|
|
| R-160 Option III Order (840980) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
|
| (840980) | |
R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by TheCiskoKid on Tue Oct 6 09:41:55 2009 I just heard from a very reliable source that the R-179 contract may be kaput in favor of a 3rd option on the R-160s. This will get new cars for the A line faster and speed the retirement of the R-44 fleet. |
|
|
| (840982) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Oct 6 09:52:36 2009, in response to R-160 Option III Order, posted by TheCiskoKid on Tue Oct 6 09:41:55 2009. So you're saying that your reliable source has said that they are considering buying more 160s instead of getting 179s? That's not out of the realm of possibilty, in theory. And if he's wrong, there's no way to know, since he's only saying they are considering it and not that it's a done deal. So not much to really go on. |
|
|
| (840987) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by 7th Avenue Express on Tue Oct 6 10:26:03 2009, in response to R-160 Option III Order, posted by TheCiskoKid on Tue Oct 6 09:41:55 2009. That makes sense, but where's the proof? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (841000) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Oct 6 11:04:02 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by 7th Avenue Express on Tue Oct 6 10:26:03 2009. how would there be proff? |
|
|
| (841031) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Tue Oct 6 12:54:14 2009, in response to R-160 Option III Order, posted by TheCiskoKid on Tue Oct 6 09:41:55 2009. The R44's are THAT bad, eh? I thought so.wayne |
|
|
| (841040) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by rionOne on Tue Oct 6 13:54:38 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Tue Oct 6 12:54:14 2009. Bad enough, from what I heard bad frames on several cars... |
|
|
| (841041) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Oct 6 13:54:42 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Tue Oct 6 12:54:14 2009. no, not according to what has been posted here lately by someone who maintains the fleet. |
|
|
| (841091) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Oct 6 17:01:18 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by rionOne on Tue Oct 6 13:54:38 2009. Until Option III or whatever arrives, why can't the R44 pre-decease the R32 ? |
|
|
| (841101) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Oct 6 17:24:02 2009, in response to R-160 Option III Order, posted by TheCiskoKid on Tue Oct 6 09:41:55 2009. Even if there is no additional option on the R-160 contract, there is no reason why the R-179 number cannot be assigned to a fleet of cars identical to the R-160s. Before the new generation of planners came to the MTA, NYCTS cars with different contract numbers were often fully compatible with each other as long as their electrical and mechanical components were the same. R-1 through 9 cars were fully compatible with each other and only had minor cosmetic differences between them. The same was true of the IRT R-17s through 22s, 26s through 33s and the BMT's R-27s and 30s. |
|
|
| (841120) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by R32_3671 on Tue Oct 6 18:13:45 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Joe V on Tue Oct 6 17:01:18 2009. Because the TA is stupid, The R32's can last another 5-10 years, The R44's are rotting so damn bad. |
|
|
| (841132) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by R33/R36 mainline on Tue Oct 6 18:32:46 2009, in response to R-160 Option III Order, posted by TheCiskoKid on Tue Oct 6 09:41:55 2009. I hope not. I'm a fan of the 44s it would be nice if stay around a bit longer, the (A) wound'nt be the same without them IMO. OTOH, the (A) hasn't had a new train fresh from the factory in 50 years (The R110B doesn't count) it would nice to see that line get new equipment. Even though I dislike the R160 it was nice seeing the eastern Div get new cars. |
|
|
| (841135) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Tue Oct 6 18:40:10 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by R32_3671 on Tue Oct 6 18:13:45 2009. IAWTPThe R32's can last up to 60 years. The build quality on the 32's surpasses any R type ever built. |
|
|
| (841136) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Tue Oct 6 18:41:26 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by R32_3671 on Tue Oct 6 18:13:45 2009. I've heard that at least forty (40) R32 are going to serve out their days in C Division, which, if they last ten years there (and they should), will give them 55 years. Their durability is unsurpassed by any recent (post-unification) fleet. The R44's that I have ridden on recently, and I've had at least one each of my recent trips, are really beginning to make strange noises - creaking, cracking, groaning and shuddering. I am not sure if they're up to too much more of the road. Of course, that's NOT speaking for the entire class, but they are really beginning to show their age.wayne |
|
|
| (841137) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Tue Oct 6 18:45:57 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by randyo on Tue Oct 6 17:24:02 2009. That is where the problem lies. Since the R44 order, the TA ordered cars that can't be mixed with other fleets. The 44's and 46's can't coexist. An excellent example is when they tested a 142 with a 142A in the same consist. We all know what happened there. |
|
|
| (841138) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by R33/R36 mainline on Tue Oct 6 18:50:53 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Tue Oct 6 18:41:26 2009. I've been riding on CI yard R160s lately that have been making creaking noises... |
|
|
| (841139) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Oct 6 18:54:41 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by 33rd Street on Tue Oct 6 18:45:57 2009. why don't you tell the uninformed all about it. |
