Fleet Swap Discussion Thread

[T J Trainman]

Thank you John.

[Calvin]

18 hours ago, T J Trainman said:

Was 2156-2160 sent from the 1 to the 6? I could have sworn I saw them on Wednesday on the 6 line.

From the numbers mentioned, you might have seen 2456-2460. 2465 is the last R62A out of Westchester for now. 

[T J Trainman]

Thanks Calvin.

[VIP]

On 8/30/2020 at 9:49 PM, Calvin said:

From the numbers mentioned, you might have seen 2456-2460. 2465 is the last R62A out of Westchester for now. 

Speaking of which, the ’s R62A’s are STILL FILTHY at the bonnets. It’s gotten so bad that the pantograph gates are BLACKENED. 🤦🏼‍♂️ 

[vioreen]

Could an 8 car train be converted to a 10 car train or the other way around ?

[Vulturious]

3 minutes ago, vioreen said:

Could an 8 car train be converted to a 10 car train or the other way around ?

I think it was easy for SMEE cars, but I doubt it would be for NTT cars. If it was easy, I would want the R143's to be transferred for  service, which would never happen, period. But would be nice to have the R143 that isn't assigned for East New York.

[R10 2952]

On 9/1/2020 at 4:46 PM, VIP said:

Speaking of which, the ’s R62A’s are STILL FILTHY at the bonnets. It’s gotten so bad that the pantograph gates are BLACKENED. 🤦🏼‍♂️ 

Filthy cars on the  are an ancient tradition LOL:

 

[Vulturious]

1 hour ago, R10 2952 said:

Filthy cars on the  are an ancient tradition LOL:

 

In all honesty, what the  should because of the recent graffiti's, they should let graffiti artists to spray paint wraps for them to use and display on the trains. The plain steel look is just bland, sure on the NTT's they are futuristic or at least modern looking, but there needs to be some sort of change with them.  has gone ahead and decided to do sponsored wraps such as YouTube back when Epic Rap Battle used to actually do them, Target, etc. So why not let Graffiti artists? It is inevitable that graffiti can be found on trains, we have seen a few videos and/or pictures.  

[trainfan22]

59 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

In all honesty, what the  should because of the recent graffiti's, they should let graffiti artists to spray paint wraps for them to use and display on the trains. The plain steel look is just bland, sure on the NTT's they are futuristic or at least modern looking, but there needs to be some sort of change with them.  has gone ahead and decided to do sponsored wraps such as YouTube back when Epic Rap Battle used to actually do them, Target, etc. So why not let Graffiti artists? It is inevitable that graffiti can be found on trains, we have seen a few videos and/or pictures.  

No go. Graffiti covered trains represent bad time in NYCT history that they would like to forget.

 

Also people would still illegally tag the trains even if the TA had an graffiti art program... Just like there's still subway performers like Showtime dancers and random singers/poets/rappers that do their own thing and is NOT apart of the "Arts for transit" program.

Edited September 3, 2020 by trainfan22

[Vulturious]

26 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

No go. Graffiti covered trains represent bad time in NYCT history that they would like to forget.

 

Also people would still illegally tag the trains even if the TA had an graffiti art program... Just like there's still subway performers like Showtime dancers and random singers/poets/rappers that do their own thing and is NOT apart of the "Arts for transit" program.

Well I did say, "It is inevitable that graffiti can be found on trains" and you saying that basically proves my point. I know it's not as much Graffiti as it was back then in either the 70s or 80s (can't remember which), but it would be nice change in looks to the NYC Subway. I completely understand where you're coming from, I just strongly feel something needs change visually since trains are bland as f***.

[trainfan22]

48 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

Well I did say, "It is inevitable that graffiti can be found on trains" and you saying that basically proves my point. I know it's not as much Graffiti as it was back then in either the 70s or 80s (can't remember which), but it would be nice change in looks to the NYC Subway. I completely understand where you're coming from, I just strongly feel something needs change visually since trains are bland as f***.

The Cuomo wrap adds some colors to the trains.. That's probably the best were gonna get for a long time. Railfans in the 60s and early 70s had it good with all the subway cars with different paint schemes.

 

I have seen some non railfans say they like the R46 interior over the NTT interior cause of the colors and coziness.

 

 

To me, the NTT would still be bland compared to SMEE/Prewar cars even if they were colorful, those Cuomo 160s aren't any cooler than the regular R160s, just my opinion.

[MTA Bus]

On 9/1/2020 at 7:46 PM, VIP said:

Speaking of which, the ’s R62A’s are STILL FILTHY at the bonnets. It’s gotten so bad that the pantograph gates are BLACKENED. 🤦🏼‍♂️ 

Well, whe you have trains that run 24/7 and your yard has no wash, it's bound to happen

[4P3607]

9 hours ago, MTA Bus said:

Well, whe you have trains that run 24/7 and your yard has no wash, it's bound to happen

 

On 9/1/2020 at 7:46 PM, VIP said:

Speaking of which, the ’s R62A’s are STILL FILTHY at the bonnets. It’s gotten so bad that the pantograph gates are BLACKENED. 🤦🏼‍♂️ 

I remember someone mentioning that the Line's R62A fleet gets washed at 207 Street yard however that wash is designed for B-Division sized cars thus the brushes don't reach all the way to the sides & ends of the car. 

(This is what I've observed being mentioned before. Open to clarification on this)

[trainfan22]

There's an R68A out and about today, however its signed up 57th-Midtown. Safe to say that not all of the R68/68A have the 96th street readings on their rollsign, that's probably the reason why 68s are so rare on the compared to the other CI lines.

