|
|
| Retired R46's (1633836) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
|
|
| (1633838) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by zac on Thu Jul 11 15:11:09 2024, in response to Retired R46's, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jul 11 14:41:37 2024. I'm willing to bet there are some cars awaiting some kind of service that will never get back out there too. At some point they have to stop throwing money at them even if it is to just swap parts. |
|
|
| (1633839) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jul 11 15:15:55 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by zac on Thu Jul 11 15:11:09 2024. I'm sure you can consider those non revenue holds to be scrap as well. No sense putting them all back together for service. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1633840) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Jul 11 16:08:49 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jul 11 15:15:55 2024. Well, I'm sure there are enough new cars now to keep some R46s grounded.The Summer season always sees some reduction in services along some lines, so I am not surprised to see 46s being held out. With almost 300 new cars available, the worst of the 46s can get a well deserved rest. I still remember the first day those cars were introduced to the riders The first R46 train in service for me was an all A CAR CONSIST..operating in F service. I honestly thought this was how the cars would be ran,as married pairs. After that initial trip, I never saw that train again. The next R46 was 4 car sets, like we see today. Sometimes after that, the next following year, the N train switched Northern terminals,replacing the EE on Queens Blvd. The new cars that would have gone to the EE,were assigned to the N line. I was pleasantly surprised,as the first Continental N train was a brand new set, with that "new car smell". I really liked the R46s. They were right up there on my favorite cars list. However, I was disappointed to realize that they would never through my neighborhood,along my childhood lines. All in all,the held trains are a drop in the bucket,with 700 cars still available for service. One of these days,there will be no more 46s at Pitkin..replaced by the 440 R211... sending them to Coney Island for service/storage or scrap. A sad day indeed. |
|
|
| (1633841) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jul 11 16:26:21 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Edwards! on Thu Jul 11 16:08:49 2024. My favorite cars to operate. |
|
|
| (1633843) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Q65A on Thu Jul 11 17:10:29 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jul 11 16:26:21 2024. How did they compare with R32s? |
|
|
| (1633845) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Jul 11 17:50:31 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Q65A on Thu Jul 11 17:10:29 2024. Operational wise,they were the best piece of rolling stock the TA ever had, before they neutered them.After rebuilding,the extra weight slowed them down, added removal of "field shunting"..they were a shadow of their former selves. However, the cars were reliable.. The 46s were comfortable, quiet and fast when everything was good. However,they Always had that "big booty Railroad car trying to be a Subway car" feel to them, just like the R44s. I actually loved those cars.. when they were maintained,they were spectacular. Now,they are barely getting by.. often dark and gritty. I am sincerely disappointed by how they are looking these days.. and wish they could get another round of General Overhaul..deep cleaning total rebuild to like new conditions. Yeah.. The MTA is into Brand new these days... and looking to get rid of the 75ft cars. So there's no saving the R46/68/68a. If it's up to the MTA,all of those cars will be gone by 2030-35. No 75ft cars left,no more being built. |
|
|
| (1633848) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 11 18:51:08 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Q65A on Thu Jul 11 17:10:29 2024. As far as ride is concerned. The R46 had a much more comfortable experience for the rider. They were built with HVAC while the R32s had it added and were never properly insulated. But as far as the rest a 600' train of R32s had 40 door openings per side while the 600' R46s had just 32 so loading and unloading of the 46s was slower. At the same time, while similarly weighted, a train of R32s had 4600 horsepower while R46s nearly 900 horsepower less so they were less nimble. Of course because of the way controllers were set up, performance seemed similar |
|
|
| (1633851) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Jul 11 19:14:13 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Edwards! on Thu Jul 11 17:50:31 2024. "New cars are coming in, screw the old ones!" |
|
|
| (1633852) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Jul 11 19:16:17 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Edwards! on Thu Jul 11 17:50:31 2024. I liked Gene Sansone's comment about the R-32s when they were new: "They jumped like jackrabbits and were fast." They made the CPW express dash look easy as they zoomed along effortlessly. |
|
|
| (1633853) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 11 19:35:45 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Jul 11 19:16:17 2024. When it came to rail cars, Gene was easily the brightest man I ever worked for. |
|
|
| (1633854) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jul 11 19:49:45 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Q65A on Thu Jul 11 17:10:29 2024. R32's gave a bouncy ride |
|
|
