Number crunch: R142A MDBF downward trend

[MHV9218]

I was looking at this month's report and again the R142A has the distinct honor of being the only non-CBTC NTT train to experience a MDBF of five figures rather than six. In fact, this year's numbers are worse than those of than R46 (93,634), which is about three decades older. So I went digging for some of the recent numbers on the equipment's performance, and the numbers are not great. Here's what it shows over the past ten years.

 

Yearly Data:

2004: 193,413

2005: 247,983

2006: 202,358

2007: 159,139

2008: 132,910

2009: 146,526

2010: 117,881

2011: 134,503

 

Past Years, In-Depth:

1/12: 124,518

4/12: 113,338

9/12: 110,680

11/12: 109,396

12/12: 108,671

1/13: 110,401

3/13: 119,541

4/13: 122,572

9/13: 110,262

11/13: 110,091

12/13: 108,548

1/14: 104,956

3/14: 93,279

4/14: 87,203

 

Now, anybody who's talked with a Lex TSS knows what a toll that line takes on equipment and employees alike. The Jerome is no walk in the park either. But these numbers are not good for cars that are, at their oldest, 15 years old. And the trend is getting worse. The solution is probably, as often is the case, to pour more money into maintenance and rehabilitation, but that's easier said than acquired and done. It's an interesting problem.

[Tomtoon]

And with the r142a's conversions would it be the same or would they come under the r188's? Surely they would be classed as r142a's as they aren't brand new cars?

 

The conversion sets will probably just be as low number as the 7 line is pretty heavily used also right?

[RollOver]

And with the r142a's conversions would it be the same or would they come under the r188's? Surely they would be classed as r142a's as they aren't brand new cars?

 

The conversion sets will probably just be as low number as the 7 line is pretty heavily used also right?

 

Yes, most of the R142As at Westchester will be remodeled to R188s as part of the Line CBTC.

[Tomtoon]

Yes, most of the R142As at Westchester will be remodeled to R188s as part of the Line CBTC.

Sorry I think I misworded the question.

 

I am saying the converted r142a's on the MBDF surely they would still be classed under the r142a not r188? Purely because they would be a lot older?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yeah well the likes to buy new and then run the equipment into the ground and then think about taking care of it.  Really a waste of money. They also need to do a better job cleaning.  They buy new trains and buses, let them become FILTHY from lack of cleaning and care, and then there's a wonder as to why the new trains and buses age so quickly.  Shouldn't be a shocker...

[4P3607]

The R188 conversion sets on the didn't seem to get any sort of cosmetic treatment. They didn't even clean the train before they put it into service.

[Lance]

You won't get any arguments on the lack of cleanliness. However, dirty cars don't inhibit their function.

 

Now, is this a lack of maintenance or is it the overtaxing nature of the lines these cars serve. For the record, all of the NTTs' MDBFs are down significantly from last year. The 143s "lead" the pack with a drop of just over 32 percent from last year with the 160s 28 percent less reliable since 2013. It's of note that the only cars to perform better over the past 12 months or so are the 46s (+8%), 42s (+16%) and the 62s (+33%). While it's nice to see the older cars holding up over the years, it's a disturbing trend, to say the least, to see cars that should be well within the prime of their operational lives performing so poorly.

[R62AR33]

 

 

You won't get any arguments on the lack of cleanliness. However, dirty cars don't inhibit their function.

 

Now, is this a lack of maintenance or is it the overtaxing nature of the lines these cars serve. For the record, all of the NTTs' MDBFs are down significantly from last year. The 143s "lead" the pack with a drop of just over 32 percent from last year with the 160s 28 percent less reliable since 2013. It's of note that the only cars to perform better over the past 12 months or so are the 46s (+8%), 42s (+16%) and the 62s (+33%). While it's nice to see the older cars holding up over the years, it's a disturbing trend, to say the least, to see cars that should be well within the prime of their operational lives performing so poorly.

As for the R143s thats likely due to cbtc, as for the R160s it has to be poor maitainance but also that they are very overused so they might not be holding up well... Now as for R142A's in Westchester's case most likely since they are loosing their cars to flushing they frankly don't care about them anymore so they let them get beat up and Jeromes sets are maintainted better but take huge beatings on the

[RollOver]

As for the R143s thats likely due to cbtc, as for the R160s it has to be poor maitainance but also that they are very overused so they might not be holding up well... Now as for R142A's in Westchester's case most likely since they are loosing their cars to flushing they frankly don't care about them anymore so they let them get beat up and Jeromes sets are maintainted better but take huge beatings on the

 

Simply put, any full-time line will obviously have their breakdown rates higher, the especially since it uses the second oldest cars in the system (not counting those remaining 48 R42 cars). However, it most certainly doesn't stop the fact that they're still relatively reliable on the inside. The very same thing applies to the R142s, R142As, R143s and R160s. If there are any maintenance issues, then efforts should be made to solve those maintaince issues.

