|
|
| R1s-9s (1568153) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
|
|
| (1568168) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 06:29:38 2021, in response to R1s-9s, posted by Express Rider on Thu Feb 11 00:16:15 2021. The retirement of the R-1/9 car fleet started to begin in 1968, with the arrival of the R-40's, R-40M's and R-42's. The R-7 and R-9 cars did eventually go to the BMT Eastern Division commencing around that time, and with some of the R-6 cars also going there towards the end of their own service lives.This basically went on as the years passed until the last runs along the BMT Eastern Division in 1977. The last run on the IND Division was in 1976. Based upon research, none of the IND cars had any proposed or known additional routes and designations for the so-called "Second System". I basically told in a previous post as tp what were on the original roll signs placed on the R-1 and R-4 contract fleet, including what changes were recommended for new replacements to be issued. Re: ADDED ENTRY Re: Tuscarora Almanac for January 1. -William A. Padron ["City of New York"] |
|
|
| (1568170) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 06:35:54 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 06:29:38 2021. What did the R38 replace ? I though the worst R1's. That was 1966.The R40's replaced the Standards, with newer Arnines sent in to replace them from Jamaica yard. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1568176) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 07:49:02 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 06:35:54 2021. The R-1's that were failing around 1966 had been sidelined, and the R-38's did come in to take their place. They did not fully retire yet.However, after checking the image database at nycsubway.org, there were still R-1's hanging in there as late as 1970! Yes, you are correct that the R-40's did come in to replace the last AB's, while the R-7/9's went to the BMT Eastern Division. -William A. Padron ["Independent Subway System"] |
|
|
| (1568177) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Feb 11 08:08:29 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 07:49:02 2021. Be that as it may was the intention of the R-38 order to replace cars or was it to expand the fleet? |
|
|
| (1568178) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 08:08:59 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 07:49:02 2021. The worst Arnines, only 35 years old in 1966, were so bad, about 40 unrebuilt southern division Standards, built in the 1914-1924 timeframe, were pulled off the scrap line, and sent to ENY to bump R16's to Jamaica Yard.If only they had not cut up the Triplexes for another 2 years, also more elderly than the R1. |
|
|
| (1568181) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 08:20:17 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Feb 11 08:08:29 2021. I for one don't know, but my guess was to start eating away at the Eastern Division Standards due to age and TA's hatred of anything vintage BMT. That didn't happen. It wasn't until Spring 1968 the R9's started to appear there. |
|
|
| (1568182) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 08:22:16 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Feb 11 08:08:29 2021. It was said that the R-38's were ordered for the expansion of the fleet originally, as they were to provide towards the new services of the IND-BMT merger that was coming in November 1967. They were placed in service on 8/23/1966, and they had to go to the IND right away to step in for the car failures of the R-1's that were happening back then.And yes, Joe V is correct that 32 R-16 cars went from East New York Yard to Jamaica Yard, later being assigned on the "GG" route. The R-40's and R-42's were the two contracted fleets that were purchased to replace both the BMT AB's, including the rebuilt ones, and IND R-1's. -William A. Padron ["B'klyn-Queens Lcl."] |
|
|
| (1568183) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 08:28:42 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 08:22:16 2021. Did Chrystie really require more cars ? |
|
|
| (1568186) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 08:40:03 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 08:08:59 2021. And one has to wonder if the BMT AB's could have stayed also, being sent as a long shot on the IND to take the place of those ailing R-1's in 1966. To whit and ponder this, here is an image from nycsubway.org with an AB signed up for the "GG".BMT AB Standard #2830, Coney Island Yard, March 28, 1965  -William A. Padron ["Crosstown"] |
|
|
| (1568187) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 08:50:20 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 08:40:03 2021. Was 2830 one of overhauled eastern division ones ?Was that sign setting someone's idea of joke ? Jamaica Yard would have ruined them too. ENY knew how to take care of them. Imagine if the Triplexes took over the F train in 1965 and sent the worst R1's to scrap instead. Problem solved, but that would have violated TA scripture. |
|
|
| (1568188) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Feb 11 08:50:44 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 08:22:16 2021. And R-44 and 46 knocked of remaining R-1-9s? |
|
|
| (1568189) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 09:01:24 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Feb 11 08:50:44 2021. Yes, they did!-William A. Padron ["IND"] |
|
|
| (1568190) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 09:05:38 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Feb 11 08:50:44 2021. So did 1976 service cuts.CC replaced E in Brooklyn K was gone. N and EE merged, Manhattan overlap eliminated. |
|
|
