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

On 1/27/2019 at 11:28 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Hopefully it’s just that...chatter

Sadly it might be true, as Kawasaki just faces a lot of competition at home in Japan. There are six major rolling stock manufacturers in Japan, so it's quite a saturated market (Kawasaki, Hitachi, J-TREC, Kinki Sharyo, Niigata Transys, and Nippon Sharyo, just based off a quick skim of Wikipedia)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2019 at 11:28 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

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.

For now, it's just speculation, and the bigger issue is that the parent company in Japan isn't happy with how last year went.  They've been in the railcar industry for over a century and in the US market for almost 40 years and have good customer relations, so the only way it would get to that point is if the R211 is delayed like we've seen with the R179.  As far as the Chinese, yes, they have won a few contracts here, but there is still a high level of skepticism when dealing with them.  Not to mention the trade war, while it has affected some of Kawasaki's subcontractors, has hit the Chinese the most.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like MTA will preserve R62 1438 since it was involved in the 1991 Union Square Wreck. MTA seems to save trains that have been involved in accidents. Also, These 62/As would be the next work trains replacing the Redbird Work trains. So... would they be painted yellow? (Prob not)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Q23 via 108 said:

I feel like MTA will preserve R62 1438 since it was involved in the 1991 Union Square Wreck. MTA seems to save trains that have been involved in accidents. Also, These 62/As would be the next work trains replacing the Redbird Work trains. So... would they be painted yellow? (Prob not)

The garbage trains (R127/R134) are actually based on the R62 design, and those have always been stainless, so probably not.  While we're on the subject, the R62, while conservatively designed, is significantly historic in that it was the first NYCT model not to be built in the US and by a foreign manufacturer.

On 1/29/2019 at 1:46 PM, Enjineer said:

Sadly it might be true, as Kawasaki just faces a lot of competition at home in Japan. There are six major rolling stock manufacturers in Japan, so it's quite a saturated market (Kawasaki, Hitachi, J-TREC, Kinki Sharyo, Niigata Transys, and Nippon Sharyo, just based off a quick skim of Wikipedia)

I am curious to see if any of the other Japanese manufacturers would be interested in working for NYCT in the future.  Nippon Sharyo is probably out of the question since they just closed their US plant, but Hitachi has a relatively new plant in Florida.

Edited by Bosco

Share this post


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

The garbage trains (R127/R134) are actually based on the R62 design, and those have always been stainless, so probably not.  While we're on the subject, the R62, while conservatively designed, is significantly historic in that it was the first NYCT model not to be built in the US and by a foreign manufacturer.

I am curious to see if any of the other Japanese manufacturers would be interested in working for NYCT in the future.  Nippon Sharyo is probably out of the question since they just closed their US plant, but Hitachi has a relatively new plant in Florida.

Werent the R127/R134 made from spare or rejected R62 shells?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2019 at 7:44 PM, LTA1992 said:

Hmm. I had an idea way back when the R211 came about that the MTA may be using the first digit of the contract number to denote generations. 

R142/143/160/179/188

R211/262/268(?)

R3xx for the R142 replacements and so on. Just a thought.

Opinions?

The R142’s aren’t going to be replaced anytime soon. They will all be upgraded to R188’s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, East New York said:

The R142’s aren’t going to be replaced anytime soon. They will all be upgraded to R188’s.

"They"? The R142s are not going to be upgraded to R188s. Where are you getting this from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

"They"? The R142s are not going to be upgraded to R188s. Where are you getting this from?

Um...dosent he work for MTA?

  • Thanks 2
  • LMAO! 1
  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 3

Share this post


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

Um...dosent he work for MTA?

He has connections, but even so it's a bit odd that all remaining 1250 NTTs on the main IRT division will be upgraded to R188s unless they call the upgraded R142s "R188As" or something

Edited by MysteriousBtrain
Fixing up post

Share this post


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

He has connections, but even so it's a bit odd that all remaining 1250 NTTs on the main IRT division will be upgraded to R188s unless they call the upgraded R142s "R188As" or something

TBH Just called them R189's...less confusion all around. I dont understand why we have to call upgraded R142/A's R188's (except for the (7) fleet) while for the R160's that are converted to CBTC retain their same fleet identity.

