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.
East New York

R211 Discussion Thread

East New York

Program Updates Effective 2/20/19

8B572BC2-6B77-4999-9283-417E996BD0EF.jpeg

5197FE8E-FC09-4EBF-B992-6B7FB2371D54.jpeg

8EEC2B6D-E8A2-4DB9-85B2-9F4AB240BB25.jpeg

Message added by East New York

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Anyone who questions the open gangway with curves...this video will officially shut down your argument. Now like I said, the shorter the train car, along with the wheel position on the body, the better. The only cars in the subway system that would have issues are the 75ft cars. 

 

Edited by XcelsiorBoii4888
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2020 at 10:28 AM, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

Anyone who questions the open gangway with curves...this video will officially shut down your argument. Now like I said, the shorter the train car, along with the wheel position on the body, the better. The only cars in the subway system that would have issues are the 75ft cars. 

 

Man I really loved riding these. I hate how small our windows have gotten.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LTA1992 said:

Man I really loved riding these. I hate how small our windows have gotten.

This is one of my biggest gripes with US metro trains. Across the country, each new generation of rolling stock seems to have smaller and smaller windows, and they were never very large to begin with. NYC subway trains now have perhaps the fewest and smallest windows of any metro trains in the world. It makes the trains feel far darker and more enclosed than necessary. It's depressing. 

  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, rbrome said:

This is one of my biggest gripes with US metro trains. Across the country, each new generation of rolling stock seems to have smaller and smaller windows, and they were never very large to begin with. NYC subway trains now have perhaps the fewest and smallest windows of any metro trains in the world. It makes the trains feel far darker and more enclosed than necessary. It's depressing. 

One of the reasons why I love the S stock. The plug doors on the outside allow for larger windows where the door pockets would be and the placement of destination signs above the window line also allows the window to be larger.

800px-Articulate_section_S_stock.JPG

800px-S8_Stock_at_Euston_Square.jpg

800px-S_stock_DMI_outside.JPG

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is stopping us from getting plug style doors again?

And would it be possible to get doors that slide on the outside of the car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing stopping it but stubborn New York "exceptionalism". I've heard excuses about platform height or tunnel width, but they make no sense. There is always a way to design any style of door to meet any tunnel width or platform height. The outer shape of the car and/or door might change slightly, but it can be done. 

The other advantage of those newer, better door types is that overall wall thickness can be reduced, providing more space inside the car. 

It's a no-brainer of you ask me, just like open gangways. Which means maybe the MTA might wise up in another half-century, if we're lucky. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R10 2952 said:

Hopefully the executive level of the MTA realizes the implications and retains some of the mothballed R32s/R42s just in case.

Let's see what happens. This virus has caused drastic reductions in service meaning less trains are currently running (every 15-20 minutes). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but as I've been saying (I did predict the R211 delay), this mess just slows down the whole clock, and at some point (long time from now) service will have be restored, and the MTA will need full capacity, which it won't be able to achieve if the 32s are gone before the 211s arrive.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the R32's are cursed and won't let anyone retire them for good.  Always some reason comes up for why they have to stay longer.  

  • LMAO! 10
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I feel like the R32's are cursed and won't let anyone retire them for good.  Always some reason comes up for why they have to stay longer.  

Maybe they have nine lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Simply put, the Phase I R32s were in better shape than the rest.  By comparison, the CI R42s and Phase II R32s were absolute garbage towards the end...

Edited by R10 2952

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Simply put, the Phase I R32s were in better shape than the rest.  By comparison, the CI R42s and Phase II R32s were absolute garbage towards the end...

honestly there really was nothing wrong with the Phase II R32s besides their unreliable breaking systems. their bodies were in pristine condition like the Phase Is, only reason why MTA decided to get rid of them before the rest was because of the reason I mentioned earlier and they also basically wanted all the old equipment out at the time with the R160s coming in. 

as for the CI R42s, yeah those were in terrible shape. its amazing how the R32s have outlived the R38s, R40/R40Ms, NYCT R44s, and now the R42s throughout the years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Coney Island Av said:

honestly there really was nothing wrong with the Phase II R32s besides their unreliable braking systems.

