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.

Question on cars...


realizm

Recommended Posts

r32sworshipnew_zps5b4e37ce.jpg

 

Damn R32's... Pic related.

 

So great the R179 order is delayed now for several months meaning that I have of deal with those trains a little longer. Now I like new tech trains and can define why down to a science. Yes this is a rant. They breed is dying forget it, may a museum train but that's it betcha it will be the garbage trains.

 

Get your pics while you can they are going 6 feet under. Then you can stop foaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It wasn't a question other to just get attention, its the fact that these cars need to retire. So yeah will the R179 order come through 6-12 months by now? Its been a long time like what 50 years? And they are making only 60 5 car sets? Yeah I heard the explanations but still not a smart move, watch this be a move the MTA regrets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A/C knocks out, breaks are horrendous, MDBFs is a major fail.... I'm wondering if these cars will even make it to the due date for the R179s? So yeah politely speaking that is my question. What will the MTA do if the cars are in such bad shape. Forget the R42s...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need to be so apocalyptic about it. The MTA will have to find a way to make them last, they've got no other choice.

 

And no, they haven't been waiting for 50 years for replacement, given that they were meant to be in service for at least 40.

 

And no one's foaming. Why even bring that up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you realizm. They need to retire. It's a dead fleet that they are trying to keep running, their brakes hurt my ear drums and their rides are the worst. A majority of SMEE foamers only enjoy it because of the RFW.

 

Honestly, I can't wait for the R179 to finally arrive. I'm looking forward to  NTT's, they have the bright lights and smooth rides. To be honest, if I wasn't a railfan I'd be bitching all day every day about the R32 (if it were my home line). There's a reason why 90% of the time I will wait out for an R188. It feels so much better to be on an NTT, and I can care less about your precious RFW. The R32 would have retired ages ago if it was according to the original retirement plans (long before R160 age). Yet that didn't go quite well, and then they would have been retired a few years ago. Yet, due to the rusty R44, they delayed retirement. And all the foamers don't even show that they're grateful for it. It's like everytime they hear R179 they're going to go crazy. 

 

Not to disrespect any R32 fan right here, but this message is going towards the people who are hating on the NTT's, and the ones that complain about how the SMEE's are sooooo much better and they literally act super defensive when one person says the R32 need to retire. 

The R32 has done it's best. It needs to retire. It has gone through  50 years. The (MTA) will be spending millions overhauling and overhauling these things for them to stay. It is WAY better for R179 to take over, and stop making the excuses about how the R32 are the best cars in the NYC subway. Yeah, I understand they have withstood a lot during their time, but their time has past. It is long overdue. No more excuses, no more NTT bashing, no more BS. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you realizm. They need to retire. It's a dead fleet that they are trying to keep running, their brakes hurt my ear drums and their rides are the worst. A majority of SMEE foamers only enjoy it because of the RFW.

 

Honestly, I can't wait for the R179 to finally arrive. I'm looking forward to  NTT's, they have the bright lights and smooth rides. To be honest, if I wasn't a railfan I'd be bitching all day every day about the R32 (if it were my home line). There's a reason why 90% of the time I will wait out for an R188. It feels so much better to be on an NTT, and I can care less about your precious RFW. The R32 would have retired ages ago if it was according to the original retirement plans (long before R160 age). Yet that didn't go quite well, and then they would have been retired a few years ago. Yet, due to the rusty R44, they delayed retirement. And all the foamers don't even show that they're grateful for it. It's like everytime they hear R179 they're going to go crazy. 

 

Not to disrespect any R32 fan right here, but this message is going towards the people who are hating on the NTT's, and the ones that complain about how the SMEE's are sooooo much better and they literally act super defensive when one person says the R32 need to retire. 

The R32 has done it's best. It needs to retire. It has gone through  50 years. The (MTA) will be spending millions overhauling and overhauling these things for them to stay. It is WAY better for R179 to take over, and stop making the excuses about how the R32 are the best cars in the NYC subway. Yeah, I understand they have withstood a lot during their time, but their time has past. It is long overdue. No more excuses, no more NTT bashing, no more BS. Simple as that.