Share this post


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

TBH Just called them R189's...less confusion all around. I dont understand why we have to call upgraded R142/A's R188's (except for the (7) fleet) while for the R160's that are converted to CBTC retain their same fleet identity.

R142/As were not designed for CBTC so a new contract was issued to rebuild them to that spec. R160s were always designed for it so it was just a matter of installing the equipment where its designed to go.

1 hour ago, East New York said:

The R142’s aren’t going to be replaced anytime soon. They will all be upgraded to R188’s.

I'm going assume that what he meant by that was the R142s will go through an upgrade process to R188 specs, not necessarily them becoming R188s.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


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

Um...dosent he work for MTA?

What are you literally implying with that statement "doesn't he work for the (MTA)?"... 

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


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

Um...dosent he work for MTA?

 

12 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

What are you literally implying with that statement "doesn't he work for the (MTA)?"... 

Actually, my understanding is that he doesn't.

Share this post


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

R142/As were not designed for CBTC so a new contract was issued to rebuild them to that spec. R160s were always designed for it so it was just a matter of installing the equipment where its designed to go.

All NTT cars are capable of being equipped with CBTC, including the R142/A. That contract that was issued was to install the CBTC equipment for Lexington Avenue and replace the doors and HVACs with new components similar to the R188.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

All NTT cars are capable of being equipped with CBTC, including the R142/A. 

That's not correct. The R143s were the first cars designed for CBTC integration. The R142/As do have any provisions for CBTC hardware like the R143/160/179 do, therefore the R188 contract was issued to bring the R142As up to spec for the (7).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

That's not correct. The R143s were the first cars designed for CBTC integration. The R142/As do have any provisions for CBTC hardware like the R143/160/179 do, therefore the R188 contract was issued to bring the R142As up to spec for the (7).

That’s wired. I thought all of the NTTs have provisions for CBTC, since the R142/As were delivered in 1999, after the MTA decided to install CBTC in the Canarsie Line. After all, CBTC is a new technology for signaling systems so I am not sure on how it made sense for the NTT R142/As to not come with provisions with CBTC.

Share this post


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

"They"? The R142s are not going to be upgraded to R188s. Where are you getting this from?

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Dante aka East New York. No I do not work for MTA. I own a consulting firm and work WITH the MTA. I have also worked with every major component supplier as well consulted with about 90 different transit agencies over the last 2 decades. 

I have been the pioneer of many successful programs, from Metrocard changes, getting New Glyer back in NYC, getting Nova back in America, SAS, to SBS and beyond. In the process, 90% of what goes on within all agencies of the MTA comes across my desk before 98% of MTA employees actually get the information. 

I have released more exclusives on the MTA than anyone else in this industry next to Mr. Trevor Logan Jr. I’ve created every new train project thread EXCEPT this one, and and that’s only because I was on vacation for my birthday when it all came out and I had new bus contracts to sort through.

I also limit what I now post in subways because it’s really irritating when people tell me what’s not going to happen or my information is incorrect when, when my 11 year records stands at 99.9% accuracy. If anything changed it’s because the MTA decided to make changes, or minor details were incorrect.

This exactly why I waited for the black and white to come out on the R262. I’m too old to be arguing with you all these days, and explaining every 8-12 months who I am. 

Please note the credibility of NYC Transit Forums was build off the back of my information and the string of exclusives I used to do. At one point 90% of MTA news was release here first. New agencies, and newspaper media outlets have gotten stories from here as well. Great example is when I posted that MTA would shut the L down and get 200 used diesel buses from TTC. Well once the new saw my post they nipped that in the bud immediately and now we have 200 brand new buses currently being delivered.

