|
|
| Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (48849) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 8 |
||
|
| (49003) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by M15 to South Ferry on Wed Feb 9 18:46:07 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 9 18:35:39 2005. Well probably not for the subways, but 75-85ft cars could be on the LIRR/MNRR or so. |
|
|
| (49012) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 18:53:28 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by M15 to South Ferry on Wed Feb 9 18:46:07 2005. Umm, railcar standards are 85 feet. That's what the MNRR and LIRR use! |
|
|
| (49013) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 18:54:44 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 9 18:35:39 2005. However, the weight of the car in a subway environment prodcuces too much stress on the trucks and frame. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (49015) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 9 18:56:27 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 9 17:43:16 2005. Are they retiring some slants now?many R44s HAVE been retired already, due to structural issues. No R40s have been retired for reasons other than accidents. |
|
|
| (49016) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 18:58:19 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 9 18:56:27 2005. Well put, the R44's are just falling apart. They were/are a complete lemon. The R46's were widely regarded as a lemon, but ever since the truck replacement and the GOH, they've been fine (except for those chimes!) |
|
|
| (49019) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by M15 to South Ferry on Wed Feb 9 19:05:01 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 18:53:28 2005. NM, but I don't see anymore new 75' on the subways anymore. |
|
|
| (49023) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 19:11:14 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by M15 to South Ferry on Wed Feb 9 19:05:01 2005. The last 75' car was the R68A. |
|
|
| (49032) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 9 19:26:19 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 18:54:44 2005. Future 75' cars will probably not weight more than current 60' cars (excluding the R143). |
|
|
| (49035) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by M15 to South Ferry on Wed Feb 9 19:27:29 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 19:11:14 2005. Which is why I said newer, or should've meant future cars. |
|
|
| (49037) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 9 19:31:43 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 18:58:19 2005. The R44's have frame issues, but they're managable. The slants are falling apart, literally. |
|
|
| (49060) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Wed Feb 9 20:19:18 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 16:42:20 2005. You sure about that? I remember a long thread on SubTalk where we crunched the numbers on this and found that even with both option orders exercised there wouldn't be quite enough cars to eliminate all the R32 through R44 classes. |
|
|
| (49062) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Wed Feb 9 20:23:42 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 9 18:35:39 2005. Dude...the same people that are still endorsing 75' cars are probably the same nutjobs that [somewhat]recently came up with 64' long, 10' wide IRT cars with door sills that would overhang the platforms... |
|
|
| (49077) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by vengence on Wed Feb 9 20:59:14 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Broadway Junction on Wed Feb 9 20:23:42 2005. Who asked for 10 ft wide IRT CARS and where would they run?And if they did shave the platforms back in Brooklyn and on the Lex...sure.... 64ft..Sure....It has been proven that a 64 FT car CAN be used thru outthe IRT system....with TWO problem spots.....14th st union square..and South Ferry..... 10 ft wide....? then it wouldn't be an IRT car any more ...would it? |
|
|
| (49084) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by vengence on Wed Feb 9 21:05:02 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Broadway Junction on Wed Feb 9 20:19:18 2005. yep ..and I did the NUMBERS....So to make MYSELF HAPPY...I'm gonna do it again... |
|
|
| (49085) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Wed Feb 9 21:07:21 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by vengence on Wed Feb 9 20:59:14 2005. It was proposed to run 10' wide cars, with the sides overhanging the platforms. I dunno who was smoking what, but not much came of it. |
|
|
| (49092) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by vengence on Wed Feb 9 21:15:17 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Broadway Junction on Wed Feb 9 21:07:21 2005. dude...this is the first time I've EVER HEARD of this...And It would be a mistake not to mention LAWSUITS for the people who got hit by the trains... |
|
|
| (49094) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 9 21:17:37 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 9 19:31:43 2005. The slants may be falling apart, but the R44 frame issues are not manageable.A few R44s have been recently retired because of these issues. some more probably will be pulled somewhat often till the fleet is retired. |
|
|
| (49095) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 21:18:05 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 9 19:26:19 2005. You've gotta be kidding me. Cars are becoming HEAVIER with AC Propulsion equipment and such. Nothing is getting lighter! |
