Jump to content

R188 Discussion Thread


East New York

Recommended Posts

Another thing is, the (4) already has enough cars to fully maintain its current service frequencies of 12 tph (rush hour) and 7-8 tph (off-peak). I don't understand why some other members keep suggesting that it needs more trainsets. The entire (4) fleet is fine enough as it is. It is not going to get anymore trainsets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 7.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm getting information (again NOT ACCURATE, I'm not saying that I KNOW of it, as I'm clearly saying that I HEARD OF IT before any accusations start) from people that I know SHOULD NOT be trusted. I only share it for a confirmation. And I won't be afraid to release who the people are. 

 

Let me clear this up:

I WILL NOT RELEASE THE NAMES HERE, I WILL IF IT DOES HAVE AN IMPACT ON ME.

- One person has told me they got notified by a motorman that works the (6) that he laid up R142s 6661-6670 one day. Again, have no clue if this is true or false.

- Another person is stating that the R142A's will be going to the (4) and that westchester HATES R62A because they are lazy & don't want to change signs. That comes to the statement by another person that R142 from the (2) will be going to the (6) and that R62A will be heading to the 7th Ave Line.

- Another person states that all R142A will be converted for fleet compatibility. Again, I highly doubt it was true although he did seem like a worker. That is why I didn't share it until now. 

- They are also stating that an R62 from the (3) was once on the (6) .

 

ONCE AGAIN, I AM NOT THE ONE WHO IS MAKING THIS UP, I AM THE ONE WHO IS SHARING THIS TO GET FURTHER INFORMATION ON WHETHER THIS IS RELEVANT OR IRRELEVANT INFORMATION I WILL BE SHARING THEIR NAMES (in which I really don't want to) IF I POSSIBLY GET INVOLVED OR ACCUSED FOR FALSE INFO

Edited by R188 7857
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man I have to be that specific? I clearly said EIGHT NEW SETS....SETS...7811-7898. I was not talking about the INDIVIDUAL R188s that will be C CARS.

 

My question...once again since idk the real legit answer..is, this whole (6), (7), swap was suppose to be SET FOR SET right?...so if that's the case, shouldn't all the R62As go to the (6), and ALL the R142As go to the (7)? And then those EXTRA EIGHT SETS be for the (7) extension and obviously because the (7) has higher ridership.

 

That is why I don't understand why there are R142As going to the (4) when all the (6) R142As are suppose to go to the (7) for all of the R62As to go to the (6).

 

I hope I am clear enough this time (even though I thought I was last time).

Lance my bad I was already in the process of making my post when you posted that. So apparently what I was saying is correct, and that some R142As going to the (4) is bullshytt.

You were clear. R62AR33 made it confusing when he made it sound like all eight brand new sets would be converted into C Cars. I knew what you meant, I didn't know what he meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That I didn't know, I thought flushing had more cars which is why I thought those extra sets 7811-7898 were for.

 

Admittedly, I don't follow the R188 order closely - can't get interested in it for sh** - but according to Joe Korner's car assignments, there are 375 R62As to go around for the (6) and (7) - arranged into 10 car trains it would give us 37 and a half trains.

 

90 for the (6) in the morning, 100 in the afternoon, 240 sets and 35 singles in the morning for the (7), 220 sets and 33 singles for the afternoon.

 

The (7) utilizes 32 trains during the AM peak, its busiest time, but the (6) uses 40 during the PM peak, which is its busiest time. At the very least 3 R142A trains would be required to make PM service, and that's not even discounting R62As #1906-1910, which will NOT be joined into a five car set due to car 1909 being scrapped. With spare rates considered for both the R62As and the R142As, the 7 NTT train figure does make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man I have to be that specific? I clearly said EIGHT NEW SETS....SETS...7811-7898. I was not talking about the INDIVIDUAL R188s that will be C CARS.

 

My question...once again since idk the real legit answer..is, this whole (6), (7), swap was suppose to be SET FOR SET right?...so if that's the case, shouldn't all the R62As go to the (6), and ALL the R142As go to the (7)? And then those EXTRA EIGHT SETS be for the (7) extension and obviously because the (7) has higher ridership.

