|
|
| Re: R-160 Option III Order (840980) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
|
| (841290) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Oct 7 00:59:43 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Oct 7 00:32:23 2009. They certainly can. Such was not particularly uncommon on the B from 1998-2001. |
|
|
| (841291) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Oct 7 01:02:41 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 22:09:24 2009. Well- Even within one fleet of redbird, there was often a variety. The R29, R33ML, and R33WF/R36 each had at least two differently equipped subgroups. |
|
|
| (841292) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Wed Oct 7 01:06:22 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by R33/R36 mainline on Tue Oct 6 18:50:53 2009. Funny how those worried about the noise don't seem bothered by the screeching of the R-42s. Neither of which indicate an unsafe condition, but I wonder why the much less noticeable creaking of an R-160 is such a bad sign in comparison to all of the other noises that go unaccounted for. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (841293) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Wed Oct 7 01:10:04 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Broadway Buffer on Wed Oct 7 01:06:22 2009. Actually, just don't get on any R-160s since they're likely very dangerous. Use another line or take a bus ... I know I'll enjoy the extra space despite the creaks. |
|
|
| (841294) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Oct 7 01:27:39 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by BLE-NIMX on Wed Oct 7 00:45:25 2009. Heh. Did that trick with some artens once. MMI was *not* amused. :) |
|
|
| (841295) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by RyogaRidesTheMTA on Wed Oct 7 01:37:36 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by R33/R36 mainline on Tue Oct 6 18:50:53 2009. I've been noticing that. That's why I cling on for dear life everyday when I take a Manhattan-bound N or W on the curve between 39th Avenue and Queensboro Plaza... I felt safer in an R-68 than in the R-160s. I just hope if an R-160 does decide to derail, I just hope it doesn't derail at that curve because it could go plummeting into the ground below. They lean so much normally on track as it is... |
|
|
| (841302) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Oct 7 02:50:33 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by RyogaRidesTheMTA on Wed Oct 7 01:37:36 2009. The so called creaking is probably part of the normal give that is needed in order to prevent actual breakage of the component parts of the railcar as a whole. it is the same paranoia on the part of the NYCTS transit managers that prevented the application of PCC rapid transit items to NYCTS equipment while Boston and Chicago embraced them fully. I recall riding BMT Multis that also creaked on the curves entering the Willy B. |
|
|
| (841304) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Oct 7 02:54:03 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by R42 4787 on Tue Oct 6 21:58:26 2009. One of the reasons that the 1950s generation of subway cars were retired so early was due to the unique system of blower cooled resistors on the GE equipped R-16s through 22s. This system was prone to failure unlike the air cooled resistors of the earlier and later cars and the westinghouse equipped cars and as a result the MTA chose to scrap those cars earlier proving that newer isn't always better. |
|
|
| (841305) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Oct 7 02:57:04 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by R30A on Tue Oct 6 23:51:29 2009. One of the things that I addressed in another post is how come from the R-1s to the R-32s the equipment did function well between car types (that is all R-1s through 9s and R-10s through 32s) but once the R-38s arrived, the situation changed. |
|
|
| (841306) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Oct 7 02:58:37 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Oct 7 00:57:57 2009. IAWTP. |
|
|
| (841307) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Oct 7 03:01:00 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 21:07:51 2009. The problem with so called SMEEs is that R-10s through 32s are SMEEs but R-38s and up are a WABCO "upgrade" called RT-2 which is "supposed" to be fully compatible but in reality is not, and neither NYCTA or any other transit agency had the guts to call WABCO to task for it! |
|
|
| (841309) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Oct 7 03:05:28 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Tue Oct 6 22:29:44 2009. Again another failure by the "cesspool of incompetence" that passes for MTA planning. The proper thing to have done would have been to lengthen all the platforms on the Franklin Shuttle to accommodate full 600 ft trains so that in the event of a service emergency, Brighton trains could be routed into Franklin to allow passengers to transfer to Fulton St trains into Manhattan. Remember, you can always NOT use what you have but you can't use what you DON'T have. |
|
|
