|
|
| Re: R44/46 (48849) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 8 |
||
|
| (50114) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Sat Feb 12 22:37:05 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by joe c on Sat Feb 12 22:28:53 2005. Yes, they store the occasional train or two, but recently they've been cutting back on doing that. |
|
|
| (50116) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sat Feb 12 22:37:55 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by Mark W. on Sat Feb 12 22:36:37 2005. Rimshot! |
|
|
| (50129) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Feb 12 23:00:24 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by MJF on Sat Feb 12 22:32:48 2005. Ooch! Ouch! Good guy though. :) |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (50141) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Feb 12 23:23:59 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Sat Feb 12 22:18:15 2005. Aha. So I gave credit where credit was not due?OK. Well, then, I will congratulate Steve on doing a good job in general, and I did ride R68s on the Broadway and 6th Av service - and my ride was enjoyable. I was commuting between Bayside and mid - or lower Manhattan. Typically, I would take either the 7 inbound en route to the 20s by way of the 6, or the J to Chambers St for meetings in govt. offices. On my way home, or to meet somebody for dinner, I might take the 7, or I took the W or N or R from Broadway/23rd or 28th st stations. It all depended. I took a friend to have dinner at Sylvia's one night (Lenox and 126th Street. The service and food were delightful. |
|
|
| (50142) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Feb 12 23:25:19 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by David of Broadway on Sat Feb 12 21:54:22 2005. I stand corrected on location.However, I did ride R68s at times while in NYC, so my praise for Concourse Yard stands. |
|
|
| (50150) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Metal Management INC on Sat Feb 12 23:33:12 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 10 17:25:22 2005. Remember Chris Car inspectors and managers don't utilize the performance of brakes. They just get them "working as designed". I accept the statement the R68A brake suck because of various factors not found on schematics and I am quoting as one who used them day to day, rather than sheer perceived genious based on MDBF .1) The length of time the SAP equalizes end to end in agreement with the brake valve is excessive. Patience is a virtue in handling them. When yanking the valve to 30 or 40 Pounds and noting decelleration that feels like 10, it ususally causes alarm and subsequent fanning of the brake valve. NYAB is instantaneous. The SAP needle rises then stops quickly and the consist brakes together, rather than the front first then the rear catching on. Its the big reason they aren't mixed carrying passengers. I had one that was. The dynamic was loading hard while it took a few extra seconds for the rear four cars to equalize. I took it to the yard none the less. I'm convinced it is by design. The Kawasaki R62s also display this charactoristic although not as bad as the R68A but I never had to worry about sliding out of a station with NYABs 2) A & R Magnet valves. I noticed early on when new the NYABS released several seconds earlier than WABCOS. They still do it even though the NYAB brake valves were replaced with the WABCOs. Could be they are ported differently, have bigger exhausts or even lack screen filters or chokes. Either way when I think I have a poor braking train, and didn't wait for the air to build up to the rear, I'm overapplying, then when the train does do what the valve says it should, I have to release and do it again. I never did that on inshot air. MDBF? mad dash before food. Lets hear from "The Hack" |
|
|
| (50152) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Sat Feb 12 23:35:53 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Sat Feb 12 22:24:59 2005. Wasn't that an R10? |
|
|
| (50154) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Feb 12 23:37:39 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Sat Feb 12 12:42:04 2005. Something called Dead Man's retention pressure. |
|
|
| (50155) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sat Feb 12 23:37:49 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Feb 12 23:23:59 2005. Concourse cars generally run only on the D. |
|
|
| (50165) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Sun Feb 13 00:04:51 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Feb 12 00:00:16 2005. Lo-V, Hi-V, Ds, ABs all worked that way too. |
|
|
| (50168) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Sun Feb 13 00:08:01 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Sat Feb 12 12:42:04 2005. You guys need to read the FAQs on train operation if you reallybelieve that releasing the handle will always cause an emergency application ... that's almost as funny as an R68 motor strapped to an R9 truck (hint: FULL SERVICE position) |
|
|
| (50170) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Sun Feb 13 00:14:32 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Sat Feb 12 22:24:59 2005. I thought it was an R10 on Jerome and an R16 on Flushing? |
|
|
| (50172) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by mr_brian on Sun Feb 13 00:19:02 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by Broadway Junction on Sun Feb 13 00:14:32 2005. I've heard the R16 story too... |
|
|
| (50178) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 13 00:33:14 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by Jeff H. on Sun Feb 13 00:04:51 2005. Dang it! Shoulda remembered the LoV's, shame on me. The others though, never got a chance to try those. :)Useless fact - Unca Selkirk actually operated 5466 on the Third Avenue el - had a friend whose dad was a motorman. Haven't gotten back together with her yet at Branford, but I'se all paid up - LOOK OUT! (grin) |
|
|
| (50179) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Feb 13 00:33:22 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by David of Broadway on Sat Feb 12 23:37:49 2005. OK. Thank you. |
