R262 (R62/R62A Replacement) - Information & Discussion

[Lawrence St]

10 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Very limited funding, since most of it must have gone to rebuilding the Franklin Avenues shuttle. Another possible reason was that in 2000, they were busy with putting CBTC on the Canarsie Line, which is undergoing tunnel reconstruction as of this posting. They did not have any timetable set for CBTC on the Flushing Line yet. The CBTC installation on Flushing began to be installed in 2011.

When did the first R188 arrive on property, was it a converted or a factory set?

[JeremiahC99]

3 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

When did the first R188 arrive on property, was it a converted or a factory set?

Around 2011-12. The converted cars arrived first, then the new units. At this time, the Canarsie installation was nearing completion, and the Flushing Line got a new repair facility and increased tunnel clearance for the NTT cars.

[Around the Horn]

5 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

When did the first R188 arrive on property, was it a converted or a factory set?

I remember the first one in service was a factory set (7811-7821) but I believe 7211-7220 (7899) came back first.

[Lance]

On 6/28/2019 at 10:57 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I suppose they are. But would Transit really want to take a chance on a car maker that’s never built a subway car for New York (other than Alstom)?

They took a chance with Kawasaki back in the '80s after St. Louis Car closed up shop. There's nothing preventing the MTA from expanding beyond the usual candidates if it becomes necessary.

[BreeddekalbL]

https://m.metro-magazine.com/news/734863/house-passes-bill-banning-usage-of-fed-funds-for-chinese-rolling-stock

[T to Dyre Avenue]

3 hours ago, Lance said:

They took a chance with Kawasaki back in the '80s after St. Louis Car closed up shop. There's nothing preventing the MTA from expanding beyond the usual candidates if it becomes necessary.

True, although I do recall reading Budd protested and threatened legal action when the MTA chose Kawasaki as the winning bidder for the R62 contract. Budd’s choice of bogies didn’t help their case, given that they weren’t like the heavyweight bogies the MTA usually specifies.

Edited July 14, 2019 by T to Dyre Avenue

[RailRunRob]

4 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

https://m.metro-magazine.com/news/734863/house-passes-bill-banning-usage-of-fed-funds-for-chinese-rolling-stock

How does this affect the LAMTA and CTA with there CRRC rolling stock?

[Amtrak706]

The R62s had an incredibly high MDBF, around 273,000 this past year, and the 62As maintained a very good 114,000. These are actually even higher than the R142 and R142A, respectively, and beat most other NTTs. They are by far the most reliable old tech trains and are in the top three for most reliable period, together with the R188 and R160. Why on earth is the MTA planning to replace them? When replacements were planned for the Redbird and then B-division SMEE fleets, MDBF was tanking and the cars were falling apart. I’m not saying they should wait until things are that bad again, but these cars solid stainless steel (not falling apart at all) and are so reliable that they may actually beat the R262s when they come in. It feels like a bad move.

[JeremiahC99]

4 minutes ago, Amtrak706 said:

The R62s had an incredibly high MDBF, around 273,000 this past year, and the 62As maintained a very good 114,000. These are actually even higher than the R142 and R142A, respectively, and beat most other NTTs. They are by far the most reliable old tech trains and are in the top three for most reliable period, together with the R188 and R160. Why on earth is the MTA planning to replace them? When replacements were planned for the Redbird and then B-division SMEE fleets, MDBF was tanking and the cars were falling apart. I’m not saying they should wait until things are that bad again, but these cars solid stainless steel (not falling apart at all) and are so reliable that they may actually beat the R262s when they come in. It feels like a bad move.

Age and the need to have CBTC-compatible cars on the Lexington Avenue Line, since that line is planning to get CBTC. The option to not retire them and move the  R62As to the  is NOT an option, given the high frequency of the  and , not to mention that they often switch signs are Flatbush every single rush hour. If we put even a few R62/As on the  and , then you can expect delays from Flatbush Avenue all the way to Franklin Avenue, compounding already existent delays on the line south of Church Avenue. Therefore, there is no other choice but to retire them.

In addition, the R62As have a very high reliability because somehow, they’re assigned to a part time line (the ) that doesn’t run its entire route all the time. It runs from 148 to New Lots at all times except late night, when it is a shuttle between 148 and Times Sq, where a pocket track exists to turn trains. For the , the shorter route, aside from providing service to Central Harlem, allows for the other R62s to go into the shop for inspection and repairs. The R62A, R142 and R142As are all assigned to mainline trains that constantly run its entire route all the time, though the  runs shorter routes outside the work hours. Hopefully when the new cars come in, the R142 and R142As get reassigned to the  to have cars with lower Mean Fail rates on part time lines while factory fresh cars get assigned to full time lines.

[W4ST]

15 minutes ago, Amtrak706 said:

The R62s had an incredibly high MDBF, around 273,000 this past year, and the 62As maintained a very good 114,000. These are actually even higher than the R142 and R142A, respectively, and beat most other NTTs. They are by far the most reliable old tech trains and are in the top three for most reliable period, together with the R188 and R160. Why on earth is the MTA planning to replace them? When replacements were planned for the Redbird and then B-division SMEE fleets, MDBF was tanking and the cars were falling apart. I’m not saying they should wait until things are that bad again, but these cars solid stainless steel (not falling apart at all) and are so reliable that they may actually beat the R262s when they come in. It feels like a bad move.

The one problem with them is the air conditioning units on the R62As. They constantly break down, seemingly more than in other cars. At least the trains run well, but the hot cars are a big problem.