| (841313) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Oct 7 03:49:53 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by randyo on Wed Oct 7 03:01:00 2009. Yeah, got the skinny back when qualifying, and yeah ... they frankentrained'em anyway. Add an R10 or two to the consist and it was "ride/em cowboy." (did some transfers) ... :) |
|
|
| (841324) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Oct 7 07:47:45 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Oct 7 01:27:39 2009. Was that the train that got as far as 59th St.-Columbus Circle? |
|
|
| (841325) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Oct 7 07:49:15 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Oct 6 22:09:24 2009. Well, you COULD couple R-1/9s to SMEES iron-to-iron, but that was it. |
|
|
| (841326) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Oct 7 07:51:08 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Oct 7 03:49:53 2009. Someone once said there was a door timing issue when R-10s were intermixed with later cars. While the trainline door control circuits were the same, it took a few seconds for the R-10s to respond. |
|
|
| (841388) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed Oct 7 10:30:15 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by 33rd Street on Tue Oct 6 18:40:10 2009. "The build quality on the 32's surpasses any R type ever built."Even the Arnines? Those were built like Sherman tanks. I agree though. If there was a NYC subway car Hall of Fame, the R-32 would be a first-ballot member, next to the BMT Standards and the Redbirds. |
|
|
| (841406) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Wed Oct 7 10:55:18 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue Oct 6 22:01:10 2009. Yep. Because noises cause derailments. There are no other causes. |
|
|
| (841442) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Wed Oct 7 12:18:33 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by randyo on Wed Oct 7 03:05:28 2009. This is the same MTA that removes usable switches in a time when they can't afford to build any new infrastructure. |
|
|
| (841445) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by murray1575 on Wed Oct 7 12:36:07 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Oct 7 10:30:15 2009. Among postwar cars the R32 definitely had the best carbody construction due to good design and execution of stainless steel by the Budd Co. I don't know about the mechanical parts but at least in the years immediately after GOH they ran well and had A/C which usually worked as well. In recent years they seem to have deteriorated mechanically but that would not be unexpected given the use those cars have given, especially on the E. The Arnines were good cars for their time but mechanically they were not state of the art due to the city's desire to keep costs low due to the tremendous (for the Depression era) cost of building the IND which stretched the city financially. |
|
|
| (841447) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 7 12:44:43 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 7 00:54:13 2009. It was also the first line to get the GOH'ed cars in the 1980's. (R38). |
|
|
| (841466) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Wed Oct 7 13:13:23 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by murray1575 on Wed Oct 7 12:36:07 2009. I agree there on contruction and POST-GOH mechanicals but I don't see where anyone can come up with the conclusion the cars can last 60 years. There is tremendous stress on even new cars and the metal fatigue became more evident in the cars and their trucks during their third decade of service. Even the best built oldest Steel Automobiles would not be around today if not kept stored in heated garages for every day except a car show. |
|
|
| (841498) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Wed Oct 7 14:00:16 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by murray1575 on Wed Oct 7 12:36:07 2009. Excellent points. The problem with most subway cars is the material used to build them. The BMT got it right with the Standards, the IND got it right with the Arnines, the TA got it right with the R32's. The Redbirds didn't fare too well because of the steel used to make them. If the Redbirds were made of stainless steel, I bet they'll still be running today.I do understand that it doesn't matter how well the car was made but how the train runs mechanically as well. |
|
|
| (841532) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Oct 7 15:06:36 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by murray1575 on Wed Oct 7 12:36:07 2009. Actually by the mid 1930s, a car of IND dimensions but similar in construction, design and mechanical amenities to the BMT Multis could have been built at probably the same cost as the Later R-1/9 series of rolling stock. The Budd company even offered a design and proposal for a stainless steel R-9 but the B of T opted for more cars of the existing design. I believe that an artist's rendering of the stainless steel R-9 exists somewhere but I have yet to see it. In 1949, the Budd Co again attempted to enter the competition for NYCTS equipment with the R-11s which were supposed to be prototypes for a car order of another 400 cars. The problem was that the R-11s had a few unproven