R188 Discussion Thread

[East New York]

I think the R62a should stay on the line for 30 or 40 more years:). it's a really good subway train and it's safe enough to ride. the should really stop ordering newer cars (it's a waste of money). remember how the ordered alot of R160's, well was losing money so bad, that they lost the and and had to force the employees to stop working for a long while in order to save money. so let the subway run and if it retire's, they should rebuilt it:rock:.

 

The 7 line is at capacity and needs the new cars for CBTC ASAP. They cant afford to leave the R62's there for 3 or 4 more dedades. They need to run 7 trains every minute, and that can't be done without NTT's.

[obregonmichael5]

The 7 line is at capacity and needs the new cars for CBTC ASAP. They cant afford to leave the R62's there for 3 or 4 more dedades. They need to run 7 trains every minute, and that can't be done without NTT's.

 

at least 20 years my opinion:rock:

[East New York]

at least 20 years my opinion:rock:

 

They can't afford 2 years! Let alone 20. You must not ride the 7 much. Not only that but the line is currently being extended to 34th street down the west side. That alone is yet another solid case as to why they are needed NOW.

[6 Lexington Ave]

I think the R62a should stay on the line for 30 or 40 more years:). it's a really good subway train and it's safe enough to ride. the should really stop ordering newer cars (it's a waste of money). remember how the ordered alot of R160's, well was losing money so bad, that they lost the and and had to force the employees to stop working for a long while in order to save money. so let the subway run and if it retire's, they should rebuilt it:rock:.

 

If anything, they should have ordered more R160s. What you suggest, basically, is for them to run cars until they break down and then rebuild them. Absolutely ridiculous and unrealistic. It's an irresponsible way to run the system. No one said that the R62As aren't safe. Even the R32s are safe. But that's besides the point.

[LTA1992]

If anything, they should have ordered more R160s. What you suggest, basically, is for them to run cars until they break down and then rebuild them. Absolutely ridiculous and unrealistic. It's an irresponsible way to run the system. No one said that the R62As aren't safe. Even the R32s are safe. But that's besides the point.

 

The original order was 1,700 but was reduced to 1,662 due to economic problems.

[6 Lexington Ave]

The original order was 1,700 but was reduced to 1,662 due to economic problems.

 

I'm well aware of that. I was just pointing out that having new subway cars is better than running the old ones until their wheels come off... That's what he basically suggested.

[Grand Concourse]

If older cars are maintained properly every few years/decade, then there should be no concerns about 'wheels falling off'. Things are bad, but not 1980s bad.

 

Even if they bought new cars, bad maintenance will mean those cars will end up in poor shape and need to be rebuilt or replaced. 40 years out of any type should be the ideal goal for most stainless steel trains.

[B17EastNewYorkDepot]

at least 20 years my opinion:rock:

 

your opinion is totally irrevalent & unrealistic! point blank .

[Grand Concourse]

They can't afford 2 years! Let alone 20. You must not ride the 7 much. Not only that but the line is currently being extended to 34th street down the west side. That alone is yet another solid case as to why they are needed NOW.

 

Seeing how many months the had to be shut down to be converted to support CBTC, it seems like money down the drain to do this for the . Basically CBTC = Catch a Bus to Corona.

 

As for R62as, If the oldest is 1982/4, then at minimum they should last till 2022/4. That's probably what he meant about keeping R62as around vs swapping them for the R142a=R188s.

[6 Lexington Ave]

Seeing how many months the had to be shut down to be converted to support CBTC, it seems like money down the drain to do this for the . Basically CBTC = Catch a Bus to Corona.

 

As for R62as, If the oldest is 1982/4, then at minimum they should last till 2022/4. That's probably what he meant about keeping R62as around vs swapping them for the R142a=R188s.

 

What he basically suggested is for the system to stop improving, to stop ordering new cars. I'm all for maintaining both new and old cars properly, but eventually everything has to be replaced no matter how well it's maintained. Yes, 40 years should be the limit!

