RollOver Posted November 1, 2012 Share #126 Posted November 1, 2012 All we know is that they are set to be back on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line once the R188s are delivered to the IRT Flushing Line. So until the NYCTA confirms the car assignments, everything about the "R62As going to only the line" thing is mute... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted November 1, 2012 Share #127 Posted November 1, 2012 All we know is that they are set to be back on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line once the R188s are delivered to the IRT Flushing Line. So until the NYCTA confirms the car assignments, everything about the "R62As going to only the line" thing is mute... Which is a good point. The wait and see option could work wonders for conceptual ideas on where trains may run on what lines in a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvega961 Posted November 1, 2012 Share #128 Posted November 1, 2012 I find it hilarious how the only argument people are giving in support of R62s for the is the fact that the line has 4 stops on the Upper East Side. And just because we all must be rich, snob elitists, we deserve to go back in time and get the old crappy subway cars. You do reallize all of these people possibly work downtown, and take the train downtown.... And wait, Crappy cars? LOL. Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgor Posted November 1, 2012 Share #129 Posted November 1, 2012 You do reallize all of these people possibly work downtown, and take the train downtown.... I'm trying to say that Upper East Side residents hardly make up much of the ridership on the . I'm positive that there's so many more riders taking the train that live in East Harlem, the Bronx, or are transferring from another subway line from an outerborough. This whole give those UES bastards what the deserve attitude has no merit whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTheTransitMan Posted November 1, 2012 Share #130 Posted November 1, 2012 No. Us UES riders will get pissed off. We have nice, modern subway cars with audible announcements. We don't want to go back in time and get those old subway cars. Speak for your damn self. I live on the UES too, and I personally don't care what shows up. Plus, who cares about automated announcements on the 6? The same people ride the six day in and day out. The MTA is probably going to put in stirp maps that show every single stop on the line. If you can't look outside the window of a subway when the train is the station to see where you are, and then use that information to judge where your stop is located, then honestly you should have been a little bit more responsible when you stepped on a train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted November 1, 2012 Share #131 Posted November 1, 2012 Bring back the X90!!! Hoot hoot hoot!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
favbusbx13 Posted November 1, 2012 Share #132 Posted November 1, 2012 My opinion towards all this, should either get some R142/R142A atleast one on rush hours similar to the , or the R62As w' LED [ Daily Rider ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
favbusbx13 Posted November 1, 2012 Share #133 Posted November 1, 2012 and the should get some R160! HELLLLLL YEAAAAAH #FOAM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IRT Bronx Express Posted November 1, 2012 Share #134 Posted November 1, 2012 should either get some R142/R142A atleast one on rush hours similar to the ,Why? The R62s are fine on the . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10 2952 Posted November 1, 2012 Share #135 Posted November 1, 2012 <WARNING: Post below contains elements of sarcasm> After reading this and other threads (cough*R188 discussion*cough), all I can say is that I find some of the arguments against putting the R-62As on the beyond amusing. Can't hear the conductor's station announcements? Look at a map. Read the damn signs. On another note, I find the arguments against putting the R-62As on the equally intriguing. When I hear people saying that R-62As can't run on the because it shares/swaps cars with the , and that would mean having to change rollsigns, I laugh. You know why? Rollsigns are not crucial components on a subway car. If they are, then I guess compressors must be completely expendable, right? I mean OMG, how on earth did they operate the (2)/(5) lines before R-142s? Point is, don't tell me that a subway car can't run on a given line due to announcements not being clear, or due to the fact that rollsigns would have to be changed at the terminals, because that's just silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted November 1, 2012 Share #136 Posted November 1, 2012 So says the man whose location is Bronx Ghettoland... