Jump to content

R188 Discussion Thread


East New York

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

 

The R142A 6 trains have actually been in service on the line since 2000, that was back when they were still testing the trains. 

I know, error. Just found out right before you quoted. 

But this is the end of an era. The R142As made a smooth arrival in 2000, and made their way onto the (4) and (6) lines. However, in 2013, the (6) had to sacrifice most of its R142As in order to make the Flushing line fully NTT. The R142As made their last run on the (6) yesterday April 21, 2018, almost 18 years after it first began service.

All that's left now are old, metallic, R62As from the 80's, which all came from the (7)...

The (6) will never be the same ever again. 

 

Edited by Coney Island Av
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 7.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Here's a thought, with the (6) just being R62As, will the MTA restore the reduced runs back on the schedule since they do have enough trains now?

----

Also, before SAS occured, the (6) had 45-46 trains total but now, up to 43. The train total was shortened by 3. 

Edited by Calvin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Calvin said:

Once 2081-5/2091-5 are at Westchester for the (6) , 7596-7610 will be at Mosholu for the (4) . 7116-7125 will head back to Unionport. 

Any status on the 240th yard R62As sets, are those stay on the (6)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

I know, error. Just found out right before you quoted. 

But this is the end of an era. The R142As made a smooth arrival in 2000, and made their way onto the (4) and (6) lines. However, in 2013, the (6) had to sacrifice most of its R142As in order to make the Flushing line fully NTT. The R142As made their last run on the (6) yesterday April 21, 2018, almost 18 years after it first began service.

All that's left now are old, metallic, R62As from the 80's, which all came from the (7)...

The (6) will never be the same ever again. 

They actually had numerous teething issues, along with the R142s.  Granted, they weren't AS bad (and didn't need that extensive reworking back in 2006-2007), but by no means was the arrival smooth.  And while I liked R142As on the (6) as much as the next guy, besides needing them for Flushing, Westchester treats their fleet like garbage anyway.  The R62As that came from Corona were actually fine, it's just that time has taken its toll especially being maintained under a different roof.  The (6) will be fine and it will be the same in about 10-15 years, when the replacements for the R62/As arrive.  Until then, sit tight, and fan the (4) if you MUST see the R142As...
 

3 hours ago, Calvin said:

Here's a thought, with the (6) just being R62As, will the MTA restore the reduced runs back on the schedule since they do have enough trains now?

----

Also, before SAS occured, the (6) had 45-46 trains total but now, up to 43. The train total was shortened by 3. 

They no longer have an excuse not to.  It was very shortsighted (although I kinda understand why from a fleet perspective)--unfortunately it won't be for a few picks if they decide to restore some service.  Another idea I had (since the R142As are better from a capacity standpoints with their wider doors and clearer announcements)--why not maintain all R142As out of Mosholu, but have a few sets with (6) maps reserved for rush-hour service?  They were doing put-ins before the cuts came about, and certainly the (4) will have those few trains to spare (unless the R142s they're bumping out are to increase (2) service).

1 hour ago, jon2305 said:

Any status on the 240th yard R62As sets, are those stay on the (6)?

Calvin already answered, but I'd like to add that the (1) is one of the few lines with a decent (for MTA standards) spare factor.  Speaking of which, I know the lone R62 set (containing the Union Square consist) recently got (1) maps, but are there plans to put that set back on the (3)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bosco said:

Calvin already answered, but I'd like to add that the (1) is one of the few lines with a decent (for MTA standards) spare factor.  Speaking of which, I know the lone R62 set (containing the Union Square consist) recently got (1) maps, but are there plans to put that set back on the (3)?

That set is staying on the Local portion of 7 Av. (1) line. Adding that set, the (1) has the total trains in general. 

Edited by Calvin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Oh boo-hoo-hoo the (6) is now fully NTT what ever will we do? 🤣

So the (7) now has no more R62A's for regular service correct?

 

Correct. No regular service sets on the (7) .

On a side note, it really pisses me off that 1934 got the full cab. I’ve had fond memories of that car with a half cab facing flushing. They should just make the cabs convertible (even though they sort of are), with the full cabs for the conductor and everything else folded in. Full cabs are such a waste of space!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Oh boo-hoo-hoo the (6) is now fully NTT what ever will we do? 🤣

So the (7) now has no more R62A's for regular service correct?

 

You mean SMEE... but this isn’t good for (6) service. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Yep sorry, meant SMEE.

Anyway, why isn't it good for (6) service? The R62A's survived just fine on the (7) for a good while.

