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.

Why did R21/R22 get replaced by R62/A?


Recommended Posts

Instead of replacing the R21s and R22s, why didn't the MTA simply rebuild them like class R-26 and up? They weren't THAT old (1957; and R26s were from 1959), and their fleet numbered 700 cars! Based on the number of cars of that class, and the state of finances within the MTA during the 1980s, it would only seem to make more fiscal sense to rebuild them. Even if they had any problems, these problems could have been corrected by means of the great GOH program. Was it because they were single cars?(1)(3)(5)(7)(9)

Link to post
Share on other sites

They were too old.. And keeping an older train active can cause mechanical problems in the future. Its true thr R26 were from '59 but, seeing that the R62/A were for the (1)(3)(4)(6), the (MTA) didnt have enough for the (2)(5)(7) as well as addional for the (4)(6)

 

(4) used R62s, and (1)(3)(6) R62As

Link to post
Share on other sites

They couldn't be retrofitted with air conditioning because they were single cars (and it was hard enough building the new single cars with a full unit for each car. Because different components go under different cars of a married or larger set).

 

I too wished those cars and the 15's and 17's were rebuilt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do they still run that one set of R62As on the (3)? I haven't seen it in a while and usually I catch it at least once every other day.

 

The last R62A cars were transferred from the (3) line to the (4) line. Except in an emergency the (3) has no R62A cars in it's fleet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Uhhh, I still don't fully understand why they retired the R-21/R-22 as opposed to REBUILDING them. It simply CAN'T be just ONE reason, that it was too difficult to retrofit them with air-conditionong. And as for them being too old, they were only 2 yrs. older than the R-26. And the R-26 was rebuilt, right? Perhaps the MTA has a bias against single cars?:confused: But in general, when it comes to subway car retirements, there are usually multiple factors involved in retirement of the said cars. Here's a favorite example: R-38: WHY WAS IT RETIRED?

-Severe RUST

-Relatively OLD

-Technologically OUTDATED

-Failing Structurally/(and possibly mechanically, although I never had an R-38 break down on me)

-Overall Poor STATE OF REPAIR

-Numerous replacements on the way (The 200 R-38s were indirectly replaced by 200 R-160s)

So can ANYONE ELSE explain why the R-21s and R-22s were replaced, instead of rebuilt?:):):cool:(9)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhhh, I still don't fully understand why they retired the R-21/R-22 as opposed to REBUILDING them. It simply CAN'T be just ONE reason, that it was too difficult to retrofit them with air-conditionong. And as for them being too old, they were only 2 yrs. older than the R-26. And the R-26 was rebuilt, right? Perhaps the MTA has a bias against single cars?:confused: But in general, when it comes to subway car retirements, there are usually multiple factors involved in retirement of the said cars. Here's a favorite example: R-38: WHY WAS IT RETIRED?

-Severe RUST

-Relatively OLD

-Technologically OUTDATED

-Failing Structurally/(and possibly mechanically, although I never had an R-38 break down on me)

-Overall Poor STATE OF REPAIR

-Numerous replacements on the way (The 200 R-38s were indirectly replaced by 200 R-160s)

So can ANYONE ELSE explain why the R-21s and R-22s were replaced, instead of rebuilt?B);):cool:(9)

Are you serious about the R38s? They were far better than the R32, R40, and R42. They were retired simply b/c their roofs were rusty. Among all the 60 ft SMEEs, the R38s had the best/most consistant MDBF, least technical problems (A/C or broken doors), and best brakes (of the 60 ft SMEEs). What you just described as "Failing Structurally/and possibly mechanically" fits the R32s (mostly phase IIs) and R42s very well. 200 faulty R42s should've gone instead of the R38s. The R38s should be second to last to go b/c numerous R40Ms and R42s had been placed out of service for faulty components.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the maker of those cars, St Louis, go out of business soon after making these cars and the R29s ? If you can't get replacement parts the cars are pretty much useless to NYCT. That's the main reason for scrapping equipment in RTO and probably Surface too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But now I'm glad they didn't because that would mean 700 more R142/A cars infesting the IRT. Just imagine R142s ruling the (1) :cry:.

