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.
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

Not to rain on anyone's parade here, but a couple of things: 1) first and foremost, the design and purchase of these cars is slated for a "future capital plan". That could mean the 2020-2024 plan or one well into the future, which leads to 2) the 40 year benchmark is a guideline for a train's optimal lifespan. That does not mean the 62s will start retiring in 2022. If that was such a hard figure, we wouldn't have the 46s (40-43 years in service), the 42s (49-50 years) or the 32s (54-55 years). With good maintenance, Transit can and likely will, extend the lifespans of the 62s so they can focus on replacing all of the much older cars still in service.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Where was this?

Some transport group on Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2019 at 5:33 PM, Lawrence St said:

DARN IT I was going to do this thread! :P

thanks for the laughs lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RR503 said:

A real win-win would be isolating the Lex in Brooklyn -- (4)(5) to BG, Utica and New Lots, (3) to New Lots, more (2) to Flatbush. Gets your fleets in order,  fixes Rogers w/o having to install new switches and lets everyone keep yard access...but I digress. 

That's an interesting plan but without more details and assuming more (4)(5) service than runs today it sounds like this could lead to big backups heading southbound around Bowling Green and Utica from trains fumigating. Right now only a handful of trains each rush hour are scheduled to turn at Bowling Green and even that isn't always great. Utica has its bad days too. Seems like at a minimum the interlocking right before Utica Av southbound would have to be reinstalled to allow New Lots-bound express trains to run around fumigating trains on the express track. I sure hope fumigation practices improve in the future.

14 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Keep in mind that the R142/As' doors are wider than those on the R62As. The R62As on the (6) are awful, and it takes longer for people to exit the train. Dwell times should go down across the IRT. 

I'm aware. CBTC will probably improve things, but the Lexington Av express isn't really known for its great dwell times, and it's already using NTTs exclusively. I just wouldn't be surprised at all if the MTA wanted the R262s on the (2)(4)(5) to help increase capacity and push down dwell times further is all. 

10 hours ago, R179 8258 said:

Since the R142/R142A are being upgraded to CBTC wouldn’t it make since just to keep the 

....

its save a lot of time and work from transferring train fleet between yards and all IRT lines would have fleet with CBTC

Certainly, anything's possible. The R262s could go anywhere. But it seems they will be built with open gangways and wider doors to increase capacity and shorten dwell times. While all of the IRT lines experience crowding out the wazoo, I'd absolutely argue the (2)(4)(5) generally have it worse than the (1)(3)(6). So I don't think the R262s, if they have superior capacity, would be living up to their full potential on the (1)(3)(6) if the (2)(4)(5) are still getting absolutely slammed in the future the way they are now. And presumably, moving the R142s and R142As to the (1)(3)(6) and changing the strip maps would only be a one-time thing until the time comes for their retirement, whatever distant year that is. Granted, who knows how things will change in the future.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mysterious2train said:

That's an interesting plan but without more details and assuming more (4)(5) service than runs today it sounds like this could lead to big backups heading southbound around Bowling Green and Utica from trains fumigating. Right now only a handful of trains each rush hour are scheduled to turn at Bowling Green and even that isn't always great. Utica has its bad days too. Seems like at a minimum the interlocking right before Utica Av southbound would have to be reinstalled to allow New Lots-bound express trains to run around fumigating trains on the express track. I sure hope fumigation practices improve in the future.

I'm aware. CBTC will probably improve things, but the Lexington Av express isn't really known for its great dwell times, and it's already using NTTs exclusively. I just wouldn't be surprised at all if the MTA wanted the R262s on the (2)(4)(5) to help increase capacity and push down dwell times further is all. 

Certainly, anything's possible. The R262s could go anywhere. But it seems they will be built with open gangways and wider doors to increase capacity and shorten dwell times. While all of the IRT lines experience crowding out the wazoo, I'd absolutely argue the (2)(4)(5) generally have it worse than the (1)(3)(6). So I don't think the R262s, if they have superior capacity, would be living up to their full potential on the (1)(3)(6) if the (2)(4)(5) are still getting absolutely slammed in the future the way they are now. And presumably, moving the R142s and R142As to the (1)(3)(6) and changing the strip maps would only be a one-time thing until the time comes for their retirement, whatever distant year that is. Granted, who knows how things will change in the future.

One of the biggest mistakes they did was do CBTC on Flushing first rather then Lexington in my opinion.

I've been on the (6) during rush hours, and almost all those times, people couldn't fit through the doors, the 62A's broke down, or there's just a really long wait in between trains. They really should have done CBTC on Lexington first, it's getting out of control. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mysterious2train said:

That's an interesting plan but without more details and assuming more (4)(5) service than runs today it sounds like this could lead to big backups heading southbound around Bowling Green and Utica from trains fumigating. Right now only a handful of trains each rush hour are scheduled to turn at Bowling Green and even that isn't always great. Utica has its bad days too. Seems like at a minimum the interlocking right before Utica Av southbound would have to be reinstalled to allow New Lots-bound express trains to run around fumigating trains on the express track. I sure hope fumigation practices improve in the future.