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted November 1, 2012 Share #137 Posted November 1, 2012 Okay, I want to get through something here with this 'flexibility' in the subway system. So let's say that an from Far Rockaway pulls into 207th Street and then has to be sent back out as a Lefferts Boulevard-bound train and vice-versa? I mean it runs at 10 min headways west of Rockaway Blvd and 20 min headways east of said station at all the periods except rush hour in the reverse direction and at night. Aside from the R44/46s, the had also used R32/38/40S/40M/42s in the past and everything worked out fine. So if the Nostrand Avenue routes get the R62As, what's the problem with just having one of them run at 10 min headways? The is a part-time line (the Second Avenue Line will relieve crowding on the Lexington Avenue Line). Think about it, it will be less crowded than it is now at least during middays, evenings, and weekends. It's not like it's going to run more frequently nor is it more demanding. If the Nostrand Avenue routes were to use SMEEs, then I figure that when a or a pulls into Flatbush, let them go back out as those same trains respectively instead of changing signage and routes. And before someone tells me off, yes I know that the flexibility allows all crews to leave Flatbush faster. I'm just pointing out a simple option that if SMEEs run on the Nostrand Avenue Line, scheduled it properly. Like I said before, a arriving at Flatbush will go back out as that same train for the Bronx and same goes for the line. That would work with the SMEEs and not the NTTs would it? Remember that the older trains have those old fashion signages... At Ditmars Boulevard in Astoria, Queens, the and (regardless of the NTTs) don't switch routes when they arrive there. Sometimes, yes. And I agree with R10 1989, as long as the Mean Distance Between Failures is higher than the system average on the less old SMEEs (R62/62As and R68/68As) then what's wrong with just putting them on one of the most heavily used lines in the system. Besides they do rank best right behind the NTTs don't they? R62/62As and R68/68As are not like the R32s and R46s. You guys just gonna chill. Yes, I dislike this Flushing CBTC/R188 project but it has to be done because of the aforementioned reasons. I can't do anything about it. You have to use the maps if your line uses SMEEs or so. Schedule the timetables properly if the flexibility is the problem. It wasn't that hard before, was it? I really need to see why you guys are so against the 's R62As returning back to the IRT mainline just because of the announcements and/or flexibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted November 1, 2012 Share #138 Posted November 1, 2012 Fact is, older trains became less reliable and any problems results in their MDBF being lower (R32s). One of the 75 footers (R46s) serve the longest subway line the entire system () as well as other longer routes ( and ). One out the two only isolated lines () have the oldest signalling systems and they have to be replaced. As for the subway cars themselves, all the NTTs as well as the R32s, and R62/62As were never lemons like the R46s and R68/68As once were. The R44s (NYC subway, not SIR) were lemons since day one and retired early. The R38s, R40s, and R42s, also had major mechanical problems that had resulted in their retirement for reasons. The R32s have to retire because they are approaching 50 years of service, yes. I'm just trying to say that, despite the announcements, there's nothing wrong with the less old R62/62As and R68/68As. As long as their MDBF ranks best right behind the NTTs, as long as they have cooler air-conditioning, AND as long as they have DON'T have ANY mechanical and technical issues, then just accept that they are fine subway cars. I'm not telling you to love them because I do. But you don't have to expect things to be perfect like others (like say the NTTs have brighter interiors than the SMEEs). I do find the R32s' interiors to be brighter too than the R62/62As, R46s, and R68/68As but that's just my feelings. That's all I have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princelex Posted November 1, 2012 Share #139 Posted November 1, 2012 I haven't read much of the responses here but with all that has happened with Sandy this week, people need to be glad that SOMETHING is running right now let alone what car will be on what line in 2 or 3 years. It would be great if the could keep there trains because it helps tremendously with a line like this from a workers point of view but if it changes, then oh well. As long as the train works, I'm happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted November 1, 2012 Share #140 Posted November 1, 2012 On another note, I find the arguments against putting the R-62As on the equally intriguing. When I hear people saying that R-62As can't run on the because it shares/swaps cars with the , and that would mean having to change rollsigns, I laugh. You know why? Rollsigns are not crucial components on a subway car. If they are, then I guess compressors must be completely expendable, right? I mean OMG, how on earth did they operate the (2)/(5) lines before R-142s? Point is, don't tell me that a subway car can't run on a given line due to announcements not being clear, or due to the fact that rollsigns would have to be changed at the terminals, because that's just silly. The and both operated with Redbirds before the R142s came on. Different car classes, but it wasn't as if the R33 cars on the were light years ahead of the slightly older R26/28/29 cars on the . And one line's cars showed up on the other line frequently back then too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted November 1, 2012 Share #141 Posted November 1, 2012 The and both operated with Redbirds before the R142s came on. Different car classes, but it wasn't as if the R33 cars on the were light years ahead of the slightly older R26/28/29 cars on the . And one line's cars showed up on the other line frequently back then too. Exactly. I'm not saying there's no way the R62As can't end up on the or , but unless they were retrofitted with electronic side signs, I don't see why they'd change trains and