Railroad Forums 

Discussion relating to the past and present operations of the NYC Subway, PATH, and Staten Island Railway (SIRT).

Moderator: GirlOnTheTrain

 #967230  by Fan Railer
 
Well, the R32's are staying until 2017, so we'll still have them on the C and occasionally the A during the summer months. The R62A singles currently on the 7 still have about 15-20 years on them, so we don't have to worry about that either =)
 #967454  by Head-end View
 
I'm still in disbelief that the R-32's have outlived newer fleets such as the R-40/42's. Those R-32's must have been really well-built cars. Imagine 45 years ago, American industry routinely built such a high quality product..........
 #967574  by railfan365
 
Head-end View wrote:I'm still in disbelief that the R-32's have outlived newer fleets such as the R-40/42's. Those R-32's must have been really well-built cars. Imagine 45 years ago, American industry routinely built such a high quality product..........
You're at least partially right. I agree that the R-32's were very well made. But let's not forget that they were extensivly overhauled in 1988, including that many got new traction motors.
 #967849  by railfan365
 
Head-end View wrote:Well, the R-40's were overhauled too, and they're all gone............
So, the long life of the R-32's is due to a combination overhaul and good construction. Apparently the R-38's and 40's, and many of the r-42's were not as wel made and/or not as well overhauled. I remember how the roofs of the R-38's werre never in good condition after overhaul.

Meanwhile, some of our R-32's are likely lasting longer with overhaul than they would have without it.
 #967966  by R36 Combine Coach
 
The R32s were built with Budd's trademark stainless construction, while the St. Louis stainless cars used LAHT underbodies, floorpans, frame sections along with alloy steel roofing and fiberglass end sections.
 #968164  by railfan365
 
R36 Combine Coach wrote:The R32s were built with Budd's trademark stainless construction, while the St. Louis stainless cars used LAHT underbodies, floorpans, frame sections along with alloy steel roofing and fiberglass end sections.
On the R-40's and42's, each car had a fiberglass end piece only at the end where a motor cab was. The conductor cab end of each car was stainless steel like the sides. Fiberglass endcaps at both ends started with the R-44's. Meanwhile, the R-38's were stainless steel all around, like the R-32's.

For that matter, the R-32's through R-42's were stainless steel on the outside, but the doors and interiors were still painted pressed steel until replacement during the 1988-90 overhauls.
 #1005715  by NJT TT9801
 
keyboardkat wrote:I don't get it. What was ever unsafe about the railfan window? And it seems that not only the NY subway, but LIRR, Metro-North and Path have all decided to eliminate the railfan window. I am, frankly, really angry about it. I think railfans are being discriminated against, and that 's not a joke. I used to take my kids on train rides on the subway, LIRR and Metro-North MU trains and they, like their father, got a real thrill out of riding "up front." Who are these people who have decided to take it away, and who asked them?
It makes more sense because the motorman/engineer will have views of the rear of the train from both sides. This is something you can't do without a full cab. Especially since the MTA wants to go to one man operation.
 #1005869  by Head-end View
 
NYCTA could still have had windows in the cab partition to allow passengers to look all the way thru. They have them on the Boston subways and the Washington D.C. Metro.

LIRR, Metro-North and even PATH are FRA governed commuter railroads. According to several experienced railroaders on these boards there are new FRA standards that prohibit exposing the passengers to the glass on the front of the train to reduce the possibility of injuries from penetration into the passenger compartment in any kind of collision. However, if all of this is true, you wonder how SEPTA in Philadelphia could have ordered a fleet of 120 commuter cars with corner-cabs and passenger seating facing a front left-side railfan window that allows an excellent forward view from a normal seated position. Don't FRA rules apply to SEPTA Regional Rail?
 #1005967  by Fan Railer
 
Head-end View wrote:NYCTA could still have had windows in the cab partition to allow passengers to look all the way thru. They have them on the Boston subways and the Washington D.C. Metro.

LIRR, Metro-North and even PATH are FRA governed commuter railroads. According to several experienced railroaders on these boards there are new FRA standards that prohibit exposing the passengers to the glass on the front of the train to reduce the possibility of injuries from penetration into the passenger compartment in any kind of collision. However, if all of this is true, you wonder how SEPTA in Philadelphia could have ordered a fleet of 120 commuter cars with corner-cabs and passenger seating facing a front left-side railfan window that allows an excellent forward view from a normal seated position. Don't FRA rules apply to SEPTA Regional Rail?
Chances are, the SLV's were spec'd and ordered before the new regs took effect. We all know how overdue they are anyway =P
 #1006285  by Head-end View
 
I was first told about those FRA standards back in 2002, by railroad employees on this board. The new standards were issued in response to two very serious commuter rail collisions in 1996. So they must have been issued between 1996 and 2002. And in 2002, someone had already seen a brochure showing the floor plan of the Silverliner V, with the same configuration that's actually been built. Does anyone know exactly when they were ordered and exactly when the new standards took effect? Maybe I should be asking this on the SEPTA forum.
 #1006660  by keyboardkat
 
Head-end View wrote:NYCTA could still have had windows in the cab partition to allow passengers to look all the way thru. They have them on the Boston subways and the Washington D.C. Metro.

LIRR, Metro-North and even PATH are FRA governed commuter railroads. According to several experienced railroaders on these boards there are new FRA standards that prohibit exposing the passengers to the glass on the front of the train to reduce the possibility of injuries from penetration into the passenger compartment in any kind of collision. However, if all of this is true, you wonder how SEPTA in Philadelphia could have ordered a fleet of 120 commuter cars with corner-cabs and passenger seating facing a front left-side railfan window that allows an excellent forward view from a normal seated position. Don't FRA rules apply to SEPTA Regional Rail?
The R-160s and their ilk have windows in the cab door so you could look all the way through, but they've decided to use polarizing glass which distorts the view so much that it's almost useless. The idea, I think, was so that you couldn't watch the train operator doing his/her job. I don't know what the reasoning behind that is. Most of us admire train operators, and when we were kids we wanted to be just like them. Is it because, with the single joystick controller governing both power and brakes, the job looks so easy? I didnt' say it really is easy, just that it can look that way.
 #1006750  by Head-end View
 
Keyboardcat, the R-160 is a nice car, and you can see out the front thru that weird glass outside the tunnels in daylight. Kind of like the glass being about a third full, or two-thirds empty. Better than nothing, but still a big disappointment compared to the old trains.