Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
East New York

R188 Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

amen..........and pple dont wanna pay higher fares so your not gonna have the man power to clean them anyhow

 

Yup. Can't expect more with less. People don't want higher fares, then they can't expect much improvement.

And besides.... why transfer cars with EXP/LCL led indictors to a line that doesn't need them?

 

While that is true, the only way having those 'modified' R62As on lines like the (3) won't matter is: if the (6) stays mostly R142/As and the (4) getting back its R62s from the (3). But that would add in another line to deal with and wouldn't make much sense.

 

So point remains that right now it's most likely the (4) and/or (6) that will give up their R142As to the (7) for the R62As.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

I'm with you on this, Grand Concourse. The 51-foot cars just don't handle the (7)<7> crowds well. Yesterday, the day after the blizzard, was a prime example. Between the absence of express service, reduced headways and constant door-holding, the (7) was a nightmare yesterday morning. At least if the cars were 60 feet each with four exit doors per side, people might have had an easier time getting on and off and the trains wouldn't have stayed in the stations so long. They really should find a way to run 60-foot cars on the (7). They don't have to be wider (because they can't get wider due to the Steinway Tunnel), but longer. A 10-car train of 60-footers (600 feet) carries more people than an 11-car train of 51-footers (561 feet).

 

Plus, if they procured a new fleet of 60-foot cars for the (7), they could get them with CBTC technology already installed and not have to send R142As back to Kawasaki for CBTC retrofitting and not have to risk angering certain riders by putting the R62As back on lines that currently have R142As.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm with you on this, Grand Concourse. The 51-foot cars just don't handle the (7)<7> crowds well. Yesterday, the day after the blizzard, was a prime example. Between the absence of express service, reduced headways and constant door-holding, the (7) was a nightmare yesterday morning. At least if the cars were 60 feet each with four exit doors per side, people might have had an easier time getting on and off and the trains wouldn't have stayed in the stations so long. They really should find a way to run 60-foot cars on the (7). They don't have to be wider (because they can't get wider due to the Steinway Tunnel), but longer. A 10-car train of 60-footers (600 feet) carries more people than an 11-car train of 51-footers (561 feet).

 

Plus, if they procured a new fleet of 60-foot cars for the (7), they could get them with CBTC technology already installed and not have to send R142As back to Kawasaki for CBTC retrofitting and not have to risk angering certain riders by putting the R62As back on lines that currently have R142As.

some of the platform dont go as far as 600ft on the (7) line.When the R62s were first delieverd they thought about making it 4 ft longer,but all of the IRT lines couldnt support it cause of the sharp turns and narrow tunnels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
some of the platform dont go as far as 600ft on the (7) line.When the R62s were first delieverd they thought about making it 4 ft longer,but all of the IRT lines couldnt support it cause of the sharp turns and narrow tunnels.

 

That's true, but it's certainly not impossible to lengthen the (7)'s platforms to 600 feet. Originally, most BMT stations could not handle 600-foot trains. But in the 60s, the TA expanded the platforms on the Broadway subway line and the Southern Division lines (4th Avenue, Brighton, Sea Beach and West End) to handle 600-foot trains. That was a much larger-scale project than an expansion of Flushing Line platforms would be, especially because there were a lot more underground BMT stations that had to be expanded.

 

By the way, wasn't the TA considering making the R62s 63 feet long? I recall reading that on Dave Pirmann's site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's true, but it's certainly not impossible to lengthen the (7)'s platforms to 600 feet. Originally, most BMT stations could not handle 600-foot trains. But in the 60s, the TA expanded the platforms on the Broadway subway line and the Southern Division lines (4th Avenue, Brighton, Sea Beach and West End) to handle 600-foot trains. That was a much larger-scale project than an expansion of Flushing Line platforms would be, especially because there were a lot more underground BMT stations that had to be expanded.

 

By the way, wasn't the TA considering making the R62s 63 feet long? I recall reading that on Dave Pirmann's site.

 

I think so not sure,but i do know they were thinking about making it a bit longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
some of the platform dont go as far as 600ft on the (7) line.When the R62s were first delieverd they thought about making it 4 ft longer,but all of the IRT lines couldnt support it cause of the sharp turns and narrow tunnels.

 

Then again, concidering the (7) is isolated from the other lines: does it really matter that it must use the same cars as its mainline cousins? I think the (7) would be fine if it used exclusive cars that better suits (7) service than the limitations of the current IRT cars.