|
|
| (49096) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 21:20:30 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 9 19:31:43 2005. Aesthetically they look like they're falling apart (the slants).The R44's frame issues are not manageable! They have already begun scrapping some of them! Just go over to 207 Yard and see for yourself. |
|
|
| (49101) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by willD on Wed Feb 9 21:35:07 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 9 17:46:32 2005. Course one has to wonder if NYCTA will even bother saving any of the R44s for the Museum fleet. Why bother with a car so restricted in operations? Perhaps they'll store a pair of each in non-operational status.Then you could add yet another retired subway car which has been shut out of MOD trips while it's contemporaries haul railfans around the city. We'll all be riding around on the Division C train you just mentioned, while the frames of the R44's and R46's decay in the musuem. Chris R16/R2730/R44? |
|
|
| (49158) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 10 00:01:18 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 21:20:30 2005. Oh well.The TA and St. Louis Car tried to do too much too soon on the R44 project: a high speed train (it did achieve 88 mph in speed trials in Jan 1972, a world record), p-wire technology, new carbody design (to achieve the corporate look) etc. Still, the now retired folks from St. Louis Car and Foundry deserve commendation for theircontributions to railcar innovations. |
|
|
| (49159) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 10 00:12:30 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 9 18:35:39 2005. Not true. The economic realities dictate that the 75' car will probably not return:1) The TA is consolidating car design and wants as few types of cars as possible to maintain. A shop which only services one or two types of cars is much easier to run. The IRT currently deals with the R142 series and R62 series. Granted, there are two "variants" but their commonality is very high. The IND and BMT in fuure will consolidate onto the R143/R160 design as other types are retired. Again, common stocks of parts, simplified maintainenance, higher MTBF. 2) The TA no longer wants a situation where a large part of its fleet cannot clear BMT tunnel portals or curves. For example, a 75' car cannot operate on the Jamaica Line. So while the TA "never says never," in effect, they have made the decision to leave behind the 75 foot subway car, and economics and passenger comfort both played a big role in that. |
|
|
| (49169) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Feb 10 01:19:42 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by vengence on Wed Feb 9 17:36:52 2005. I want the ACMUs there... Doesn't anybody else? |
|
|
| (49172) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Metal Management INC on Thu Feb 10 01:44:40 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 16:31:15 2005. I worked them both with P-wire. Nostalgic sound clips as taken from video I made of the slide controllers during the old days.  Those cars are pretty dead without the stripes and the mask. I rode an M1 for the first time in some time yesterday. The brake units sound just like the R44 used to before Knorr and Westcode destroyed them |
|
|
| (49178) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Feb 10 03:11:24 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 18:21:01 2005. Even if a person is skinny, if they have long legs, they'd have a tight squeeze behind that R44 console. |
|
|
| (49179) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Feb 10 03:14:55 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 21:20:30 2005. Just 2 cars: 5402 and 5248. Don't count 5283/5285 as they don't have "A" cars to mate to. |
|
|
| (49186) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Rapid Transit Series on Thu Feb 10 07:49:28 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Feb 10 03:11:24 2005. Why was the console built so confinely, anyway? |
|
|
| (49198) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Thu Feb 10 09:17:06 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Rapid Transit Series on Thu Feb 10 07:49:28 2005. There is an extra seat on the R44 behind the cab. If that seat were removed, there would be plenty of more space. In addition, the controls are very low compared to most cars so you have to have small legs. |
|
|
| (49199) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Thu Feb 10 09:19:08 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by Metal Management INC on Thu Feb 10 01:44:40 2005. Thanks! I'm in school now so I'll listen to them later! |
|
|
| (49209) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Thu Feb 10 09:34:34 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Feb 10 01:19:42 2005. Not really, the maintenance would be a pain. |
|
|
| (49219) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by M15 to South Ferry on Thu Feb 10 10:09:35 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Feb 10 03:14:55 2005. Speaking of stainless [or at least I was told it was]: #5228 at Rockaway Park on 12-27-03 
|
|
|
| (49234) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 10 11:09:42 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 21:20:30 2005. Only 2 have been scrapped for frame issues. The slants are rotting underneath and their fiberglass ends are falling off. I'll bet a significant amount of $$$ that they go before the 44's. |
|
|