| (1568191) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by zac on Thu Feb 11 09:06:54 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 06:29:38 2021. When did the cars that went to the Eastern division get those hard plastic seats? I never remember seeing those on the IND, but on the BMT they all had them. Were there any other mods that happened? I know at some point they started painting them with the blue stripe, but not initially. |
|
|
| (1568192) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Feb 11 09:06:57 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 09:01:24 2021. But even R-44 was ordered in anticipation of a Second Ave subway. Was the intention to replace R-1-9 or expand the fleet? |
|
|
| (1568193) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 09:08:47 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Feb 11 09:06:57 2021. And Queens Express Bypass. |
|
|
| (1568194) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by zac on Thu Feb 11 09:10:57 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Feb 11 09:06:57 2021. My guess is that if they were ordered for the 2nd Ave subway, they also knew they needed to scrap the R9s. After the R46 it was many years before the next cars were ordered. |
|
|
| (1568195) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 09:12:40 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 08:28:42 2021. Yes, because the plan also included the expanded length of station platforms on the BMT Southern Division, construction of the IND 6th Avenue express tracks and the 57th Street-6th Avenue stub terminal station.DeKalb Avenue interlocking would see an increased number of trains going through there, from 65 TPH (520 cars per hour) to a combined 80 TPH (670 cars per hour) with the expanded length trains. In addition, even the R-11's were redone under contract R-34. The R-16's went over to the "GG", with 32 of them as assigned beginning on 9/12/1966. As for the R-1/R-4 situation of the 1960's, there were suggestions to have them replaced by the R-32's at first, and have the BMT AB's and D-Type units continue on. The NYCTA was really eager to get rid of those pre-WWII cars as possible. -William A. Padron ["Smith-9th St."] |
|
|
| (1568196) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 09:19:54 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by zac on Thu Feb 11 09:06:54 2021. As they were sent there.I rode a reverse peak JJ from Woodhaven Blvd to 121st Street to school in the morning during Spring 1968. It was Standards, then one day an R9 showed up and stayed. BMT signs, blue and gray enameled interior paint that still smelled a lot, red floors, and fiberglass seats. |
|
|
| (1568197) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by zac on Thu Feb 11 09:25:25 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 09:19:54 2021. So they did a minor rebuild as they were sent over.I've said before that it felt like they were replacing one old antiquated car with another. The R9s still smelled, had incandescent bulbs and were noisy. |
|
|
| (1568198) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 09:30:44 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 08:50:20 2021. It was said that the BMT AB's also had some signs for Jamaica "F" service too, particularly for 179th Street and 34th Street-6th Avenue. The D-Types even had "Queens-Forest Hills" on some curtains added on.Well, someone had to playing with those roll signs back then. Do not forget that BMT AB's used the Queens IND starting with 11th Street Connection in 1955. -William A. Padron ["BRT/BMT"] |
|
|
| (1568201) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 09:58:19 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by zac on Thu Feb 11 09:10:57 2021. Yeah, the R-44's were intended for all those new routes as proposed by the MTA in 1968, and including for the Second Avenue subway. Ironically today in 2021, the R-46's are running on the "Q" to/from 96th Street-2nd Avenue, and that fleet will be replaced in whole or in part by the R-211 contract.-William A. Padron ["SAS"] |
|
|
| (1568202) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Feb 11 10:00:01 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 09:05:38 2021. That’s right |
|
|
| (1568203) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 10:00:45 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by zac on Thu Feb 11 09:25:25 2021. More like cosmetic, not a rebuild.I think most passengers and crew regarded them as a step backwards. |
|
|
| (1568204) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Feb 11 10:01:01 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by zac on Thu Feb 11 09:10:57 2021. About 10 years |
|
|
| (1568205) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 10:09:53 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 08:20:17 2021. The R-7/9's were sent and had started appearing on the BMT Eastern Division on 5/9/1968. The first wave of retirement and scrapping of the R-1/9 fleet began on 6/17/1968, and then the rebuilt BMT AB's would soon follow though, as the new R-40's were being delivered and placed in service.-William A. Padron ["a.c.f."] |
|
|
| (1568206) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Feb 11 10:32:12 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 06:29:38 2021. LION remembers seeing R-38s on the IND (F) train prior to the 40s, but maybe that was before the arnines started their withdrawal. |
|
|
| (1568207) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 10:34:37 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 10:09:53 2021. I think 207th or Concourse had the oldest ones.Jamaica Yard had to surrender the newest ones to ENY. Were in not for that, their shittier ones would have been scrapped sooner. |
|
|
| (1568209) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Feb 11 10:38:07 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 10:09:53 2021. The R-7/9's were sent and had started appearing on the BMT Eastern Division on 5/9/1968.Yes, I was in the Navy (Vietnam) when that happened. ROAR 
|
|
|