|
|
| (50240) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Sun Feb 13 10:41:40 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by Mark W. on Sat Feb 12 17:11:23 2005. Don't know why I didn't see it, then. |
|
|
| (50243) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Sun Feb 13 10:51:50 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by mr_brian on Sun Feb 13 00:19:02 2005. I had heard the R-16 was PELHAM, and that it was a test to see if it could be converted to B div. upon connection to 2nd. Av. |
|
|
| (50244) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (subway cars you NEVER thought of) |
|
|
Posted by Richard Rabinowitz on Sun Feb 13 10:52:54 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (subway cars you NEVER thought of), posted by Jailhousedoc on Sat Feb 12 17:07:53 2005. Why did the FRA outlaw arch-bar-type trucksets? (btw, you could try shipping the arnines on the rails on temporary trucksets until they gets to a museum....) |
|
|
| (50258) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Feb 13 11:21:43 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by Broadway Junction on Sun Feb 13 00:14:32 2005. It was an R10 and an R16 at Concourse, and an R30 at corona.Or at least, from what i heard. |
|
|
| (50268) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 11:45:18 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Sat Feb 12 23:35:53 2005. Makes sense. R16's at Concourse would have been extremely rare. However, I've heard this story repeated with an R16 before. |
|
|
| (50269) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 11:46:36 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by Eric B on Sun Feb 13 10:51:50 2005. Sounds destructive. What happens when you find a spot the R16 cannot pass? |
|
|
| (50309) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Sun Feb 13 12:57:06 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 11:46:36 2005. Send it back, I imagine... |
|
|
| (50328) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by 4traintowoodlawn on Sun Feb 13 13:53:25 2005, in response to Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Feb 9 15:53:43 2005. I haven't read this whole thread, but I'm pretty sure the R32s are going to outlive every subway car that is to be retired within this decade. As for the R44s and the R46s, the R44s will definitely go first because I've heard (and agree) that they're poorly built crap boxes. R46s are good so they'll be around for a bit. R44s however are poorly built, are poor performers, and still have technical problems (remember the P-wire?) to this day.If there's anything I put in that's incorrect, please correct me. -Ben Diamond (a.k.a. 4traintowoodlawn)  Remember folks: Sticks and Stones May Break Your Bones, but Words, Pix, Movies, and Flash Movies Will Never Hurt You. 4traintowoodlawn on Straphangers Rider Diaries and BusTalk.net. Go to hell, photo ban! I’ll still photograph mass transit no matter what! Detroit Diesel 6V-92s Forever! |
|
|
| (50332) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by David on Sun Feb 13 14:09:49 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by 4traintowoodlawn on Sun Feb 13 13:53:25 2005. The R-44s haven't had P-wire in nearly 20 years.What are the "technical problems" that beset the R-44s at this time? David |
|
|
| (50336) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 14:24:54 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by 4traintowoodlawn on Sun Feb 13 13:53:25 2005. As for the R44s and the R46s, the R44s will definitely go first because I've heard (and agree) that they're poorly built crap boxes. Stop spreading this myth! Not only has a decision not been made, the MTA may not even be allowed to retire the R44's even if they so desire. |
|
|
| (50337) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 14:26:17 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by David on Sun Feb 13 14:09:49 2005. Good question. I'd love a detailed explanation from a neutral source (i.e. not someone who hates the R44). I understand the frame issues on some of the cars. |
|
|
| (50341) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by David on Sun Feb 13 14:38:50 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 14:24:54 2005. "Not only has a decision not been made, the MTA may not even be allowed to retire the R44's even if they so desire."Not allowed by whom, and for what reason(s)? David |
|
|
| (50355) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 15:02:20 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by David on Sun Feb 13 14:38:50 2005. MTA brass in Albany. Apparently, they intended the R160 to replace only 60' cars. Again, this is also unconfirmed speculation, so I won't present it as actual fact. But the sources where I got this information from are trustworthy. |
|
|
| (50363) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Sun Feb 13 15:33:23 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 14:24:54 2005. Wait...are you suggesting it's even remotely possible that the R44s will outlive the R46s? |
|
|
| (50366) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 15:43:36 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Broadway Junction on Sun Feb 13 15:33:23 2005. No, just that the R160's will not be allowed to replace R44's. |
|
|
| (50367) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Feb 13 16:01:49 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by 4traintowoodlawn on Sun Feb 13 13:53:25 2005. Welcome, Ben. Glad to see you on the site. |
|
|
| (50370) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Feb 13 16:03:52 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 15:02:20 2005. "Again, this is also unconfirmed speculation, so I won't present it as actual fact. "Your disclaimer is justified. The rumor is illogical. "But the sources where I got this information from are trustworthy." Not in this case. They're dead wrong. |
|
|
