|
|
| R44's soon to be swimming with the fish (887397) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (887397) | |
R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Vacuum Tube on Sun Jan 17 10:53:54 2010 Car #5342 frame so badly rusted it may break in half if moved |
|
|
| (887398) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Jan 17 10:56:20 2010, in response to R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Vacuum Tube on Sun Jan 17 10:53:54 2010. I think that was one that I remember riding last year, that had an extreme creaking sound at one end. I will check my logs. But is it safe to say that this one has been withdrawn pending scrap?wayne |
|
|
| (887411) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Vacuum Tube on Sun Jan 17 11:37:40 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Jan 17 10:56:20 2010. I heard R44 fleet is going to be scrapped and replaced with R46's.The are R44 and R46 are similiar cars, the R46's are probably rusted also. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (887414) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Jan 17 11:50:15 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Vacuum Tube on Sun Jan 17 11:37:40 2010. Similar, but not the same. R46s are mostly stainless steel, the R44s have carbon steel on the sides. Carbon steel rusts worse than stainless steel. Just look at the R42 rooftops - carbon steel. |
|
|
| (887415) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Vacuum Tube on Sun Jan 17 12:01:45 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Jan 17 11:50:15 2010. I am not talking about the belly bands. I am talking about main frame of the car. What is thr R44 frame made of? And what is the R46 made of? I would think it would be made out of a corrision resistant material. Why did it rust through? |
|
|
| (887418) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by 7 Local on Sun Jan 17 12:18:03 2010, in response to R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Vacuum Tube on Sun Jan 17 10:53:54 2010. Seems like they will be going this way to retain the leftover R32's and R42's. Only issue with this is rusting and falling apart car bodies don't exactly make the best reef material. |
|
|
| (887419) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Sun Jan 17 12:18:15 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Vacuum Tube on Sun Jan 17 12:01:45 2010. Sometimes the rust is because of the reaction of the 2 metals together, if you put two different metals together it can cause problems such as those you mentioned, tho I've never heard of Stainless and Carbon steel having such a reaction together. |
|
|
| (887426) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Vacuum Tube on Sun Jan 17 12:30:52 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by 7 Local on Sun Jan 17 12:18:03 2010. Why keep the R42's if the roof is made out of carbon steel and rusting? |
|
|
| (887429) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 17 12:48:01 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Vacuum Tube on Sun Jan 17 12:01:45 2010. R44 Carbon Steel, R46 Stainless Steel. |
|
|
| (887432) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 17 12:52:21 2010, in response to R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Vacuum Tube on Sun Jan 17 10:53:54 2010. One bad car dooms an entire fleet? What replaces them? The R32's will not be kept much longer. If the M/V swap happens, the R32's might be done right then and there (the R46's assigned to the current V could be transferred to the A).I will believe these cars are doomed when Train Dude, you know, the guy who is in charge of maintaining them, posts that a definite decision has been made. |
|
|
| (887435) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 17 12:57:13 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 17 12:52:21 2010. If the R44s are determined to be unworthy to retain, the R32/R42 would probably have to be kept. |
|
|
| (887437) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Jan 17 13:09:46 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Vacuum Tube on Sun Jan 17 12:30:52 2010. At least it's just the roof and not the sides of the car. |
|
|
| (887438) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Jan 17 13:11:19 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 17 12:52:21 2010. Maybe with the displaced R46s, they could use the extra cars to make the C 600' trains. |
|
|
| (887441) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 17 13:14:31 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Jan 17 13:11:19 2010. The C will definately be 600' when the R32's it uses are replaced. It will be impossible to run 480' trains. |
|
|
| (887442) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 17 13:15:17 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 17 12:57:13 2010. I don't believe the R44's are bad enough for something that radical. |
|
|
| (887444) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 17 13:18:04 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 17 13:14:31 2010. If the R32 aren't being replaced, there would be no need for the C to become 600' |
|
|
| (887450) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 17 13:36:18 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 17 13:18:04 2010. The R32's are due to be replaced soon. We already know this. |
|
|
| (887451) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 17 13:38:59 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 17 13:15:17 2010. It's worse than you think. |
|
|
| (887454) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 17 13:42:58 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 17 13:36:18 2010. According to posts on other boards, such is likely not true. |
|
|
| (887456) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 17 13:47:07 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 17 13:36:18 2010. Things change. Here's the current G1 outlook, as I see it:-Program to scrap the R-32s and remaining R-42s stops immediately. -R-44 goes bye-bye. -(M)/(V) combo occurs. New (V) will be mostly R-160A, with a few R-32s thrown in. This frees up R-46s to go to the (A). |
|
|
| (887457) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 17 13:48:05 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 17 13:47:07 2010. "stops immediately" implies that it hadn't stopped a few weeks ago! |
|
|