| (1568210) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Feb 11 10:40:45 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Feb 11 08:50:44 2021. The R-44 knocked themselves out, and the 46s were not much better |
|
|
| (1568212) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Thu Feb 11 11:25:19 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 09:19:54 2021. Was the R9 signed as a 'JJ'? |
|
|
| (1568213) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by zac on Thu Feb 11 11:29:58 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 10:34:37 2021. I remember the CCs at Concourse had some crappy ones. I went to Lehman for a year, 1971 I think, and I had a class with a clear view of the yard. Maybe the AA/B also had some really crappy ones too. I've seen pictures on NYCSubway.org that shows the AA/B/BB had the R1s and Concourse CC/D had R4s and R6s. E/F/GG had the R7/R9. There were loads of exceptions of course as they all intermixed. I was surprised though to see the post-Chrystie B did have all the oldest crap on it when R1s would run. Mostly the B was R32. In the day though all of the R1-9s were pretty beat up. |
|
|
| (1568216) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by zac on Thu Feb 11 11:34:11 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 09:58:19 2021. The R46 hit the Q at just about the time of the pandemic, otherwise my guess is they would get a lot of complaints about them. They built a brand new stretch of subway and put the oldest cars on it, after they had first put the newest on it. And Brighton riders used to be very vocal about these things. |
|
|
| (1568217) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 11:44:24 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Dan on Thu Feb 11 11:25:19 2021. Linking over to nycsubway.org. Yeah, they had "JJ" signs pasted on them.R-7/9's on the Nassau Street-Jamaica Line, 1968. -William A. Padron ["168 St Jamaica"] |
|
|
| (1568220) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by zac on Thu Feb 11 12:17:17 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 11:44:24 2021. Also LL, where I rode them. |
|
|
| (1568223) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Thu Feb 11 12:40:10 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 07:49:02 2021. The R-1s had to have been gone by 1972, as the R-44s took their numbers. |
|
|
| (1568224) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Feb 11 12:47:21 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Feb 11 10:40:45 2021. They’re very fine cars. They’re the Cadillacs of the subway system. |
|
|
| (1568225) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Thu Feb 11 12:48:43 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by zac on Thu Feb 11 11:34:11 2021. They did them a favor putting them there. |
|
|
| (1568227) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 12:55:43 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by zac on Thu Feb 11 11:29:58 2021. The post-Christie R1's = R4s in B & D service had to make it up and over the Manhattan Bridge's 5% grade. They groaned and cried. It was shitty car - sorry Arnine fans. |
|
|
| (1568236) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Thu Feb 11 15:10:30 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 09:30:44 2021. But even with signage installed, I don't think they ever actually ran in GG service... |
|
|
| (1568240) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Asgard on Thu Feb 11 16:48:18 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Thu Feb 11 12:40:10 2021. I think some of the R-1s in better condition traded numbers with newer cars in worse condition, which were scrapped with the R-1 numbers. |
|
|
| (1568249) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Feb 11 18:14:53 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 12:55:43 2021. Depending on how many dead motors there were in a train, it could be a crapshoot. Everybody out and push!:) |
|
|
| (1568250) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Feb 11 18:15:42 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 10:09:53 2021. There are photos of R-7/9s with JJ signs pasted over the front route sign slot. |
|
|
| (1568251) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Feb 11 18:17:18 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 09:12:40 2021. Even though the Triplexes were still running like tops. They could easily have lasted at least another ten years. |
|
|
| (1568252) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Feb 11 18:18:27 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 09:58:19 2021. And they were designed for 70 mph speeds, too. |
|
|
| (1568253) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Feb 11 18:20:24 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by William A. Padron on Thu Feb 11 08:40:03 2021. My BMT standard sign box has a GG LOCAL route sign. Not to mention all those Queens destination signs. |
|
|
| (1568254) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Feb 11 18:21:29 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Asgard on Thu Feb 11 16:48:18 2021. Even 100 had swapped numbers with another car for a time. Not to worry, that car at the Transit Museum bearing number 100 is the real McCoy. |
|
|
| (1568255) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Feb 11 18:22:43 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by Joe V on Thu Feb 11 10:00:45 2021. I regarded them as a breath of fresh air compared to those mean old BMT standards. |
|
|
| (1568256) | |
Re: R1s-9s |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Feb 11 18:24:11 2021, in response to Re: R1s-9s, posted by zac on Thu Feb 11 12:17:17 2021. They had new front route curtains installed that included a Lonesome Larry sign. I rode on that line every Saturday for three years, and ironically rode on the R-7/9s more times on that line alone than all the IND routes combined. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