| (50371) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Sun Feb 13 16:04:05 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 15:43:36 2005. As for the R44s and the R46s, the R44s will definitely go first because I've heard (and agree) that they're poorly built crap boxes.Stop spreading this myth! Not only has a decision not been made, the MTA may not even be allowed to retire the R44's even if they so desire. Then why did you quote Ben saying R44s would go before R46s? |
|
|
| (50380) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 16:22:11 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Broadway Junction on Sun Feb 13 16:04:05 2005. My error. I thought he was referring to the R44 going first when the next round of retirements comes up. If the R44's make it past the R160's, they'll certainly be the first scrapped when the next new car fleet is purchased. |
|
|
| (50381) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Feb 13 16:24:20 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Broadway Junction on Sun Feb 13 16:04:05 2005. The R44s will go when MTA decides that the cost of repairing them and keeping them railworthy is too high, or at least higher than replacing them. If enough new rolling stock shows up to do that, then MTA will eliminate them.At this moment, it looks to me like some of the worst cars on the system are the R42s on the Jamaica Line. Theey are rusty, have extensive (I mean a LOT) of scratches on glass, paint graffitti on door and glass surfaces, and as of November, didn't look like they were getting a lot of attention. If R143s areshowing up soon to replace them, then it doesn't matter. |
|
|
| (50382) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Feb 13 16:25:46 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Feb 13 16:24:20 2005. R143s are not replacing anything now.R160s are most likely to replace the R44s first, and the primary order will likely not touch the R42s at all. |
|
|
| (50385) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Feb 13 16:29:13 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by R30A on Sun Feb 13 16:25:46 2005. True. The MTA wants to expand the fleet first, then replace rolling stock. |
|
|
| (50386) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 16:30:40 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by R30A on Sun Feb 13 16:25:46 2005. R160s are most likely to replace the R44s first, Now YOU need to stop spreading myths. |
|
|
| (50387) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Feb 13 16:34:32 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 16:30:40 2005. Why stop supporting myths that are supported by facts, are said by most to be true, and have absolutely no facts contradicting them?What I said is true-- from what has been said, The R44s are the most likely trains to be scrapped upon receiving the R160s. |
|
|
| (50388) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 16:40:35 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by R30A on Sun Feb 13 16:34:32 2005. The fact that no decision has been made and that no credible source has backed up the "R44's going first" story mean that what you're reporting is scuttlebut, conjecture, and, in your case, hope. |
|
|
| (50405) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Sun Feb 13 17:11:40 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 16:40:35 2005. Blah! You're just in denial. :) |
|
|
| (50407) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Feb 13 17:20:26 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 16:40:35 2005. How do you know that no decision has been made? One may have been made, or may be made at any time, and not posted here immediately, or at all. |
|
|
| (50408) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by 4traintowoodlawn on Sun Feb 13 17:21:35 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Feb 13 16:01:49 2005. I've been here since November Ron. -Ben Diamond (a.k.a. 4traintowoodlawn) Remember folks: Sticks and Stones May Break Your Bones, but Words, Pix, Movies, and Flash Movies Will Never Hurt You. 4traintowoodlawn on Straphangers Rider Diaries and BusTalk.net. Go to hell, photo ban! I’ll still photograph mass transit no matter what! Detroit Diesel 6V-92s Forever! |
|
|
| (50425) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Feb 13 17:55:31 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by 4traintowoodlawn on Sun Feb 13 17:21:35 2005. Good for you! |
|
|
| (50428) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Sun Feb 13 18:04:30 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Broadway Junction on Sun Feb 13 17:11:40 2005. Of course he's in denial. Read everything he's posted. It's so railfan-like, well, foamer-like. If the MTA were to order a 75 foot car, I guarantee you that a third of the people who post hear would tear, vomit and dance. |
|
|
| (50431) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Sun Feb 13 18:10:08 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by David on Sun Feb 13 14:09:49 2005. Frame issues. Two have been scrapped, and other cars are running with minor frame issues that are not very significant, but won't last long. |
|
|
| (50432) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Sun Feb 13 18:11:01 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by 4traintowoodlawn on Sun Feb 13 13:53:25 2005. The R46 couldn't even be replaced by the R160, there aren't enough cars in the order to do R32-R44 and then R46. |
|
|
| (50441) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Feb 13 19:02:13 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Sun Feb 13 18:04:30 2005. Tear at the windows, vomit on the floor, and dance to keep the doors from closing?:0) |
|
|
| (50443) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Sun Feb 13 19:03:28 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Feb 13 19:02:13 2005. Tear as in cry. Sorry, forgot that online you can't really express the difference between TAYR and TEER. |
|
|
| (50454) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by David on Sun Feb 13 19:39:06 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Sun Feb 13 18:10:08 2005. A frame issue, while indeed a problem, is not a technical problem.David |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 8 |
||