| (49236) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 10 11:10:58 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 21:18:05 2005. It will. Stop thinking in the present. |
|
|
| (49238) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 10 11:19:53 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 10 00:12:30 2005. Not true. The economic realities dictate that the 75' car will probably not return: No, they may dictate otherwise. Less money from the state and from Washington means cars with fewer trucks, motors and other moving parts, the very basis for the 75' car concept, may look good once again. Length of cars does not indicate incompatibality of parts. With 1700+ R160's and the 212 R143's in the fleet, the Eastern Division's needs will be met well past this century's mid-point. So those are non-issues. So while the TA "never says never," in effect, they have made the decision to leave behind the 75 foot subway car, and economics and passenger comfort both played a big role in that. I think I demonstrated the opposite. Either way, no decision has ever been made on anything beyond the R160. |
|
|
| (49241) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Thu Feb 10 11:33:33 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 10 11:10:58 2005. I'm not thinking in the present. Look at the trend of history. Cars were light, and they have become heavier and heavier. |
|
|
| (49242) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Thu Feb 10 11:34:51 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 10 11:09:42 2005. There are other known frame issues on the R44. Some are still running, but when they worsen, they'll be pulled out of service. There are a few in 207-Yard that aren't being used and apparently have frame issues. |
|
|
| (49243) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Thu Feb 10 11:35:42 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by Metal Management INC on Thu Feb 10 01:44:40 2005. Oh, wait, you have video too? If it's in a digital format, and if you need webspace to host them, I'll be glad to. |
|
|
| (49245) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (subway cars you NEVER thought of) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Feb 10 11:49:53 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 10 11:19:53 2005. THAT was the whole basis of the (ahem) "logic" for 75 footers in the first place, ala the "DOT SOAC's" ... and I changed the title of the thread for a VERY unique reason ... those of you have endured me for years have heard me whine about this before. The "TRUCKS" thing is the MAJOR POINT of why the feds tried to get NYC and other places past 50, 51, 60 or 67 footers, all the way out to 75'ers ...While ***YOU*** guys think (and PROFF with photos) that a 'subway train' is that damned tired "perspective shot of the front and as many cars fit in the shot" ... the REALITY is that a subway car REALLY is the TRUCKS, not the damned showboxes sitting *ON* them. The TRUCKS are what make trains move, and eat 50% or more of the total CAR WEIGHT. It's the MOTORS and the WHEELS that make trains go, and those of us who were MOTORPEOPLE think of THESE as the actual train, not the damned carbodies that everybody photographs. Please excuse my yawns with MOST "foamerpix" for that VERY reason ... HERE'S pictures of your train - arnine first, then the OTHERS. :)  New age version truck:  Now ***THEM*** is trains! Whatever shoebox they fit on top of the trucks doesn't MATTER to those of us who crank them up. WHERE is DCO? Where is BCO? Where do I drain the compressor tank? Where's the damned knife switch? That's all that matters to people who *DO* trains. No offense to photogs intended, but why can't we have MORE "undercar?" If you;re REALLY into subway trains, then you might think more about what a subway train REALLY is - "box on wheels" ... boxes are boring, WHEELS though, get you there. :( |
|
|
| (49248) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (subway cars you NEVER thought of) |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Thu Feb 10 12:00:51 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (subway cars you NEVER thought of), posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Feb 10 11:49:53 2005. I have always thought of subways as networks (and surface rail lines too!):Why did they build what was built where? Why 2 tracks, 4 tracks? Why did they put the switches where they did? When I travel by train, I’m always looking out for the branch lines and sidings and wonder where they go. Around me there are the remnants of rails that went from the NE Corridor to the Delaware and Raritan canal for coal transportation. The tracks have been ripped up but you can definitely see where the ROW went. To take your phrase further: wheels though, get you there, but it’s the track they run on! |
|
|
| (49250) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Thu Feb 10 12:09:30 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by vengence on Wed Feb 9 17:43:53 2005. The 44's sounded just like the M1-? class cars on the railroads. They still have the P-Wire I heard.The 46's; I'm not sure, as I did not even recognize a difference in the "new cars" until in my teens; when the 44's disappeared for a while; and by then; the 46's were doing that whistle thing. I wonder if anyone remembers the 68's whistling somewhat like that for a while when fairly new; and the (Phase II I believe) 32's right after GOH. |
|
|
