|
|
| Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (48849) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 7 of 8 |
||
|
| (50625) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 14 07:59:57 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 14 07:02:52 2005. Not to worry, I'm in upstate New York ... dotCA addresses account for more of the people I communicate with than dotUS. :)And 62A's don't require as much "shoe effort" as 75 footers, so if it's the same stuff, I can see some issues. I never could FATHOM why the pipe was so "hot" on the 44's and 46's ... as you know with pneumatics, it's log scaling and the higher you need to go, the more "muscular the beaver" ("Angry Beavers" cartoon show gag) in order to give it "AHNOLD-like pumpitude" ... for 140-150 PSI, you need one HELL of a muscular beaver to keep that tank charged. And only ONE per two cars only makes the issue worse since you're doing twice the work as opposed to the ancient realities of one compressor for each CAR ... Thanks for the links - will check it later, but if "Dude" says they're not quite satisfactory, I won't argue with him ... we ALL have our own areas of intense expertise even if we're anacephlic in others. Here I won't argue with him other than "woof! You need THAT much PSI? For phucking WHAT?!?!?!" :) |
|
|
| (50633) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 14 08:16:18 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 14 07:59:57 2005. I am not endorsing Knorr...if Train Dude says there was a problem, I believe him. Knorr would do well to pay attention, too, so as to improve their product.Is it possible the Knorr product chosen was not intended for use in the heavier 75' car? |
|
|
| (50648) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 14 08:31:27 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 14 08:16:18 2005. "Open contracting" ... when a government agency wishes or desires to purchase something, an RFP is sent out to all "interested vendors" with a very specific set of "detailed specifications" from the engineering department of the agency or where the agency lacks such expertise, "Office of General Services" ... specs were issued, vendor certified that they MET the specifications, agency in receipt of bid submissions is SUPPOSED to subject the "qualified vendor" to TESTING to ensure that specs are met, agency ACCEPTS contract based on "winning lowest bidder that MEETS specifications" and then Division of the Budget SCREWS the vendor by failing to pay on time.It's SO rote ... somebody screwed up and apparently allowed a vendor that DIDN'T really meet spec get all the way to "acceptance" ... one of the reasons why when *I* worked for the state, *I* wrote the specs and did the testing and MY agency never once got screwed when I did that stuff. :) |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (50654) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 14 08:34:59 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 14 08:31:27 2005. Hit post before I was done ...What's *CHANGED* since I did this is that NOW, under Paturkey, even if a vendor FAILS to meet specification, agency wiglets step in after a phone call from Alphonse Potato and OVERRULE the people who try to ensure that contracts are fair and MEET specs. With ONE phone call by Unca Al to the second floor (Paturkey's office or Joe Bruno) the agency shoves aside all oversight and GOES with the vendor who cuts a check to the politicos. That's right ... FRAUD! And THAT is why I QUIT the state in 1996. I just got TIRED of it. Padre Mario was bad enough - THESE guys make the Russian Mafia look like Dudley DO RIGHT. :( |
|
|
| (50703) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Feb 14 11:11:27 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 14 00:14:35 2005. I like that pic of you in 1689 better. It's got moo written all over it.:) |
|
|
| (50704) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Feb 14 11:14:07 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Sun Feb 13 22:57:49 2005. As long as the R-46s are in good running condition, I can put up with out-of-tune door chimes. After all, I only have two silver-mercury fillings left. The rest are all porcelain. |
|
|
| (50705) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Mon Feb 14 11:22:59 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 13 11:46:36 2005. The line is built to Dual Contracts spec.; so the only real problem should have been the platforms. Perhaps they just tested it on a section (prob. the exp tracks) between stations. From what I heard; there was some obstruction some part of it couldn't pass. |
|
|
| (50706) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (Branford sucks?!?!) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Feb 14 11:23:27 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (Branford sucks?!?!), posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 14 07:44:07 2005. 1689's gears didn't get much higher than E above middle C. That works out to about 30-35 mph. If Shoreline had a longer straightaway, I have no doubt you could get 1689 up to 50.Actually, I thought Nancy got 1689 rolling faster than you did.:) |
|
|
| (50707) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Mon Feb 14 11:33:46 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 13 22:42:23 2005. The plan all long this time was to retire from all classes at the same time based on performance; rather than class by class. That's probably why they keep wavering on the 44's going first, or the 40/42. It will probably be both, gradually, but since the 44's seem to be in such worse condition than they realized, it will probably be more of those. |
|
|
| (50710) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Mon Feb 14 11:41:11 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by I Know Jack on Sun Feb 13 23:53:36 2005. It's the SMEE-style valve shaft that makes it tighter. Those consoles were designed as desks, where there is nothing underneath, and your legs have unlimited freedom to move around. Now, you have to straddle this underneath addition that goes to the floor. I see from the picture someone posted; that the panels were not even the same now used, so perhaps it didn't stick out into yout chest as much back then as well. If they were to rebuild them with 142/3 controller technology, then that could be removed. |
|
|
| (50724) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (Branford sucks?!?!) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 12:47:30 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (Branford sucks?!?!), posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 14 07:44:07 2005. Ok, so if it's not the tracks, then it's the curve. Steve says you only hit 30-30MPH. My point is that the Crown Ave tunnel in Scranton is a mile of straightaway, down hill in one direction, with good track, and would most certainly allow you to "max out" your Arnine or Low-V. And most of the rest of the line through the countryside has gentle curves that I think could be taken at at least 40MPH by a subway car. |
