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.
INDman

R32 Fleet Swap Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, bwwnyc123 said:

Yes mta first said they would put (C) with full length trains to helped (L) riders. Then they realized full length (C) is not really needed because riders prefer to the (A) instead.

You realize full length is just simply postponed, not discontinued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bwwnyc123 said:

Riders from (L) could transfer to lines other than (A)(C) .

Also NTT's are faster than older cars you all are too dumb to see that.

From my experiences, I would say the non NTT cars are faster. I feel that r32 and r46(A) is faster than the r179 (A).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, whz1995 said:

From my experiences, I would say the non NTT cars are faster. I feel that r32 and r46(A) is faster than the r179 (A).

The pre NTT cars don't have air bag suspension, and the sound proofing isn't as good, so they feel faster than they are. I know for sure the 179s are faster on the flats than the 32s & 46s, as I tracked the speed on all three fleets on my GPS app.

 

 

If the SMEE's still had their field shunting, they probably could hold their own speed wise against the tech trains. I think the Staten Island R44's still have field shunting and those accelerate far faster than any of the SMEE's in the current fleet and probably have the same acceleration rates, if not better than the NTT. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NTTs and SMEEs should theoretically all accelerate at the same rate. They all are designed to meet the same tractive effort curve because they all interact with the same signal system. Differences in performance between the fleets (which, mind you, are extant) stem from the type of traction control used on each. NTTs use AC, which essentially allows cars to provide exactly as much tractive effort as the accel curve specifies, whereas the rheostatic DC control systems used on older cars allow less precision control and, through their post-1995 modifications, are prone to lowballing tractive effort. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 6:53 AM, Jemorie said:

I know that. Dan05979, one of the transit employees who posts on the forums from time to time, explained that a little while ago in this thread, particularly.

However, the problem I have with the (MTA) is that on their 2017 Subway Action Plan, they stated that the (C) will become full-length, particularly for the (L) shutdown. And then comes along Andrew Cuomo, who had the nerve to step in last minute to see if the original proposed full-time 15 month (L) shutdown was worthwhile. Pissed me off too, since that was a pretty slick and snide move in an attempt to make himself look good. In general though, if the (MTA) didn’t want the (C) to be full-length, they could have just said so like they first did in their full review of the (A) and (C) lines released back in December 2015. Instead, the agency tends to lack common sense a lot most of the time and constantly changing their minds every now and then.

The current R179 issues plus the cancellation of the L shutdown is the reason why the (C) isn't full length yet. Plus the R32's are being sms'ed at 207th st.

They are playing it safe right now since there's another major flaw with the R179's as well. 

 

It's better to iron out all the issues first, then make decisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

The current R179 issues plus the cancellation of the L shutdown is the reason why the (C) isn't full length yet. Plus the R32's are being sms'ed at 207th st.

They are playing it safe right now since there's another major flaw with the R179's as well. 

 

It's better to iron out all the issues first, then make decisions. 

R179 issues don't have much to do with the (C)'s length -- much more the (L)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RR503 said:

R179 issues don't have much to do with the (C)'s length -- much more the (L)

It actually does, in order for the (C) to go full length, you need extra cars. 

The extra cars (R179's) are having numerous problems. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

The current R179 issues plus the cancellation of the L shutdown is the reason why the (C) isn't full length yet. Plus the R32's are being sms'ed at 207th st.

They are playing it safe right now since there's another major flaw with the R179's as well. 

 

It's better to iron out all the issues first, then make decisions. 

There's still problems? What are the current flaws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

It actually does, in order for the (C) to go full length, you need extra cars. 

The extra cars (R179's) are having numerous problems. 

 

There is only one 10 car set R179 now, and hopefully we will have another set by the end of this month. And I heard that R179 8 car set cannot be converted to 10 car set. So the problem now is simply the TA does not have enough cars. The only way they can go now is to have R32 10 car set.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

It actually does, in order for the (C) to go full length, you need extra cars. 

The extra cars (R179's) are having numerous problems. 

There are enough 179s in service to make the (C) full length at this point; they are having some issues, but not to the extent (I believe) that they cannot make service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RR503 said:

There are enough 179s in service to make the (C) full length at this point; they are having some issues, but not to the extent (I believe) that they cannot make service.

The weld defects in the collision columns are not anything that impact the structural integrity or strength of the R179s, right? At least that's what I saw online about that latest problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (C) wasn’t officially planned for full length trains because of the R179 surplus. With the (L) origami plan, the (C) was going to be assigned majority of R46’s while the (A) would’ve been dominated by R32’s. The full length (C) will come when R211’s arrive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full length (C)s will come when the money arrives...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VIP said:

The (C) wasn’t officially planned for full length trains because of the R179 surplus. With the (L) original plan, the (C) was going to be assigned majority of R46’s while the (A) would’ve been dominated by R32’s. The full length (C) will come when R211’s arrive. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, VIP said:

 

The (C) was gonna go full length regardless. You See all those new buildings going up on the west side. That = More ridership.

 

The (C) was planned to go 600 feet in 2010 with R46's but the R44 issues and retirement shelved that plan. 

 

So it's not because of the (L) shutdown. 

MTA had this planned for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the most recent iteration of the full length (C) plan, the (C) was going full length for the (L) shutdown. What exact fleets were going to be used for that operation is frankly immaterial to that question, as it was the movement of the (L) shutdown to weekends -- and thus the fact that MTA couldn't charge the marginal cost of full length (C)s to the capital budget -- that killed it, not some re-assortment of B division cars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had the R44s been kept while the R32s and R42s were thrown out the window at last, the (C) would have easily been full length using R44s and R46s in 2009 or 2010.

They were able to succeed in making it 100% full length 600 feet long in the Summers of both 2011 and 2012 with the infamous R32 (A) / R46 (C) swap, but not without eating into some cars from both Jamaica and East New York, respectively, shorting the spare car factors for both yards. Which is why two to three sets of R42s (30 cars total) also ran on the (A) in addition to non-Pitkin assigned R46s from Jamaica because all current 222 R32s from 207th Street at the time were just not enough to cover half of the (A)’s fleet. In 2010, there were an extra 28 R32s but they have since scrapped them (the 8 cars stored at Fresh Pond in a shellnut) or now used them for work service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

R32s do a bit better and R42s on their last legs.

47081073724_0313f56674_o.pngScreen Shot 2019-05-17 at 2.27.57 PM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

While the R42 numbers don't shock me, how did the 68s do so poorly while the 68As are fine? 

Also, have the R62s been getting smsed? That's a pretty good increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

While the R42 numbers don't shock me, how did the 68s do so poorly while the 68As are fine? 

Also, have the R62s been getting smsed? That's a pretty good increase.

The 68s run 24/7 while the 68As are weekday only mainly on the (B) and (W) .

 

Also there's an R46 on the (C) today 

 

  • Thanks 1

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.