R262 (R62/R62A Replacement) - Information & Discussion

[Metro CSW]

Let's leave the  out of this. The Lexington lines and 42nd Street shuttle are better with 262s while the 142s gets shifted to the 7th Avenue lines because of the front red route sign, I guess..... I want to think that's what the  is really going for.......

[Chris89292]

12 minutes ago, Metro CSW said:

Let's leave the  out of this. The Lexington lines and 42nd Street shuttle are better with 262s while the 142s gets shifted to the 7th Avenue lines because of the front red route sign, I guess..... I want to think that's what the  is really going for.......

It would be great to at least see them test on the  line 

[40 to 241st]

5 minutes ago, Metro CSW said:

Let's leave the  out of this. The Lexington lines and 42nd Street shuttle are better with 262s while the 142s gets shifted to the 7th Avenue lines because of the front red route sign, I guess..... I want to think that's what the  is really going for.......

If there's gonna be any 7th avenue route that will get the r262's it has to be the  line since it get crowded and the will likely have them and shares a fleet with the  line it would make sense since they get well crowded and  as well, but I like your idea because the Lexington Av lines are more crowded and the can be complicated but them  dosen't get that packed so it won't really need the r262 as much as the  lines.

[Kamen Rider]

10 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Also, I wish they'd customize an IRT Shuttle train that it good at instantly reversing rather than just waiting at either terminal for 4 minutes (kinda ruins the point of the ).

yes, waiting for passengers to board the train defeats the purpose.

the train operators do need time to swap out, you know. They don't stay on the train all day. There are six of them on duty, swapping out every few trips. us crews are human and have needs, after all. 

[RandomRider0101]

7 hours ago, Chris89292 said:

the R188 can run on other lines too, the crew just has to remove the C car to make a 10 car set R188, I don’t know if that’s possible tho, it’s very complicated to do so

 

1 hour ago, 40 to 241st said:

To be honest the only way r262s will run the  is they remove the C car of the r188s to put on other lines, or if the line has r142/r142as they can get replaced off the  line and put them on the . If not they can put the r262s on the line.

The MTA already had to go through a whole process just to configure the R188s for the line.

Why complicate things further by creating an oddball fleet, when the cars that are currently there are more than enough to cover all service needs? It's unnecessary.

The R262s are for the Mainline IRT. The will not be getting anymore new cars until it's time to retire their current ones.

 

[40 to 241st]

46 minutes ago, RandomRider0101 said:

 

The MTA already had to go through a whole process just to configure the R188s for the line.

Why complicate things further by creating an oddball fleet, when the cars that are currently there are more than enough to cover all service needs? It's unnecessary.

The R262s are for the Mainline IRT. The will not be getting anymore new cars until it's time to retire their current ones.

 

I like your idea that sound like the most sensible so lets do this put them on teh 

[LGA Link N Train]

Anyone saying that the 6 Car 262’s should go to the  they won’t. Those are meant for the  Shuttle on 42nd Street so that those 62A’s can get replaced. I believe there’s supposed to be 24 Cars for the  Shuttle Last I recall and then the rest 5 Car Sets for Mainline IRT. Makes sense since Lexington and 7th Avenue are both eventually planned to have CBTC in the future and would trap the Shuttle into 2 CBTC Zones.

[jon2305]

We can all continue to put out predictions on which lines the R262s could wind up on, but at this point is obviously too early to comprehend that. A contract is still yet to be awarded to a subway car builder and we also have to take into account that the planned design scheme for this R262 fleet would be solely based on the results R211s, which are gradually making their way into the system now. The results of the latter could possibly indicate whatever process the MTA would want to settle in with in terms of construction, quality & flexibility by the time their decision's or made to go forward with R262 order.

The R262 fleet order is planned to replace the R62 & R62As, both fleets currently serving the IRT Mainline & 42nd St Shuttle primarily. Basically by the end of this decade the IRT Mainlines ONLY is overdue for new trains without a doubt. Plus, the R262 order could perhaps coincide with future CBTC implementations on the Lexington Ave and 7th Ave Lines by the time if or when their able to finish with all the mess currently happening on the B Division. Even if the is excluded form this order, just like what we've seen with the R211s the R262s still would have to be tested all around the A Division which includes the Flushing line and given the fact that as they move along with CBTC implementation on modern subway trains it only makes sense to test them on a line that already has this system in place in order to achieve a broader service communication aspect and how they can improve on things if need be.

It comes down to decision making's from the person or person's in charge of equipment assignments in the subway. So it's one thing for them to be tested around the system but it's another on which subway lines they would want to assign them on for regular service.

[Lawrence St]

Isn’t it time for the R142’s to retire? They are almost 25 years old at this point.

[40 to 241st]

21 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Isn’t it time for the R142’s to retire? They are almost 25 years old at this point.

Don't they live for like 40years before they retire

 

[trainfan22]

21 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Isn’t it time for the R142’s to retire? They are almost 25 years old at this point.

Nah, their planned lifespan is 40 years.

[Kamen Rider]

And before anyone asks, “midlife rebuilds” are no longer a thing. That’s what we have SMS for, to not need anything that drastic. 

[Metro CSW]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Isn’t it time for the R142’s to retire? They are almost 25 years old at this point.

They got to be at least 40 years old before the worst units to be considered written off to "Fish housing" and the better units can be used for few more years of storage, then run their courses to follow sue in their demise at the raise of their future successors. Unless something changes with the time, this is a never-ending 40+ year cycle with the rolling stock. 