| (1633855) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by zac on Thu Jul 11 20:11:33 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Jul 11 19:16:17 2024. I always wondered if they were fast or just sounded fast. I remember my first R44 ride and it felt slow as molasses because they were so well insulated and so smooth riding. |
|
|
| (1633856) | |
and btw... |
|
|
Posted by zac on Thu Jul 11 20:13:53 2024, in response to Retired R46's, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jul 11 14:41:37 2024. I created that thread on NYCTF. I have zero insider knowledge, just thought it would be good if they were being tracked.I've read through some old ERA bulletins and they always list the latest scrappings of standards. |
|
|
| (1633857) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by BLE-NIMX on Thu Jul 11 20:21:39 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 11 18:51:08 2024. That's an interesting question.You point out pertaining to an eight car train versus a ten car train with a similar passenger headcount. Generally, I did not notice any acceleration rate lagging.When it came to Pre overhau, post overhaul, and subsequent willy B field shunt mods. R46 has had slower acceleration rates with the P-Wire, I believe the gear boxes were changed and the same horsepower motors pushed the rates up through those new gears. Only rebuilt R38s could beat the pants off running times on anything else, I feel because you could grab 50 pounds after hitting those fastest platforms and still make change, the power and braking rates it was very easy to be 4 to 5 minutes ahead by Jay St. Otherwise my running times and perceptions were not swayed whether I had a worstcode or R32/ 32GE |
|
|
| (1633858) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 11 20:27:03 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by zac on Thu Jul 11 20:11:33 2024. At the time, R44s had 15% more horsepower per car so a 10 car train had 4000 hp while the 44s had about the same but the 44s were better insulated so they gave a more quiet and seemingly smoother ride. Perception is everything. |
|
|
| (1633859) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 11 20:32:19 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by BLE-NIMX on Thu Jul 11 20:21:39 2024. I guess the difference could be felt when operating. Pull a brake for a timer and when it cleared, if you wrapped it around again, the R32 would accelerate quicker from 15 MPH than the R46. From a standing start, they both accelerate about the same. |
|
|
| (1633863) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jul 11 21:29:02 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 11 20:32:19 2024. I have mentioned this before but it is worth repeating. Back in 1969 I was a brand new M/M and on my way to Met to work and RDO on Myrtle. I lived in Wash Hgts near 168th St at the time and the T/D mentioned that the AA on the stand was his 131AM interval but he had no M/M for it. I notified the crew office of the situation and offered to work the AA run since I was there already giving them enough time to get someone to Met to work that run. It was OKed and the 131 departed 168th St at 135. Being a bit of a wild man at the controls I departed 168th with all deliberate (and non deliberate) speed. If you were standing outside the cab, you wouldn't even have heard the individual points on the controller as I accelerated. At that time the running time between 168th and Hudson term was 34 min. Despite leaving 168th 4 min late, I was outside Hudson Term at 200AM waiting for the track to clear so I could get in. 4 WH R-32s in perfect working order. |
|
|
| (1633865) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jul 11 21:35:35 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by zac on Thu Jul 11 15:11:09 2024. Since the R-46s are now on their way to their eternal rest, if the MTA had any sense (?) it would be a good idea the remove the H drawheads and Newtran controllers from the scrapped R-46s and install them in the R-68s. |
|
|
| (1633868) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Fri Jul 12 00:17:30 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Edwards! on Thu Jul 11 17:50:31 2024. I'm personally glad.Never liked the 75 footers |
|
|
| (1633869) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jul 12 00:19:34 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by randyo on Thu Jul 11 21:29:02 2024. What a clever way to reassign yourself closer to home. |
|
|
| (1633870) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jul 12 00:21:07 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by BILLBKLYN on Fri Jul 12 00:17:30 2024. They had certain benefits. |
|
|
| (1633872) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Fri Jul 12 00:30:56 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jul 12 00:21:07 2024. Too long. (That's what SHE said!) |
|
|
| (1633875) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jul 12 09:56:32 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by BILLBKLYN on Fri Jul 12 00:30:56 2024. The 75 foot cars provided many economic advantages. Based on a 600 foot train, 4 Less AC units, 1 less converter, 1 less converter, 2 less group switch boxes & 8 less traction motors. That list goes on including 20 car inspectors to do a routine inspection vs 30 for 60' cars. I could go on. |
|
|
| (1633878) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Q65A on Fri Jul 12 10:36:19 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jul 12 09:56:32 2024. Thanks for all your info, guys! I always learn a lot from this board. |
|
|