 

Ugh, don't make me think about that :eek:

I actually have a strong dislike for the R142, not so much the R142A. R62/A's are the best cars in the system IMO. I'm glad I can catch a R62 for the 7th Avenue Express (aka the (3)), and a R62A for the Flushing Express.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on what you mean by SLC.

 

SLC was only a subsidiary corporation. Such a statement is akin to saying that Oldsmobile went out of business. GM still exists(Ok-- This might not be the ideal example.)

 

GSI, the company which SLC was a subsidiary of may still exist. It was one of the foremost builders of trucks in the 90s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
St. Louis Car Company went out of business in the early-1970's.

 

Kawasaki and Bombardier are still in business but they don't make replacement parts for the R62 and R62A cars. That was the point I was trying to make. No parts means scrap metal to NYCT. These plants gear up for one model and when the run is over they move on the next order. That's why a lot of equipment is cannibalized for spare parts. The contractors themselves don't usually make all of the components for a particular car series but purchase them from sub-contractors like the auto companies do. When the subs move on to something else, or go out of business, the parts aren't made anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't the maker of those cars, St Louis, go out of business soon after making these cars and the R29s ? If you can't get replacement parts the cars are pretty much useless to NYCT. That's the main reason for scrapping equipment in RTO and probably Surface too.
They ran out of business after making the Arrow Is for Penn Central, which were obviously the worst of the Arrows. But because they had acknowledged the R44 order from years back, they delivered the R44s even when they weren't in business. This is why so many people thinks that that the R44s drove SLC out of business.
Link to post
Share on other sites

...And I still don't know why the R21s/R22s were retired.. C'mon guys, stop going off on tangents about the r44s and SLC. And as for parts, look at the R-44s and R-46s. The companies that built them have long gone out of business, and yet these cars are not considered scrap metal. On the contrary, they are some of the most reliable cars in the entire subway system today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...And I still don't know why the R21s/R22s were retired.. C'mon guys, stop going off on tangents about the r44s and SLC. And as for parts, look at the R-44s and R-46s. The companies that built them have long gone out of business, and yet these cars are not considered scrap metal. On the contrary, they are some of the most reliable cars in the entire subway system today.

 

They already told you why they were retired. On top being relatively old and ran to the ground from neglected maintenance, they were single units which would have made them too heavy if they were refitted with air conditioning. The R33WF Singles would have most likely been retired as well if they were not needed to run 11 car (7)<7> trains.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They were too old.. And keeping an older train active can cause mechanical problems in the future. Its true thr R26 were from '59 but, seeing that the R62/A were for the (1)(3)(4)(6), the (MTA) didnt have enough for the (2)(5)(7) as well as addional for the (4)(6)

 

(4) used R62s, and (1)(3)(6) R62As

 

 

That's true, but wouldn't it make more sense if they mated them in pairs, then gave them AC units? I mean there are plenty of examples that were mated in their lifetime (R44-R68A)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The R17-21-22s could have been made into married pairs, and could have therefore been air conditioned. The issue is that the R62As were already arriving to replace them, meaning such cars would not be needed.

 

Also, While they were removed for a few summers, R33WFs did run in 7 line service during most summers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the R62 and R68 matings are a very similar idea, the R44 and R46 matings are more like those of the R26 and R28 fleets.

 

Both occurred during GOH, and both fleets have always required more than one car to operate in a train. While this is prohibited in practice, one could theoretically run a single car R21, R22, R62 or R68 train. Such can not be done with R26s or R46s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
While the R62 and R68 matings are a very similar idea, the R44 and R46 matings are more like those of the R26 and R28 fleets.

 

Both occurred during GOH, and both fleets have always required more than one car to operate in a train. While this is prohibited in practice, one could theoretically run a single car R21, R22, R62 or R68 train. Such can not be done with R26s or R46s.

 

 

0o0o0o0o0o0o0o. thanks 4 the info!

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.