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.
R62A7TrainFan

R62A 7 and 6 Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Train92 said:

 

Wasn't an attack, its just that out of the whole paragraph that @Coney Island Av wrote, you chose to out him on a word, instead of, oh I don't know, the whole sentence before hand?

"And does it really matter? I really miss the R62A (7), but the R142A (6) is something many youngsters around here have a hard-on for. It's okay to miss it and/or like it, but not to the point of obsessing over it.  And before you criticize me, there's a difference between simply liking it and foaming/obsessing over it."

How am I criticizing you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, R62A7TrainFan said:

How am I criticizing you?

2 things im noticing:

a) You seem to focus on one word instead of the bigger picture

2) this is what @Coney Island Av said, as you can in the quote.

 

Im not going to respond to this anymore. You need to grow up my friend, Its a train, you are acting like its the end of the world. Everything is done for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, R62A7TrainFan said:

The R62As are heavily missed in the railfan community on the (7) and they obviously ruined the (6)because of CBTC on the (7). I personally don't like 62As on the (6)and they should put them on the (4)and (5) and swap (2)(4)(5) NTTs for the (6) because lots of railfans will be interested in R142s officially take over the (6).

How exactly did the R62A's mangle the (6) line? I'm nearly 100% certain you wouldn't be claiming an opinion based on fantasy if every R62A set on the (6) had a RFW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

How exactly did the R62A's mangle the (6) line? I'm nearly 100% certain you wouldn't be claiming an opinion based on fantasy if every R62A set on the (6) had a RFW.

I'm not going to answer your questions because as you can see, there has been enough arguing,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To briefly play devil's advocate, the R62As have narrower doors, so there is a bit of increase in dwell times compared to the R142As.

The problem is that prematurely retiring the R62As would've been a poor use of funds, however, so Lexington riders will have to learn to deal with it until the R262s come online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Car assignments are a function of car capability, maintenance simplification, and operational requirements. An example of the former is the need for the (4)(5) to have the widest possible doors to reduce dwell; of the middle, the preference to consolidate fleets at common shops; of the latter, the need to switch signs at Flatbush. 

That's how A div assignments are made. The (4)(5) need 142(A)s, which means the (2)(4)(5) need 142(A)s. The (7) needs 188s. That leaves the 62(A)s for the (1)(3)(6). Done. 

  • Thanks 1
  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok let's go point out the obvious:

1. 1999 and 2019 are two completely different years. R62As only happened on the (2) and (5) when there were fleet shortages or a natural disaster that warranted extra trains.

2. You don't care about signage but what happens when you need to switch the (2) into a (5) ? Just look at how the (N) and (W) work when they have to switch signage for the 68s.

3. Of course people are going to be upset about loss of the R142As to the R62As. As a general daily rider of the (6) how would you feel if you go from new tech to dinosaur trains? The only reason this swap happened was to make the (7) CBTC and easily extend the line to 34 St-Hudson Yards.

4. Where would the best place be for dinosaur trains with less space and smaller doors that you don't like? A line that skips various sections of Manhattan and goes to other boroughs. Or a local ride that you probably won't spend much time on because it is slow af?

I would add more but my "opinions" aren't as important as I hope they would be so I'll be out of service until further notice.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2019 at 7:43 PM, R62A7TrainFan said:

The R62As are heavily missed in the railfan community on the (7) and they obviously ruined the (6) because of CBTC on the (7). I personally don't like 62As on the (6) and they should put them on the (4) and (5) and swap (2)(4)(5) NTTs for the (6) because lots of railfans will be interested in R142s officially take over the (6).

I ride the (7) every day. I rode it when it ran R36s, R62As and R188s. The R62As with their tiny little orange seats are definitely not missed on the (7). Hell, they never even used the purple 11 route  signs on the rolls, 😆. And how could the R62As “have obviously ruined” the (6), when they ran on that line before they were sent to the (7)

4 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Ok let's go point out the obvious:

1. 1999 and 2019 are two completely different years. R62As only happened on the (2) and (5) when there were fleet shortages or a natural disaster that warranted extra trains.

2. You don't care about signage but what happens when you need to switch the (2) into a (5) ? Just look at how the (N) and (W) work when they have to switch signage for the 68s.

3. Of course people are going to be upset about loss of the R142As to the R62As. As a general daily rider of the (6) how would you feel if you go from new tech to dinosaur trains? The only reason this swap happened was to make the (7) CBTC and easily extend the line to 34 St-Hudson Yards.

4. Where would the best place be for dinosaur trains with less space and smaller doors that you don't like? A line that skips various sections of Manhattan and goes to other boroughs. Or a local ride that you probably won't spend much time on because it is slow af?

I would add more but my "opinions" aren't as important as I hope they would be so I'll be out of service until further notice.

Well, on point number 1, they did run two trains of R62As (which were still maintained at Westchester Yard) in regular service on the (5) because in 1998, they decided to implement OPTO on the late-night (5) shuttle and it was impossible to do it with Redbird trains. So they needed a couple trains with transverse cabs. However, the (5) still ran almost entirely with Redbirds, unlike the (B) which lost all of its R40s, either to the (orangeQ) or to the (N) (to a lesser extent). Of course once there were enough R142s for both the (2) and (5), the 20 R62As were sent packing for Corona, along with most of their Westchester Yard sisters. 

In fairness, on point number 3, you may want to ask (6) line riders exactly that, as that’s exactly what happened with the R142As over there. Of course we know why it had to be done, but just put yourself in their shoes for a moment. And over in the R262 thread, there was a poster who said he’s worked both the (2) and (6) and said the (6) is way worse in terms of crowding. And the R62As do have narrower doors than the R142As. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I ride the (7) every day. I rode it when it ran R36s, R62As and R188s. The R62As with their tiny little orange seats are definitely not missed on the (7). Hell, they never even used the purple 11 route  signs on the rolls, 😆. And how could the R62As “have obviously ruined” the (6), when they ran on that line before they were sent to the (7)

Well, on point number 1, they did run two trains of R62As (which were still maintained at Westchester Yard) in regular service on the (5) because in 1998, they decided to implement OPTO on the late-night (5) shuttle and it was impossible to do it with Redbird trains. So they needed a couple trains with transverse cabs. However, the (5) still ran almost entirely with Redbirds, unlike the (B) which lost all of its R40s, either to the (orangeQ) or to the (N) (to a lesser extent). Of course once there were enough R142s for both the (2) and (5), the 20 R62As were sent packing for Corona, along with most of their Westchester Yard sisters. 

In fairness, on point number 3, you may want to ask (6) line riders exactly that, as that’s exactly what happened with the R142As over there. Of course we know why it had to be done, but just put yourself in their shoes for a moment. And over in the R262 thread, there was a poster who said he’s worked both the (2) and (6) and said the (6) is way worse in terms of crowding. And the R62As do have narrower doors than the R142As. 

For the OPTO during late nights, did the 2 5-car R62As link back as a 10-car train at Dyre Av and was it the time that Flatbush Av was a rush-hour only terminal? From that point, it's like the (M) with the R42s, OPTO is in-use with 4-car R143 trains. 

 

Also, I heard the R142As couldn't fit the Hunterspoint Av tunnel before and it was 5-car pairs each when the (7) uses 11-cars total. *I may be wrong at this

Edited by Calvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, either this is a general discussion thread or a chaotic group chat foaming at the mouth.... one can only wonder what this could be lol. Jesus..... popcorn anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn it. I knew I forgot something.

Thread locked on account of nonsense.

  • Thanks 5
  • LMAO! 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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