For those that didn’t know, the $1 charge for new MetroCards, and making them refillable was my idea. The report I summited on what would do if I was the CEO of MTA has actually been implemented across the board. The only plans I had in there that fell apart was the order of new RTS buses, and a subway under Utica Av that stretched from Kings Plaza to LaGuardia. MTA started both programs. MTS couldn’t meet the terms for new RTS buses, and realistically they can’t afford a subway under Utica. I then suggested a diversion of that money to restart SAS. Now phase 1 is complete. 

So to answer your question of where I got my information, I have access to all things MTA. Including some classified material that I can’t discuss until it hits black and while. 

I got in major trouble for that, and I was attacked right here at NYCTF. I posted info on the R188 award before Kawasaki was notified, and I also created a thread stating that New Flyer was resurrecting the C40LF from the dead for MTA before they were notified as well. Even NFI though I was lying, so I don’t take offense anymore. I would also never say “I told you so.” Even though I could have about 70 times now. 

I’m also changing the name of the R188 thread and integrating the R142 upgrade information. Please standby for that. This program has been in the works for nearly 2 years now. It just hasn’t been public. I did however break the story in it in a thread somewhere. I will try to find it. I may start a new thread because the upgrades will now expand to the entire 142/142A fleet. MTA is actually seeking out any and ALL companies with knowledge in train rebuilding to consult on the project. Ideally they would have had Bombardier at the forefront for this project, but they aren’t confident in their work at this time. We will get into all these juicy new details as soon as I finish the report.

Back on topic. Now that the R262 is public, my full program report is coming soon.

Edited by East New York
  • Upvote 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, East New York said:

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Dante aka East New York. No I do not work for MTA. I own a consulting firm and work WITH the MTA. I have also worked with every major component supplier as well consulted with about 90 different transit agencies over the last 2 decades. 

I have been the pioneer of many successful programs, from Metrocard changes, getting New Glyer back in NYC, getting Nova back in America, SAS, to SBS and beyond. In the process, 90% of what goes on within all agencies of the MTA comes across my desk before 98% of MTA employees actually get the information. 

I have released more exclusives on the MTA than anyone else in this industry next to Mr. Trevor Logan Jr. I’ve created every new train project thread EXCEPT this one, and and that’s only because I was on vacation for my birthday when it all came out and I had new bus contracts to sort through.

I also limit what I now post in subways because it’s really irritating when people tell me what’s not going to happen or my information is incorrect when, when my 11 year records stands at 99.9% accuracy. If anything changed it’s because the MTA decided to make changes, or minor details were incorrect.

This exactly why I waited for the black and white to come out on the R262. I’m too old to be arguing with you all these days, and explaining every 8-12 months who I am. 

For those that didn’t know, the $1 charge for new MetroCards, and making them refillable was my idea. The report I summited on what would do if I was the CEO of MTA has actually been implemented across the board. The only plans I had in there that fell apart was the order of new RTS buses, and a subway under Utica Av that stretched from Kings Plaza to LaGuardia. MTA started both programs. MTS couldn’t meet the terms for new RTS buses, and realistically they can’t afford a subway under Utica. I then suggested a diversion of that money to restart SAS. Now phase 1 is complete. 

So to answer your question of where I got my information, I have access to all things MTA. Including some classified material that I can’t discuss until it hits black and while. 

I got in major trouble for that, and I was attacked right here at NYCTF. I posted info on the R188 award before Kawasaki was notified, and I also created a thread stating that New Flyer was resurrecting the C40LF from the dead for MTA before they were notified as well. Even NFI though I was lying, so I don’t take offense anymore. I would also never say “I told you so.” Even though I could have about 70 times now. 

I’m also changing the name of the R188 thread and integrating the R142 upgrade information. Please standby for that. This program has been in the works for nearly 2 years now. It just hasn’t been public. I did however break the story in it in a thread somewhere. I will try to find it. I may start a new thread because the upgrades will now expand to the entire 142/142A fleet. MTA is actually seeking out any and ALL companies with knowledge in train rebuilding to consult on the project. Ideally they would have had Bombardier at the forefront for this project, but they aren’t confident in their work at this time. We will get into all these juicy new details as soon as I finish the report.

Back on topic. Now that the R262 is public, my full program report is coming soon.