|
|
| (50726) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 12:49:51 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 14 07:54:01 2005. Couldn't you modify one half of an R-40 slant pair so that it could operate as a single? You would of course need to tow it back the other direction at the end, but I don't see that as a problem. |
|
|
| (50729) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Feb 14 12:51:49 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Feb 12 22:27:34 2005. "Yeah, but did you bother to check to see if it had THREE sets of doors per side?" |
|
|
| (50732) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Feb 14 12:52:50 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Sat Feb 12 23:35:53 2005. I heard that an R-10 got mixed with a bunch of R-12/14s and, well, let's just say it blazed its own path from there. |
|
|
| (50752) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by joe c on Mon Feb 14 13:21:30 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by M15 to South Ferry on Mon Feb 14 01:26:28 2005. My thoughts exactly,once the R160 come to the J line,the R42 can go toCI yard and replace the R40 on the Q line.i think the R42 structure wise is in better condition then the R38. til next time |
|
|
| (50753) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by joe c on Mon Feb 14 13:23:09 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 12:49:51 2005. An R40 single unit may never happen.til next time |
|
|
| (50768) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 13:49:51 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by joe c on Mon Feb 14 13:23:09 2005. Why is that? |
|
|
| (50769) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by joe c on Mon Feb 14 13:54:22 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 13:49:51 2005. R40 weren't designed as single units.if any museum wants a set of R40,there gonna have to take a married pair set of R40. til next time |
|
|
| (50771) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by M15 to South Ferry on Mon Feb 14 13:56:50 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by joe c on Mon Feb 14 13:21:30 2005. Ok, thanks. Well I guess I won't expect the R38 to outlive the R42 then.I guess I need to ride the B more often now b4 the R40s are all gone. |
|
|
| (50773) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 13:57:56 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by joe c on Mon Feb 14 13:21:30 2005. There are no R-40's on the Q line. And cars are assigned to storage and maintenance yards, and not to specific lines. Lines are also assigned to storage and maintenance yards. |
|
|
| (50774) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by M15 to South Ferry on Mon Feb 14 14:00:08 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 13:57:56 2005. I think he meant the B/N. |
|
|
| (50776) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 14:02:12 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by joe c on Mon Feb 14 13:54:22 2005. Obviously. So you take the pair, convert one car to operate as a single, and then dispose of the other car. Just don't operate it, which is the problem Selkirk was talking about. |
|
|
| (50778) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by M15 to South Ferry on Mon Feb 14 14:07:52 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 14:02:12 2005. I wonder if it is possible to cut up both segments of a pair and just put the ends together and make a new car and just scrap the blind ends. Frankensteinesque, but at least both ends would be slants and operable. j/k |
|
|
| (50783) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by (H) Rockaway Shuttle on Mon Feb 14 14:17:21 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by Jeff H. on Sun Feb 13 00:08:01 2005. > (hint: FULL SERVICE position)I had one T/O running light who would: throw it full service halfway into the station, let go of the controller, honk the horn, open his window and yell "Look ma, no hands!" holding both hands outside the window. The expressions of the people on the platforms: priceless. :) |
|
|
| (50786) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 14:18:46 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by M15 to South Ferry on Mon Feb 14 14:07:52 2005. It's definitely possible (with enough time and money), and if that was the best solution for a tourist operation without a way of turning the car, then I would be ok with it. You could also just build a rudimentary cab in the blind end and not bother with making a slant end. |
|
|
| (50787) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 14:21:05 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by (H) Rockaway Shuttle on Mon Feb 14 14:17:21 2005. Wow.In full service, would a T/O with his hand out the window be able to not fall forward (sitting down or standing up)? |
|
|
| (50788) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 14 14:26:54 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 14:18:46 2005. The major problem would be that married pairs are designed with some equipment used by both cars, divided between the two. Since the odd car had the compressor and the feed valve, you'd have to move the batteries and converter from the even car to the odd car. Without removing the HVAC units, you'd have no room to make the switch. |
|
|
| (50789) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 14:39:36 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 14 14:26:54 2005. Could the equipment be installed in part of the seating area? |
|
|
| (50796) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 14 14:55:47 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Feb 14 12:51:49 2005. R16's have 3 sets of doors on each side. Plus one more. |
|
|
| (50826) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Feb 14 16:16:02 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 14:39:36 2005. Probably - but it would look like hell and then there's safety to be considered. |
|
|
| (50865) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by joe c on Mon Feb 14 19:25:00 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 13:57:56 2005. Opp's my mistake.:(til next time |
|
|
| (50875) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by David on Mon Feb 14 20:03:18 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 14 07:02:52 2005. Knorr did NOT supply the air brakes for the R-62A. New York Air Brake supplied the air brakes for the R-62A. NYAB is now part of Knorr, but it wasn't then (1984-87 vs. 1991).David |