The air-brake package was just the tip of the iceberg; the other components had problems as well from what I used to hear from people in NYCT.  And I do remember being stuck on many (E) trains back in the day that had rough braking, broken AC, or straight up got taken out of service (usually electrical problems).  Never had those problems on the (A) or (C), incidentally...

 

1 hour ago, Coney Island Av said:

 MTA decided to get rid of them before the rest was because of the reason I mentioned earlier and they also basically wanted all the old equipment out at the time with the R160s coming in. they also basically wanted all the old equipment out at the time with the R160s coming in. 

Generally, the (NYCT)'s end goal was to get rid of all the old cars, but they were actually organized about it; the order in which car classes (and sub-classes) retired was based in part on mechanical/structural condition, and fleet size (i.e. small and/or worst groups of cars first).  Art Vandelay, a fountain of knowledge who used to post here, indicated it also had something to do with a fleet's last scheduled maintenance, apparently. 

Edited by R10 2952
details
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

Yeah, but as I've been saying (I did predict the R211 delay), this mess just slows down the whole clock, and at some point (long time from now) service will have be restored, and the MTA will need full capacity, which it won't be able to achieve if the 32s are gone before the 211s arrive.

Bottom line, the MTA should've learned its lesson during the R160 days when they got scrap-happy with the R32s.  Maybe not all of the trains could've been kept in service, but some could've been kept as a reserve for emergencies or events when extra service is needed.

The R211 project hasn't been delayed "officially," but I'd expect some sort of announcement soon as the subsystem suppliers have been impacted as well.  The other challenge is that we don't know how long the shutdown will last.  It could very well be extended if the situation doesn't improve, and it seems to be getting worse every day even with all the precautions we've been taking.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember those Phase 2's, the brakes on some of them was LOUD. 

 

Rough braking and broken A/C's is common on the Phase 1 as well, well in recent years at least. IMO the only thing the 32s have over the other B div car classes replaced by NTT are their bodies. The 38, 40S/M, 42s and 44s were far more pleasant to ride. I like R32s but they are very overated.

 

IDK why y'all is giving the MTA slack for scrapping 32s while the 160s were coming in. The original purpose of the R160 order was to replace ALL R32-R42 cars. The 32s were of retirement age and many of them were trash mechanically at the time. I think they did the right thing retiring 32s until the 44 issues were discovered. 

 

The MTA cannot see into the future, things happen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

I remember those Phase 2's, the brakes on some of them was LOUD. 

 

Rough braking and broken A/C's is common on the Phase 1 as well, well in recent years at least. IMO the only thing the 32s have over the other B div car classes replaced by NTT are their bodies. The 38, 40S/M, 42s and 44s were far more pleasant to ride. I like R32s but they are very overated.

 

IDK why y'all is giving the MTA slack for scrapping 32s while the 160s were coming in. The original purpose of the R160 order was to replace ALL R32-R42 cars. The 32s were of retirement age and many of them were trash mechanically at the time. I think they did the right thing retiring 32s until the 44 issues were discovered. 

 

The MTA cannot see into the future, things happen...

50 r32's were gonna stay for the eastern division and before the TA gave up on the R32's, the Phase I's were the better cars. when pitkin had these R32's they were never a problem until they sent the remaining cars to jamaica when the Phase II's were getting reefed.

 

(MTA) gets slack because they always scrap first then realize oh shit we scrapped so many cars now we have to reduce service.

they knew the R44's were shot and still ended up reefing more cars than what they should have kept. the R40M's should have stayed since they were in great shape and were good cars.