I like the NTTs too, they are really comfortable and are the car you want to get after a long day of work, with reliable AC, less breakdowns, nice announcements, the FIND. 

And I don't take this as disrespect. I don't hate the NTTs, i just like the NTTs the least out of all the subway cars in service. I do think however that they can operate for a few more years but maybe only during rush house or something.

 

In my opinion still they are my favorite subway cars.

Also, I actually like the screeching, that is one of my favorite parts. I actually don't love them only for the RFWs, which I do love. I love the screech, the outside banding, the way the cars look, the seating, the layout and so much more, and they were the cars I grew up knowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you realizm. They need to retire. It's a dead fleet that they are trying to keep running, their brakes hurt my ear drums and their rides are the worst. A majority of SMEE foamers only enjoy it because of the RFW.

 

While it is true that they need to retire, there's nothing to retire them, so they'll have to keep them going until they have something.

 

The RFW is irrelevant when talking of "SMEE foamers". A majority of the SMEEs do not have RFWs, and yet they have their fans, so there has to be something else going for them, no?

 

 

 

No more excuses, no more NTT bashing, no more BS. Simple as that.

 

 

The antithesis to R32 foaming is not worshipping NTTs. You've just taken away a problem for the old trains and repurposed it for the new ones. If there is a legitimate issue with an NTT, then the person in question is entitled to bring it up, whether the public prefers them to SMEEs or not.

 

Every car has its advantages and disadvantages, and each car has its fans and haters. There is no "right" opinion when it comes to car preferences - everyone is entitled to prefer whatever manner of car they wish to, and does not need to justify their opinion to ANYONE. Whether they like R32s or R160s, whether they hate R62s or R142s, they are entitled to have their own preferences, and are certainly entitled to NOT be attacked for thinking differently than someone else. If this was realized, half of the flame wars on this forum would be gone overnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has come to the point where people are trying to change other's opinions. It's like R32 fans are trying to persuade people like me, which don't really like them, that those are the best things in the world. I respect their opinions, but I do not like their attitude and the way they carry it out. I give my opinion on how I want the R179, and what I get in response? A complete essay on how superior the R32's are, why they should be kept, and why the NTT's suck.

There is also the case where the BS I had mentioned comes up, how one little problem occurs in the NTT's someone goes "those things should be reefed" (oh trust me, there is a specific situation for that) and it is complete BS. Why would you want to reef something brand new and still perfect, so you can get your old things back?

I can also recall a situation (not subway-related) that I said I don't really like the RTS too much, and then I get called a "fake busfan." 

Once again, I simply support the R179 over the R32, and I get a million reasons that I ALREADY KNOW why the R32 is so good and that it should stay. That is why I'm not the only one who is doing this.

 

(BTW, I don't think anybody on this forum could be named for things like those, there is a pretty nice community here)

 

Anyways, moving on from this........................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A/C knocks out, breaks are horrendous, MDBFs is a major fail.... I'm wondering if these cars will even make it to the due date for the R179s? So yeah politely speaking that is my question. What will the MTA do if the cars are in such bad shape. Forget the R42s...

 

This is why people say buffs should stick to what they know when it comes to car maintenance.

 

I run the cars all the time and most of the time they are just fine - the brakes are fine...just because they squeal doesn't mean anything. They stop in all conditions, A/C does not knock out that often.

 

Recognize that apparent changes in MDBF are all relative, and as someone who grew up in an era where several car classes had less than 10,000 MDBF, what we have is not bad.

 

The cars are perfectly fine and any skilled M/M or T/O can make decent smooth stops with them and still keep time. And the carbodies are holding up quite well.

 

This is FAR preferable, even if it's for a few more years, to rushing in new technology which, by the way, has proven, time and time again, to always be riddled with "teething" issues...you've seen it in every single new car class that has been brought into Transit going back over 40 years now from the R-44 through the R-160s, exclusive of NONE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why people say buffs should stick to what they know when it comes to car maintenance.

 

I run the cars all the time and most of the time they are just fine - the brakes are fine...just because they squeal doesn't mean anything. They stop in all conditions, A/C does not knock out that often.