 

10 minutes ago, Kamen Rider said:

And before anyone asks, “midlife rebuilds” are no longer a thing. That’s what we have SMS for, to not need anything that drastic. 

Yeah, don't go looking at the R188s and think that should be a thing with the existing fleet. With the  's financial track record, that's unrealistically null....

[RSMG106]

An RFP have been started for the R262 and R268 order. It will end on July 14th 2023. (Subject to Change)

https://new.mta.info/document/112931

Edited June 10, 2023 by RSMG106

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

Is R268 a rename for R262A or will it be something different?

[RSMG106]

Just now, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Is R268 a rename for R262A or will it be something different?

The R268 is separate from the R262s, and it will replace the R68/R68As. 

[RandomRider0101]

12 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Is R268 a rename for R262A or will it be something different?

R268 is the replacement for the R68/As. And lol at R262A since that was never confirmed.

[ABOGbrooklyn]

12 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Is R268 a rename for R262A or will it be something different?

Deleted.

Edited June 10, 2023 by ABOGbrooklyn

[MJHmarc]

Hopefully the r142’s can get a mid life upgrade like replacing the strip maps with a modern FIND but i guess not likely. 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

Sorry if this has already been asked or discussed, but any chance the MTA tries to do 4 doors on the R262? Given the A-division car bodies are pretty narrow and the current door spacing is actually on average further apart than NTT B division trains, there's a decent case to be made this would improve the flow of riders boarding and deboarding the train.

Having an A-division train with 4 doors on each side feels like it'd be so cursed cause 3 doors on each side is part of the A-divisions idenity; it was one of those features that distinguished "number trains" and "letter trains" for me from a very young age.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

There would be almost nowhere to sit on the trains if each R262 car had four doors per side instead of the conventional three - assuming the car bodies remain at 51 feet long. Now, if the R262s were to be longer than that - perhaps closer to 60 feet - then having four side doors would be possible. I’ve long thought about putting 60-foot A-Division cars on the  line to deal with the crowds there.

Or they could go to plug doors that open out and slide to onto side of the car body (like the new BART trains have) or having side doors that open into glass panels, like the end car doors on the current NTTs do. Of course the end doors are opened manually, so it’s not a problem there. But with side doors that open into window panels you’d have to figure out where to put the door machinery so it’s not visible to the public and easily accessible for the mechanics. 

Edited June 15, 2023 by T to Dyre Avenue

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

There would be almost nowhere to sit on the trains if each R262 car had four doors per side instead of the conventional three - assuming the car bodies remain at 51 feet long. Now, if the R262s were to be longer than that - perhaps closer to 60 feet - then having four side doors would be possible. I’ve long thought about putting 60-foot A-Division cars on the  line to deal with the crowds there.

Or they could go to plug doors that open out and slide to onto side of the car body (like the new BART trains have) or having side doors that open into glass panels, like the end car doors on the current NTTs do. Of course the end doors are opened manually, so it’s not a problem there. But with side doors that open into window panels you’d have to figure out where to put the door machinery so it’s not visible to the public and easily accessible for the mechanics. 

Given the general trend has been towards less seating in exchange for more overall capacity, and most of the A-division lines can get quite crowded, I wouldn't be shocked if the MTA finds adding a 4th set of doors justified. For a variety of reasons, I doubt MTA tries plug doors, but I could see them doing something where the doors slide into the glass

I'm not sure 60ft IRT cars would be practical or possible without dramatic reconstruction. Stuff like 149th St junction and Steinway tubes strike me as potential problems. Furthermore, IRT trains are quite narrow so the length:width ration would be insane. Just doing gangway trains should be fine.

[Lex]

1 hour ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Given the general trend has been towards less seating in exchange for more overall capacity, and most of the A-division lines can get quite crowded, I wouldn't be shocked if the MTA finds adding a 4th set of doors justified. For a variety of reasons, I doubt MTA tries plug doors, but I could see them doing something where the doors slide into the glass

I'm not sure 60ft IRT cars would be practical or possible without dramatic reconstruction. Stuff like 149th St junction and Steinway tubes strike me as potential problems. Furthermore, IRT trains are quite narrow so the length:width ration would be insane. Just doing gangway trains should be fine.

That and making 6-car sets standard across the IRT. You'd still have some (re)construction to do for this, but validation would not include an entirely different car length relative to width (and, as a result, turn radius).

[IAlam]

Considering people are pushing the MTA to install platform screen doors there is no reason the MTA would deviate from the current design. A-division trains already have wider doors. For more capacity, platform extensions to 12 cars would be needed to make A-division trains about the same length as their B-division counterparts. 

[Bill from Maspeth]

On 6/15/2023 at 1:56 AM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Sorry if this has already been asked or discussed, but any chance the MTA tries to do 4 doors on the R262? Given the A-division car bodies are pretty narrow and the current door spacing is actually on average further apart than NTT B division trains, there's a decent case to be made this would improve the flow of riders boarding and deboarding the train.

Having an A-division train with 4 doors on each side feels like it'd be so cursed cause 3 doors on each side is part of the A-divisions idenity; it was one of those features that distinguished "number trains" and "letter trains" for me from a very young age.

No way because of the moving platform/gap fillers at 14th St. on the East Side.  All IRT equipment has to be able to operate on both the east and west sides.  You can't restrict some cars to a certain side of town in case of reroutes and needed flexibility to transfer cars from one barn to another as needed throughout the lifetime of the cars.