amenities that caused the B of T to reject the whole concept of the total car design rather than apply the existing technology of the R-10s to a stainless steel car body. Certain aspects of the R-11's design such as the porthole side door windows and porthole end door window which had been retrofitted to the R-11's original design were applied to the R-15s but with a conventional LAHT steel carbody rather than stainless steel. I have heard that when the R-32s were delivered, certain new car engineers remarked that it was too bad that the R-27s and 30s weren't also stainless steel. If the members of the B of T's and later NYCTA's engineering department didn't have their collective heads up their you know whats, the NYCTS could have had stainless steel cars by 1940 or at very least by the 1950s. |
|
|
| (841534) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Oct 7 15:10:49 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Oct 7 07:51:08 2009. That's correct, even though I recall seeing some mixed trains of R-10s and 16s on the A line in the 1950s. The problem was that the R-10s were the last cars to have electro - pneumatic door engines whereas all subsequent car orders had all electric door operators which accounts for the slight difference in door timing. The IRT didn't have that problem since from the R-12s on, all IRT cars had all electric doors. |
|
|
| (841541) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Oct 7 15:16:47 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Oct 7 07:49:15 2009. You can cob up anything if you need to, especially in the older days with cobbage LoV's with an MCB on one end and a Van Dorn on the other. But "coupling up" means an add for revenue and arnines couldn't do that. Thankfully. :) |
|
|
| (841543) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Oct 7 15:17:56 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Oct 7 07:47:45 2009. One and the same. There, one of the stuck brakes got REALLY stuck and the car wanted to only go sideways. Heh. |
|
|
| (841544) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Oct 7 15:19:00 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Oct 7 07:51:08 2009. That was the least of the worries. :) |
|
|
| (841547) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Wed Oct 7 15:29:00 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by randyo on Wed Oct 7 15:06:36 2009. Its a shame that most subway cars built during that era weren't made of stainless steel. I bet if Budd did build the R9's, those cars would have survived into the 1980's. That's why the R32's are regarded as one of the best built R series fleets. I for one think the TA is making a grave mistake of retiring the R32's.randyo, another excellent post I've read today. Thanks for sharing that information. Keep those interesting posts coming. |
|
|
| (841578) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Oct 7 16:17:41 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by R30A on Wed Oct 7 00:58:39 2009. ESPECIALLY Westbound between Baldwin and RVC. I swear that there's going to be trouble there one day. There's that much sway in the ride.wayne |
|
|
| (841581) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by brightonr68 on Wed Oct 7 16:22:02 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by randyo on Tue Oct 6 21:01:44 2009. "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. "Lets get this straight you want the gov to mandate a company manufacture a product that will loose them money or is a poor allocation of a companies capitol? Lets start with some of the union rules that drove GM and Chystler into bankruptcy. The biggest one was that they had to pay workers a salary even when they were not needed such as when a plant was idles due to low volume |
|
|
| (841582) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Oct 7 16:25:30 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by 33rd Street on Wed Oct 7 15:29:00 2009. Thank you. I try to do the best I can and if I don't have accurate info, I'll say so and defer to anyone on this forum who does have more accurate info than I have. |
|
|
| (841583) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Oct 7 16:33:13 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by brightonr68 on Wed Oct 7 16:22:02 2009. Ask yourself this one ... do the executives forgo pay and bonuses when the plant is idle? |
|
|
| (841629) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 7 18:51:38 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by randyo on Wed Oct 7 15:06:36 2009. That was the fault of ONE MAN in car engineering.He felt subway cars were moving boxes,taking riders from point A to B, needed no fancy appointments.. Perhaps if he DID take his head out of his rear..he would have known what most NYers knew..instead of taking the ROBERT MOSES approach to a problem. |
|
|
| (841631) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Oct 7 18:58:09 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Oct 7 16:17:41 2009. I know. The ride going over Rocky Interlocking is horrible. They need work on that. |
|
|
| (841633) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by R42 4787 on Wed Oct 7 19:01:42 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by randyo on Wed Oct 7 02:54:03 2009. Did the K-cars have the same GE "MCM" system as R17/21/22? |
