junjun798 Posted August 21, 2012 Share #876 Posted August 21, 2012 (edited) Technically, they are old. Since their parts are like the redbirds parts, they really aren't supposed to last more than 35 years. And we already have the flickering lights on the 3 line, which btw, I approve lol R62As were made to last the full 40 years a NYC subway car is supposed to last 40 is the life expectancy not 35 bro and R62As are very well taken care of so they will last their full 40 yrs even more if the order thats slated to retire them is late. If 7 line not going to receive R188 . by the chance 6 line riders will complaing. Only I can as Second Avenue Subway been built & the line been put to service then it would be different story than 6 line would give away R142A i am very sure. As i know 6 line very heavy crowded on east side between Harlem 125 street to 86 street - Lexington avenue lack of ridership. why not take the R142 from the 2 line. R142 ( bombardier of 2 , 4 , 5 line ) were never tested on 7 line. so excepted complained R142A of 6 line sending to 7 line. Why not tested the R142 Bombardier to be tested on 7 line . Never be tested as of yet. i am sure R142A will fail again 80% sure When last time ran on 7 line Third rail problem. last time 7 line had R142A #7731 - #7810 ? in 7 years aho. I maybe wrong some should know. To answer your question is because bombardier who built the R142 didn't want the R188 contract so the and stay how they are and Kawasaki accepted the Contract thats why on the lines R142As are being converted and crowds dont matter R62As handeled crowds perfectly on the from 1987-2003 so that doesnt matter here besides Flushings R62As are being getting smsed for the thats why you are seing R62As from the on the Edited August 21, 2012 by junjun798 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted August 22, 2012 Share #877 Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) That's not a sign of a problem, AFAIK. I never said it was a problem. R62As were made to last the full 40 years a NYC subway car is supposed to last 40 is the life expectancy not 35 bro and R62As are very well taken care of so they will last their full 40 yrs even more if the order thats slated to retire them is late. You forget that the MTA went back to the design of the Redbirds for the construction of the R62/As after the design of the R44s and 46s proved to be less reliable. The body, stainless steel, can last the 40 years. The parts on the other hand, reliable yes, were obsolete when they were constructed and are just beginning to show their age. Edited August 22, 2012 by LTA1992 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Broadway Posted August 22, 2012 Share #878 Posted August 22, 2012 Unrelated: I still think the MTA should think about using 60' IRT cars [as long as the R143/R160s but narrow like the R142s]. Why go thru this hassle over the 11th car? I mean is Steinway that much of a problem that cars can't be longer than 51' long? One: Steinway Tunnel Two: Court Square Turn The Former can only handle 60' car just barely, and if they drive at the speed of a crawl. The latter can not take anything over 57'ish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depotofrelax Posted August 23, 2012 Share #879 Posted August 23, 2012 except the drama Where is R142A/R188 #7211 - #7212- #7213 - #7214-#7215/ #7216-#7217-#7218-#7219-#7220. No one not talking. Are those car out of service because third rail or for other reason. Where are those cars it almost 2 years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted August 23, 2012 Share #880 Posted August 23, 2012 except the drama Where is R142A/R188 #7211 - #7212- #7213 - #7214-#7215/ #7216-#7217-#7218-#7219-#7220. No one not talking. Are those car out of service because third rail or for other reason. Where are those cars it almost 2 years. Its sitting in Corona like it has been for a while now. It's waiting for the 11th car (or C car, whatever the hell you wanna call it) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted August 25, 2012 Author Share #881 Posted August 25, 2012 One: Steinway Tunnel Two: Court Square Turn The Former can only handle 60' car just barely, and if they drive at the speed of a crawl. The latter can not take anything over 57'ish. There are quite a few other reasons as to why IRT cant use 60 footers. Prime example is the train. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am almost certain the couldnt fit through some of those turns, especially at Central Park North. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted August 26, 2012 Share #882 Posted August 26, 2012 Then theres the 5 from GC to 149th. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe C Posted August 26, 2012 Share #883 Posted August 26, 2012 There are quite a few other reasons as to why IRT cant use 60 footers. Prime example is the train. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am almost certain the couldnt fit through some of those turns, especially at Central Park North. The founder of the IRT, August Belmont, Jr. designed the tunnels so that no other private operator could use the tunnels. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted August 26, 2012 Share #884 Posted August 26, 2012 51 foot and 8 ft wide cars for the IRT lines and 60 or 75 ft 10 ft wide cars that the BMT and IND can use. The person that designed the IRT was crazy because now in 2012 there is no uniforme fleet that we run on both lines. So te MTA has to get different length trains. