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.
Sign in to follow this  
Union Tpke

R262 (R62/R62A Replacement) - Information & Discussion

East New York

04289B70-0E3E-4F9D-B575-F4A226826C79.jpeg

Message added by East New York

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

A minimum of 10 years is more accurate, since they would all be 40 years old by 2029.

R32's are still on the road, anything is possible.  

They don't need new equipment without new signals.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/4/2019 at 11:39 AM, Late Clear said:

All I see is that the R62 and R68s have at least a minimum of 20 years left to go at this rate. 

I doubt the R62s and R68s will still be in service in 2039. Yes, the R32s and R42s are still in service after 50 (R42s) and 55 (R32s) years, but that’s because the MTA had no choice but to keep them in service. But don’t forget, it’s only a small portion of both fleets that are still in service. Most of them were sent to their watery graves well before they hit 50. Had the R44s not developed major structural problems and the State didn’t implement funding cuts to the MTA in 2010, they’d still be in service and all of the 32s and 42s would have been retired. 

Also worth noting is that the 62s and 68s are of the same technology as the 32s and 42s. And in this day and age, that technology is getting more difficult to maintain by the day.

You mentioned signals in your last post. Signals would probably be a major factor in Transit withdrawing the 62s and 68s sooner rather than later. They already decided it was more cost-effective to retrofit the newer R142As with CBTC technology and move them to the (7) (as the R188s) vs retrofitting the old-school tech R62s and keeping them on the (7).

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I doubt the R62s and R68s will still be in service in 2039. Yes, the R32s and R42s are still in service after 50 (R42s) and 55 (R32s) years, but that’s because the MTA had no choice but to keep them in service. But don’t forget, it’s only a small portion of both fleets that are still in service. Most of them were sent to their watery graves well before they hit 50. Had the R44s not developed major structural problems and the State didn’t implement funding cuts to the MTA in 2010, they’d still be in service and all of the 32s and 42s would have been retired. 

Also worth noting is that the 62s and 68s are of the same technology as the 32s and 42s. And in this day and age, that technology is getting more difficult to maintain by the day.

You mentioned signals in your last post. Signals would probably be a major factor in Transit withdrawing the 62s and 68s sooner rather than later. They already decided it was more cost-effective to retrofit the newer R142As with CBTC technology and move them to the (7) (as the R188s) vs retrofitting the old-school tech R62s and keeping them on the (7).

I would really love to agree with you, however, only time will tell, past practice has taught us otherwise. 

Only time will tell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I doubt the R62s and R68s will still be in service in 2039. Yes, the R32s and R42s are still in service after 50 (R42s) and 55 (R32s) years, but that’s because the MTA had no choice but to keep them in service. But don’t forget, it’s only a small portion of both fleets that are still in service. Most of them were sent to their watery graves well before they hit 50. Had the R44s not developed major structural problems and the State didn’t implement funding cuts to the MTA in 2010, they’d still be in service and all of the 32s and 42s would have been retired. 

Also worth noting is that the 62s and 68s are of the same technology as the 32s and 42s. And in this day and age, that technology is getting more difficult to maintain by the day.

You mentioned signals in your last post. Signals would probably be a major factor in Transit withdrawing the 62s and 68s sooner rather than later. They already decided it was more cost-effective to retrofit the newer R142As with CBTC technology and move them to the (7) (as the R188s) vs retrofitting the old-school tech R62s and keeping them on the (7).

The R44's frame issues couldn't be repaired and even if they did, it would have taken a long time to do so, which is why they got retired so quickly, but I'm not sure why SIR's R44's dont have that problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was because of the aluminum side strip, as opposed o the carbon one the rest of the fleet got, which rusted and allowed rust to get to the frame.

Share this post


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

I would really love to agree with you, however, only time will tell, past practice has taught us otherwise. 

Only time will tell

Right. Only time will tell, but I think for the R62s and R68s to make 50 years in service, either the car maker(s) would have to completely screw up on them (R179s, anyone?) or we’d have to have the same perfect storm of events we had in 2009-10 that forced the R44s out of service and halted the reefing of the remaining R32s and R42s.

26 minutes ago, Eric B said:

I think it was because of the aluminum side strip, as opposed o the carbon one the rest of the fleet got, which rusted and allowed rust to get to the frame.

I thought that side strip was the same stainless steel as the car bodies. Was the aluminum side belt strip done specifically for the SI R44s in order to make them comply with main line rail road crash standards of the day?

Share this post


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

I think it was because of the aluminum side strip, as opposed o the carbon one the rest of the fleet got, which rusted and allowed rust to get to the frame.

I think the R44s also had a carbon steel frame, which took a real beating in the acid baths of the 80s and corrodes galvanically at weld points. One of the reasons that the 32s have lasted as long as they have is that they're all stainless...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just to confirm, the R32's were in the process of being retired when structural defects were found on the R44, which caused them to swap the retirement to the R44 and halt the R32?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

So just to confirm, the R32's were in the process of being retired when structural defects were found on the R44, which caused them to swap the retirement to the R44 and halt the R32?