The other option would be to increase the platform length to 612'~ to allow 12-car trains to run on the (7). That way it runs an even number of cars and you can have fixed 6-car sets rather than a 5+6 group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So point remains that right now it's most likely the (4) and/or (6) that will give up their R142As to the (7) for the R62As.

It's a 100% chance the (4) will lose 7731-7810 since that is the Supplement and I believe it has that CBTC kit or whatever installed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a 100% chance the (4) will lose 7731-7810 since that is the Supplement and I believe it has that CBTC kit or whatever installed.

 

I was just about to post that untill I just seen your post.

 

If anything the (6) will give R142As to the (4) since the Lex Express is already 100% NTT and the (4)(5) share cars during the 149th Street-Bowling Green G.Os, so keeping the (4) 100% NTT is a must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just about to post that untill I just seen your post.

 

If anything the (6) will give R142As to the (4) since the Lex Express is already 100% NTT and the (4)(5) share cars during the 149th Street-Bowling Green G.Os, so keeping the (4) 100% NTT is a must.

 

Not Really, the (6) is more of a Line that needs NTT than the (4) the (4) doesn't go around a loop like the (6), it would be smart to have the (6) half and Half

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The R62As have those LED lcl/exp signs. So it's not like they need to use the <6> signs.

 

I still think the whole (6) shouldn't run R62A's thing is just being overstated. The (6) ran them for ~15 years. It's not a big deal for the (6) to run them again. That plus there will still be some R142As left since the (6) has more trains than the (7) and the (7) won't be taking them all due to the R188s being ordered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be like 5-10 sets leftover if im not mistaken. So waiting for a R142A would be a very long wait l0l for those foamers. However the (6) might lose those sets to the (4).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 more months we will start seeing R142A's on the (7)<7> right?

 

according to schedule yes... but then again, when does anything ever go according to schedule here in NYC??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The R62As have those LED lcl/exp signs. So it's not like they need to use the <6> signs.

 

I still think the whole (6) shouldn't run R62A's thing is just being overstated. The (6) ran them for ~15 years. It's not a big deal for the (6) to run them again. That plus there will still be some R142As left since the (6) has more trains than the (7) and the (7) won't be taking them all due to the R188s being ordered.

 

If this happens Half and Half, From what I see I think we might see the some of the same thing before 2000, meaning the R62's (1/4 of them) returning to the (4) from the (3) and give the (3) the singles back, We might see the old assignments again I think that's whats going to happen if you think of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MTA is not going to give a yard a mixed fleet if they don't have to. The 6 is most likely to recieve the R62As from the 7 because the R62As are already set up with modifications for 6 service, and the R62As from the 7 are similar in quantity to the R142As on the 6, so there can be a 1 for 1 swap. R62s have no problems running around loops, so I have no idea why anyone would think that is a problem. There would still be some R142As assigned to the 6, but that shouldn't be a problem.

 

NO R142s have CBTC installed, so it shouldnt matter what group cars they send out. That said, I would expect them to either go from the top down, or lowest number up, when converting R142s to R188s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this was asked so forgive me it was but don't you all think it would cost more to rebuild R142A cars than to just buy all new R188 cars? It just sounds like what the (MTA) is doing is spending more than they need to, even if it comes from a different budget. What do I know, I'm just a straphanger. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if this was asked so forgive me it was but don't you all think it would cost more to rebuild R142A cars than to just buy all new R188 cars? It just sounds like what the (MTA) is doing is spending more than they need to, even if it comes from a different budget. What do I know, I'm just a straphanger. lol

 

No not at all. In fact the TA is saving a few hundred million dollars. The cars arent being rebuilt. They are just being retrofitted with CBTC technology. So essentially, they will only have to pay for parts and labor. All future trains will be CBTC ready straight from the factory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest lance25

Well, I guess that answers that. Do you have any idea of when this switch is to take place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought I'd jump into this thread.

 

I have been told from an excellent source that our speculations are true: R62As are coming to the 6 train. In the future, approximately three sets of R142As will be removed from the 6 and replaced with R62A cars from the 7 train. At the moment, no more than three sets can be confirmed in a switch.

 

I was also told something that may raise a few eyebrows:

 

A slight problem in the conversion has arisen, I've been told. A set of R142As has been outfitted with CBTC: the set, however, is performing quite badly. Teething problems, yes, but the test phase is being increased to understand what's going on. This has raised qualms amongst TSSes regarding the new R188s as pure retrofit cars, and has delayed the process. Purely what I've been told, again.

 

Hope this will help understand some of what's going on in the way of equipment changes in the future.

 

Where is that set testing?

Share this post


Link to post
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.