R46/R68 Question

[TrainRider Railfan]

I’m making a video documenting the history of the R68 and R68A. Somewhere online I found information about a proposed car order with the controls of an R68 and the body of an R46 that would be compatible with the R68s (it could be put in mixed consists with them). I lost the website and I can’t seem to find it again. Does anyone know anything about this, or am I going crazy? Also, any interesting facts about the R68s or R68As that I should include? Thanks!

[danielhg121]

7 minutes ago, TrainRider Railfan said:

I’m making a video documenting the history of the R68 and R68A. Somewhere online I found information about a proposed car order with the controls of an R68 and the body of an R46 that would be compatible with the R68s (it could be put in mixed consists with them). I lost the website and I can’t seem to find it again. Does anyone know anything about this, or am I going crazy? Also, any interesting facts about the R68s or R68As that I should include? Thanks!

Maybe the R55's?

[TrainRider Railfan]

Just now, danielhg121 said:

Maybe the R55's?

Actually I believe that the R55s came before the R68s, but later evolved into them.

Now that I think about it, maybe the R55s were just R46s with new controls, then the bodies were changed

hmmmmm 🤔

[TrainRider Railfan]

7 minutes ago, danielhg121 said:

Maybe the R55's?

I found a page with someone saying that a certain contract was the R55 and that an R83 was MOW equipment.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find what they were replying to.

Maybe what I saw was something about an R83 being what I described in the original post, but it was changed the R55 before becoming the R68 and R68As?

[Eric B]

That probably was the R55. It was proposed a few years before the R68's came out, and if you think about it, the 44/46 and 68 bodies are pretty much the same; the same 75foot layout with the orange seats. Main difference was the cab one each end of every car (one ful width; one small), the wall panels went from faux wood and the beige to stainless steel; the front end door was again recessed, and a single ridge was added on the side in the middle of the strip between the two sets of three ridges.

So the 55's may have just been a continuation of the 44/46, as in the early 80's the faux wood color scheme was still new and in vogue, but they had given up on the P-wire and went back to the SMEE system. A few years later, as the battle against grafitti had gone into full effect, they went with the stainless steel interior (starting with the 62's on the IRT), and by that time, the contract number was up to 68. (this is probably also when they changed the car configuration and added the small cab and changed the end doors. They had essentially reverted back to the the R42, but 75feet, one cab full width, and stainless steel.
What I'm interested in was the proposal to have the full width cab collapsible, like how the 62 cabs are convertible that way. The door pretty much closes the operator side into a small cab, but I don't know how they would have folded down the other side with the curved walls).

[TrainRider Railfan]

23 minutes ago, Eric B said:

That probably was the R55. It was proposed a few years before the R68's came out, and if you think about it, the 44/46 and 68 bodies are pretty much the same; the same 75foot layout with the orange seats. Main difference was the cab one each end of every car (one ful width; one small), the wall panels went from faux wood and the beige to stainless steel; the front end door was again recessed, and a single ridge was added on the side in the middle of the strip between the two sets of three ridges.

So the 55's may have just been a continuation of the 44/46, as in the early 80's the faux wood color scheme was still new and in vogue, but they had given up on the P-wire and went back to the SMEE system. A few years later, as the battle against grafitti had gone into full effect, they went with the stainless steel interior (starting with the 62's on the IRT), and by that time, the contract number was up to 68. (this is probably also when they changed the car configuration and added the small cab and changed the end doors. They had essentially reverted back to the the R42, but 75feet, one cab full width, and stainless steel.
What I'm interested in was the proposal to have the full width cab collapsible, like how the 62 cabs are convertible that way. The door pretty much closes the operator side into a small cab, but I don't know how they would have folded down the other side with the curved walls).

Thanks! Lots of super helpful info, although I’m almost completely sure that what I saw was based off of the R68s and came after, but now I’m starting to think I mixed up 2 different pieces of information. What you’re saying makes a lot of sense. That’s interesting about the collapsible full cab!

[R10 2952]

On 12/18/2020 at 7:38 PM, Eric B said:

What I'm interested in was the proposal to have the full width cab collapsible, like how the 62 cabs are convertible that way. The door pretty much closes the operator side into a small cab, but I don't know how they would have folded down the other side with the curved walls).

Always wondered that myself; I get the impression it was something they planned but gave up on halfway through (probably when the shells were already constructed).

Because of how they ultimately changed it, the half-width cabs never made sense to me.  In fact, I've never even seen photos or footage of R68/As operated from the half-width cab.

[TrainRider Railfan]

9 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Always wondered that myself; I get the impression it was something they planned but gave up on halfway through (probably when the shells were already constructed).

Because of how they ultimately changed it, the half-width cabs never made sense to me.  In fact, I've never even seen photos or footage of R68/As operated from the half-width cab.

I mean, they weren’t single units for that long, and after that there would be no reason to use the half cab. Even while they were single units, trains would always be arranged to have a full cab at either end, so maybe the half cab was there in case the car was in a yard alone with no other cars and needed to be moved in both directions. Don’t know why that would happen though. Since they were single units they were probably required to have cabs on both ends.

[Eric B]

23 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Always wondered that myself; I get the impression it was something they planned but gave up on halfway through (probably when the shells were already constructed).

Because of how they ultimately changed it, the half-width cabs never made sense to me.  In fact, I've never even seen photos or footage of R68/As operated from the half-width cab.

I saw them used (by T/O, but conductors couldn;t use them, of course) in the beginning, and you could sit on the end of that transverse and look out the front! I don't know why they didn't just remove the cabs when they were made permanently into 4 car sets. 

[Bill from Maspeth]

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2020 at 12:17 AM, R10 2952 said:

Always wondered that myself; I get the impression it was something they planned but gave up on halfway through (probably when the shells were already constructed).

Because of how they ultimately changed it, the half-width cabs never made sense to me.  In fact, I've never even seen photos or footage of R68/As operated from the half-width cab.

Before they were linked, it was not unusual the have the half width cab as the operating position for the train operator.  I operated from there many times.  Those cabs were extremely tight for some reason.

[bulk88]

On 12/20/2020 at 9:24 AM, TrainRider Railfan said:

I mean, they weren’t single units for that long, and after that there would be no reason to use the half cab. Even while they were single units, trains would always be arranged to have a full cab at either end, so maybe the half cab was there in case the car was in a yard alone with no other cars and needed to be moved in both directions. Don’t know why that would happen though. Since they were single units they were probably required to have cabs on both ends.

A 6 car (2x3) R68 requires B ends to have cabs. Planned shrinkage and cutting train length overnight and on weekends (RIP 24 hours) was on the MTA's mind back then.