Officially, fumigation was abolished. It's a matter of enforcing that and keeping crew change times to a minimum that is key. 

Bowling Green, FWIW, is only fumigated because the runs that drop out there sit in the loop for a good while--if they rejigger the schedules so that trains go in and come right out a la City Hall, then you're set. 

Agreed on the crossover though. 

24 minutes ago, Mysterious2train said:

I'm aware. CBTC will probably improve things, but the Lexington Av express isn't really known for its great dwell times, and it's already using NTTs exclusively. I just wouldn't be surprised at all if the MTA wanted the R262s on the (2)(4)(5) to help increase capacity and push down dwell times further is all. 

I would do this. Without dwell changes, the only impact CBTC will have is in making arrivals more consistent and departures quicker (remember, CBTC trains follow a different, better accel. profile than their fixed-block counterparts). You can squeeze 2-3 tph out of that, but if you wanna really make an impact, good door control, good door flow, and good internal circulation is key. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mysterious2train said:

 

Certainly, anything's possible. The R262s could go anywhere. But it seems they will be built with open gangways and wider doors to increase capacity and shorten dwell times. While all of the IRT lines experience crowding out the wazoo, I'd absolutely argue the (2)(4)(5) generally have it worse than the (1)(3)(6). So I don't think the R262s, if they have superior capacity, would be living up to their full potential on the (1)(3)(6) if the (2)(4)(5) are still getting absolutely slammed in the future the way they are now. And presumably, moving the R142s and R142As to the (1)(3)(6) and changing the strip maps would only be a one-time thing until the time comes for their retirement, whatever distant year that is. Granted, who knows how things will change in the future.

I work on the (6) line almost every week (unfortunately) as a conductor and I've been on the duece from time to time. The (2) is nowhere near as bad as the (6) in terms of crowding. Let something happen to mess up the road and it's literally impossible to close down at every station. The Lexington avenue corridor is the busiest trunk line in the system and the (6) is the sole local so from a numbers standpoint i don't even see how the (2) could have it worse. The (6) absolutely needs these cars. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2019 at 1:30 PM, beelinefan said:

There will have to be three and four car sets in this order to accommodate the 42nd st  (S)

I doubt MTA would do that. The entire fleet for IRT is all in 5 car sets, except for the shuttle and half of the (7) fleet. Plus, there is(was?) a plan for the shuttle to be expanded to accommodate 5 car trains while also opening a transfer to 6th Avenue station on 42nd Street. Idk if that plan still going through though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bs23HSA.jpg

This is the mock up Lawrence St was talking about, guys. It's not official though. Some friend of mine sent me this lol. I think this is what an official (MTA) document mock-up of these trains would have looked like tbh.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


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

Bs23HSA.jpg

This is the mock up Lawrence St was talking about, guys. It's not official though. Some friend of mine sent me this lol. I think this is what an official (MTA) document mock-up of these trains would have looked like tbh.

Impressive mock-up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Any mention at the Board Meeting?

The R142/A, R262 portion begins at 33:20

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 9:22 PM, Elmhurst said:

Impressive mock-up

It just looks like all they did was superimpose a narrowed R211 face over an R142 face and added “Cuomo blue and gold” stripes along the side. It even has an R142 car number (1171). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

The R142/A, R262 portion begins at 33:20

I did hear some chatter towards Bombardier before the section started. Seems like some people such as Andrew A. remain skeptical over Bombardiers preformance as brought up. However, Byford though was much more supportive towards the manufacturer in contrast. So Bombardier may not be banned for the bidding in theory, but time will tell how they stand against other bidders if not banned. Just gotta wait and see to actually know I guess...

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2019 at 1:30 PM, beelinefan said:

There will have to be three and four car sets in this order to accommodate the 42nd st  (S)

By the time these cars come into service, the (S) should using six cars trains.

Edited by MTA Bus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2019 at 6:41 PM, mine248 said:

The MTA might not be willing to do so, but with the potential for Kawasaki to leave the competition, idk who will take over. CRRC? Alstom-Siemens?

Nobody. The made in NY stipulation from prince Andrew prevents outside companies from bidding on contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Nobody. The made in NY stipulation from prince Andrew prevents outside companies from bidding on contracts.

Well then, Byford should attempt to dab on Prince Andrew the failure and just use the buy American stipulation by convincing Andrew to remove that dumb law that is going to be deprecated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

I did hear some chatter towards Bombardier before the section started. Seems like some people such as Andrew A. remain skeptical over Bombardiers preformance as brought up. However, Byford though was much more supportive towards the manufacturer in contrast. So Bombardier may not be banned for the bidding in theory, but time will tell how they stand against other bidders if not banned. Just gotta wait and see to actually know I guess...