 

The R30 retirement is the biggest example, they got away with it until the metrocard came into play and then ridership grew. the R143's are the replacements of the R30's, Just like the R179's are the true Replacements of the R44's. the R211's will be the Replacements of the R32's/46's even if the R32's retire before the R211's come in. the R179's aren't the true replacements of the R32's.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The R44s were never great cars, to be honest.  And the R40Ms- I don't know, didn't they get the same crappy rebuild job as the other R40s?

As to the R30s, yeah, they probably could have lasted until 2003, but people would probably have complained about the lack of AC.  I remember being on Redbirds on the IRT where not only was the air conditioning busted, but opening the window didn't do much to alleviate because some management genius decided to have the original drop-sash windows replaced with those small louvred ones during SMS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hindsight is 2020.  The R160 order was supposed to replace all R32-R42 cars.  They were well on their way to retiring everything by late 2009 or early 2010 had they not discovered problems with the R44's.  While it's easy to argue that they should have a reserve fleet of older equipment, there is not unlimited space in subway yards to leave idle equipment that's just waiting for something else to break.  It's also not free to keep cars ready for service.  They need maintenance, inspections, etc.

While it did create what is now a significant car shortage, that wasn't the case in 2010.  In case anyone was living under a rock, there were massive service cuts like had never been seen before and that happened to free up equipment.  As the MTA recovered and service increased, the shortage became more pronounced.  The R179 order was also delayed many times over, so while it might not have been a big deal to keep the R32's and R42's for an extra 3-5 years, I don't think they were ever intended to be kept for 10+ years.

I think there's a definite problem with unitized equipment in that it's hard to get the fleet numbers exactly correct, so small subfleets end up getting brought in with subsequent orders.  If there's a change in the service pattern, it also affects things.  It's been said that even if the R44's were kept, that about 50 R32's would've needed to stay for the BMT Eastern Division.  That's entirely related to the increase in the number of 480 foot trains needed for the expanded (M) service.  Under the service pattern that was in place when the R160's were ordered, they would've replaced everything on the BMT Eastern Division and not needed to keep any R32's.

It was the same problem for the R179's.  Most are of 480 foot length because they were intended to be used on the services that ran R32's and R42's.  However, it became obvious that more 600 foot trains were needed and that was partially resolved by the extra cars added to the order.  But now it's planned to get some 480 foot R211's when they were originally all planned to be 600 foot.

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R10 2952 said:

The R44s were never great cars, to be honest.  And the R40Ms- I don't know, didn't they get the same crappy rebuild job as the other R40s?

As to the R30s, yeah, they probably could have lasted until 2003, but people would probably have complained about the lack of AC.  I remember being on Redbirds on the IRT where not only was the air conditioning busted, but opening the window didn't do much to alleviate because some management genius decided to have the original drop-sash windows replaced with those small louvred ones during SMS.

The R44 MDBF jumped towards the end of their service life, easily outperforming the 60FT SMEE cars at the time. The 44s were good cars post GOH, they provided reliable service being the backbone of the longest line in the system for like 20 years. The R44s had issues early in their service life and for whatever reason railfans held a grudge against the cars cause of it, even though these issues were eventually sorted out. 44's being trash cars is a railfan myth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

The R44 MDBF jumped towards the end of their service life, easily outperforming the 60FT SMEE cars at the time. The 44s were good cars post GOH, they provided reliable service being the backbone of the longest line in the system for like 20 years. The R44s had issues early in their service life and for whatever reason railfans held a grudge against the cars cause of it, even though these issues were eventually sorted out. 44's being trash cars is a railfan myth. 

they were reliable but their bodies were beyond shot, had the MTA not been cheap and listened to MK and went with the stainless steel option the R44's would still be running today.

 

and yes the R44's body wise are trash, even the SI ones are becoming shot

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Exactly.  MBDF is one thing, but towards the end I remember a lot of door issues.  Also, the frame deterioration that ultimately forced their retirement was a known issue on certain cars going back several years; GOH didn't make the R44s great cars- it just made them less shitty.

Edited by R10 2952
n/a

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.