| (1633881) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Jul 12 15:31:27 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Jul 11 19:16:17 2024. Yes.Practically the best description of them, the closest rival was the R40s. Awesome to behold,these cars were monsters on the rails demanding respect, and plenty of room. They were FAST, response matching the 32s.. with the added swept back bonnet cutting through the atmosphere with ease. I had my share of "favorite rail cars".. meaning I love all of them except a few(R16 at the bottom of that list for obvious reasons). I grew up riding the T27/30s and pre war Arnines. |
|
|
| (1633882) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Jul 12 16:19:39 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by zac on Thu Jul 11 20:11:33 2024. That's what I loved about them.You could actually hear yourself think, and talk. They were comfortable, quiet, but had the 'big railroad" feel to them. The other odd thing, is they had a different"feel" to them stepping into the car. I believe it may have had something to do with the flooring.. The 46s didn't have this,nor did any other equipment that came after. This was Not a big deal,in any case. The problem with the 44s were more mechanical,than aesthetic. New technologies,lack of "proper maintenance", and training is what led to the slew of issues involving the early years. Steve has first hand knowledge of the inner workings of the R44s various problems, and I defer to his expertise and experience without question. However, the 44s were essentially victims of bad choices, both design and engineering. St Louis Car built the cars to specs. As a money saving practice, the TA used composite materials to build the car bodies. Stainless steel was used as overlay on Low Alloy,High Tensile Steel(LAHT), with molded fiberglass end bonnets. The mid section, where the belly band is located,was non stainless steel LAHT. Because of this, and other reasons, the cars suffered premature deteriorating in key areas.. According to Train Dude, the cars Were still in relatively good condition, and could be saved,as were the SIR R44 cars were. The MTA,under direction of the "federal government", declared the railcars unsafe, removing them permanently from service. The cars innovative for the subway when introduced, should have received a much more dignified send off. They were not. Slowly withdrawn,they disappeared from the public eye without so much as a "thanks". The last remaining car is present at the Transit Museum,a static display. If you listen to the dull humming coming from it, you might just hear it's story..told sadly to anyone who will listen. |
|
|
| (1633883) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Jul 12 16:37:32 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jul 12 09:56:32 2024. Not to mention,less rolling stock to maintain, doing the same work/ level of service.The Problem was the overall cost of modifying the system so they could operate. The Eastern Division turned out to be the most costly,so it wasn't included. Funny thing. It wasn't all of the tunnels that were problematic,it was elevated structures. I find that, since the Jamaica Line Was part of the SAS program,at first, it should have been modified for the use of the 75ft cars. However, when the SAS was cancelled,along with the majority of the new routes program, there was no longer a reason for the modifications,at least according to the Transit Authority. The MTA acknowledged that the work was EXTENSIVE, involving relocation of structural piers, interlocking, platform extensions,wayside equipment, yard extension etc. Honestly, I believe the East was fine with out all the fancy bells and whistles. It's trains could still travel anywhere in the system. |
|
|
| (1633884) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Jul 12 17:33:07 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Train Dude on Thu Jul 11 20:27:03 2024. But that 15% more HP might not have been enough considering the live weight of the Pax plus the weight of the car. |
|
|
| (1633886) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jul 12 23:46:27 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Jul 12 17:33:07 2024. The 15% equalized the horsepower for 600foot of train either 60 or 75' cars. The "Issue" came during GOH when all traction motors were boosted to 115 hp regardless of 60 or 75'. |
|
|
| (1633887) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Jul 13 00:09:42 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Edwards! on Fri Jul 12 16:37:32 2024. I recall reading in a 1950s issue of the ERA newsletter “Headlights” an article citing one of the B of T and early NYCTA commissioners Sydney H. Bingham. According to the article, Col Bingham said that the ideal size for a rapid transit car was 60ft long by 10ft wide which is what the IND was using and the size cars being ordered for the BMT. It seems that after all the experimentation being done by the MTA regarding rolling stock, Col Bingham’s assessment was correct after all at least regarding the NYCTS. |
|
|
| (1633888) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Jul 13 00:12:17 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jul 12 00:19:34 2024. In truth, I was running a little tight for my Met report so I was able to take advantage of the opportunity to avoid possibly being late for the Myrtle Av job. |
|
|