Correct. The R44s retirement saved the remaining R32s and R42s. Otherwise, those two car classes would have been retired. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

So just to confirm, the R32's were in the process of being retired when structural defects were found on the R44, which caused them to swap the retirement to the R44 and halt the R32?

Of course they were...always remember that the original plan was for the R160s to scrap all R32s-R42s.

It's also why the (A) and (C) had their R32 and R38 assignments replaced with R40s and R42s in a further attempt to get rid of the R32s. But then this conductor issue thing with the (C) forced the agency to shove the R32s right back onto the line in exchange for Jamaica Yard's lines having the R40s and R42s instead since the (MTA) was still being tardy and unwilling to let the (C) be full-length even though they had enough cars to do so at the time.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Of course they were...always remember that the original plan was for the R160s to scrap all R32s-R42s.

It's also why the (A) and (C) had their R32 and R38 assignments replaced with R40s and R42s in a further attempt to get rid of the R32s. But then this conductor issue thing with the (C) forced the agency to shove the R32s right back onto the line in exchange for Jamaica Yard's lines having the R40s and R42s instead since the (MTA) was still being tardy and unwilling to let the (C) be full-length even though they had enough cars to do so at the time.

What conductor issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

What conductor issue?

Guessing because the R42/R40 was married pair  and they would have to 3/5 like the conductors on the (J)(Z) does with the R42/R32 , they had have to (C) for the conductor board at the station. Plus the (C) stations are longer than the (J) with would be the (C) stop that the 10 marker instead of the 8 so the conductor could see the conductor board at each station 

Edited by R179 8258

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2019 at 10:47 PM, Jemorie said:

Of course they were...always remember that the original plan was for the R160s to scrap all R32s-R42s.

It's also why the (A) and (C) had their R32 and R38 assignments replaced with R40s and R42s in a further attempt to get rid of the R32s. But then this conductor issue thing with the (C) forced the agency to shove the R32s right back onto the line in exchange for Jamaica Yard's lines having the R40s and R42s instead since the (MTA) was still being tardy and unwilling to let the (C) be full-length even though they had enough cars to do so at the time.

 

On 7/7/2019 at 8:57 AM, R179 8258 said:

Guessing because the R42/R40 was married pair  and they would have to 3/5 like the conductors on the (J)(Z) does with the R42/R32 , they had have to (C) for the conductor board at the station. Plus the (C) stations are longer than the (J) with would be the (C) stop that the 10 marker instead of the 8 so the conductor could see the conductor board at each station 

If it hadn’t been for the R40s and R42s not having door controls in the T/O cabs, putting them in 8-car trains on the (C) wouldn’t have been a problem, because then they would have been able to run 4/4 like the 32s do and the 38s did. But no, they had to let the bean counters run the show and so they took a step back in flexibility by not specifying door controls in the T/O cabs for the 40s and 42s. Probably also why they didn’t go with all-stainless bodies for the R38 through R44 cars.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

If it hadn’t been for the R40s and R42s not having door controls in the T/O cabs, putting them in 8-car trains on the (C) wouldn’t have been a problem, because then they would have been able to run 4/4 like the 32s do and the 38s did. But no, they had to let the bean counters run the show and so they took a step back in flexibility by not specifying door controls in the T/O cabs for the 40s and 42s. Probably also why they didn’t go with all-stainless bodies for the R38 through R44 cars.

Felt the same way bro 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2019 at 10:47 PM, Jemorie said:

Of course they were...always remember that the original plan was for the R160s to scrap all R32s-R42s.

It's also why the (A) and (C) had their R32 and R38 assignments replaced with R40s and R42s in a further attempt to get rid of the R32s. But then this conductor issue thing with the (C) forced the agency to shove the R32s right back onto the line in exchange for Jamaica Yard's lines having the R40s and R42s instead since the (MTA) was still being tardy and unwilling to let the (C) be full-length even though they had enough cars to do so at the time.

Then the R179 car order would’ve been a 300 car 10 car order. Now we have a botched order and odd balls roaming around. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If it hadn’t been for the R40s and R42s not having door controls in the T/O cabs, putting them in 8-car trains on the (C) wouldn’t have been a problem, because then they would have been able to run 4/4 like the 32s do and the 38s did. But no, they had to let the bean counters run the show and so they took a step back in flexibility by not specifying door controls in the T/O cabs for the 40s and 42s. Probably also why they didn’t go with all-stainless bodies for the R38 through R44 cars.

The (MTA) be doing too much.

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the R44's stayed, originally they were going to keep 50-76 R32's for the eastern division to replace the R42's. Then the remaing R32's would have been killed off by the then originally planned 48-60 R179 8 car units. 

So the R32's would have still been here, remember when they moved the (M) to 6th ave they needed more cars at ENY since the 32 option order 2 R160A-1's wasn't  enough. Originally it was supposed to be 64 cars but MTA reduced it to 32. 

The (M) is the reason why the R42's stayed.

 

Back to the R262 topic

 

The only line I see getting these cars first is the (1)

 

The (3) would probably get the R142A's from the (4) and R142's from E180th-239th. The (4) would be 100% R142

The (6) would get these cars due to cbtc

 

The (2)(5) would get some of these cars too. To balance out the fleet. 