| (49252) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Thu Feb 10 12:12:30 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Thu Feb 10 09:17:06 2005. And considering when it had the P-Wire; you did not have that mechanical controller shaft going down to the floor; so while the panel would still be in your chest, at least you had unlimited room for your legs, so it would not have been as bad. |
|
|
| (49254) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Thu Feb 10 12:17:13 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by M15 to South Ferry on Thu Feb 10 10:09:35 2005. The Statn Isand cars are like that too. I wonder if they are structurally in better condition. Perhaps if they have to get rid of all of our 44's; they could bring these over (and keep the two cars in the picture and mix with those), and get something new for Staten Island; so at least the 44 would live on, at least as long as the 46.Especially as others have said here that even with the option order there still might not be quite enough to replace the entire 32-44 fleet. |
|
|
| (49255) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (subway cars you NEVER thought of) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Feb 10 12:18:39 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (subway cars you NEVER thought of), posted by JohnL on Thu Feb 10 12:00:51 2005. Absolutely! Steel wheels are kinda useless without steel ribbons. :)But those of us who did motors always find it amusing how the "buffs" have next to NO interest, or knowledge of what "traction" *really* is ... screew the boxes that rest on the pins, it's them TRUCKS that give it the mojo. :) |
|
|
| (49257) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Thu Feb 10 12:26:09 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by Metal Management INC on Thu Feb 10 01:44:40 2005. Great. I wish someone had a picture of the controls, since none seem to be saved anywhere.I remember the turn and slide action (from peeking into the cab), but it looked quite different from today's T sticks. |
|
|
| (49262) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Thu Feb 10 12:29:17 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 9 18:35:59 2005. Aren't the 44's over there in better shape? |
|
|
| (49268) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Thu Feb 10 12:35:29 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 9 17:46:32 2005. I would say restore one car of each pair to its original interior (if possible). Then keep I 42 pair; 2 slant pairs (one A/C original, and the other axiflow, or perhaps you could use the 40m pair in place of the slant A/C), 2 38 pairs, since the last 10 cars also had A/C; one 32 pair from 3350-3799 with direct lighting; and one GE pair with indirect lighting. (There is only one pair of GE's from the lower numbered groups--35xx. You could use any but this). |
|
|
| (49273) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by M15 to South Ferry on Thu Feb 10 12:58:53 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Eric B on Thu Feb 10 12:17:13 2005. I dunno. Well if the R44SI's are ok I think they should stay there for now. Besides it would be nice if the R32's stays a bit longer.Of course if it ever gets that dire and the R32's really needs to be retired then start filling in the gaps w/the R44SI [assuming there's not enough $ for extra R160's, which I hope isn't true]. |
|
|
| (49285) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Feb 10 13:43:43 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by Eric B on Thu Feb 10 12:26:09 2005. "Metal" has a photo ... it's all *I* remember from schoolcar on them where I was told, "we gotta show you this, but you'll NEVER have the seniority to work these soon." Heh. When I *left* the TA, the 44's were just coming in and the 46's were a wet dream. *GLAD* I didn't get any on me. :)YO METAL! If you've got video, GET your asp up here, we make DVD! Heh. |
|
|
| (49330) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (subway cars you NEVER thought of) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 10 14:43:17 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (subway cars you NEVER thought of), posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Feb 10 11:49:53 2005. On new subway systems, maybe. Washington Metrorail was designed from the trackbed up to accept 75' cars. Not New York. |
|
|
| (49335) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Feb 10 14:54:17 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 10 11:19:53 2005. If that were the case the TA would not have placed orders in the magnitude that they did. When the R68 and R68A were ordered, they came in batches of 200-400. The cars coming in nowwere ordered in much larger batches. This despite the fact that Albany has abandoned capital funding for some time."With 1700+ R160's and the 212 R143's in the fleet, the Eastern Division's needs will be met well past this century's mid-point" When they are here, of course. They are not all here yet. "Length of cars does not indicate incompatibality of parts." Well, actually yes it does. It's not the length so much as the manufacturer and type of propulsion being used. I would guess that trucks themselves are interchangeable (I may be wrong about that) but other components are not. And the TA is going to do what is easiest on the maintenance shop and what allows most flexible equipment deployment. And that means a 60' car. That decision is already made. If they revisit that decision, it isn't going to be for another 40 years. If we're still around in 2050, we can check with the TA's procurement dept. to see what they are ordering (and if it even runs on steel rails anymore). |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 8 |
||