So will the R142's retain the R188 designation or no?

Share this post


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

So will the R142's retain the R188 designation or no?

No, and I just spit the discussion out of the R188 thread so you guys can catch up on that. 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

East New York, ugh fine. I didn’t mean to come at you in a certain way though when I rudely stated “They’re not gonna do that, where you getting this from?”. I can admit that and should have rephrase that tone of voice of mine. That is my fault. I’m just often skeptical when it comes to new information like this and still really mad at the (MTA) for spending so much money converting more than half of the original 600-car fleet of R142As and retaining them with the R188 designation. Especially when they could have done that from very beginning the (MTA) made the contract to replace the Redbirds with the current R142/142As we have now. That way, the R62As would have never left the (6) and we would not have all this bitching about the loss of the R142As on the line in the first place. IMO, I prefer the R142As over the R62As on the (6).

Back to topic.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


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

TBH Just called them R189's...less confusion all around. I dont understand why we have to call upgraded R142/A's R188's (except for the (7) fleet) while for the R160's that are converted to CBTC retain their same fleet identity.

Fun, and little known fact of the day.....

The thing is, trains are actually not designated by the MTA in a way that most people think. They actually get their names based solely on the last 3 digits of the contract. This is how I always knew what the train number was going to be when people used to make guesses at it all the time. People would always ask me how did I guess it right. Well, my secret is I never had to guess at all. It’s always been in plain sight years before the train comes out lol. Many rail buffs know this now, but the vast majority of people do not.

Examples

142/142a contract # R34142 and R34142A

R211 is R34211

R262 is R34262

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

East New York, ugh fine. I didn’t mean to come at you in a certain way though when I rudely stated “They’re not gonna do that, where you getting this from?”. I can admit that and should have rephrase that tone of voice of mine. That is my fault. I’m just often skeptical when it comes to new information like this and still really mad at the (MTA) for spending so much money converting more than half of the original 600-car fleet of R142As and retaining them with the R188 designation. Especially when they could have done that from very beginning the (MTA) made the contract to replace the Redbirds with the current R142/142As we have now. That way, the R62As would have never left the (6) and we would not have all this bitching about the loss of the R142As on the line in the first place. IMO, I prefer the R142As over the R62As on the (6).

Back to topic.

I should have also worded that different. They will be upgraded to R188 Standard, however the designation will be whatever the last 3 numbers of the contract which I have not looked at yet. 

Times have also changes and MTA has changes plans twice. We are now at upgrading the whole fleet. Not just the 142A,s.

In addition, what you are saying was partly addressed by MTA years ago, it just wasn’t public knowledge. They actually did plan it all from the beginning. They were always looking into upgrading all the 142A’s when the concept for the 188 came into the fold. I just never said anything about it until it was confirmed just under a year ago. After getting certain reactions at times, some things just shouldn’t be announced until details are available. 

The addition of 142’s as well is new information I was actually able to confirm in December, but had not yet decided how I would post on it. So I actually thank you for speeding things up because this will be one of the major developments of 2019 and 2020.

MTA is known for keeping trains for at least 4 decades. They have decided that with the current data, it makes more sense to GOH the entire fleet and bring it up to CBTC standard. This extends the life of the train, and ensures that when all the R62/62A’s are retired the entire system will be online or ready to go online.

Edited by East New York
  • Thanks 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

All NTT cars are capable of being equipped with CBTC, including the R142/A. That contract that was issued was to install the CBTC equipment for Lexington Avenue and replace the doors and HVACs with new components similar to the R188.

Correct.

4 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

That's not correct. The R143s were the first cars designed for CBTC integration. The R142/As do have any provisions for CBTC hardware like the R143/160/179 do, therefore the R188 contract was issued to bring the R142As up to spec for the (7).

Correct. I don’t think you read his post thoroughly. 

Edited by East New York

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, East New York said:

hey actually get their names based solely on the last 3 digits of the contract.

Huh wow, I never knew that! Thanks for the info. 

  • Thumbs Up 1

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.