 

Recognize that apparent changes in MDBF are all relative, and as someone who grew up in an era where several car classes had less than 10,000 MDBF, what we have is not bad.

 

The cars are perfectly fine and any skilled M/M or T/O can make decent smooth stops with them and still keep time. And the carbodies are holding up quite well.

 

I agree. The car bodies are holding up well compared to previous models, but it's the fact that the brakes squeal that annoys me because as anyone else (but not everyone else), most prefer a quiet and smooth subway ride. Their rides aren't as smooth, but I can let it go since it's an aging 50 year old subway car.

 

In A/C terms, I've never been on an R32 with no A/C. I have been on an R62A recently with no A/C, and it's the fact that if an R32 has no A/C it becomes a big deal, but if any other car fleet has that problem (cough....R62A on the (1)) then not a single word is usually said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of screeching brakes on NTTs too...

 

first video that you get if you search "mta r160":

 

 

 

That screeching occurs often, and isn't a major thing. It happens on the factory built R188 and R142A on a regular basis, basically every train. I think that's how they're designed to work. But if you want to talk about serious screeching, the R142A on the (6) are way worse than any R32.... And also some screeching occurs from dead motors, which R142A on the (6) reportedly have often. The screeching portrayed in this video occurs pretty much on a regular basis. While I don't know much and don't want to act like a know-it-all, it should be how the train works. The R188's did it from day one (that minor screeching when stopping). 

 

But when you look at the squealing on an R32, R62 (not R62A, but sometimes R62A), and R142A, you realize that it's pretty bad - way worse than what was in this video. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK but the R32s cannot be retrofitted with CBTC, the NTTs does and has been done. I think the best cars we have out there is the R160s. Their MBDF is highest in the system in terms of performance, they are also faster then SMEEs.

 

The R32s lived a legacy as the bes car ever made out of stainless steel alloys. I was used to seeing them on the E. But now they diverted maintainance to let the cars lead to this. A/C problems and everything. But after its retirement we can expect them to be used as work trains, I guess a set will also be preserved which will be nice.

 

It was speculated that there was a study on installing LED signage displays on the R682/62s. Dont know the real reason why but they say wiring will be the issue.

 

 

Not to disrespect any R32 fan right here, but this message is going towards the people who are hating on the NTT's, and the ones that complain about how the SMEE's are sooooo much better and they literally act super defensive when one person says the R32 need to retire.

Pretty much my thoughts

 

 

This is why people say buffs should stick to what they know when it comes to car maintenance.

 

I run the cars all the time and most of the time they are just fine - the brakes are fine...just because they squeal doesn't mean anything. They stop in all conditions, A/C does not knock out that often.

 

Recognize that apparent changes in MDBF are all relative, and as someone who grew up in an era where several car classes had less than 10,000 MDBF, what we have is not bad.

 

The cars are perfectly fine and any skilled M/M or T/O can make decent smooth stops with them and still keep time. And the carbodies are holding up quite well.

 

This is FAR preferable, even if it's for a few more years, to rushing in new technology which, by the way, has proven, time and time again, to always be riddled with "teething" issues...you've seen it in every single new car class that has been brought into Transit going back over 40 years now from the R-44 through the R-160s, exclusive of NONE.

Another T/O told me the R68s are much better in performance. Not my words its his.

 

 

While it is true that they need to retire, there's nothing to retire them, so they'll have to keep them going until they have something.

In other regional subway systems they replace the fleet every 30 years if not less. In the TTC for example the cars after being built in the 80s are replaced now with Toronto Rockets. The MTA though is way behind. So yeah thats what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 car prototype aka " test train " of R179 have been built... so there is 290 cars are remaining to be built... So yeah 50 cars R179 will be as 5 car unit.... imagine 50 cars ( 5 car unit ) that R179 is like R179S ( R179 supplement order ) as R142A/S order #7731 - #7810... ... Or would you want 290 cars ( will be 4 car unit for (C) , (J) , (M) , (Z) ..... that 290 cars unit )... So it not big deal then 40 cars first to be built remaining left of 5 car unit... While prototype aka " test train " as 5 car unit .. that 10 cars set been built.... ... While (C) , (J) , (M) , (Z) get 250 cars of R179 in 4 car unit )... As (C) line rider getting used to riding East New York Yard R160/A cars... So it will be easy for (C) if they ever want use R160/A from East New York Yard.. As East New York still will get R179 for replacing R42...... As 50 car that 5 car unit will go to Coney Island Yard as promise... including 10 car test train..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In other regional subway systems they replace the fleet every 30 years if not less. In the TTC for example the cars after being built in the 80s are replaced now with Toronto Rockets. The MTA though is way behind. So yeah thats what I mean.