[obregonmichael5]

What he basically suggested is for the system to stop improving, to stop ordering new cars. I'm all for maintaining both new and old cars properly, but eventually everything has to be replaced no matter how well it's maintained. Yes, 40 years should be the limit!

 

I go with you for saying 40 years should be the limit. 50 years would be fine too! (if the R62a's still works good). and when it retires, it retired. i have no clue if the R62a subway car will be in the transit museum or corona yard in the future. but i have to say that the R62a's are the best subways on the

line just like the R36WF's redbirds.

[East New York]

Seeing how many months the had to be shut down to be converted to support CBTC, it seems like money down the drain to do this for the . Basically CBTC = Catch a Bus to Corona.

 

As for R62as, If the oldest is 1982/4, then at minimum they should last till 2022/4. That's probably what he meant about keeping R62as around vs swapping them for the R142a=R188s.

 

No pain, no gain. Now the runs much more frequent and efficient than it did prior to CBTC. I lived in Canarsie at the time, so I was directly affected by the shut downs. The thing I don't understand, and never will, is how people always complain about maintenance and upgrades and how much they are inconvenienced. If you want an efficient system, upgrades need to be made, and maintenance needs to be performed. How does it seem like money down the drain to increase service/capacity on a line that is at max capacity???:confused:

 

As for the R62A, that arguement doesn't really make any sense seeing that they will not be retired anytime soon. They are just going to another line.

[Fan Railer]

I think it's 2 a-cars as the cab cars, 3 b-cars in between those, and 1 c-car in between all that somewhere. A-C-B-B-B-A, perhaps...

 

it's been revealed: A-C-B-B-A + A-B-B-B-C-A

[Grand Concourse]

a-c?-b-b-a? What happened to the original b car? Don't you mean a-b-b-b-a + a-b-b-b-c-a?

 

No pain, no gain. Now the runs much more frequent and efficient than it did prior to CBTC. I lived in Canarsie at the time, so I was directly affected by the shut downs. The thing I don't understand, and never will, is how people always complain about maintenance and upgrades and how much they are inconvenienced. If you want an efficient system, upgrades need to be made, and maintenance needs to be performed. How does it seem like money down the drain to increase service/capacity on a line that is at max capacity???:confused:

 

As for the R62A, that arguement doesn't really make any sense seeing that they will not be retired anytime soon. They are just going to another line.

Of course there will be inconveniences, but I just don't see it being a 'smooth' process especially since the has the meaning merging vs the where it is just a 2 track line. I do agree that computers to track the trains and make them run close together is good, but at what cost just to have a computer replace a t/o? If eastern division wasn't restricted to just 8-car trains, then a 10-car train would've been the ideal way to add capacity to the .

 

I was assuming he thought the R62As were going to be retired when really they are just going to be swapped with the or . If not, then I have no idea what he's trying to say and you'll have to ask him.

[East New York]

a-c?-b-b-a? What happened to the original b car? Don't you mean a-b-b-b-a + a-b-b-b-c-a?

 

 

Of course there will be inconveniences, but I just don't see it being a 'smooth' process especially since the has the meaning merging vs the where it is just a 2 track line. I do agree that computers to track the trains and make them run close together is good, but at what cost just to have a computer replace a t/o? If eastern division wasn't restricted to just 8-car trains, then a 10-car train would've been the ideal way to add capacity to the .

 

I was assuming he thought the R62As were going to be retired when really they are just going to be swapped with the or . If not, then I have no idea what he's trying to say and you'll have to ask him.

 

The computer isn't replacing anyone though, and you do realize that CBTC is almost complete on the right? That's why it's shut down every weekend. It isn't something they are about to start, but rather something that is almost finished.

 

Ok, I see what you were saying about the 62's now.

[Grand Concourse]

All right, fair enough.

[6 Lexington Ave]

The computer isn't replacing anyone though, and you do realize that CBTC is almost complete on the right? That's why it's shut down every weekend. It isn't something they are about to start, but rather something that is almost finished.