|
|
| (50876) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 14 20:08:45 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by David on Mon Feb 14 20:03:18 2005. "Knorr did NOT supply the air brakes for the R-62A."According to Knorr's website, they did supply the brakes for the R62A. Look at their website. |
|
|
| (50879) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon Feb 14 20:13:59 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 14 20:08:45 2005. "Knorr did NOT supply the air brakes for the R-62A."According to Knorr's website, they did supply the brakes for the R62A. Look at their website. Technically they did. NYAB provided the GSX23 NEWTRAN braking system for the R62A. Later, NYAB became part of Knorr. Thus, Knorr can claim that it was the provider, since the company that provided the brakes (NYAB) is now part of Knorr. |
|
|
| (50880) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by David on Mon Feb 14 20:17:24 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon Feb 14 20:13:59 2005. By that logic, Bombardier built the R-32s, since it acquired all of Budd's designs many years after the R-32s were built.I stand by my statement: the air brakes on the R-62A fleet were built by New York Air Brake, which LATER became part of Knorr. David |
|
|
| (50881) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon Feb 14 20:26:20 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by David on Mon Feb 14 20:17:24 2005. I agree with you. On a tech spec sheet, it will almost always say the original manufacturer (NYAB in this case).NYAB was completely bought out by Knorr. Bombardier did NOT completely buy out Budd. On spec sheets, AdTranz is often listed as Bombardier, since Bombardier bought out the enire company. |
|
|
| (50897) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 14 20:57:21 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Feb 14 11:11:27 2005. I will not rest until we install a cow catcher on the electric portion. :) |
|
|
| (50899) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (Branford sucks?!?!) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 14 20:58:52 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? (Branford sucks?!?!), posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Feb 14 11:23:27 2005. Bust 'em if ya got'em. Ah well, seemed faster ... |
|
|
| (50901) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 14 21:07:14 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 12:49:51 2005. I see you and Train Dude went through a few parts of why it can't be done - there's also the "blind end" which would need to at least be fitted somehow with a hostler control and possibly a cab window. Since the purpose of "preservation" is to *NOT* muck with the original condition of a car, then it's either "both" or "none" as far as that goes. Not much room to compromise here. |
|
|
| (50903) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 14 21:11:34 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by (H) Rockaway Shuttle on Mon Feb 14 14:17:21 2005. And what cab company is he driving for now? :) |
|
|
| (50906) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 14 21:20:29 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon Feb 14 20:13:59 2005. OK, thank you.SoDavid was right, actually. It's the same as when Boeing took credit for the MD11 and the F-15 when these were McDonnell douglas products, after the merger. |
|
|
| (50907) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 14 21:20:55 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by David on Mon Feb 14 20:17:24 2005. I stand corrected. |
|
|
| (50908) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 14 21:22:25 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by David on Mon Feb 14 20:17:24 2005. Knorr would today be the supplier of spare parts and repair advice for NYAB brakes, right? |
|
|
| (50909) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 14 21:24:10 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Feb 14 14:21:05 2005. The Fred Flintsone act... |
|
|
| (50912) | |
Re: R44/46 |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Feb 14 21:27:25 2005, in response to Re: R44/46, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 14 21:24:10 2005. Yabba dabba dooo baby.. Love having fun with lay up trains going to the yard.. ;o) |
|
|
| (50925) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon Feb 14 22:43:53 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 14 21:22:25 2005. Yes, they would. |
|
|
| (50926) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon Feb 14 22:44:26 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Feb 14 21:20:29 2005. Yeah, I guess you could make that analogy. |
|
|
| (50947) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Feb 15 00:51:06 2005, in response to Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Feb 9 15:53:43 2005. If it were up to me, I'd get rid of the R44s before the R32s. The R32s are a superior product, definitely built to last. The last time I rode an R44 was on my way to Port Authority to catch a bus. They actually felt like they were going to fall apart. The R46s feel a lot more solid - for as long as I've been riding the subway, they've always felt better than the 44s. Even the Slants feel like they're better built, though they look just as bad.Once the R160s come in, I think the first cars to go should be the R44s and the Slants, in that order. |
|
|
| (50948) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by M15 to South Ferry on Tue Feb 15 01:06:35 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Feb 15 00:51:06 2005. IAWTPIn fact this is how I think it would be done: R44's replaced by the R160's. The R160's for the J/M would force off the R42's and the R42's would go to CI to replace the R40S. |
|
|
| (50960) | |
Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46? |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Tue Feb 15 03:54:58 2005, in response to Re: Retirement Plans for R44/46?, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Feb 13 23:22:38 2005. The R-44 WESTCODE brake package does not use a feed valve andtherefore the brake pipe will charge up to the compressor governor cut-out pressure. If there are no significant leaks in the brake pipe, that pressure will remain sealed in, but if there is a leak, there is no "excess pressure" in the main reservoirs above brake pipe pressure, so it will fall. This isn't really a problem since it is the rate of brake pipe fall which causes a BIE, not the absolute pressure. As long as the BP stays above about 70#, the emergency contactors will stay in. |
|
|
|
Page 7 of 8 |
||