 

Other subway systems have their cars built for 30 years of service. New York's trains are made for 40 years, so they will last for 40 years. Toronto's cars were only replaced because they were troublesome and they got the funding - the H4 and H5, built in 1974 and 1976 respectively, retired in early 2012 and summer 2013.

 

Allow me to draw attention to the MR-63 in Montreal, 1972 Tube Stock in London, the modernized Soviet 81-71 trains in Prague, the MP 59, MP 73, MF 67 and MF 77 in Paris, the U/U1/U2 in Vienna, the Metro Cammell cars in Glasgow, the M100 in Helsinki... etc. All old trains. The (MTA) is not behind any more than these are - and if they work, why scramble to replace them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take the D78 Stock on the London Underground. Only as old as the R62s. They will be retired in 2017. That's only about 30 years. I mean we cant do the same? Yeah trains are built in NY to live out what? 34 years in service? That R179 order is now late. Th R160s were supposed to replace the R32s etc but then they made the mistake with the R44s.

 

I mean you just dont make mistakes like that.

 

What gets me too is only 60 5 car sets for the R179s? Are they mad? Yeah well they want to be as cost efficient as possible but they should have invested better. If they can do it and an older system at that, receiving ATO we can do it too on time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Cost efficient" Ordering 4 car sets for the (C) won't make sense because it will have  less fleet compatibility, plus those are one of the lines that have a good amount of ridership. Instead of increasing service, they should order 5 car sets and see what would happen. What they should have done is put a 10 car set of R160 on the (C) for a bit to experiment with it, and then see what they should do with the R179. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take the D78 Stock on the London Underground. Only as old as the R62s. They will be retired in 2017. That's only about 30 years.

 

And take the 1972 Stock, which is only slightly younger than the R42s, and has no secured replacements.

 

D78 stock is older than the oldest R62s by 3 years, and older than the youngest R62As by 7. Please don't cherry pick examples. I don't know why they are retiring the D78 and not the 1972, but I'm sure they have their reasons. Doesn't change the fact that the 1972 stock's replacement's are still a time away.

 

 

 

I mean we cant do the same? Yeah trains are built in NY to live out what? 34 years in service? That R179 order is now late. Th R160s were supposed to replace the R32s etc but then they made the mistake with the R44s.

 

Any trains built for NY are DESIGNED to last 40 years. 34 is not enough, I don't know why on Earth would bring that up?

 

 

 

I mean you just dont make mistakes like that.

 

Which is? Were they supposed to have predicted that the R44s would need retirement before the R32s?

 

It's not the end of the world if you have to keep riding the R32s for a few more years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And take the 1972 Stock, which is only slightly younger than the R42s, and has no secured replacements.

 

D78 stock is older than the oldest R62s by 3 years, and older than the youngest R62As by 7. Please don't cherry pick examples. I don't know why they are retiring the D78 and not the 1972, but I'm sure they have their reasons. Doesn't change the fact that the 1972 stock's replacement's are still a time away.

 

 

 

 

Any trains built for NY are DESIGNED to last 40 years. 34 is not enough, I don't know why on Earth would bring that up?

 

 

 

Which is? Were they supposed to have predicted that the R44s would need retirement before the R32s?

 

It's not the end of the world if you have to keep riding the R32s for a few more years.

Retiring cars on time thats my gripe. R32s was beginning to be scraped but was stopped when there was found cracks on the R44s. We need to replace the trains on the SIR unless they perform an SMS. The R211 order might even get delayed. If you think about it not a good position to be in. We now got the R188s and the R62s are doing well. But its not like that on the B division.