Being on the (7) for so long then back to the demads on the Lexington Avenue local Line is recipe for frequent breakdowns. Although Corona took excellent care of those R62A’s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

All that's left now are old, metallic, R62As from the 80's, which all came from the (7)...

The (6) will never be the same ever again. 

Why the histrionics over this? It's basically been this way for a couple of years anyway, and the degradation in service quality on the (6) (or any other line) has less to do with the rolling stock choice and more to do with the fact that the MTA has cut service and operates less reliably. The unpredictable and uneven intervals in Lexington local service can and would have happened regardless of what trains were on the line.

Edited by officiallyliam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, if anyone has the right to complain about old trains, it's the riders who have to endure the aging 32s, 42s and 46s that are so prevalent on the (A)(C)(J) and (R) lines.

I just wish they'd get to the bottom of what's causing the maintenance discrepancy between cars at Westchester Yard and those elsewhere. Is it a matter of not having enough of a spare factor at Westchester or enough workers, or is it something else? As mentioned previously in this thread, the former 142As left the (6) in a sorry state, but after several months of running out of Corona, they feel as if they're almost brand new cars, appearances notwithstanding of course because they still look beat up unfortunately. Inversely, the 62As, some of the highest performing cars in the entire fleet before the CBTC swap, are rapidly becoming one of the worst since then. Something's up and this needs to be investigated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Oh boo-hoo-hoo the (6) is now fully NTT what ever will we do? 🤣

So the (7) now has no more R62A's for regular service correct?

 

Yes, lets completely ignore the abysmal dwell times on one of the most crowded subway lines in the nation... :rolleyes:

Edited by Around the Horn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Around the Horn said:

Yes, also the R62As have thinner doors and less standing room in each car due to the half cabs. 

Oh that's what I missed. To be honest, the whole Lexington fleet should be divided up onto all of the Lexington routes so it isn't just one line that has the SMEE's. Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lexington Av line was fully NTTs and that's when the (7) had R62As and SAS being built. Now (in the present), with the (Q) making stops along 2nd Av on the East Side, the amount of trains the (6) had was reduced but not much (Fleet change was also an observation). 

 

Edited by Calvin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lance said:

Besides, if anyone has the right to complain about old trains, it's the riders who have to endure the aging 32s, 42s and 46s that are so prevalent on the (A)(C)(J) and (R) lines.

I just wish they'd get to the bottom of what's causing the maintenance discrepancy between cars at Westchester Yard and those elsewhere. Is it a matter of not having enough of a spare factor at Westchester or enough workers, or is it something else? As mentioned previously in this thread, the former 142As left the (6) in a sorry state, but after several months of running out of Corona, they feel as if they're almost brand new cars, appearances notwithstanding of course because they still look beat up unfortunately. Inversely, the 62As, some of the highest performing cars in the entire fleet before the CBTC swap, are rapidly becoming one of the worst since then. Something's up and this needs to be investigated.

This whole thing.  

The MDBF converted R188 sets spiked around 2016, after more of the sets came in and got much-needed maintenance.  The R142As, meanwhile, had one of the worst MBDFs of any fleet, worse even than many SMEE fleets.  Those so concerned about the fleet on the (6) should be more concerned with maintenance, which is a much bigger factor on service reliability and fleet availability.  Remember that one set on the (6) that had God knows what issue and was sidelined for a few months?  That's a train that should've been in service and wasn't because of shoddy maintenance (if there was any).

As far as the converted sets looking beat up, with any luck, the upgrades they've been giving some of the trains (including older ones) will come to the R188s.  Several R62As on the (1) now have LED lighting, and there is at least one set of R142s with the new lighting and floor mats.  That should help not make the C-car stand out the way it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Yes, lets completely ignore the abysmal dwell times on one of the most crowded subway lines in the nation... :rolleyes:

It doesn't help when they cut service on said extremely busy line either. Yeah, 2nd Avenue exists, but unless they snuck in that Harlem section with all of us being none the wiser, the (Q) doesn't help anyone north of 96th Street.

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Oh that's what I missed. To be honest, the whole Lexington fleet should be divided up onto all of the Lexington routes so it isn't just one line that has the SMEE's. Just a thought.

I don't think that's such a great idea. While it would spread the pain around beyond the (6) line so to speak, it would require more yards to maintain different cars for no real reason other than that. Right now, each IRT yard maintains one class of car and it works well for the most part. Why mess with a winning formula?

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.