|
|
| (841702) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Wed Oct 7 22:29:16 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by 33rd Street on Wed Oct 7 15:29:00 2009. The biggest mistake the MTA will make is if they retire the R32s before the R42s. I just wish that the MTA would retire the R44s before the R32s, those cars NEED to go! |
|
|
| (841708) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Oct 7 22:43:09 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 7 00:54:13 2009. Unfortunately, that's not true. Both R42 and R-44 fleets were assigned to Jamaica when new. The last new cars assigne to the A line were the R-10s. |
|
|
| (841710) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Oct 7 22:51:27 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Train Dude on Wed Oct 7 22:43:09 2009. Both car sets were "spread around" usually as a single train and with the 42's, often assigned to the lead and tail pairs so they could do up more than one train in schmorgastrains. They even ran a set of 42's on the CC, B, and a few others. Yes the cars belonged to Jamaica but the politicos were furious if there wasn't at least ONE train of "air conditioned cars" on THEIR line. Even the A got one consist of them when they came on board. |
|
|
| (841712) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Oct 7 23:07:36 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by G1Ravage on Wed Oct 7 12:18:33 2009. Speaking of switches: how often is the 74th St station switches [on the 7 line] used? |
|
|
| (841720) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Oct 7 23:56:05 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Train Dude on Wed Oct 7 22:43:09 2009. Not so sure about the R44 - at least according to my notes - no R44 unit with a number greater than 259 ever set a bogie in the Queens IND. 260-339 went to Concourse, and 340 and up went to the "A".The R42 could be a different story, as the new stock tended to move around when freshly delivered. I record the original placement of #4596 thru #4699 on the "A", "AA" and "B", and have never seen them in Queens IND until just recently. wayne |
|
|
| (841722) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Thu Oct 8 00:12:01 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Oct 7 23:07:36 2009. Very often for G/O's and almost as often for reroutes when necessary. |
|
|
| (841769) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 8 05:58:45 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Train Dude on Wed Oct 7 22:43:09 2009. Thats not true..the A DID receive new cars with the R42 contracts..as well as the R44.I have documented proof..not to mention my very own eyes. |
|
|
| (841770) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 8 05:59:44 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Oct 7 23:56:05 2009. lol. |
|
|
| (841803) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Thu Oct 8 08:02:16 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Oct 7 07:47:45 2009. I mad it OK once with a Mixed R68/a train from Bedford Park to STW. |
|
|
| (841804) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Oct 8 08:03:24 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Oct 7 22:51:27 2009. Back in 1969-70, you'd often see D trains with R-32s at the points and R-42s in the middle. I rode on several of those and it drove me nuts. |
|
|
| (841844) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Thu Oct 8 10:20:40 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Oct 8 08:03:24 2009. I must've missed those. My initial time on the R-42s on the D in the summer of 1969, IIRC (and I may not be), it was 4 R-42s North and 6 R-32s. (poor C/R, had to swelter in the 32s the whole time, at least the n/b M/M got A/C). |
|
|
| (841870) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Thu Oct 8 11:45:45 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by Train Dude on Wed Oct 7 22:43:09 2009. To my recollection, Jamaica got all the R40s and about half of the R44s when new, and only the highest 20 or 30 numbers of R42s. Admittedly, it's been a long time, but to my recollection, roughly, 4550 to about 4603 went to the N, 4604 to 4695 to the A and B, 4696 to 4803 to the D, 4804 to about 4919 to the M, QB, QJ, KK, LL, and RR. So the D got the biggest share, although not by much. |
|
|
| (841939) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Oct 8 14:22:40 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by R42 4787 on Wed Oct 7 19:01:42 2009. I don't know but the K cars were ordered around the same time as the R-26s and since by the time the 26s were ordered, GE had gone back to air cooled resistors, so maybe not. |
|
|
| (841941) | |
Re: R-160 Option III Order |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Oct 8 14:25:20 2009, in response to Re: R-160 Option III Order, posted by G1Ravage on Thu Oct 8 00:12:01 2009. I believe that the idea for those switches was to allow expresses to pick up or discharge passengers at 74 before and after Mets ballgames so I think they have been used quite often. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