give up the flexibility they have now. It takes seconds to change the signs than it would to manually go thru every car to the correct sign. It was also why the , a part time line, ran R160s as opposed to R68s before it was replaced by the . So if it for some reason ends up being more than just a swap b/w the and/or and , then so be it. I'm not going to complain about poor audio announcements. And ftr, the audio on some R142s when switched to manual mode are inaudible, so it's not any better. Worse comes worse, there's always asking the c/r if there's any changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted November 1, 2012 Share #142 Posted November 1, 2012 Not all two-tracked terminals have flexibility...before at least because they scheduled it properly like I said before and everything worked out fine... Point is that they can end up on whatever IRT mainline the see fit them, except the and 42nd Street trains... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted November 2, 2012 Share #143 Posted November 2, 2012 and the should get some R160! HELLLLLL YEAAAAAH #FOAM How so? The was the first line to GET R160s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowblock Posted November 2, 2012 Share #144 Posted November 2, 2012 Point is that they can end up on whatever IRT mainline the see fit them, except the and 42nd Street trains... Why not the ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted November 2, 2012 Share #145 Posted November 2, 2012 I'm guessing he means the Flushing R62As won't be displacing the R62As on those lines. ie: why swap for the same train? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted November 2, 2012 Share #146 Posted November 2, 2012 I haven't read much of the responses here but with all that has happened with Sandy this week, people need to be glad that SOMETHING is running right now let alone what car will be on what line in 2 or 3 years. It would be great if the could keep there trains because it helps tremendously with a line like this from a workers point of view but if it changes, then oh well. As long as the train works, I'm happy. +1 When I got on the earlier today, I was surprised to see R62s run on it. There were people in the car talking about how they remember when they first came in brand new and some people even said it brought back good memories growing up riding them over the older trains with no A/C. The got a downgrade and I didn't see anyone complaining... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted November 2, 2012 Share #147 Posted November 2, 2012 Plus, what's the MTA going to do? Scrap perfectly serviceable trains because a segment doesn't want the old trains? How about if they don't like the old trains that much, just take a cab ride. You can't satisfy everyone. Of course I'm sure the whole city would want new everything, but the MTA can't go on a mass spending spree because someone is so irate over taking an older train. Good heavens... People would complain that their fares are like $5 per direction to cover the costs, you can't win... err why not get newer trains the old ones need to disappear at a faster pace. Again what makes queens so much more important that they need to take from the just to do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IRT Bronx Express Posted November 2, 2012 Share #148 Posted November 2, 2012 err why not get newer trains the old ones need to disappear at a faster pace.Do you have money for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted November 2, 2012 Share #149 Posted November 2, 2012 smh, indeed... easy to say when he's not paying for it. Would he be among the first to complain about $5+ per swipe fares to cover the costs of the new trains? I have said: "Most people would want newer trains." But the fact is the trains the is sending back have several more years of service left and it'd be stupid to scrap them because people don't like 'older trains'. If you think about it: the is getting mostly second hand cars. And when the R62As are retired, then that's new trains ~20 yrs younger than the R142As given up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lance Posted November 2, 2012 Share #150 Posted November 2, 2012 After perusing this thread (damn, some of you guys are hilarious), you'd think that 1) the 6 is definitely getting the 62As and 2) the 62As are the IRT equivalent to the 32s or 42s. As has been stated time and again, we don't know where those cars are going to be displaced to. They could wind up anywhere on the numbered lines. We're just basing our predictions and speculations on the logistics of running said trains on certain lines. Logic would dictate that the 1 and 3 are automatically out for reasons I shouldn't have to explain. The 2 and 5 are always ruled out because of the constant swapping. That only leaves the 4 and 6. Now just because Westchester has the vast majority of, if not the entirety of the soon-to-be-converted 188s, it doesn't mean there will be a one-to-one swap. I previously thought such a swap would be the easiest thing Transit could do, but after a discussion in the 188 thread proper, it would be more ideal in my personal opinion if the 62As went to the 4. The recovery times on the 6 are too short for the constant switching of north terminals on the side signs, which means that, just like they would be on the 2 and/or 5, the signs will likely be wrong at times. Of course, like I said before, all speculation on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.