 

That is why I don't understand why there are R142As going to the (4) when all the (6) R142As are suppose to go to the (7) for all of the R62As to go to the (6).

 

I hope I am clear enough this time (even though I thought I was last time).

Lance my bad I was already in the process of making my post when you posted that. So apparently what I was saying is correct, and that some R142As going to the (4) is bullshytt.

 

7811-7898 were ordered because of CBTC. The (6) requires more cars than the (7), therefore a full trade will still result in the (7) having the same amount of cars as they did before.  The purpose of having CBTC in the first place was for better and increased service. Well, you can't have increased service without an increased amount of trains. More R142A coming to the (7) will mean less trains for the (6) or perhaps any other line, which will cause a shortage Therefore, they had to order eight new sets. They will also be stored in the Hudson Yards, since Corona might not have enough space. The eight sets were not just made for the extension.

 

As for R142A's heading to the (4) there was an actual set that came to the (4) recently, and has already gotten new strip maps. It might be some sort of swap as Lance states, so we just have to wait and see. It might not be complete bullsh*t but it can be false to an extent. 

 

Although this swap nonsense/rumors are spreading, the real way to know is to wait and see. 

Edited by R188 7857
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm getting information (again NOT ACCURATE, I'm not saying that I KNOW of it, as I'm clearly saying that I HEARD OF IT before any accusations start) from people that I know SHOULD NOT be trusted. I only share it for a confirmation. And I won't be afraid to release who the people are. 

 

Let me clear this up:

I WILL NOT RELEASE THE NAMES HERE, I WILL IF IT DOES HAVE AN IMPACT ON ME.

- One person has told me they got notified by a motorman that works the (6) that he laid up R142s 6661-6670 one day. Again, have no clue if this is true or false.

- Another person is stating that the R142A's will be going to the (4) and that westchester HATES R62A because they are lazy & don't want to change signs. That comes to the statement by another person that R142 from the (2) will be going to the (6) and that R62A will be heading to the 7th Ave Line.

- Another person states that all R142A will be converted for fleet compatibility. Again, I highly doubt it was true although he did seem like a worker. That is why I didn't share it until now. 

- They are also stating that an R62 from the (3) was once on the (6) .

 

ONCE AGAIN, I AM NOT THE ONE WHO IS MAKING THIS UP, I AM THE ONE WHO IS SHARING THIS TO GET FURTHER INFORMATION ON WHETHER THIS IS RELEVANT OR IRRELEVANT INFORMATION I WILL BE SHARING THEIR NAMES (in which I really don't want to) IF I POSSIBLY GET INVOLVED OR ACCUSED FOR FALSE INFO

Believe it or not None of that is true , i have a very good source that works for the (6) and from what iv been told , Westchester Yard prefer the R62As than the R142A's much more just cause its much easier to Inspect , maintain and then put into service. A few pages back it was explained that some railfans made up that Westchester hates changing the rollsigns. As for the R142s its been  explained that the only times they have ran on the (6) was back in 2000 when testing and then during weekend G.O's in the Brooklyn Bridge to 125st section . The (2) and   (5) are staying with what they have just due to the fact that there isn't enough R62A's to cover service and that they also swap cars at flatbush constantly so the crew there wouldn't wanna have to go back to constantly changing rollsigns when with an R142 just press a button and change the route for the train .