Ok, I see what you were saying about the 62's now.

 

Actually, they have a long way to go, as from what I've read the cutover won't be finished before early 2016. It's gonna be a lot more years of work going on...

[m7zanr160s]

it's been revealed: A-C-B-B-A + A-B-B-B-C-A

 

Yeah thanks, I just read that in a PDF, somebody supplied the link.

[obregonmichael5]

the R62a's are still working good:):tup:.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I think the R62a should stay on the line for 30 or 40 more years:). it's a really good subway train and it's safe enough to ride. the should really stop ordering newer cars (it's a waste of money). remember how the ordered alot of R160's, well was losing money so bad, that they lost the and and had to force the employees to stop working for a long while in order to save money. so let the subway run and if it retire's, they should rebuilt it:rock:.

 

The R62As are very good and reliable subway cars, but they are not CBTC- or ATO-capable so they should not stay on the line. They also don't handle the (7)'s heavy rush hour crowds well. And those bucket seats...they gotta go. Too many riders are under the impression that their bodies are made out of Silly Putty and that they can fit their big bodies into those tiny seats and will jam themselves into those seats. Ugh!

[7LineFan]

The R62As are very good and reliable subway cars, but they are not CBTC- or ATO-capable so they should not stay on the line. They also don't handle the (7)'s heavy rush hour crowds well. And those bucket seats...they gotta go. Too many riders are under the impression that their bodies are made out of Silly Putty and that they can fit their big bodies into those tiny seats and will jam themselves into those seats. Ugh!

 

Heh... brings back memories...

[Princelex]

My thing is this, of course the needs NTT's, I think it's obvious, my issue is that the is going to take NTT's off of a line that needs them even more than the does. When they thought of doing this CBTC stuff on the , it should have had new cars for the entire line, not this halfassed job that's happening instead and I don't care how bad the is or was financially cause all of that should have been considered from the start. I think it's bullshit cause when the R62A's come back on the it's going to be a nightmare from a workers P.O.V. let alone from a passenger standpoint. The whole project, CBTC on the and all, is disaster written all over it in IMO.

[Fan Railer]

a-c?-b-b-a? What happened to the original b car? Don't you mean a-b-b-b-a + a-b-b-b-c-a?

 

 

Read the pdf link supplied a few posts ago: http://mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/120227_1400_CPOC.pdf

 

on another note: what is the point of having a tachometer on the C cars, and what would they measure, specifically speaking?

[DJ MC]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Guest lance25]

My thing is this, of course the needs NTT's, I think it's obvious, my issue is that the is going to take NTT's off of a line that needs them even more than the does. When they thought of doing this CBTC stuff on the , it should have had new cars for the entire line, not this halfassed job that's happening instead and I don't care how bad the is or was financially cause all of that should have been considered from the start. I think it's bullshit cause when the R62A's come back on the it's going to be a nightmare from a workers P.O.V. let alone from a passenger standpoint. The whole project, CBTC on the and all, is disaster written all over it in IMO.

 

I get where you're coming from, but the problem is that if they did order enough NTTs for the line as well as the redbirds back in the '90s, there would either be an enormous surplus of R62As around or said cars would've been retired. Neither one of those options are any better then the one the agency is doing now. Putting those cars on reserve or simply retiring them after just over a decade or so in service would be one of the stupidest and costliest mistakes the agency could possibly make.

 

The only other option would be to wait until the R62As reach their retirement age in another decade or so, depending on their performance, but that would be a disservice to the riders who have to deal with that line. It's damn near tantamount to giving them the middle finger or saying "yeah, we get that the line's overcrowded and all that, but we simply don't care. Call us in 2025 when the cars are up for replacement. Until then, deal with it."

 

Yeah, it's gonna be difficult and quite a change for those used to the R142As on the (or , depending on exactly where the cars are coming from) to have to go back to the R62As, but besides the current way they're handling this, there aren't any other options to deal with the Flushing problem with anything resembling immediacy.