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted August 26, 2012 Share #885 Posted August 26, 2012 51 foot and 8 ft wide cars for the IRT lines and 60 or 75 ft 10 ft wide cars that the BMT and IND can use. The person that designed the IRT was crazy because now in 2012 there is no uniforme fleet that we run on both lines. So te MTA has to get different length trains. On of the many reasons why capitalism is a bad way of achieving a unified transit system... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted August 26, 2012 Share #886 Posted August 26, 2012 51 foot and 8 ft wide cars for the IRT lines and 60 or 75 ft 10 ft wide cars that the BMT and IND can use. The person that designed the IRT was crazy because now in 2012 there is no uniforme fleet that we run on both lines. So te MTA has to get different length trains. He wasn't crazy, he was trying to protect his investment. You should thank August Belmont for investing in the IRT in the first place, or we may have never gotten a subway in NY in the first place. At least not when it needed to be first built (in the early 1900's). 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted August 26, 2012 Share #887 Posted August 26, 2012 On of the many reasons why capitalism is a bad way of achieving a unified transit system... I'm actually kind of glad we don't have a uniform fleet. That would be boring as hell.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depotofrelax Posted August 26, 2012 Share #888 Posted August 26, 2012 What kind of strip map sticker will 6 line if the R62A back will be look like. Like kind of 3 line R62 strip map or the 1 line R62A strip map. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted August 26, 2012 Share #889 Posted August 26, 2012 What kind of strip map sticker will 6 line if the R62A back will be look like. Like kind of 3 line R62 strip map or the 1 line R62A strip map. Probably. Maybe there'll be an update. Who knows? It's too early to tell to be honest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted August 26, 2012 Share #890 Posted August 26, 2012 What kind of strip map sticker will 6 line if the R62A back will be look like. Like kind of 3 line R62 strip map or the 1 line R62A strip map. It will look like the current map, obviously, since they are both circle/diamond lines... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depotofrelax Posted August 28, 2012 Share #891 Posted August 28, 2012 Any picture of R188 #7814 , #7815 , #7816 have been built at the Yonkers Plant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted August 28, 2012 Share #892 Posted August 28, 2012 Also, the IRT was also designed that way to avoid needing private land for construction. The IRT tunnels can be located exactly under city streets without having to make deals to use the land under private property lines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted August 28, 2012 Share #893 Posted August 28, 2012 Any picture of R188 #7814 , #7815 , #7816 have been built at the Yonkers Plant. There are R188 pictures, I am not sure if they are your train, but there are pictures. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted August 28, 2012 Share #894 Posted August 28, 2012 R188s are not any different from the R142As. Maybe a few minor cosmetic changes, but the main change is to the propulsion. Plus if anything, I'm sure the pics would be somewhere on google. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted August 28, 2012 Share #895 Posted August 28, 2012 R188s are not any different from the R142As. Maybe a few minor cosmetic changes, but the main change is to the propulsion. Plus if anything, I'm sure the pics would be somewhere on google. Really? Where did you here that the propulsion would necessarily be changed? I thought the only confirmed change was CBTC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted August 28, 2012 Share #896 Posted August 28, 2012 Really? Where did you here that the propulsion would necessarily be changed? I thought the only confirmed change was CBTC. I heard about it too. I heard they were changing to Alstom. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted August 28, 2012 Share #897 Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) Really? Where did you here that the propulsion would necessarily be changed? I thought the only confirmed change was CBTC. I believe some people here have said the current ones were going to be changed. I'm just restating what has been said. Just look back some pages. If I'm wrong I'll apologize for the error. Edited August 28, 2012 by Grand Concourse 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted August 28, 2012 Share #898 Posted August 28, 2012 I heard about it too. I heard they were changing to Alstom. Who did you hear it from? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenEleven Posted August 28, 2012 Share #899 Posted August 28, 2012 I heard about the change to ALSTOM too. There's that one full set of R188s on property but nobody has caught it running under its own power so we won't know for sure until that happens. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe C Posted August 28, 2012 Share #900 Posted August 28, 2012 I heard about the change to ALSTOM too. There's that one full set of R188s on property but nobody has caught it running under its own power so we won't know for sure until that happens. That full R188 is a converted R142A,so it may still have the Adtranz propulsion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.