|
|
| A R142A to R188 Conversion question (1197595) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (1197595) | |
A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Allan on Thu Jan 10 14:47:47 2013 As I am to understand it (based on the diagram from the MTA Capital Program), a full set of R188s will have 2 'C' cars.If that is indeed the case then when they are converting R142As then one of the existing 'B' cars is being converted to a 'C'. If I am on the right track then in the case of 7211-7220, where was 7899 inserted and which one of the 'B' cars was converted to a 'C' (7212, 7214, 7217 or 7219)? |
|
|
| (1197598) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Thu Jan 10 14:59:57 2013, in response to A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Allan on Thu Jan 10 14:47:47 2013. The New R188's will have 2 C cars build with them, 1 in the 5 car unit and 1 in the 6 Car unit.The Converted R143's will be like this the unit that will stay 5 cars will have one B car converted into a C car. The unit that is going to be made into a 6 car set will have all there B cars stay as B cars and a bran new C car will be build for it. |
|
|
| (1197606) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 10 16:22:55 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by North-Easten T/O on Thu Jan 10 14:59:57 2013. What's the difference between a B and a C car ? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1197621) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Thu Jan 10 17:48:06 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 10 16:22:55 2013. B car: Two motorized axles, four axles used for braking.C car: Two motorized axles, three axles used for braking, remaining axle equipped with a tachometer, which will be used for distance and speed measurements. |
|
|
| (1197630) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 18:05:46 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by R36 #9346 on Thu Jan 10 17:48:06 2013. The C car has No Motors..All trailer trucks... |
|
|
| (1197635) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 18:30:20 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 18:05:46 2013. In the Steinway? Heh. Sounds like we'll have even slower than 62's. Maybe they'll open a betting window where you can bet on each train making HP. Sounds like this is gonna be fun. :) |
|
|
| (1197636) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 18:32:54 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 18:30:20 2013. There is a reason why i call them "Glorified R142As"... |
|
|
| (1197638) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 18:38:07 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 18:32:54 2013. I just remember a special hell on the D with ten arnines, two of which were dead motors. And stalling out on the bridge. And they're PURPOSELY putting dead motors in a consist? I'd avoid picking A division. :) |
|
|
| (1197639) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 18:41:53 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 18:38:07 2013. The R142's all have trailer Trucks in Every B Car Kevin..So you do the Math ten car unit, four "A" cars Six "B" cars.... A Cars=Two Motorized Trucks.. B Cars=One Motorized Truck.. Instead of having 20 Motors you have 14 Motors... Awesome isnt it? |
|
|
| (1197640) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 18:43:46 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 18:41:53 2013. Arnines were the same - one motor truck, one trailer truck on each. Minute I heard TWO trailers on one car, the math came at me like the kiss at the end of a hot wet fist. :)Anybody at 2 Braoadway capable of figuring out what a "grade" means? Hint to them, it's not a test score. Heh. |
|
|
| (1197641) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Allan on Thu Jan 10 18:51:04 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 18:05:46 2013. If that is true then it will be the first trailer cars purchased for the IRT lines since the LoV trailers back in 1922 (cars 5378-5402 built by Pullman). |
|
|
| (1197643) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 18:52:38 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 18:43:46 2013. Outside 95% of the time exposed to the Elements going to be awesome thing....Maybe they should just have it all grade timers from 74th Street to Queensboro Plaza... |
|
|
| (1197644) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 18:57:07 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 18:52:38 2013. Given the torque I'm counting up, looks like they can just remove all the timers. I'm wondering where they're going to build the sidings for the diesel horses to shove each train up the hill. :)And nobody figured this out before drawing up the contracts? Oh silly me ... South Ferry. Nevermind. Heh. |
|
|
| (1197647) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Thu Jan 10 19:14:29 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Allan on Thu Jan 10 18:51:04 2013. If that is true then it will be the first trailer cars purchased for the IRT lines since the LoV trailers back in 1922 (cars 5378-5402 built by Pullman).Then what was old is new again ! Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1197648) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Thu Jan 10 19:17:08 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 18:05:46 2013. Not true. The C cars are exactly the same as the B cars (1 powered truck, 1 unpowered truck) except one of the 2 axles on the unpowered truck is unbraked with a tachometer attached. |
|
|
| (1197649) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 19:26:14 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by VictorM on Thu Jan 10 19:17:08 2013. Ah!They Changed it up then! Thank you... |
|
|
