Replacing old subway cars

I got to thinking about this the last time I was in the city and rode
the N train (my favorite pizza place is right near the 86th St. station
in Brooklyn, so I ride the N all the time) which had those newer design
subway cars.

I assume that eventually, all cars on every line will be replaced by the
new ones. So how does the MTA decide when to replace the cars that a
particular line is using? Do they just wait for the existing cars to
break down? Or are they operating on a timetable of some kind?

--
"Drop the One Ring! Drop it NOW!"
- Jack Bauer in 'Lord of the Rings'

Babaganoosh wrote:
> I got to thinking about this the last time I was in the city and rode
> the N train (my favorite pizza place is right near the 86th St. station
> in Brooklyn, so I ride the N all the time) which had those newer design
> subway cars.
>
> I assume that eventually, all cars on every line will be replaced by the
> new ones. So how does the MTA decide when to replace the cars that a
> particular line is using? Do they just wait for the existing cars to
> break down? Or are they operating on a timetable of some kind?

I'm not sure, but they do try to replace them before they break down
beyond repair. At least two major factors to consider are obvious:
funding and automatic train operation.

They aren't expecting automatic train operation on every line for
decades still. So there probably isn't a lot to gain by replacing
perfectly good, albeit older, equipment until automatic train operation
is at least available on a segment of a service.

The SAS as planned now, for instance, will include an expansion of the Q
along the northern Second Ave segment, as well as the T along the entire
new SAS. The Q Trains will need to support automatic train operation
sooner than the N, R,or W because they run on that one small segment
where the train operation is automated (well, that is, unless those
services need are getting it sooner than I'm aware).

They're probably operating on a time table, and replacing cars as first
as needed and then as funding becomes available. It's supposedly
trivial to upgrade the newer cars when automatic train operation becomes
necessary.

I definitely hope they can take a crack at replacing those *really* old
cars on the C and E lines.

--
"Drop the One Ring! Drop it NOW!"
- Jack Bauer in 'Lord of the Rings'

Babaganoosh wrote:

> I definitely hope they can take a crack at replacing those *really* old
> cars on the C and E lines.

Somebody posted some new cars that are going on the A line.

I bet the C is pretty far down the list. But they might try ATO on the
Queens Boulevard line to improve service frequency. Congestion on that
line affects all the services that use that line.

I think they're going to be worrying about the 7 Train next though. Along
with the L, it's isolated from the rest of the system: no interlining
services, unless you count rush hour local and express as interlining.

I don't know what they plan to do with ATO after that. Maybe someone else
could shed some light on it. Another poster once said that the options
might be to concentrate on trunk lines to improve frequency on them.
However, it might be advantageous to concentrate on secondary feeder lines
to reduce maintenance of wayside signals.

Vince wrote:

> Babaganoosh wrote:
>
>> I definitely hope they can take a crack at replacing those *really* old
>> cars on the C and E lines.
>>
> Which look better and newer than the ones after them that are running on
> the M, J, Z, W etc.

I was surprised at the poor rating the J/M/Z lines got. They're filthy as
hell, but the service seems pretty decent.

Why would replacing the cars have to depend on ATO? I thought the L line
was the only one that used ATO anyway, and they've replaced cars on
other lines...

--
"Drop the One Ring! Drop it NOW!"
- Jack Bauer in 'Lord of the Rings'

Babaganoosh wrote:
> Why would replacing the cars have to depend on ATO? I thought the L line
> was the only one that used ATO anyway, and they've replaced cars on
> other lines...

The idea is to move towards automating all lines, eventually. They
started with the L because it's isolated from the rest of the system
(doesn't interline) and is made up of two tracks.

>I definitely hope they can take a crack at
>replacing those *really* old cars on the C
>and E lines.

Some cars are already out of service and are sitting in a yard in the
Bronx. They are mostly high-numbered R42's which ran until recently on
the B and W lines. These cars, which had inferior overhaul jobs back in
1989 in-house, are in pretty bad shape. The cars on the C and E line ARE
destined for scrapper the soon, but not right now.

--
"Whatever you do, don't stick your head in the oven" - Keith Hernandez,
on how to end a batting slump

>The 260 cars designated R-160B,
>#8713-8972 will be enough to cover the
>extended Q with some spares.

I'd bet we'll see the R-179's (the number tentatively given to the NEXT
round of new car purchases to replace the R44-46's) on the road before
any part of the SAS opens.

--
"Whatever you do, don't stick your head in the oven" - Keith Hernandez,
on how to end a batting slump

>Why would replacing the cars have to
>depend on ATO? I thought the L line was
>the only one that used ATO anyway, and
>they've replaced cars on other lines...

CBTC (not ATO) is currently being used on the L, and from what I hear,
it's not at all reliable. The #7 is the next line set to get CBTC
installed. It'll be decades before it's system wide, most of these "new"
cars will be manually operated throughout their entire service lives.

--
"Whatever you do, don't stick your head in the oven" - Keith Hernandez,
on how to end a batting slump