Question on cars...

[trainfan22]

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.

The 46s are fine, so if 211s have minor delays like the 179s is there shouldn't be a issue. I read elsewhere the 46s could run for a few more years but they will retire them as soon as they reasonably can cause of political reasons.

 

The 46s are like 10 years younger than the 32s, I'm sure they can run another 10 years if needed, there currently getting SMS and IIRC there MDBF was actually increasing despite the fact that most of them run on the longest lines in the system.

[realizm]

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.).

 

 

 

By what a couple of T/Os had told me.

 

 

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.

 

OK thanks I learned something from it.

[Tomtoon]

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 believe the reason for that is one stock (S Stock) was ordered to replace the whole of the SUB SURFACE lines (kind of like the separate divisions in NYC, similar to the J etc) and I think the D78 are in worser shape than the 1972 despite the overhaul around 9 years ago.

 

TFL are due to replace the ageing 1972 along with the some of the other "DEEP LEVEL TUBE" lines (1973,1992) as well as eventually the 1995 etc. Again in this instance it will be ONE STOCK replacing them rather than multiple.

 

But even though I'm from the UK, I agree NYC is not behind in terms of rolling stock replacement as we have the 1972 stock still, but when I saw the R32's on a trip last year they did seem like they were falling apart.

 

In one sense however, I agree because TFL are replacing the trains at a fast pace, but they probably have the money in the sense of we pay £4 ($6) for a trip (less on a Oyster card) but that's besides the point, plus it's not 24 hours so more revenue per passenger and less operating costs adds up.

[bobtehpanda]

I believe the reason for that is one stock (S Stock) was ordered to replace the whole of the SUB SURFACE lines (kind of like the separate divisions in NYC, similar to the J etc) and I think the D78 are in worser shape than the 1972 despite the overhaul around 9 years ago.

 

TFL are due to replace the ageing 1972 along with the some of the other "DEEP LEVEL TUBE" lines (1973,1992) as well as eventually the 1995 etc. Again in this instance it will be ONE STOCK replacing them rather than multiple.

 

But even though I'm from the UK, I agree NYC is not behind in terms of rolling stock replacement as we have the 1972 stock still, but when I saw the R32's on a trip last year they did seem like they were falling apart.

 

In one sense however, I agree because TFL are replacing the trains at a fast pace, but they probably have the money in the sense of we pay £4 ($6) for a trip (less on a Oyster card) but that's besides the point, plus it's not 24 hours so more revenue per passenger and less operating costs adds up.

 

The government in London is also shoveling a lot more money into their system than we are, so that's the other half of the issue. London is also more aggressively adopting automation and newer signalling, while MTA is being cautious (which is understandable given the city's history with implementing automated signalling systems)

[Tomtoon]

The government in London is also shoveling a lot more money into their system than we are, so that's the other half of the issue. London is also more aggressively adopting automation and newer signalling, while MTA is being cautious (which is understandable given the city's history with implementing automated signalling systems)

Well yes that Is a very good point. I suppose it's easier to do so on a smaller and not 24 Hour (yet!) system

[bobtehpanda]

Well yes that Is a very good point. I suppose it's easier to do so on a smaller and not 24 Hour (yet!) system

 

The main issue is that New York interlines all of its services in complex local-express services depending on the time of day, which as far as I know no CBTC-enabled system does, so New York would be entering very unfamiliar waters with the technology.

[Tomtoon]

The main issue is that New York interlines all of its services in complex local-express services depending on the time of day, which as far as I know no CBTC-enabled system does, so New York would be entering very unfamiliar waters with the technology.

That also is an extremely good point, whereas we have one line which is ATO-enabled, which I believe is different to CBTC, or it could be similar as all the driver does is open/close the doors, and accelerate out of the station, the train does the rest. It's like CBTC but it doesn't involve the driver.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_line

 

I agree that NYC is VERY complex with the local/express stations for virtually all lines however.

[VIP]

To make things easier why doesnt the MTA have 207st keep some of East New Yorks R160s 84xx-85xx and keep some R32s on the ... The R32's are maintained and run better on the (J)/(Z).

[trainfan22]

To make things easier why doesnt the MTA have 207st keep some of East New Yorks R160s 84xx-85xx and keep some R32s on the ... The R32's are maintained and run better on the (J)/(Z).

The C is a part time line where's the J runs 24/7. Its best to keep the oldest cars on a part time line.

[Kamen Rider]

By that logic they should be on the B, which runs less than 90 hours a week. 

[RollOver]

To make things easier why doesnt the MTA have 207st keep some of East New Yorks R160s 84xx-85xx and keep some R32s on the ... The R32's are maintained and run better on the (J)/(Z).

 

The C is a part time line where's the J runs 24/7. Its best to keep the oldest cars on a part time line.