| (1197650) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 19:27:08 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 18:57:07 2013. Still why not give the train all of its motors?Its a outside line you are gonna need all the power you can get.. |
|
|
| (1197652) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Fisk ave Jim on Thu Jan 10 19:32:24 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 18:05:46 2013. There gonna run trailers w/o motors in the Steinway?? There effen crazy. AFAIK, they never ran non motorised equiptment down there.Its amazing that they never learned anything from history. Good luck on those hot summer days when Con Ed cuts the voltage 7% |
|
|
| (1197657) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jan 10 19:41:12 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Fisk ave Jim on Thu Jan 10 19:32:24 2013. No they are not. All cars will have at least 2 motors. If you look at HP/Ft of train length, a train of 75' cars has somewhat less HP than a train of R-62s or R-142As or R-188s |
|
|
| (1197658) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 19:41:34 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 19:27:08 2013. I'm sure you know that profile ... as bad as it gets outside, that hill was made for streetcars, and it's a steeper grade than the bridge. I have this strange feeling once they have enough trains stuck at the bottom, that somebody will go on a motor truck and traction electronics hunt. Seriously, I'm amazed that they even considered this. Do they not have any foamers working there that knew about Steinway motors and WHY? :( |
|
|
| (1197663) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Fisk ave Jim on Thu Jan 10 19:57:52 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jan 10 19:41:12 2013. Yeah, but Steinway has a 3% + grade. A tuff pull for any Railroad.Its all hands on deck in the rush hour down there. |
|
|
| (1197664) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Thu Jan 10 20:04:44 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 19:26:14 2013. You're welcome. There could still be a problem with traction and braking on some of those steep grades on the Flushing line, especially in bad weather, since the A cars will be overpowered (600 HP) while the B & C cars will be underpowered (300 HP) causing possible adhesion issues. Also since 2 out of 44 axles will be unbraked it will result in a possible 5% loss of braking ability unless they increase the braking force on the wheels with brakes but that may increase tendency to skid in bad weather. I hope they test these R188's thorougly in all kinds of weather before they put them into service. |
|
|
| (1197665) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jan 10 20:04:44 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Fisk ave Jim on Thu Jan 10 19:57:52 2013. I'm quite sure that the people who engineered the R-188 contract, took that into consideration. R-142As have already successfully operated throughthat tunnel |
|
|
| (1197667) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 20:10:34 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by VictorM on Thu Jan 10 20:04:44 2013. Ah ha the good old "Slip Side" Action.....Outside bad weather downhill line... Awesome!!! |
|
|
| (1197668) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 20:11:15 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 19:41:34 2013. Kevin thats WHY im staying away from the A Div no matter how many folks try to drag me back over there... |
|
|
| (1197671) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 20:21:35 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 20:11:15 2013. For me, it was claustrophobia ... that realization that if I fell asleep in the cab in A division, I would still remain standing. At least in B, hitting your head on the cab door as you fell over would at least be expected to wake you back up. Heh.But seriously ... I could see that stupid working on the 1 line, maybe even some of the others. But the Flushing? With the Steinway tunnels and the 62's barely making it uphill with all motors? I salivate in anticipation of the drama that comes. :) |
|
|
| (1197672) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 20:28:10 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 20:21:35 2013. WWeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..Whoa was that 40th Street??? |
|
|
| (1197673) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Fisk ave Jim on Thu Jan 10 20:32:09 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jan 10 20:04:44 2013. "R-142As have already successfully operated throughthat tunnel "In the 11 car configuration w/missing motors & a rush hour load?? If they got to VJ twoards Flushing with speed better than 20mph that the '62a barely made, than I stand corrected . |
|
|
| (1197674) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 20:36:01 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by VictorM on Thu Jan 10 20:04:44 2013. Thanks for the info - the thought of the C's being complete trailers is just so impossible to wrap the mind around as to be unbelievable. |
|
|
| (1197675) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 20:40:24 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 20:28:10 2013. I was sitting parked on this thread and missed the others about the C's having motors after all. But still ... given the mixed horsepower and some of the other variations, sounds like a good old fashioned schmorgastrain! Those kept you awake. :) |
|
|
| (1197676) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 20:48:06 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 20:40:24 2013. Train Nightmares Eh? |
|
|
| (1197677) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jan 10 20:52:47 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Fisk ave Jim on Thu Jan 10 20:32:09 2013. An R-46 emerging from the tubes into High St. will typically be doing 21-24 MPH and that's if the T/O knew how to correctly work the timers at the Fulton St. end. |