 

Imagine taking an R68 over the bridge ti Canal St. Since it falls down an downgrade it is tireing on the T/O because he has to constantly apply brake to stay at 25 MPH. With R160s its easier as everything is computer wise.

 

Take a Q vs a D over the bridge. The Q R160s can beat it because its traveling at a higher speed just cruising. That says alot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not. Have YOU ever operated a 68, or a 160 over the Manhattan Bridge? Or are you just going based on what 1 or 2 people say? It depends on how the operator operates how fast the train takes the bridge. It also depends on the condition of the train (dead motors, etc.).

 

There is a way to hold a small amount of brake going down the bridge that is smooth and will contain your speed on SMEE equipment without having to constantly release and reapply the brake, until you get to the steepest part of the grade by which point half or more of the train is already off the bridge (in both directions).

 

Additionally, what about inclement weather? They were BEGGING for SMEE cars to come out of the yard during the 26 inch snowstorm in December '10 because the tech trains and their computerized propulsion control couldn't make the bridges because they couldn't overcome the elements.

 

Every new car order seems to take more and more control away from the operator, and the cab layout (especially the controller) becomes more uncomfortable seemingly. You don't have very good control of much of anything with a tech train, compared to SMEE, which is less than that on the old trains too. It might be "easier" when weather conditions are perfect and the computer is working as designed, but *I* want to be the one deciding that, just like *I* want to be the one deciding to take power with the brake still applied (not have to roll back on a grade while I wait for the computer to take power), because there's probably a very good reason I'm doing it that way. And when CBTC and ATO has taken over, in many years, you will see an even more dumbed down subway that can't react to the slightest changes from the "ideal conditions". I don't have any control over that, and neither does anyone but those who make these decisions, and the thinktanks that encourage them. But in the meantime, I damn sure want to make sure that whatever is running is running properly.

 

The sad part is that a big chunk of operating crews like tech trains but the reasons often have to do with "ease" and are not operational. Conductors like not having to make announcements, Both crew like the better cab seat, and pretty much everyone likes the better ventilation in the cabs. These ARE good improvements, as is AC propulsion, and should have been made regardless. But in my opinion a lot of other things were changed in the name of progress that shouldn't have been when all of the tech trains were ordered.

 

There is nothing wrong with adding new technology but you have to start from a foundation of what works, which is what has been there and worked, instead of rushing things into service prematurely in the name of "progress" and watching things go backwards when that technology proves inevitably to be not yet ready, and full of problems. Again - EVERY single car class from R-44 to R-160 has been riddled with issues when it arrived on the property. There is no reasonable expectation for the R-179s to be any different, and if there are extensive problems, now you're talking about not having enough trains to make regular weekday service potentially if you just get rid of the R-32s in the meantime as the tech fans here seem to advocate.

 

What changed? Well before that, new or experimental technologies were always piggybacked onto the end of an order (say the last 10 cars or so) just to try it out. Now if you had a problem, you'd get those 10 cars working, then retrofit the whole fleet later. You weren't taking hundreds of cars out of service to fix this "problem" that was going on.

 

And if you think keeping R32s in service "a few years longer" is such a bad thing imagine how people felt in the 80s when the GE R16s were supposed to be retired, but ended up making their way back into service for several more years due to the cracking issues with the 46s. The reason you do this is so you avoid a similar scenario now.

 

As for "retiring cars on time" that's never been done. Government is involved, as is contracting, two things that are never under budget or on time. This has been going on for decades before this, it's not a new thing, and will continue probably for a whole lot longer. Enjoy the old equipment while it's out there anyway, it won't be there forever, and if you are a so called railfan you'll find yourself missing it when it's gone anyway. Who would have thought that the R-16s, which were some of the worst basket cases of the 70s and 80s, would have people rushing out in droves to ride them this weekend. That's what time does.

 

As for service, it will continue with the 32s around. No big deal. They're not falling apart, and the standards for a car that is good for service nowadays are much higher than years ago anyway. The way they run right now crews would have been falling over themselves to operate them in the 70s 80s and even early 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.