| (1633890) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jul 13 01:40:23 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by randyo on Sat Jul 13 00:09:42 2024. Yes.Seems to be the case, since the MTA has made several changes to the last B Division cars orders from 75ft, back to the "standard" 60ft. The MTA plans on having a "standard fleet" of 60ft NTT railcars for the B Division after the R268 order. The 75ft cars, while novel,were proposed for the new routes, that would have interacted with railroads right of way,such as the Queens Bypass,or the SAS Bronx section that would have used the current Amtrak row... or new routes in expressway medians (LIE route). Since the R44 were purchased in the late 1960s, the new MTA was under the impression that the cars Would in fact,operate along the proposed and existing routes. Heavy influenced by other systems either under construction, or older systems making upgrades to equipment, the TA matched on, with the R44 shells arriving in 1970 to your the system. The First 20 cars St.Louis Car built were rejected due to bad welds, structural issues,etc. Afterwards, the next batch began to arrive between 1971 to 73. Since none of the lines the car was built for were "available" at the time, the MTA placed a few in service on the most demanding subway routes,Queens Blvd E and F, 8th Avenue A, and 6th Ave D.. No BMT lines received them, since they weren't exactly ready for them at That point in time. However, the Brighton line did receive modifications early on because of Chrystie st.. with the rest of the BMT receiving modifications in the early 70s. All, except the Eastern Division. |
|
|
| (1633893) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by italianguyinsi on Sat Jul 13 07:03:51 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Edwards! on Fri Jul 12 16:19:39 2024. Those 44s were sent packing way before thier time; ditto the GOH'ed 38s and 27/30s. The 44s air brake whistle is a sound I will never forget. |
|
|
| (1633894) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by italianguyinsi on Sat Jul 13 07:05:39 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jul 12 09:56:32 2024. That was the case for the 75' MU. So why has the TA been hell-bent on going back to a 60' MU car? |
|
|
| (1633895) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jul 13 07:22:43 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by italianguyinsi on Sat Jul 13 07:05:39 2024. Policy and politics, most likely. As was mentioned in another post, the 75 foot cars seemed aimed at projects where the subway and commuter railroads would share ROW. The Rosedale extension of Archer Ave was one where 75 foot cars might be appropriate. As for the case for 60 foot cars, it's easy to get approval to buy them when you can promise that they won't be destined for assignment only on lines serving more affluent neighborhoods. |
|
|
| (1633896) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jul 13 09:42:44 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by italianguyinsi on Sat Jul 13 07:03:51 2024. The same can be said about the Triplexes. They were pulled much too soon; by all accounts, they were still running like tops. |
|
|
| (1633897) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jul 13 09:44:00 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Edwards! on Fri Jul 12 15:31:27 2024. My favorites were always a tossup between the R-1/9s and R-10s. The R-32s ranked up there as well, though. |
|
|
| (1633898) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Jul 13 10:55:50 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jul 13 09:42:44 2024. Even though they were good runners, the problem with the Triplexes is that they looked ancient. They had a 19th century feel to them with their drab interior paint job and seating arrangement. Towards the end of their running days, they were poorly cosmetically maintained. You'd cross platform at QBP with a Triplex going to Astoria and an R33/36 WF going to Flushing, It was like going thru a time warp |
|
|
| (1633899) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jul 13 12:45:49 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jul 13 07:22:43 2024. But on the flip side you have the cost of bringing the Eastern Division up to 75’ standard which won’t be easy, especially in places where there isn’t room to expand. The only issue is the decision to go with 4 and 5 car units so you don’t have the complexity of more A cars. Had they gone back to married pairs for everything all of the lines could share the same equipment. It would just be a matter of how many married pairs would be in each consist. |
|
|
| (1633900) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Q65A on Sat Jul 13 13:03:27 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Edwards! on Fri Jul 12 15:31:27 2024. I also grew up with pre-war R1-9s on QBL and Crosstown.27-30s were on the RR, which at that time ran to Continental Ave. Their pink fiberglass seats, fluorescent lighting and Axiflow fans were a big change from rattan upholstery, bare incandescent bulbs and paddle fans. 16s came later on EE and GG. They sounded like they has asthma, wheezing and buzzing. When the 38, 40, 42, 44 and 46 showed up, they looked and felt like spaceships. While I was living in Queens at that time, I never once rode a 32. |
|
|
