Jump to content

R188 Discussion Thread


East New York

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 7.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I swear this thread is like having a full fledged conversation with a brick wall

 

Just like talking to a certain brick wall in City Hall.

 

things Never change with you guys, it doesn't get though those thick skills, all i hear is Pure Trash, all you guys going off topic junjun or whatever your name is , you need to get off the keyboard and think for a few hours because you are the only one who doesn't get it, NYCT division of Car Equipment decides what goes on not Me you or the rest of us, things change in a blink of an eye so sit back relax and just chill out we got another year to see whats gonna happen so just relax

 

I can only imagine if you got to decide where the 32s go :P

 

Here's something that might also go to the (6) :

Funny-Horse-1.jpg

 

Use those for the J.

Edited by rr4567
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope the R62As do not return to the (6). The weekday afternoon <6> has my favorite NTT announcement ("This is a Pelham Bay Park-bound 6 train making express stops in the Bronx") I doubt the <7> will have a similar announcement when it uses the R188s since it has such a short route. (6) riders will not be pleased to see old cars on their service as it will greatly downgrade it (just like how the (E) suffered the biggest downgrade in history when it switched from R32s to R42s or when the (B) and (N) switched from R68/68As to R40s). Why else was the (6) the first train to get the R142As? It is because Pelham riders wanted them and I remember how happy everyone was when the R142s debuted on that train 12 years ago. I am going to laugh if ridership on the (6) drops or Pelham residents write petitions demanding the NTTs go back on their train (I remember seeing a couple of petitions from (C) riders demanding that the MTA give it new cars, but they all been deleted because that cannot be done as riders on the services that the R160s run on all love them).

 

The R62s should return to the (4) because it had always used those cars and was the last train to be 100% NTTs, so I am sure Jerome Avenue riders will not mind riding a car type that they rode on all the time years ago. In fact, the (7)'s R62As should go on the (3) (making it nine cars like it was before the R142/142As arrived), send its R62s and any spare R62As to the (4), and put the R142/142As from Jerome Avenue to the (6). Another good idea is to send all Corona R62As to the (5) instead so that it would be easier to distinguish it from the (2) and (4). It is funny how people run up or down the stairs thinking their train is in the statin when it really is not (i.e. they need to the (2) or (4) when a (5) shows up or vice-versa) and it is stupid for the (2) and (5) to share cars because of the strip maps. Riders get annoyed when they are need to look at a strip map and the one on the train is that of the route it is running on. Pelham riders would not care if the (6) is 100% R142s or 100% R142As as long as they have new cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares. Really, who cares what goes where? Why is it that every two days when I come back, it's the same comments re-worded in every way possible? What makes the most sense is what will most likely be, and most likely have been, already decided. GET OVER IT.

Edited by LTA1992
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope the R62As do not return to the (6). The weekday afternoon <6> has my favorite NTT announcement ("This is a Pelham Bay Park-bound 6 train making express stops in the Bronx") I doubt the <7> will have a similar announcement when it uses the R188s since it has such a short route. (6) riders will not be pleased to see old cars on their service as it will greatly downgrade it (just like how the (E) suffered the biggest downgrade in history when it switched from R32s to R42s or when the B and N switched from R68/68As to R40s). Why else was the (6) the first train to get the R142As? It is because Pelham riders wanted them and I remember how happy everyone was when the R142s debuted on that train 12 years ago. I am going to laugh if ridership on the (6) drops or Pelham residents write petitions demanding the NTTs go back on their train (I remember seeing a couple of petitions from C riders demanding that the MTA give it new cars, but they all been deleted because that cannot be done as riders on the services that the R160s run on all love them).

 

The R62s should return to the (4) because it had always used those cars and was the last train to be 100% NTTs, so I am sure Jerome Avenue riders will not mind riding a car type that they rode on all the time years ago. In fact, the (7)'s R62As should go on the (3) (making it nine cars like it was before the R142/142As arrived), send its R62s and any spare R62As to the (4), and put the R142/142As from Jerome Avenue to the (6). Another good idea is to send all Corona R62As to the (5) instead so that it would be easier to distinguish it from the (2) and (4). It is funny how people run up or down the stairs thinking their train is in the statin when it really is not (i.e. they need to the (2) or (4) when a (5) shows up or vice-versa) and it is stupid for the (2) and (5) to share cars because of the strip maps. Riders get annoyed when they are need to look at a strip map and the one on the train is that of the route it is running on. Pelham riders would not care if the (6) is 100% R142s or 100% R142As as long as they have new cars.

 

This post is full of bias and foam. It's typical of railfans who want a particular car to go on a particular line to pretend that they know everything about what riders want, only for the sake of justifying their foamy dreams (to hear NTT announcements on the (6) in this case). As millions of people have said millions of times, the (2) and (5) need NTTs so they can switch routes at Flatbush without manually changing the signs. What do you know about why the (6) got R142As first? How did you hear that there was pressure from riders? You're completely overestimating (and pretending that you know everything about) the power of politics in car assignments. Edited by TheSubwayStation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why else was the (6) the first train to get the R142As? It is because Pelham riders wanted them and I remember how happy everyone was when the R142s debuted on that train 12 years ago.

 

 

They got the NTT's because those NTT's were originally going to run on the (7)<7> Flushing Line, but at that time they were testing it on that line, they had issues, especially in the Steinway Tunnel, hence the (6)<6> got the NTT's instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone cares about that... but this post and other ridiculous posts has gone this thread off-topic!