 

Idgaf what people say the (1) better get these cars first. Out of all the lines the (1) hasnt had anything new since 1987.

The (3) is part time but hey it might get these cars but I would prefer it to get the R142A's and 142's from the (4).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R32 3838 said:

The only line I see getting these cars first is the (1)

 

Idgaf what people say the (1) better get these cars first. Out of all the lines the (1) hasnt had anything new since 1987.

Yeah, no. That shouldn't even be in consideration for such, as the (2) and everything on Lexington Avenue get the worst of the worst crowding levels. The R262s need to be for those routes with trains so packed that few (if any) can get on, as well as those routes with equipment swaps and branches, especially if they have destination displays above the cabs like the R211s and many MUs throughout the world (likely to happen). These cars will also be needed for CBTC operations, and Lexington Avenue will come first, so it would be imperative to have CBTC-ready equipment in position to handle it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

The only line I see getting these cars first is the (1)

The (3) would probably get the R142A's from the (4) and R142's from E180th-239th. The (4) would be 100% R142

The (6) would get these cars due to cbtc

The (2)(5) would get some of these cars too. To balance out the fleet.

Idgaf what people say the (1) better get these cars first. Out of all the lines the (1) hasnt had anything new since 1987.

The (3) is part time but hey it might get these cars but I would prefer it to get the R142A's and 142's from the (4).

Please. It's bad enough that the (6) only had new cars for only a few years in before being given back the cars it had before. If the (MTA) had a brain enough to have made a part of either the 142 order or 142A order 5-6 car sets instead of 5-car sets, the (7) would have been had them from the start well before they even began that already-finish CBTC project and the 62As would have never left the (6) in the first place. So therefore, the (6) should get these first and the (1) should get these last. The latter is one of the busiest local lines in the system, but Lexington Avenue is much more worse, so the former should have these cars first.

As we all know, the (3) was originally planned to get 142s and 142As when they first came about, but the (4) got them instead in exchange for the 62s heading from that line to the (3). The former is a much more demanding line whereas the latter is anything but a demanding line. The (2) and (5) got these cars first before the other numbered lines did since they share the same terminals and yards. Just like when the R160s first came about, the (N) and (W) were the first to get them for the same reasons before the other lettered lines did.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


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

Please. It's bad enough that the (6) only had new cars for only a few years in before being given back the cars it had before. If the (MTA) had a brain enough to have made a part of either the 142 order or 142A order 5-6 car sets instead of 5-car sets, the (7) would have been had them from the start well before they even began that already-finish CBTC project and the 62As would have never left the (6) in the first place. So therefore, the (6) should get these first and the (1) should get these last. The latter is one of the busiest local lines in the system, but Lexington Avenue is much more worse, so the former should have these cars first.

As we all know, the (3) was originally planned to get 142s and 142As when they first came about, but the (4) got them instead in exchange for the 62s heading from that line to the (3). The former is a much more demanding line whereas the latter is anything but a demanding line. The (2) and (5) got these cars first before the other numbered lines did since they share the same terminals and yards. Just like when the R160s first came about, the (N) and (W) were the first to get them for the same reasons before the other lettered lines did.

But why didnt MTA just order new R142A's (or R188's) to replace the R62A's on the (7) and kept the R62A as surplus cars or divide them evenly by each yard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

But why didnt MTA just order new R142A's (or R188's) to replace the R62A's on the (7) and kept the R62A as surplus cars or divide them evenly by each yard?

It would cost less to convert a bunch of cars than it would to build new ones, given the fact that we would still have the R62/As to maintain. Then there's the issue of storage.

Share this post


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

But why didnt MTA just order new R142A's (or R188's) to replace the R62A's on the (7) and kept the R62A as surplus cars or divide them evenly by each yard?

Because they would have been replacing them too early. They decided upon a certain amount of new cars for fleet expansion purposes, not to replace R62/As that were then between 26 and 28 years old and working well with a low MDBF.

Share this post


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

Idgaf what people say the (1) better get these cars first. Out of all the lines the (1) hasnt had anything new since 1987.

The (6) would be getting these first because CBTC is coming to Lex before it comes to 7th. It also has more crowding issues than the (1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

The (6) would be getting these first because CBTC is coming to Lex before it comes to 7th. It also has more crowding issues than the (1)

That's if they go through with it, with governor jackass making things hard for byford. Cbtc on lex might get delayed. 

Even if the (6) get them first, the (1) should get a fleet of new cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

But why didnt MTA just order new R142A's (or R188's) to replace the R62A's on the (7) and kept the R62A as surplus cars or divide them evenly by each yard?

Because the (7) wasn't ready for tech trains when the redbirds were being replaced.

Corona barn was too old plus was sinking into the ground. 

Steinway tubes was causing clearance issues for the R142A's when they tested it on the (7) in 2003.

So a new barn was built (was already planned) and the tubes were modified. 

 

That's why the (7) didn't get tech trains until 2013.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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