| (1633902) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by irtredbirdr33 on Sat Jul 13 13:29:58 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jul 13 09:42:44 2024. The same can be said about the Triplexes. They were pulled much too soon; by all accounts, they were still running like tops. Steve: I always said the Triplexes died in a hurry. It seems that they were here one week and gone the next. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (1633903) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jul 13 14:01:57 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jul 13 12:45:49 2024. Definitely.As I said in a previous post,the Jamaica Line was an intricate part of the planned SAS network, and would have been modified to "IND" standards. Several areas along the route were in desperate need of modernization, upgrades, relocation and remodeling tight curves. The Eastern elevated lines were originally tight quartered EL equipment comparable to IRT type cars. The Standard changed that,but didn't totally address the clearance issue structurally. The cost of rebuilding the east was questionable, but what really stopped the TA,was the plan relocation of the El in City Line/Cypress Hills. One thing that the TA should have known, is you bully folks,they will push back. The city wanted to condemn large portions of homes to create a new path for the Jamaica lines realignment..add a third track,soften the curves at Alabama Ave, modify all express stations to fit longer 10 car trains,move interlocking,soften the clearance along the Williamsburg Bridge, rebuild Essex st so the LoMEX would wind around it, platform extensions along the Nassau loop for Second Avenue subway trains,which would swap places with downtown Eastern Division services at Bowery.. This,Alone,was a Capital Project, costing millions of dollars,which the city clearly didn't have. When projects attached to this plan fell through,along with Robert Moses interference,and Nimby protests,most of the developments were stopped cold.. The third track project ended at the ramp leading up to Alabama Avenue station. None of the structural work was carried out to rebuild or relocate the original el over Fulton st. No work on the Willy B,no LoMex. No SAS connection, but the tunnel to the downtown Nassau loop portion Was partially built,along with the connection to Houston St. Provision was built for the SAS, hidden. The new MTA decided that rebuilding the Eastern Division was a bit much, and cancelled the program. However,they did offer to build a new route further into Jamaica for the Jamaica El in two phases,as a subway under Archer Ave..closer to the Long Island Railroad station. This line would be a hub route, with trains from 63rd st and Queens Bypass express service to south Jamaica at Springfield Blvd... and Queens Village. The MTA was in trouble. The Rob Peter to pay Paul tactic caught up with them, They practically commented criminal activities, massive amounts of fraud,kickbacks, and other illegal acts caused the funding to "disappear". Mismanagement,some racial bias and other reasons played a terrible hand in in the development of the Archer Avenue route, causing the Federal government to get involved. The project was stopped cold, just like the 63rd st line. When work resumed, the MTA decided to build as much as it could for what was left of government funding, and çomplete all programs at a later date. Future provisions were provided within the tunnels for services further east and south east on both lines. 10 car length platforms were built on both levels for the future. As time pasted by, the Archer line dropped in priority, and the MTA made various service improvements to bus lines and LIRR routes to adjust. The Jamaica line has seen various improvements over the years, including structural to replace the various steel bents and truss holding up the el. Station improvements,new signals, and new tracking. New railcars, modern and sleek have replaced the old SMEE equipment. Things may not have turned out according to plan, but the line is doing ok in any case. |
|
|
| (1633904) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jul 13 14:13:35 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jul 13 09:42:44 2024. Yeah.They were pulled due to Chrystie St. They were pulled because the IND didn't want them on "their lines" when Chrystie opened. This is why the BMT received All of the 32s instead of a 300 car each split between the divisions. However, the Next group of cars went directly to the IND, the 38s and the 40s.which were 600 cars in total. |
|
|
| (1633908) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by W.B. on Sat Jul 13 17:08:35 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Q65A on Sat Jul 13 13:03:27 2024. From what I recall, R-32's were never at the time assigned to Jamaica yard - but R-38's certainly were . . . |
|
|
| (1633909) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jul 13 18:23:07 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by W.B. on Sat Jul 13 17:08:35 2024. When I moved to Jamaica as a supervisor in 1984, all of the GE R32s were already assigned to Jamaica. Back in the day, the R32 order was split between GE and Westinghouse. |
|
|
| (1633914) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jul 13 20:16:40 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Edwards! on Sat Jul 13 14:13:35 2024. They would have laughed in the face of deferred maintenance. |
|
|
| (1633915) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Jul 13 20:21:36 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Jul 13 10:55:50 2024. I felt as though I'd stepped in a twilight zone when I saw the BMT standards for the first time. They looked like they were from another century, which in 1967 would have been the 19th. |
|
|
| (1633918) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by W.B. on Sun Jul 14 07:24:55 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jul 13 18:23:07 2024. They certainly "got around," those 32's, didn't they? |
|
|
| (1633920) | |
Re: Retired R46's |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Jul 14 07:58:17 2024, in response to Re: Retired R46's, posted by W.B. on Sun Jul 14 07:24:55 2024. In nearly 60 years of service, they certainly did. Likely served on every B division line at one time or another. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