 

I doubt that just because many of those R142As are being transfered to the , Westchester will refuse to maintain the fleet so they can still run reliable while they are on the . Sorry if this second sentence was worded poorly. 

 

 

Sorry I think I misworded the question.

 

I am saying the converted r142a's on the MBDF surely they would still be classed under the r142a not r188? Purely because they would be a lot older?

 

Not quite I guess. Remember both the converted cars and the newer cars are modeled as R188s, so its more likely that they wouldn't really still be classified as R142As.

[MacAlert]

The R188 conversion sets on the didn't seem to get any sort of cosmetic treatment. They didn't even clean the train before they put it into service.

 

Yea, it's pretty nasty in the converted set. All the crap on the seats from running on the 4/5/6 is still there.

[trainfan22]

You won't get any arguments on the lack of cleanliness. However, dirty cars don't inhibit their function.

 

Now, is this a lack of maintenance or is it the overtaxing nature of the lines these cars serve. For the record, all of the NTTs' MDBFs are down significantly from last year. The 143s "lead" the pack with a drop of just over 32 percent from last year with the 160s 28 percent less reliable since 2013. It's of note that the only cars to perform better over the past 12 months or so are the 46s (+8%), 42s (+16%) and the 62s (+33%). While it's nice to see the older cars holding up over the years, it's a disturbing trend, to say the least, to see cars that should be well within the prime of their operational lives performing so poorly.

This past harsh winter might have something to do with the NTT fleet dropping.. I remember that blizzard four or five years ago caused the MDBF on the 160s to drop for the month of December that year.

[m7zanr160s]

How is the MBDF calculated? Is it the miles accumulated by a fleet until just one car fails...? Is it the average distance a set travels before it fails...? I'm curious about that.

[R62AR33]

Simply put, any full-time line will obviously have their breakdown rates higher, the especially since it uses the second oldest cars in the system (not counting those remaining 48 R42 cars). However, it most certainly doesn't stop the fact that they're still relatively reliable on the inside. The very same thing applies to the R142s, R142As, R143s and R160s. If there are any maintenance issues, then efforts should be made to solve those maintaince issues.

 

I doubt that just because many of those R142As are being transfered to the , Westchester will refuse to maintain the fleet so they can still run reliable while they are on the . Sorry if this second sentence was worded poorly. 

 

 

 

Not quite I guess. Remember both the converted cars and the newer cars are modeled as R188s, so its more likely that they wouldn't really still be classified as R142As.

Iv been told that since Westchester are loosing the majority of their R142A"s to the they dont care anymore about them, they let them get beat up and destroyed since they know that wont be their problem anymore , as well  that all they care about is mainaining their R62A's and the small amount of R142A's that they are keeping.

[Tomtoon]

Not quite I guess. Remember both the converted cars and the newer cars are modeled as R188s, so its more likely that they wouldn't really still be classified as R142As.

If that's true it wouldn't be an accurate reflection though would it?

 

As some of the cars are 10 years plus some a few months old...

[RTOPRO]

The numbers, especially the drop off starting between last year and now has everything to do with the fact that the cars expected to be turned over to the 7 line are receiving major truck work to improve performance and reduce the heavy bucking experienced during the beginning of acceleration. Even after the work is done the cars are returned to the 6 line for service until their turn comes for shipment to Kawasaki for 188 conversion.

 

Now in order to understand why they are doing the work you have to understand what's causing the bucking. The bucking is caused by a lack of synchronization of brake release and power motion between the individual cars. Some cars are releasing brake sooner than others and attempting to power through the brake hold of other cars.

 

Now the truck work is an attempt to level the problem out by getting all of the cars to maintain the same consistency of not powering up until all cars have released brakes. However this is causing an increase of stuck brake reporting. But that is something they are willing to deal with in the interim because the cars are supposed to receive additional work at Yonkers anyway for the conversion in hopes that the reliability issues will be resolved in it's 188 life. 

[Ethan777]

How is MDBF calculated exactly? Does every train have an odometer in them or something? So many trains' travelling distance to keep track off..how is it done?

[Andrew]

The numbers, especially the drop off starting between last year and now has everything to do with the fact that the cars expected to be turned over to the 7 line are receiving major truck work to improve performance and reduce the heavy bucking experienced during the beginning of acceleration. Even after the work is done the cars are returned to the 6 line for service until their turn comes for shipment to Kawasaki for 188 conversion.

 

Now in order to understand why they are doing the work you have to understand what's causing the bucking. The bucking is caused by a lack of synchronization of brake release and power motion between the individual cars. Some cars are releasing brake sooner than others and attempting to power through the brake hold of other cars.

 

Now the truck work is an attempt to level the problem out by getting all of the cars to maintain the same consistency of not powering up until all cars have released brakes. However this is causing an increase of stuck brake reporting. But that is something they are willing to deal with in the interim because the cars are supposed to receive additional work at Yonkers anyway for the conversion in hopes that the reliability issues will be resolved in it's 188 life. 