 

False. Neither 207th Street nor Pitkin Avenue are capable of maintaining the R160s. Why do you think that they've been swapping both R32s and R160s back and fourth to their respective regular shops for maintaince/inspection (regardless of the summer swap)? We've been through that countless times already back then, especially in the R32 thread. Outside of the summer, most, if not, all 28 eight-car R32 sets will run nowhere else except the .

 

@Kamen Rider, is Coney Island capable of maintaining the R32s? And you do realize that converting the R32s as 10-car sets to run on any other line would result in reducing spares, right? That's one of the main reasons why they stop doing the summer swap in the first place.

[Lance]

Coney Island can probably take care of any fleet it gets. However, the idea with the yard assignments is consolidation. Keeping the number of different car classes to an absolute minimum keeps the overall maintenance costs down since most yards only have to take care of a few car classes, if that. Yards only have to keep parts around for the cars they maintain, not every car currently on the rails.

 

As for keeping the A1s on the C permanently, it adds unnecessary mileage to the trains since, as we all know, those trains are still maintained out of East New York. Besides, it's an unnecessary car move as the main reason the C gets 160s in the summer is to let the air compressors on the 32s get a chance to breathe outside. They're fine in the winter.

[Union Tpke]

By 2004, all of the IRT Redbirds had been retired. In 1981, the TA's car replacement program had planned dates for the retirement of these cars.¹⁰⁹ It is interesting to look back to these dates and see whether the TA met its schedule:

• R-26: 1994
  
• R-28: 1995
  
• R-29: 1997
  
• R-33: 1998
  
• R-36: 1999
  

The planned retirement dates for some BMT-IND equipment is even more interesting:

• R-27: 1995
  
• R-30: 1997
  
• R-32: 2000
  
• R-38: 2002
  
• R-40: 2003
  
• R-42: 2004
  
• R-44: 2007
  
• R-46: 2011
  

[Union Tpke]

• R-27: 1995
• R-30: 1997

These were early

[SubwayGuy]

 

• R-27: 1995
• R-30: 1997

These were early

 

 

Because they wanted to get the fleet 100% air conditioned, and adding air conditioning to those two car classes would have made them quite heavy.

[Lance]

 

By 2004, all of the IRT Redbirds had been retired. In 1981, the TA's car replacement program had planned dates for the retirement of these cars.¹⁰⁹ It is interesting to look back to these dates and see whether the TA met its schedule:

• R-26: 1994
• R-28: 1995
• R-29: 1997
• R-33: 1998
• R-36: 1999

The planned retirement dates for some BMT-IND equipment is even more interesting:

• R-27: 1995
• R-30: 1997
• R-32: 2000
• R-38: 2002
• R-40: 2003
• R-42: 2004
• R-44: 2007
• R-46: 2011

 

It looks like the MTA expected to get at most 35 years out of each car class.

[R32 3838]

False. Neither 207th Street nor Pitkin Avenue are capable of maintaining the R160s. Why do you think that they've been swapping both R32s and R160s back and fourth to their respective regular shops for maintaince/inspection (regardless of the summer swap)? We've been through that countless times already back then, especially in the R32 thread. Outside of the summer, most, if not, all 28 eight-car R32 sets will run nowhere else except the .

 

@Kamen Rider, is Coney Island capable of maintaining the R32s? And you do realize that converting the R32s as 10-car sets to run on any other line would result in reducing spares, right? That's one of the main reasons why they stop doing the summer swap in the first place.

 

207th/pitkin has to upgrade anyway for the R179's, if they upgrade sooner they can keep the r160A-1's, it is simple for both lines to have 50/50 of both to ease down the complaints but ENY will have 1-2 R32 sets all year around anyway since the R143 SMS is starting next year

[RollOver]

Yes, that's correct. They just have to be NTT qualified once the 32s are retired.

[Lance]

207th/pitkin has to upgrade anyway for the R179's, if they upgrade sooner they can keep the r160A-1's, it is simple for both lines to have 50/50 of both to ease down the complaints but ENY will have 1-2 R32 sets all year around anyway since the R143 SMS is starting next year

There are always going to be complaints about the cars. Sending more 32s to East New York will just shift the complaints over to the J-line, where riders will be asking why they're getting all these old trains. Besides, I think the MTA wants to keep both the 32s and the A1s consolidated to one yard for as long as possible. Or as much as they can get, seeing as that one 32 set is stuck at East New York indefinitely.

[RollOver]

Who's complaining? I hardly hear these so-called "complaints" elsewhere other than here and other transit sites.

[trainfan22]

Who's complaining? I hardly hear these so-called "complaints" elsewhere other than here and other transit sites.

Riders probably send there complaints to the TA themselves and newspapers. I seen it posted elsewhere that C line riders complained about the 32s thru these avenues.

[R32 3838]

The riders barely complains, only a few, the however has more complaints (thanks to the media) things were fine until Straphangers and the media started to stir shit up

[Lance]

Either way, car assignments aren't based on rider complaints, so it really doesn't matter.