|
|
| (841140) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Tue Oct 6 18:56:42 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by R33/R36 mainline on Tue Oct 6 18:50:53 2009. That isn't a good sign. |
|
|
| (841142) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Tue Oct 6 18:57:23 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Edwards! on Tue Oct 6 18:54:41 2009. Why should I? I think everybody should know by now. |
|
|
| (841143) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Tue Oct 6 18:58:14 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by R33/R36 mainline on Tue Oct 6 18:32:46 2009. I can't wait till the day the R44's are gone. |
|
|
| (841145) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Tue Oct 6 19:00:47 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Edwards! on Tue Oct 6 18:54:41 2009. Here let me help Edwards..Lotta bucking and jivin with that mixed consist.. Two different braking systems.. |
|
|
| (841153) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Tue Oct 6 19:33:07 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by 33rd Street on Tue Oct 6 18:40:10 2009. We're not about to find out because they'll be gone by this time next year. |
|
|
| (841155) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 19:49:19 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Railman718 on Tue Oct 6 19:00:47 2009. You woulod have loved the schmorgastrains/frankentrains of yesteryear. Teeyay rule was that if the entire train made it to the next stop, we *meant* to do that. :) |
|
|
| (841159) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Tue Oct 6 19:55:58 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Tue Oct 6 19:33:07 2009. Yes, except for about 40 of them for miscellaneous duties. |
|
|
| (841174) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Oct 6 21:01:44 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 19:49:19 2009. I remember reading the specs for one of the TA contracts and it specified that the braking and electrical systems must be fully compatible with all car contracts from the R-10s up to the current ones being ordered. The PATH was smart in that when they GOHed the PA-1s through 3s, they made them fully compatible with the new PAS-4s. The MTA couldn't even GOH the R-44s and 46s to be able to run with each other. The main problem is that the transit systems today don't insist that all railcars MUST meet all specified standards and the Feds don't have the intestinal fortitude to use any and all government sanctions at their disposal to compel the US railcar companies to continue manufacturing passenger railcars rather than just giving up on them entirely. |
|
|
| (841175) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Oct 6 21:03:49 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by 33rd Street on Tue Oct 6 18:58:14 2009. IAWTP. Furthermore, I think the move to 75 ft cars was a big mistake on the part of the MTA and I hope ALL 75 footers are removed from service ASAP and that even includes the R-46s and 68s. |
|
|
| (841176) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 21:07:51 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by randyo on Tue Oct 6 21:01:44 2009. Yeah, I heard that fable about SMEE's being compatible. Kept repeating that to myself as the 42's kicked the 32's in the teeth at every stop too. :)The 142's and the A's being the most recent fun, along with the 143's and the 160's too. One would think that the first thing an acceptance group would do as the new cars roll in is lash them up to some others and see what happens. (grin) |
|
|
| (841186) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by murray1575 on Tue Oct 6 21:47:52 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 21:07:51 2009. Interoperability would seem to me to be less important than it once was since all the newer cars were built in 4 and 5 car sets rather than single cars or pairs (this thread brings back memories of the dog's breakfast consists on the IRT from the 1960's through the 1980's). Some of those must have been a handful for the T/O to operate. |
|
|
| (841190) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 6 21:55:58 2009, in response to R-160 Option III Order, posted by TheCiskoKid on Tue Oct 6 09:41:55 2009. maybe - maybe not. Nothing has been decided yet. |
|
|
| (841194) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by R42 4787 on Tue Oct 6 21:58:26 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Tue Oct 6 18:41:26 2009. The R33/R36s that remain in service in various yards throughout the system were delivered between 1962-65, making them around 45+ years old. Assuming they remain in service until the R62As (IRT-sized motors) are retired by 2024-28 or later, they would have made 65+ plus years of service.For some reason, the 1950s generation of cars seem to have the shortest lives, including the R21/22s, which lasted only to 1987 (barely 30 years). While many R12/21/22s were used in work service, much of them were scrapped or replaced by R33s in recent years. Even the H&M K-cars, which were roughly the same age as R21/22 lasted only to 1989 and most of them were gone from work service by the late 1990s. |
|
|
| (841196) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Tue Oct 6 22:00:14 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by R33/R36 mainline on Tue Oct 6 18:50:53 2009. One thing I have noticed about some of the R160s is that they DO creak on curves, which, I suppose, is somewhat normal. Some of them do bounce a bit and there is a squeaking sound from the bogies. I wonder if that's the suspension breaking in.wayne |
|
|
| (841197) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue Oct 6 22:01:10 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by R33/R36 mainline on Tue Oct 6 18:50:53 2009. Yes, some noises are so BAD that a derailment is waiting to happen. |
|
|