| (887458) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 17 13:49:34 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 17 13:48:05 2010. It's possible it has. I haven't been keeping up with what's going out on specific barges. |
|
|
| (887461) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 17 13:54:21 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 17 13:47:07 2010. There is no way I see the MTA retaining R32's past their 50th birthday, which is a given if the R44 fleet is scrapped entirely. |
|
|
| (887462) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 17 13:55:26 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 17 13:54:21 2010. You're assuming they have a choice! |
|
|
| (887465) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 17 14:00:49 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 17 13:54:21 2010. The R-32s are eternal. |
|
|
| (887470) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Sun Jan 17 14:08:23 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Vacuum Tube on Sun Jan 17 12:30:52 2010. The remaining R42's are in better condition then the 44's. |
|
|
| (887472) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Sun Jan 17 14:10:54 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by ClearAspect on Sun Jan 17 12:18:15 2010. Stainless Steel has little to no reaction when joined with other metals. In fact, stainless steel has no corrosive properties. However, carbon steel does. |
|
|
| (887475) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Sun Jan 17 14:12:30 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 17 13:15:17 2010. Believe me, the 44's are in worse shape then you think. That's why the remaining 32's and 42's might have to remain in service for an additional 2-5 years. |
|
|
| (887476) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Jan 17 14:12:58 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 17 14:00:49 2010. Let's hope for 60 years of service! :D |
|
|
| (887479) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Sun Jan 17 14:17:15 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 17 13:54:21 2010. The build quailty of the R32's far surpasses any R-type ever made. When Budd was manufacturing the 32's, they built them to last a very long time. I'm not saying that because I like the 32's. I'm stating that because its a fact that can be proven by looking at how good the 32's look for their age.Now, imagine if Budd built the R33 and R36's (ML and WF)... |
|
|
| (887480) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 17 14:19:48 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by 33rd Street on Sun Jan 17 14:17:15 2010. I doubt they would have turned out much different.Just because we ordered fully stainless cars from Budd and only composite-carbon/stainless steel cars from SLC doesnt mean that both companies did not offer both. Both did. NYCTA chose to order purely stainless cars from Budd for the R32 order, and Stainless/Carbon composites from SLC for the R38 order. |
|
|
| (887492) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Jan 17 14:45:18 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 17 14:19:48 2010. Well R32s are still around; while the slants, 38s, and 40Ms are all gone. Shouldn't the stainless steel have some part in why the 32s are still here? |
|
|
| (887495) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 17 14:47:38 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Jan 17 14:45:18 2010. No. The Stainless steel has a lot to do with why the R32s look so good today when compared to the R42s, but I believe the main reason why we are dealing with R32s and not R40/R42s now is that the R32s had to be kept due to their C/R positions. |
|
|
| (887497) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Sun Jan 17 14:53:10 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 17 14:47:38 2010. That isn't the reason why the TA is hesitant to get rid of the 32's. The TA opted to keep them as a means to fall back on incase of an emergency situation occurs. Operating procedures have nothing to do with it. |
|
|
| (887498) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 17 14:54:21 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by 33rd Street on Sun Jan 17 14:53:10 2010. It is the reason why the MTA kept the R42s.Had the C R40/R42 swap worked, we would be seing R40/R42s running now, with the R32s having been gone for a while. |
|
|
| (887499) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Sun Jan 17 14:57:31 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 17 14:54:21 2010. Had the C R40/R42 swap worked, we would be seing R40/R42s running now, with the R32s having been gone for a while.That plan blew up in the TA's face because they realized it was a mistake. |
|
|
| (887502) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 17 15:03:17 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by 33rd Street on Sun Jan 17 14:57:31 2010. But that was due to the fact that the C/R positions resulted in absurd stopping positions, not due to physical conditions of cars. |
|
|
| (887572) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 17 20:53:17 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Jan 17 10:56:20 2010. Were its door chimes in tune?:) |
|
|
| (887581) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Vacuum Tube on Sun Jan 17 21:20:08 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by 33rd Street on Sun Jan 17 14:17:15 2010. The R32 Phase 1 have the worst A/C. Constant failures. Just track the A/C failures on the "C" & "E" lines. Why would the NYCT want to keep these horrible hot cars. |
|
|
| (887584) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Sun Jan 17 21:25:17 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Vacuum Tube on Sun Jan 17 21:20:08 2010. Just SMS them and they'll do just fine. |
|
|
| (887631) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Jan 17 23:14:12 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jan 17 12:52:21 2010. Absolutely NO DECISION has been made yet. |
|
|
| (887643) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Vacuum Tube on Sun Jan 17 23:29:36 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Train Dude on Sun Jan 17 23:14:12 2010. When and Who is going to make a decision?What is the basis for their decision going to be? |
|
|