 

 

My post was just a greet and a reply to FE only....Hhhmmmm...Not sure if my previous post has anything to do with the thread going off-topic according to you....

 

Anyways, moving along....

Edited by RollOverMyHead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is full of bias and foam. It's typical of railfans who want a particular car to go on a particular line to pretend that they know everything about what riders want, only for the sake of justifying their foamy dreams (to hear NTT announcements on the (6) in this case). As millions of people have said millions of times, the (2) and (5) need NTTs so they can switch routes at Flatbush without manually changing the signs. What do you know about why the (6) got R142As first? How did you hear that there was pressure from riders? You're completely overestimating (and pretending that you know everything about) the power of politics in car assignments.

 

 

Thats what the people in this community say.... But again as I've said before, don't be surprised if the (2) and/or (5) get the older cars back, REGARDLESS of swap being an issue. The (MTA) does what ever they want...

 

People keep saying its going on the (6) and then maybe the (4), yet we still haven't seen a swap and making conclusions fast. And even if the swap were to occur, who knows if its gonna stay like that or permanent.. Communities may burst, and will be curious for the swap. Just like how there was a news article back in July about the R32/R46 swap. The riders will have in impression. Some won't care, but there WILL be others who will care about it and be curious about this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They got the NTT's because those NTT's were originally going to run on the (7)<7> Flushing Line, but at that time they were testing it on that line, they had issues, especially in the Steinway Tunnel, hence the (6)<6> got the NTT's instead.

 

 

My thought was with the LED lights, that's the only logic that I have in approaching the (6)<6> for (7)<7> swap. But if they're going to the lex (and (2)), then MTA will make it so..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mark1447

 

May you please provide me a link of a news article about the R32 / R46 (A)(C) Swap? I'd like to know.

 

 

Sorry man, but I can not seem to find it. It was an FAQ from (DailyNews or NY Times) from about Late June or July. If I find it, I'll link it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope the R62As do not return to the (6). The weekday afternoon <6> has my favorite NTT announcement ("This is a Pelham Bay Park-bound 6 train making express stops in the Bronx") I doubt the <7> will have a similar announcement when it uses the R188s since it has such a short route. (6) riders will not be pleased to see old cars on their service as it will greatly downgrade it (just like how the (E) suffered the biggest downgrade in history when it switched from R32s to R42s or when the (B) and (N) switched from R68/68As to R40s). Why else was the (6) the first train to get the R142As? It is because Pelham riders wanted them and I remember how happy everyone was when the R142s debuted on that train 12 years ago. I am going to laugh if ridership on the (6) drops or Pelham residents write petitions demanding the NTTs go back on their train (I remember seeing a couple of petitions from (C) riders demanding that the MTA give it new cars, but they all been deleted because that cannot be done as riders on the services that the R160s run on all love them).

 

The R62s should return to the (4) because it had always used those cars and was the last train to be 100% NTTs, so I am sure Jerome Avenue riders will not mind riding a car type that they rode on all the time years ago. In fact, the (7)'s R62As should go on the (3) (making it nine cars like it was before the R142/142As arrived), send its R62s and any spare R62As to the (4), and put the R142/142As from Jerome Avenue to the (6). Another good idea is to send all Corona R62As to the (5) instead so that it would be easier to distinguish it from the (2) and (4). It is funny how people run up or down the stairs thinking their train is in the statin when it really is not (i.e. they need to the (2) or (4) when a (5) shows up or vice-versa) and it is stupid for the (2) and (5) to share cars because of the strip maps. Riders get annoyed when they are need to look at a strip map and the one on the train is that of the route it is running on. Pelham riders would not care if the (6) is 100% R142s or 100% R142As as long as they have new cars.

 

 

I don't understand. What on earth has possessed you people into thinking that the MTA gives a crap about what its passengers think about certain cars?

 

Railfans, foamers, the riding public and politics all have no say in which cars go where, and your little petitions won't help either. One of the lines is going to receive the R62As, end of story.

 

Also, you make it seem as though the R62As are incredibly bad cars by saying 'greatly downgrade it'. NO, a downgrade would be one of the rickety, non-airconditioned, filthy SMEE cars which dominated the IRT lines before the arrival of the R62s.

 

I really wish NTT foamers would get over this ridiculous idea that the R62s are horrible cars. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't understand. What on earth has possessed you people into thinking that the MTA gives a crap about what its passengers think about certain cars?

 

Railfans, foamers, the riding public and politics all have no say in which cars go where, and your little petitions won't help either. One of the lines is going to receive the R62As, end of story.

 

Also, you make it seem as though the R62As are incredibly bad cars by saying 'greatly downgrade it'. NO, a downgrade would be one of the rickety, non-airconditioned, filthy SMEE cars which dominated the IRT lines before the arrival of the R62s.

 

I really wish NTT foamers would get over this ridiculous idea that the R62s are horrible cars. :rolleyes:

 

 

Don't even waste your time with him, its a never-ending battle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will someone please explain to me, I am sure this has been asked many times, but WHY does the (7)<7> need to be completely NTT? Why can't it get the R188s and keep the cars that it has instead of getting R142s?

 

 

Let me answer this by posing a new question: How would you convert R62A's for CBTC service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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