[trainfan22]

49 minutes ago, Amtrak706 said:

The R62s had an incredibly high MDBF, around 273,000 this past year, and the 62As maintained a very good 114,000. These are actually even higher than the R142 and R142A, respectively, and beat most other NTTs. They are by far the most reliable old tech trains and are in the top three for most reliable period, together with the R188 and R160. Why on earth is the MTA planning to replace them? When replacements were planned for the Redbird and then B-division SMEE fleets, MDBF was tanking and the cars were falling apart. I’m not saying they should wait until things are that bad again, but these cars solid stainless steel (not falling apart at all) and are so reliable that they may actually beat the R262s when they come in. It feels like a bad move.

The only flaw the R62/62A cars have is their A/C units break down a lot, otherwise, there's nothing wrong with those cars. I think both the 62s and 62A's can easily do 50 years of service without breaking a sweat, if only they found a way to make their A/C units more reliable...

 

[Late Clear]

R62 & R68A braking package needs an update otherwise this is probably the best equipment transit has ever had it's a shame they are not investing into it.  

[R32 3838]

On 7/20/2019 at 7:35 PM, W4ST said:

The one problem with them is the air conditioning units on the R62As. They constantly break down, seemingly more than in other cars. At least the trains run well, but the hot cars are a big problem.

This was never an issue on the (7). They're on mostly underground local routes now. So there's gonna be issues.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

They certainly were an improvement over the R33/36 trains. Ridership on the  eventually got to the point where they had to run the single R33s in the consists during the summer. And, oh how hot those cars got in the summer, even with the windows open. Having fully air-conditioned 11-car R62As were definitely a welcome change in 2002-03. The R62As’ tiny little orange seats were a different story, however...

Edited July 31, 2019 by T to Dyre Avenue

[TrainRider Railfan]

On 1/18/2019 at 6:11 PM, Around the Horn said:

Hopefully these will have open gangways like the R211Ts and the S stock in London.

I still just don’t think open gangways are gonna work. They’re a great concept, but I feel like in reality, they will just allow smell to spread and cause problems.

[m7zanr160s]

32 minutes ago, TrainRider Railfan said:

I still just don’t think open gangways are gonna work. They’re a great concept, but I feel like in reality, they will just allow smell to spread and cause problems.

Smelly train cars are a minority. We should not eliminate a feature that will increase capacity and efficency because of a smelly car here or there.

[S78 via Hylan]

11 hours ago, m7zanr160s said:

Smelly train cars are a minority. We should not eliminate a feature that will increase capacity and efficency because of a smelly car here or there.

While you have a point, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that homelessness is really becoming a major issue in the subway.

[LTA1992]

13 hours ago, TrainRider Railfan said:

I still just don’t think open gangways are gonna work. They’re a great concept, but I feel like in reality, they will just allow smell to spread and cause problems.

This worry gets on my nerves.

Anyone who has ACRUALLY ridden on an open gangway train (me included) will tell you otherwise.

Secondly, more air circulation means more room for those particles to spread out, thus minimizing the stank. Closed cars don't do that.

Edited December 10, 2019 by LTA1992

[Around the Horn]

3 hours ago, LTA1992 said:

This worry gets on my nerves.

Anyone who has ACRUALLY ridden on an open gangway train (me included) will tell you otherwise.

Secondly, more air circulation means more room for those particles to spread out, thus minimizing the stank. Closed cars don't do that.

The extent to which people forget there's a whole world outside of the US that's already figured this out is troubling.

[Q23 via 108]

4 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

The extent to which people forget there's a whole world outside of the US that's already figured this out is troubling.

Furthermore, Articulated buses are practically the same thing, and we've had those since 1996. 

[Cait Sith]

18 minutes ago, Q23 via 108 said:

Furthermore, Articulated buses are practically the same thing, and we've had those since 1996. 

Not quite the same, it's just an added 15-20 feet, and foul odors spread throughout the entire bus.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Cait Sith

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

21 hours ago, TrainRider Railfan said:

I still just don’t think open gangways are gonna work. They’re a great concept, but I feel like in reality, they will just allow smell to spread and cause problems.

The primary goal of open-gangway subway cars is to increase passenger capacity by utilizing the existing space in between cars. Frankly, the  couldn't care less about unpleasant aromas flowing through their trains, so as long they safely get people from point A to point B in a timely manner. I wish the  had tested the open-gangway concept back in the 90s with the R110s.

[Around the Horn]

Hidden in an article about CRRC getting banned from receiving federal funds:

Quote

The only two companies currently qualified to provide train cars for New York City’s subway are Canada-based Bombardier and Japan-based Kawasaki.

MTA officials have also had discussions this year with European companies Alstom and Siemens about rail car purchases.

I guess there's your way way too early short list for the R262s 🤣

[B35 via Church]

On 12/9/2019 at 8:47 PM, TrainRider Railfan said:

I still just don’t think open gangways are gonna work. They’re a great concept, but I feel like in reality, they will just allow smell to spread and cause problems.

As opposed to keeping those same smells confined in an individual, closed off subway car? You've gotta be bullshitting me with this....

17 hours ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

The primary goal of open-gangway subway cars is to increase passenger capacity by utilizing the existing space in between cars.

....not to mention being a catalyst for passenger safety.

[RedLine]

The same amount of stink will diffuse through a bigger surface area so it can stink less for an open gangway train.