When the A cars have traction motors and the B cars don't, that is the result you will get. The 160s and the 188s have motors in every car so you get a much more fluid release. With the 142s, one car is pulling while one is pushing, it is akin to having a SMEE train with several dead motors. Why the TA wanted this in the first place knowing the problems they would cause is beyond me.

[MHV9218]

When the A cars have traction motors and the B cars don't, that is the result you will get. The 160s and the 188s have motors in every car so you get a much more fluid release. With the 142s, one car is pulling while one is pushing, it is akin to having a SMEE train with several dead motors. Why the TA wanted this in the first place knowing the problems they would cause is beyond me.

 

I was always under the impressions that the bucking was only an issue in the Kawasaki R142As, as Bombardier fitted their sets such that the brakes would all release at once and the issue of a braked-set being pushed or pulled with a jerk would not be an issue. Is the bucking a problem for all of the A Div NTTs, both 142s and 142As? 

[LTA1992]

When the A cars have traction motors and the B cars don't, that is the result you will get. The 160s and the 188s have motors in every car so you get a much more fluid release. With the 142s, one car is pulling while one is pushing, it is akin to having a SMEE train with several dead motors. Why the TA wanted this in the first place knowing the problems they would cause is beyond me.

One less motor per B-Car saves on weight and therefore saves money. It's also less parts to maintain. From what documents we've gotten so far, the R179 will be the same.

[SubwayGuy]

When the A cars have traction motors and the B cars don't, that is the result you will get. The 160s and the 188s have motors in every car so you get a much more fluid release. With the 142s, one car is pulling while one is pushing, it is akin to having a SMEE train with several dead motors. Why the TA wanted this in the first place knowing the problems they would cause is beyond me.

 

R142A "B" cars all have two motors (both on the #1 end). The "A" cars have 4. This is no different than the R142's, other than that the "B" car motors are on the #2 end on the R142.

 

There are issues with synchronization of brake release and taking power with the R142A's though, always have been. Those cars have been known to give a false stuck brake reading as well.

 

The technique that works best to stop smoothly for a T/O is to back gently off the stop by giving back some brake (but NOT to min brake) as the car stops. While this may seem the same as any other car, it is especially important with the R142A as the friction brakes will come on very strong if this is not done. A good T/O will also need to avoid the very low service range near the end of the stop as in this area, there will be a delay when the dynamics drop out, the train will give the sensation of sliding, and then the friction brakes will come on very hard when the T/O inevitably overreacts to the train appearing to not brake.

 

Smooth stops are half the battle to smooth takeoffs since a good T/O or M/M knows to manage the slack in the train. A hard stop will take up all the slack as the cars slam together, then when the train takes off, all the natural slack will restore itself and the cars will slam into each other to create it. Going to power from min brake works best to take off smoothly, and moving slowly through power if the consist is particularly prone to bucking. Full brake to full power should never be done except on a steep upgrade.

[Fan Railer]

One less motor per B-Car saves on weight and therefore saves money. It's also less parts to maintain. From what documents we've gotten so far, the R179 will be the same.

What documents do you speak of here? I have not seen any documentation that indicates that the R179 will not have 100% motorized axles, nor do I think this would be the case.

[LTA1992]

What documents do you speak of here? I have not seen any documentation that indicates that the R179 will not have 100% motorized axles, nor do I think this would be the case.

It was in the earliest documents, i forget the exact one, but the reasons behind the decision was to reduce weight.

[Fresh Pond]

But with the R188s, I thought the C cars were just motorless trailers...

[LTA1992]

What documents do you speak of here? I have not seen any documentation that indicates that the R179 will not have 100% motorized axles, nor do I think this would be the case.

Update: It was on the first page of the R179 thread (duh).

 

"The new cars will also be lighter. By removing propulsion motors, lightening the floors, and making other materials changes, the trimmer R179s will improve overall energy efficiency."

 

Pretty much says certain trucks won't have motors, like the R142.

[Fan Railer]

But with the R188s, I thought the C cars were just motorless trailers...

As far as I can tell, they are not motorless. They are structured just like the B cars; one motor truck, one trailer truck. This is apparent from simple visual inspection of all cars on the brand new sets, AND the inserted cars on the converted sets. 

Update: It was on the first page of the R179 thread (duh).

 

"The new cars will also be lighter. By removing propulsion motors, lightening the floors, and making other materials changes, the trimmer R179s will improve overall energy efficiency."

 

Pretty much says certain trucks won't have motors, like the R142.

Haha, I see that now too. It's interesting to say the least, and I'll be curious to see if they'll be accomplishing the setup the traditional NYC way (partially powered cars), or if they'll try a setup with fully motored cars and fully unpowered cars. But then again, it's good to keep in mind things can change last minute. I'm sure more information will be available shortly.