Edited by R62AR33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those R62A's on the (6) from the (1) are loaners, are you forgetting the fact that some R142A's are getting their trucks done at 207th st before going to Kawasaki before conversion, hence the R62A's from the (1) on the (6), the R62 on the (1) is just there to full in the loss of 15 cars, the only thing that puzzles me is that set of R142A's from the (6) that's on the (4)

 

And just because you have a source that doesn't mean their right, plans change a lot, all of these moves are because of the R142A SMS (trucks) and R188 conversion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not None of that is true , i have a very good source that works for the (6) and from what iv been told , Westchester Yard prefer the R62As than the R142A's much more just cause its much easier to Inspect , maintain and then put into service. A few pages back it was explained that some railfans made up that Westchester hates changing the rollsigns. As for the R142s its been explained that the only times they have ran on the (6) was back in 2000 when testing and then during weekend G.O's in the Brooklyn Bridge to 125st section . The (2) and (5) are staying with what they have just due to the fact that there isn't enough R62A's to cover service and that they also swap cars at flatbush constantly so the crew there wouldn't wanna have to go back to constantly changing rollsigns when with an R142 just press a button and change the route for the train .

I'm not sure that was made up about the rollsigns out of Westchester. You can pretty much observe it when you see a set where the crew has left some signs for PBP, some for Parkchester, and some for 3 Av-138. When I get an R62A I just listen closely, cause the rollsigns reveal nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone know..... Sometimes during midday construction ... Sometimes in weekdays 10 a.m. - 3 p.m. (6) does run in 2 different section.. that Pelham Bay to Brooklyn Bridge or 3rd Avenue to Brooklyn Bridge... Anyway doe how many set R62A on (6) are at Westchester Yard... Whenever they are construction in midday.. From which terminal that Pelham Bay Park branch or Parkchester Branch... supposed to change the rollout sign on R62A during midday as some (6) last stop is 3rd Avenue 138 Street in the Bronx , area?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone know..... Sometimes during midday construction ... Sometimes in weekdays 10 a.m. - 3 p.m. (6) does run in 2 different section.. that Pelham Bay to Brooklyn Bridge or 3rd Avenue to Brooklyn Bridge... Anyway doe how many set R62A on (6) are at Westchester Yard... Whenever they are construction in midday.. From which terminal that Pelham Bay Park branch or Parkchester Branch... supposed to change the rollout sign on R62A during midday as some (6) last stop is 3rd Avenue 138 Street in the Bronx , area?

Its not two sections and some short turn there

 

http://boerumhillscott.com/transit/TripDetails.php?trip=A20140608WKD_047650_6..N06R&dataset=nyc_subway

http://boerumhillscott.com/transit/TripDetails.php?trip=A20140608WKD_048850_6..N06R&dataset=nyc_subway

http://boerumhillscott.com/transit/TripDetails.php?trip=A20140608WKD_050750_6..N06R&dataset=nyc_subway

 

And from 3 Av

http://boerumhillscott.com/transit/TripDetails.php?trip=A20140608WKD_052000_6..S06R&dataset=nyc_subway

http://boerumhillscott.com/transit/TripDetails.php?trip=A20140608WKD_053100_6..S06R&dataset=nyc_subway

http://boerumhillscott.com/transit/TripDetails.php?trip=A20140608WKD_054850_6..S06R&dataset=nyc_subway

http://boerumhillscott.com/transit/TripDetails.php?trip=A20140608WKD_057700_6..S06R&dataset=nyc_subway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright guys... I got 7843 set for the second time in 2 weeks so I will now give a complete breakdown on the vandalism on that set.

 

7843: Cab door tag "BLUR" and it seems to be like one  of the "Do not lean on door" stickers have been peeled because on one of the doors, the two stickers don't match. One of them is the one they arrived in, the other is the one that is on R142A. (Difference is- the one they arrived in is not as tall and letters are more spread apart) 

7836: Big ass dry sticker mark on one of the (MTA) logos...

7834: Red sticker on an (MTA) logo, two dry sticker marks on the side of a door, and a sharpie tag that I think says "SOY" that hasn't been removed yet. I have yet to check the interior of 7834, I expect it to be much worse....

7833: Sticker tag probably removed already.

 

PREVIOUS TAG TO NOTE SEEN ON THIS SET:

7839: Big sharpie tag removed

Edited by R188 7857
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said previously, while it would be nice if the train crews changed the signs on the 6 accordingly, the in-station announcements telling riders which train is going where kind of make up for inaccurate signs.

