|
|
| Modified R16? (1131184) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1131184) | |
Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by NJCL2308 on Tue Jan 10 13:50:15 2012 In the Morning Sun books, "New York City Subways in Color V.1," there is a section (1 page) titled, "NYCTA Experimental Cars." The top photo displays R10 #3192, which had the R42 front end. The bottom photo, however, displays an R16 with what appears to be an R110 body shroud/front. The caption reads, "On 9/15/79, this modernized R16 car was displayed at 207th Street Yard Open House. It never saw passenger service, and was later scrapped."I'm curious as to the history of this car, and what the reasoning was behind this body design, and why the car was never put in service. The car in the photo is un-numbered, and the caption doesn't offer any information. Thank you in advance. |
|
|
| (1131194) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jan 10 14:08:22 2012, in response to Modified R16?, posted by NJCL2308 on Tue Jan 10 13:50:15 2012. This?
|
|
|
| (1131195) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jan 10 14:12:48 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jan 10 14:08:22 2012. Another fuzzy shot. Man, graffiti was so bad in 1979, even static displays inside shop buildings were not immune: There are more pictures of the R10 prototype, but here's one I haven't seen before: 
|
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1131197) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by mike cruz on Tue Jan 10 14:26:48 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jan 10 14:12:48 2012. It's the picture that has the graffiti not the train, look on the rest of the car..................nothing. |
|
|
| (1131198) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by NJCL2308 on Tue Jan 10 14:28:36 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jan 10 14:08:22 2012. Yup, that's the one. |
|
|
| (1131201) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Jan 10 15:15:41 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by mike cruz on Tue Jan 10 14:26:48 2012. I wonder what they did with the door controls on that modified R-10. |
|
|
| (1131203) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 10 15:36:23 2012, in response to Modified R16?, posted by NJCL2308 on Tue Jan 10 13:50:15 2012. The front of that R-16 doesn't look anything like an R-110. |
|
|
| (1131246) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Tue Jan 10 18:30:43 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by mike cruz on Tue Jan 10 14:26:48 2012. Who would put graffiti on a photo after it was taken? Sounds very unlikely. But that picture is reversed left to right ("flopped" as we recently learned is the terminology). |
|
|
| (1131247) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by Dj Hammers on Tue Jan 10 18:31:40 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jan 10 14:12:48 2012. The top image is flopped. |
|
|
| (1131250) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Tue Jan 10 18:36:22 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jan 10 14:08:22 2012. It's a good thing they didn't do that. That is downright ugly. Worse than the 32s & 38s after GOH. |
|
|
| (1131262) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Jan 10 19:09:34 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by Dyre Dan on Tue Jan 10 18:30:43 2012. I don't know, but they did. I have seen the same pic without the grafitti. |
|
|
| (1131275) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 10 20:48:10 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 10 15:36:23 2012. it WAS an interesting design proposal never the less..the car had R44/46 like appointments to the interior...and was the prototype of GOH PROGRAM to see if the R16 could be saved. Turns out..the extensive modifications made to the cars would have been about the cost of buying a new fleet..The R55 would have replaced the R10/16..as well as the R68/68A contract replacing the 27/30[this being under the TA plan of replacing its rolling stock every four years until the fleet was in a state of good repair or all new] |
|
|
| (1131293) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by mike cruz on Tue Jan 10 22:17:39 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by R30A on Tue Jan 10 19:09:34 2012. I have pics with friends that grafitti on them, you use a sharpie actually. |
|
|
| (1131326) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 11 02:34:23 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 10 20:48:10 2012. When I was in the schedule office in the late 1970s, R-55 was the number that was supposed to have been assigned to what eventually became the R-62s. |
|
|
| (1131481) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Wed Jan 11 13:48:39 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 10 15:36:23 2012. Do any *inside* photos of that modified R-16 exist?--Mark |
|
|
| (1131497) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Wed Jan 11 14:06:13 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by Mark S. Feinman on Wed Jan 11 13:48:39 2012. yes |
|
|
| (1131522) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Jan 11 14:44:21 2012, in response to Modified R16?, posted by NJCL2308 on Tue Jan 10 13:50:15 2012. Car in question was #6429. It looked rather like the R62 inside, with the seats along the wall. The ceiling louvers, however, were identical to those in the R44/R46. And the interior wall treatment was the same as R44/R46 as well - NYS/NYC patterned.wayne |
|
|
| (1131560) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Wed Jan 11 17:37:59 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by monorail on Wed Jan 11 14:06:13 2012. Share them please :)--Mark |
|
|
| (1131592) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Wed Jan 11 19:56:13 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by Mark S. Feinman on Wed Jan 11 17:37:59 2012. in time |
|
|
| (1131597) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Jan 11 20:33:42 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by randyo on Wed Jan 11 02:34:23 2012. the 55 was a B DIVISION fleet..It was a cross between the 44/46 and what Would become the R68. the cars WERE going to replace what was left of the 10/16..but were cancelled for some reason..most likely due to the disaster that became know as the 44/46 gave the TA shaky feet on new car purchases..And caused them to go back to the drawing board. |
|
|
| (1131683) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 12 04:10:13 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by Edwards! on Wed Jan 11 20:33:42 2012. I'm not sure where your info came from but I was working at 370 Jay at the time and that's the number that came down to me. It could be possible that the number was reassigned later, but I was there at the time and that's the info I received! What was definitely determined at the time was that the new IRT fleet was not to be electronic like the R-44/46s but was to be conventional RT-2 braking equipment and in other ways fully compatible with existing IRT rolling stock. The cars were also initially supposed to be 2 car married pairs like the latest IRT equipment. |
|
|
| (1131990) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Fri Jan 13 09:23:52 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Jan 10 15:15:41 2012. They could have rewired the windshield trigger circuit for right side open and close buttons in the cab but those cars never needed a left zone open/close so if they did rewire that car it would have been expensive to do so, not including removing the drum switch, and door relay installation. I would think they didn't even go that far |
|
|
| (1132021) | |
Re: Modified R16? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Jan 13 13:12:15 2012, in response to Re: Modified R16?, posted by monorail on Wed Jan 11 19:56:13 2012. looking forward to the pics... |
|
|