| (887762) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jan 18 10:26:15 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by 33rd Street on Sun Jan 17 14:10:54 2010. I have to look, but there was something like this that doomed the LIRR's original bilevel cars, I recall reading it in Electriclines magazine. |
|
|
| (887767) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Mon Jan 18 10:52:49 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jan 17 13:38:59 2010. Exactly.......G1 Ravage is on the money......... |
|
|
| (887776) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 18 11:23:36 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jan 18 10:26:15 2010. but there was something like this that doomed the LIRR's original bilevel carsThey weren't bilevels. |
|
|
| (887778) | |
Re: Why The R-44's Rusted Out at the Frame |
|
|
Posted by Widecab5 on Mon Jan 18 11:28:26 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Vacuum Tube on Sun Jan 17 12:01:45 2010. On the R-44's the framing is all carbon steel with a stainless skin (one reason for their being overweight). Why is unclear but two most likely explanations are cost to SLC-GSI or that metal technologies had not yet developed (at least as of 1968) to allow the stainless steel framing that was needed. Whatever, the issue was addressed before Pullman-Standard began construction of the R-46's in 1974 and they were most definitely built with stainless steel underframing.The mid-body "blue belly band" on the R-44 was originally a thin sheet metal bridge between the two flash welded sections of stainless steel skin (upper and lower). This was done because during their construction the R-44 bodies were over the prescribed weight and this was a seemingly non-controversial (and desperate) way to shed pounds. Then came the grime, then the graffiti, and with it in 1982 came acid baths. Not only were the bodies scrubbed to base skin, but the bare sheet metal was eventually exposed to the acids. As it hit pre-existing rust pockets on the sheet metal, these were eventually eaten away and the subsequent acids released into the underlying frame members. Moreover, as each train was bathed repeatedly in the acids, and as the fluid more easily invaded the underframing each time, it would run down the verticals to the base, and pool at the sill members until it either evaporated (dried) or was absorbed into the steel (and that was originally very robust steel). As the acid and bare steel co-mingles, the massy goo that results (and is perpetually developing once set in motion) has been gradually decomposing the steel framing from within and pushing against the visible stainless steel skin without like a fist. This threatens the original SLC-GSI flash welds on the back side. It produces those noticeable "dimples" at the sill line of the R-44's (and formerly of the Redbirds and carbon steel SMEE's before them). When the R-44's went to M-K, M-K alerted NYCTA to the issue but TA knew about it long before. M-K recommended a stainless steel bridge sheet to replace the original sheet metal, weight considerations aside, but (apparently because the powers that be felt this too costly given that the R-44's were already too far gone and would only be needed for about another 15 years at most [until approx. 2005]) this was nixed and the sheet metal bridges salvaged or replaced with like materials. Dimples = Rot. Can't stop it. Can't cure it unless you can replace all the underlying steel. The Staten Island R-44's have the same construction, but because they were not bathed in acid over and over (not as much graffiti?) do not exhibit the same kind of inherent deterioration. They are rusted, however, in large part because of exposure to the natural elements of their operating environment for 35 years. As a temporary measure (5-10 years?), CI Shops is cutting vent holes into the body skin beneath the door thresholds and covering them with a screen. The hope is to allow air to circulate within the framing overlays (which are in fair shape at best for their age and construction) to prevent undercar moisture (in this case from rain, snow and frost) from washing at the aging steel any further. You might notice these little screens on the rehabbed SIR R-44's. And (with apologies to Paul Harvey) now you know the rest of the story. Regards, George Chiasson Jr. (Widecab5@aol.com) |
|
|
| (887781) | |
Re: Why The R-44's Rusted Out at the Frame |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 18 11:36:18 2010, in response to Re: Why The R-44's Rusted Out at the Frame, posted by Widecab5 on Mon Jan 18 11:28:26 2010. On the R-44's the framing is all carbon steel with a stainless skin (one reason for their being overweight).How are the R44s overweight? Other than that issue, a very interesting post. Thank you. |
|
|
| (887787) | |
Re: Why The R-44's Rusted Out at the Frame |
|
|
Posted by Widecab5 on Mon Jan 18 11:55:08 2010, in response to Re: Why The R-44's Rusted Out at the Frame, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 18 11:36:18 2010. With their 75-foot bodies, the R-44 represented a whole new physical dynamic for the NYCTA. Weight specifications per axle were developed to determine performance dynamics like speed and braking capabilities and the measure the stress they would place on structures and bridges when in service at these projected capabilities.At the time the NYCTA's average weight for existing equipment (then the R-42) was about 9,200 lbs. per axle and that was the target for the R-44's. Given the added materials for the extra 15 feet in length, it was a difficult target to reach but reach it they did. The R-46's also maintained about 9,200 lbs. per axle, even with stainless steel framing. That probably has more to do with the natural learning curve (what was learned from building the R-44s), plus advances in metals technology, than anything else. The price of progress, I'm afraid. Regards, George Chiasson Jr. (Widecab5@aol.com) |
|
|
| (887790) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jan 18 11:58:12 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 18 11:23:36 2010. Double-deckers? Gallery cars? |
|
|
| (887812) | |
Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jan 18 13:10:41 2010, in response to Re: R44's soon to be swimming with the fish, posted by Train Dude on Sun Jan 17 23:14:12 2010. I agree. I am not saying a decision has been made, I am telling what it will be. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