| (841202) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Tue Oct 6 22:04:30 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue Oct 6 22:01:10 2009. Well as long as they dont derail while I'm in them lol |
|
|
| (841203) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 6 22:06:17 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by 33rd Street on Tue Oct 6 18:56:42 2009. It also is not a bad sign. Listen to the creaking and banging on every M-7. No corralation with derailment risk. |
|
|
| (841204) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 22:09:24 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by murray1575 on Tue Oct 6 21:47:52 2009. Towards the end, even a full set of the same R-contract redbirds were a handful. Yeah, some interesting consists were frequent. Makes me *very* thankful that the arnines wouldn't even couple up to anything else. :) |
|
|
| (841205) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Tue Oct 6 22:09:31 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 6 22:06:17 2009. As long as a train is structurally safe, I have zero issues. |
|
|
| (841221) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by R33/R36 mainline on Tue Oct 6 22:23:03 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Tue Oct 6 22:00:14 2009. Some of them do bounce a bit and there is a squeaking sound from the bogiesYep, thats the sound I was reffering to. As per a another post in this thread its normal, I noticed the LIRR M7s creak as well, but the MNR M7s don't or at least I don't remeber them creaking lol. |
|
|
| (841229) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Oct 6 22:29:44 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by randyo on Tue Oct 6 21:03:49 2009. What would you run on the Franklin Shuttle then? Another idiot move by the MTA, shoulda made the platforms 300 ft, so you can run a 5-car set of 160s. |
|
|
| (841243) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by f179dj on Tue Oct 6 22:51:58 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by 33rd Street on Tue Oct 6 22:09:31 2009. "As long as a train is structurally safe, I have zero issues."Good trains can and do derail on bad order tracks. |
|
|
| (841248) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Tue Oct 6 23:06:20 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by f179dj on Tue Oct 6 22:51:58 2009. IAWTPNothing further. |
|
|
| (841260) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Oct 6 23:30:42 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by 33rd Street on Tue Oct 6 18:57:23 2009. No.Why should we "know by now"...? Perhaps "we" had some other things to do..a bit more important..or perhaps "we" didn't get that bit of information that everyone's suppose to know... If you are going to behave so selfishly..then perhaps we really don't want to "know". |
|
|
| (841263) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Oct 6 23:32:08 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Oct 6 22:29:44 2009. Agreed. |
|
|
| (841269) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Oct 6 23:51:29 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Edwards! on Tue Oct 6 23:30:42 2009. The R142/R142A combination was rather rough.Not that other SMEE combinations aren't rather rough. I think the main difference is that the MTA started caring as to whether they worked WELL together, as opposed to the 1960-1980s goal of just working period. |
|
|
| (841280) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Oct 7 00:32:23 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 21:07:51 2009. 68's and 68A's can't MU either, correct?--w-- |
|
|
| (841282) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Oct 7 00:40:36 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Oct 7 00:32:23 2009. Don't know the answer to that one, way past my time down there. I think I've heard the two don't get along very well, but can't say for certain. |
|
|
| (841283) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Wed Oct 7 00:45:25 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Oct 7 00:40:36 2009. The last time I had one of those we didn't make it to 36th Street. The first two stops were on the 10.5 markers |
|
|
| (841285) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 7 00:54:13 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by R33/R36 mainline on Tue Oct 6 18:32:46 2009. not true..The A received R42 and R44 factory fresh in 1970 and 73. . |
|
|
| (841286) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Oct 7 00:57:57 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by randyo on Tue Oct 6 21:01:44 2009. Appalling. The transit agencies write checks for crap that doesn't meet specs and then more checks for workarounds. |
|
|
| (841287) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Wed Oct 7 00:58:11 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Oct 6 22:29:44 2009. With possible exception of Botanic Gdns, they might be able to platform a 3 car set of 60 ft cars. Perhaps if Botanic Gdns or any of the other stations can't, they could be extended the extra 30 ft so that they can if 75 ft cars are eliminated. Two 60 ft cars won't cut it. |
|
|
| (841288) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Oct 7 00:58:39 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Train Dude on Tue Oct 6 22:06:17 2009. IMHO it is a bad sign in the sense that it is annoying to riders.IMHO the R44s are generally some of the quietest and smoothest cars in the whole subway, so I disagree with any claim that the R44s suffer from such problems, at least not in relation to anything else in the fleet. The M7s have horrendous ride qualities. |
|
|
| (841289) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order second comment |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Oct 7 00:59:26 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by randyo on Tue Oct 6 21:01:44 2009. Just following Defense Department standards. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