Byford has halted delivery of the R179s until the issues with them are resolved:

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/nyc-transit-chief-slams-bombardier-halts-deliveries-you-have-to-hold-their-hands-1.1203566

This doesn't mean they're disqualified from bidding on this, but it's certainly not good news.  Assuming they are and the Chinese don't qualify for this order, it probably will have to go to Alstom (at least partially) because Kawasaki is pretty booked for awhile with the R211.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Nobody. The made in NY stipulation from prince Andrew prevents outside companies from bidding on contracts.

As much as I like to blame Prince Andrew for why the MTA and its policies are so dysfunctional, this one’s not on him. The “made in NY” stipulation was also a condition for the other New Tech Train-era fleets, so I blame George Pataki for that one. The R142 and R142A contracts were signed during Pataki’s first term as Governor, so that’s on him (and maybe on some key members of the state legislature at the time as well).

Other than Kawasaki, the only other train builders with a presence in New York State are Bombardier, Alstom and CAF. If Kawasaki pulls out of the ralicar busiest and Bombardier is not permitted to bid on the R262s, that would leave only Alstom and CAF. Assuming “made in NY” stays in effect, CRRC won’t qualify because they currently don’t have a facility in New York State. They planned to build one in Fort Edward in conjunction with Bombardier during the R211 bidding process, but when Kawasaki won that contract, the plans for Fort Edward got put on the back burner.

12 hours ago, Bosco said:

Byford has halted delivery of the R179s until the issues with them are resolved:

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/nyc-transit-chief-slams-bombardier-halts-deliveries-you-have-to-hold-their-hands-1.1203566

This doesn't mean they're disqualified from bidding on this, but it's certainly not good news.  Assuming they are and the Chinese don't qualify for this order, it probably will have to go to Alstom (at least partially) because Kawasaki is pretty booked for awhile with the R211.

True. Alstom got the contract to build Amtrak’s successor fleet for Acela (which very fortunately will look even more like the newest TGV fleets in France than the current Acela). Amtrak’s goal is to have the whole fleet of Avelia Liberty trains in service by 2022. I’m guessing production of the R262s won’t start until probably 2025, so even with some teething issues, I don’t think production of the Avelias shouldn’t conflict with production of the R262s if Alstom gets the contract.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

As much as I like to blame Prince Andrew for why the MTA and its policies are so dysfunctional, this one’s not on him.

You're right it was pre Cuomo. My bad.

Edited by kosciusko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2019 at 10:55 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

As much as I like to blame Prince Andrew for why the MTA and its policies are so dysfunctional, this one’s not on him. The “made in NY” stipulation was also a condition for the other New Tech Train-era fleets, so I blame George Pataki for that one. The R142 and R142A contracts were signed during Pataki’s first term as Governor, so that’s on him (and maybe on some key members of the state legislature at the time as well).

What about the R68As?  Those were the first cars for the MTA built by Kawasaki Yonkers, although the first cars from that plant were the PA4s.

The R211s are the first cars to comply with the new Buy America standards (which have nothing to do with Trump, these were set in September 2016).  As a result, only the mockup will be built in Japan.  All cars, including the pilot trains, will be built in Lincoln/Yonkers.

 

On 1/26/2019 at 10:55 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Other than Kawasaki, the only other train builders with a presence in New York State are Bombardier, Alstom and CAF. If Kawasaki pulls out of the ralicar busiest and Bombardier is not permitted to bid on the R262s, that would leave only Alstom and CAF. Assuming “made in NY” stays in effect, CRRC won’t qualify because they currently don’t have a facility in New York State. They planned to build one in Fort Edward in conjunction with Bombardier during the R211 bidding process, but when Kawasaki won that contract, the plans for Fort Edward got put on the back burner.

Is CAF currently qualified with NYCT?  It's too early to tell, but Kawasaki isn't pulling out of the railcar business anytime soon.  They still have the R211s, which guarantee work for at least the next 10 years.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

What about the R68As?  Those were the first cars for the MTA built by Kawasaki Yonkers, although the first cars from that plant were the PA4s.

The R211s are the first cars to comply with the new Buy America standards (which have nothing to do with Trump, these were set in September 2016).  As a result, only the mockup will be built in Japan.  All cars, including the pilot trains, will be built in Lincoln/Yonkers.

 

Is CAF currently qualified with NYCT?  It's too early to tell, but Kawasaki isn't pulling out of the railcar business anytime soon.  They still have the R211s, which guarantee work for at least the next 10 years.

 

Ah, ok, I didn’t know the R68As were built in Yonkers too. I don’t know if they had a “Made in NY” stipulation then (if so, then I’ll blame it on Mario Cuomo), but I do remember it being there when they began procurement of the R142s.

Hopefully, Kawasaki stays in the railcar business. They’ve been good to MTA all this time. There does seem to be quite a bit of chatter in the railfan community (the Forums, SubChat, Railroad.net, etc.) saying Kawasaki exiting the railcar business is all but inevitable. Hopefully it’s just that...chatter.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

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.