 

As for these reports of a massive car swap, they make no sense. Think about it for a second. If the 62As from Corona/Westchester are going to 7th Avenue, where are they going? The 1 and 3 already use 62As and 62s respectively, so that only leaves the 2. As a rule, Transit doesn't want neither the 2 or 5 lines to use anything other than NTTs because of their near constant sharing of trains during the day. It's quite a difference between having a 62A 6 train signed up for Parkchester or 3 Av with the diamond on than it is having a train primarily signed as a 2 while actually being a 5 train. That's just asking for trouble if you ask me. So where are these trains going if not Westchester for 6-line service? The only logical line they could go on is the 4 in exchange for Mosholu's 142s, which in my opinion would've been a better idea, but that's neither here or there. And moving the remaining 142As over to the 1 line? What's with this fixation on giving yards oddball fleets on top of what's already there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. They claim its impossible because of the aged space age era technology in circuits incorporated into the boards. Then again they did do it with the R44's/46's. I remember that study.

 

Was this said in a document of some sort? Very surprising that they managed to fit R44/46s with digital signs, but not R62/68. Hell, they even managed to do it with the R32s/R38s, I don't understand why it wouldn't be possible on the 62/68.

Edited by ttcsubwayfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said previously, while it would be nice if the train crews changed the signs on the 6 accordingly, the in-station announcements telling riders which train is going where kind of make up for inaccurate signs.

 

As for these reports of a massive car swap, they make no sense. Think about it for a second. If the 62As from Corona/Westchester are going to 7th Avenue, where are they going? The 1 and 3 already use 62As and 62s respectively, so that only leaves the 2. As a rule, Transit doesn't want neither the 2 or 5 lines to use anything other than NTTs because of their near constant sharing of trains during the day. It's quite a difference between having a 62A 6 train signed up for Parkchester or 3 Av with the diamond on than it is having a train primarily signed as a 2 while actually being a 5 train. That's just asking for trouble if you ask me. So where are these trains going if not Westchester for 6-line service? The only logical line they could go on is the 4 in exchange for Mosholu's 142s, which in my opinion would've been a better idea, but that's neither here or there. And moving the remaining 142As over to the 1 line? What's with this fixation on giving yards oddball fleets on top of what's already there?

 

Exactly, excellent point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was considered as seen in this document but plans has come to a halt at this point.

 

What a strange coincidence, I was just looking at that document a few hours ago. Interesting, it's a pity they didn't go through with it. With the cars half way/almost half way through their useful lives, I'm inclined to doubt they'll end up getting the signs.

 

But there's nothing that says the electrical circuits in the car were a factor. Unless if you count the lack of spare pins mentioned in question 1...

Edited by ttcsubwayfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm assuming that could be related to this? Or is this the conversion set people are referring to ? If so... Must have been a reason for this:

 

http://youtu.be/btxjNAGmt50

 

I know it's way late to clear this up because it was cleared up a while ago but as the maker of that video, I never knew about the (now false) rumors going around about the problems of the R188. There were no problems with the R188 at that time (as far as I'm aware) and I just took that video because after a long search for an R188 that day, none were in service. I know that video stirred up some confusion so I just want people to know that video was never made to point out these "problems", it was made to show all the R188s in the yard. 

Edited by Tech And Transit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a strange coincidence, I was just looking at that document a few hours ago. Interesting, it's a pity they didn't go through with it. With the cars half way/almost half way through their useful lives, I'm inclined to doubt they'll end up getting the signs.

 

But there's nothing that says the electrical circuits in the car were a factor. Unless if you count the lack of spare pins mentioned in question 1...

 

Well the study was focusing on upgrading the fleet with automated announcements and LED signs as seen on NTTs. That attempt at a feasible solution failed. It is possible however that they may go with at least LED signs to replace the current rollsigns before their retirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the study was focusing on upgrading the fleet with automated announcements and LED signs as seen on NTTs. That attempt at a feasible solution failed. It is possible however that they may go with at least LED signs to replace the current rollsigns before their retirements.

But wouldn't they encounter the same issue (outdated circuitry) if they went for just the signs?

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.