 

I wish they would refit ALL of the CI R68/68A with the 96th Street readings but budget is the reason they haven't done that I'm assuming.

Edited September 4, 2020 by trainfan22

[danielhg121]

5 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

There's an R68A out and about today, however its signed up 57th-Midtown. Safe to say that not all of the R68/68A have the 96th street readings on their rollsign, that's probably the reason why 68s are so rare on the compared to the other CI lines.

 

I wish they would refit ALL of the CI R68/68A with the 96th Street readings but budget is the reason they haven't done that I'm assuming.

Nah, I doubt it’s a budget issue as much as it is a lack of priority. Does it affect the trains ability to run? No. It’s not a pressing issue that needs to be fixed ASAP. I assume when the train gets routine maintenance, they may inspect the rollsigns as well, other than that, it’ll continue displaying 57th-7th Ave. Doesn’t the 96th rollsign just replace one of the previous existing terminals? Can’t imagine it being all that expensive.

[Calvin]

What I've noticed in difference of the  to 96 St-2 Av and to Hudson Yards: There are some R68/As that'll have the signage but back when the was still using R62As at that time (it's a yes to all). Almost all but most R62As have the 34 St-Hudson Yards readings. 

Edited September 5, 2020 by Calvin

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 9/3/2020 at 4:04 PM, R10 2952 said:

Filthy cars on the  are an ancient tradition LOL:

 

I remember those days well, even though I was a small child then.

[Vulturious]

30 minutes ago, Calvin said:

What I've noticed in difference of the  to 96 St-2 Av and to Hudson Yards: There are some R68/As that'll have the signage but back when the was still using R62As at that time (it's a yes to all). Almost all but most R62As have the 34 St-Hudson Yards readings. 

That is because those trains needed to be updated to have 34 St-Hudson Yard because it's all being used on the  and no where else. The R68/A's don't really need to because at the time, most of them were either being used for the , , , and  which have different terminals. They aren't stuck being on 1 line like the R68's on the  or the R62A's on the .

[Bill from Maspeth]

20 hours ago, danielhg121 said:

Nah, I doubt it’s a budget issue as much as it is a lack of priority. Does it affect the trains ability to run? No. It’s not a pressing issue that needs to be fixed ASAP. I assume when the train gets routine maintenance, they may inspect the rollsigns as well, other than that, it’ll continue displaying 57th-7th Ave. Doesn’t the 96th rollsign just replace one of the previous existing terminals? Can’t imagine it being all that expensive.

From my experience working there, once NYCT gets enough complaints/nasty letter from a politician from the UES, R68/68A's w/o 96/2 on their sign rolls will be upgraded.  All they have to do is put inside and outside stickers on the roll onto a terminal not needed.  IIRC, when the put 145 St. on the roll signs they did the same thing and covered up a terminal they did not need.

[MarkGuy]

On 9/4/2020 at 1:45 AM, MTA Bus said:

Well, whe you have trains that run 24/7 and your yard has no wash, it's bound to happen

Not sure bout the A div but most of the six major b div yards do in fact have car washes. The 1 uses the car wash at 207 Yard via the IRT flyover by 207 St Station.

 

 

[1train2255railfan]

On 9/4/2020 at 9:09 PM, Vulturious said:

That is because those trains needed to be updated to have 34 St-Hudson Yard because it's all being used on the  and no where else. The R68/A's don't really need to because at the time, most of them were either being used for the , , , and  which have different terminals. They aren't stuck being on 1 line like the R68's on the  or the R62A's on the .

True, but the R62As on the  were an interesting case since they were being transferred to the  at the time. 

[MHV9218]

15 hours ago, 1train2255railfan said:

True, but the R62As on the  were an interesting case since they were being transferred to the  at the time. 

Was also interesting that the MTA (rightly) used Akzidenz-Grotesk for a rollsign for the first time in thirty years.

[R10 2952]

1 hour ago, MHV9218 said:

Was also interesting that the MTA (rightly) used Akzidenz-Grotesk for a rollsign for the first time in thirty years.

Of all the fonts they've used on rollsigns and other signage in the last few decades, the condensed version of Akzidenz was definitely the most interesting to me; they used to have  it on the R62 (not R62As) rollsigns for the - '242nd-Broadway-VanCortlandt' or something similar, all on one line.  Completely out of left field compared to other fonts/formats LOL...

[MHV9218]

1 hour ago, R10 2952 said:

Of all the fonts they've used on rollsigns and other signage in the last few decades, the condensed version of Akzidenz was definitely the most interesting to me; they used to have  it on the R62 (not R62As) rollsigns for the - '242nd-Broadway-VanCortlandt' or something similar, all on one line.  Completely out of left field compared to other fonts/formats LOL...

Once upon a time that font was in a lot of use, interestingly. The pre-1979 replacement rollsigns for the IRT were almost entirely condensed Akzidenz on the front destination, and a number of condensed Akzidenz readings on the north and south side destinations. 9069 has one of the side destinations – you can recognize it as the roll with a backwards 'q' in Qu'ens. Very few of those rolls survived. Then you had a number of condensed readings on pre- and post-1979 route rolls, as well as nearly all condensed Akzidenz for the R44/R46 side rolls and R40/R42 front rolls in the early 80s.

[trainfan22]

Today at 42nd street S/B there's was CI bound 2xxx R68 and in the station at the same time! For me it was foam worthy cause the R68/68A are my favorite trains based out of CI Yard. Yet I hardly ever get them.

 

 

BTW this R68 set DID have the 96th street rollsign.