever you want to call them. I just wish they'd push the ones on the ends of train back. R32s too.

 

Bro. Pantographs give power to trains. They are located on the top.

 

Actually, both of you are correct. They both have the same name.

Posted

Technically the protective gates are called pantograph gates. Not to be confused with baloney springs of course, which are used in lieu of the pantograph gates on many cars.

 

The very basic definition of pantograph (y'all can look up the real one yourselves) is just a projection. In this case the pantograph gates project the bars outward from the end of the car. The bars can be pulled back and tied down and are spring loaded so that they stay in the 'projected' (not contracted/tied back) position. Roof-mounted pantographs are called this because they also project bars outward. Just the design is different and these are actually used to power the cars that have them. When cars with pantograph gates at the ends are manufactured, the gates are always tied down prior to delivery. Probably the same for the roof pantographs. Makes sense as it inhibits damage to them.

 

This is a bit off-topic, but I noticed something cool about the baloney springs when inspecting a R142 very closely about a month ago. R142As have it and I am sure all other NTTs have it.

 

R142_6410_5_train_at_Baychester.png

 

If you look very closely at the front of the car, you will notice how the edge connecting the front face and the side of the car is rounded. Now take a look at the part of the edge that is closest to the anticlimber. See something missing? There is a gap because the flap that holds the bottom baloney spring is missing. Each baloney spring on the NTTs is actually held in place under a locked flap when not in use. If you can get close to a NTT at some point (especially at a terminal) and look closely at the edge between the front face and side of the car you will see three flaps with key holes on them. The baloney springs that are not in use are under those flaps. So that means that whenever cars are uncoupled or coupled, personnel has to use a key to either open a flap, pull out a baloney spring, and hook it onto the pair of cars/hooks to be coupled, or place the baloney springs under the flaps and lock them after uncoupling cars. This is why the unused baloney springs are never visible on the fronts of NTTs but tend to be visible on older units with baloney springs (R46, R68 etc) and are just hooked across part of the end face when not in use:

 

NYCSubway2590.jpg

Posted

We have to also consider the NTTs that upgraded from no gates to gates, with one exception.

 

The R40(S/M) made the upgrade to gates from v1. Also, they made the door windows smaller, removed the EXP/LCL lights, and changed the rollsigns.

 

The M7 always had gates, and so did the M8, not really upgrades.

 

It does not really matter whether they remove the gates, and like RoadCrusier said, the R62(A)s are almost gone. The R188s are coming to replace it, and there is already talk about this R211 coming that I have heard from Lance.

Posted

 

 

Actually, both of you are correct. They both have the same name.

 

 

Yep its Pantograph, not Gate.

 

For the Gates itself on the R62A or other car, I don't see a purpose of replacing them. They are fine how it is. I acually like em!

 

R62As are just moving to the Mainline. None of them are being retired. And with the (7) extension, they will need a few extra trains around.

 

 

But if they have addional R62As around, would that even work with CBTC?

Posted

But if they have addional R62As around, would that even work with CBTC?

 

Yes. CBTC-disabled R-160s were running alongside the CBTC-enabled R-143s for a long time on the (L).

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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