|
|
| (1197678) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 20:59:08 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 20:48:06 2013. Uh yeah ... that morning when I took them arnines up the bridge after asking repeatedly if I'd still make it up over the top with two dead cars, they kept reassuring me that I'd be fine. The ball busting for weeks afterward was my first realization that perhaps another career choice might be in the offing. Never forgot that day.I had a set of 32's behind me and they had to do all sorts of maneuvers back there to get another set of arnines behind me to push me over the top. And of course it was MY fault that the railroad blew up. Only compensation for all of it was later that day when I heard that the switchman bringing it back to Coney stalled out too on the other side. :) |
|
|
| (1197679) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 21:05:48 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 20:59:08 2013. Def a train Nightmare! |
|
|
| (1197680) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Thu Jan 10 21:16:20 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by North-Easten T/O on Thu Jan 10 14:59:57 2013. Thanks for this information. I previously thought all the R142A B cars would remain B cars, but this means 38 B cars will be converted into C cars, Therefore the correct R188 new car order will be 32 A cars, 40 B cars and 54 C cars, resulting in a total of 184 A cars, 230 B cars and 92 C cars (506 total) for the 7 line. |
|
|
| (1197681) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 21:22:13 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 21:05:48 2013. Heh. Everybody walks away with stories at the teeyay. :)Why do ya think I keep coming here for the drama? Kindergarten not so much, but I'm willing to play to hear more stories. Heh. |
|
|
| (1197682) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 21:24:22 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 21:22:13 2013. Nah this place isnt drama...The real hard core RTO folks dont even bother with this place anymore... Im a member of some real awesome places... |
|
|
| (1197683) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Thu Jan 10 21:25:03 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by VictorM on Thu Jan 10 21:16:20 2013. Something like that. I never did the math. |
|
|
| (1197684) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 21:29:27 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 21:24:22 2013. I know ... but that's what brought me to the old subtalk as well as to here while it was still hopping. You know after all these years how much I gotta hear my stories. :)Only reason why I still hang out here rather than elsewhere is that this is a great place to spend a couple of minutes and no more at a clip while the machine's busy twirling before it wants me to feed it more code. Really don't have the opportunity to sit and spend much more time on anything than that so this works. |
|
|
| (1197685) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jan 10 21:43:39 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 21:24:22 2013. Do you think they'll ever bring this show back as "I remember the "D" train!" |
|
|
| (1197687) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 21:48:12 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jan 10 21:43:39 2013. Who the eff is Peggy Wood?? |
|
|
| (1197690) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jan 10 21:51:16 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 21:48:12 2013. I think the worked the Delta back in the 70s |
|
|
| (1197691) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 21:52:43 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 21:48:12 2013. Ed Wood after the sex change. :) |
|
|
| (1197692) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 21:54:16 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 21:52:43 2013. I know a Ed Wood the Movie not the TO... |
|
|
| (1197693) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 21:55:13 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 10 21:54:16 2013. Correct. :) |
|
|
| (1197732) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Ian Lennon on Fri Jan 11 06:15:21 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jan 10 20:52:47 2013. 75 footers should have their field shunting restored. |
|
|
| (1197745) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Allan on Fri Jan 11 08:54:24 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 10 20:36:01 2013. "just so impossible"It isn't impossible but it would be impractical for reasons already stated in many of the responses. |
|
|
| (1197766) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 11 10:37:00 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Ian Lennon on Fri Jan 11 06:15:21 2013. I agree - more over - they should never have had it removed. The 75' cars were designed with a balancing speed based on the 115 HP traction motors. The issue was the increased speed of the 60' cars after GOH due to the 15% increase in horse power. |
|
|
| (1197816) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jan 11 17:22:38 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Allan on Fri Jan 11 08:54:24 2013. Guaranteed that if there were two trailers in the train at rush, it would be impossible to cross the river and climb back out. :) |
|
|
| (1197821) | |
Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question |
|
|
Posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Fri Jan 11 17:40:43 2013, in response to Re: A R142A to R188 Conversion question, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 11 10:37:00 2013. This I have to agree with!!! The field shunting as well MUST be restored on the Corona R-62As at once!!! Hence Steinway tubes...... |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
