Talk:New York City Subway rolling stock

message: Thank you Motor Coach Industries for providing proof that the R143's run on the M.
To Mets15: There is photographic and physical proof that the R143's run on the M, and if that's not enough for you, ride the M on weekends, because it's all R143 (specifically 4-car trains) on the M shuttle. If you continue to disagree, please do not edit, post here, and we can discuss.  Thank you.  There is no reason to remove factual information.
Sorry, I did not know that, I thought it was all R40M/42, I knew they ran on the L but not the M & the photo was just posted today so no need to get all serious, just take it easy.
:If you want to add this stuff to the article, please just cite a source. alphaChimp laudare 02:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  R143's on the M 

message: It would be great to have some summary information up top, like the (approximate) total number of cars still in service now, or operating on a rush-hour morning.  I'm sure somebody else here knows those statistics much better than me or I would just do it.  --Dylan Thurston 13:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Do you have a reliable source? The MTA does not publish that kind of information on their website, and I think a lot of the rolling stock articles have had heavy contributions from people with "inside" information. Marc Shepherd 14:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total size of fleet? 

message: The information in Rolling stock section of New York City Subway seems more fitting in this article since it is pretty specific about different eras of train design. I am planning on merging the Trains and Rolling stock sections in NYCS and I may delete some of the info there. Does anyone oppose to me making a copy of that section into this article? Herenthere (Talk) 22:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York City Subway merge into here 

message: Both pictures remain here for now, but I have also posted the subject here, as I have posted two works of my own that, while not from the centennial anniversary, are of the same trains running (or slight variants, but similar composition). This has also been posted on the WikiProject discussion page.--AEMoreira042281 (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep or remove the Subway Centennial pictures? 

message: It just means that the car is permanently DOA. I removed the "retired" markings on the R44-R62A classes. Even if you disagree with me just leave it be. 72.76.181.118 (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrecked doesn't mean retired! 

message: I found an interesting selection of color views of the IRT Third Avenue line on Internet Archive. These were in the public domain and I placed one of them in Wikipedia Commons and will do more, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Third_Ave_El_-_1.jpg This photograph may be worth placing in the article on the appropriate rolling stock. Can someone please identify it for me? Thank you. --ScottyBerg (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Avenue Elevated rolling stock

message: Hi, I am not from USA and have question: Why 4-car or 5-car sets? In all photos which I found is 8-car and 10-car trains! I am sorry for "spaming" here, but i dont know where else I can ask - after I have question I delete this section. THX much  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornet24 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, two 4-car sets make an 8-car train, and two 5-car sets make a 10-car train. This has to do more with maintenance than anything else. In the past the cars were single self-contained units. Later married-pairs were introduced with two cars sharing systems. Batteries were in one car, air compressors in the other. This has evolved to the 4 and 5 car sets now. Additional systems are shared between cars of a set. There are also no couplers between the individual cars. They can't be separated outside of a shop. This simplifies maintenance because couplers are failure points. No couplers means you've just reduced the failure points on the entire train to one set of couplers in the center of the train. Having semi-permanent sets also creates more room for passengers. All of the interior cars have no operators cabs. The cabs are only at the ends of the sets. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 4-car and 5-car train sets 

message: As a rule, we have taken to using the Datta/Man datasheet for this site. The assignments on the JoeKorNer, while the actual assignments, are not necessarily what is actually occurring. Because of the often great difference between the reality and the official assignments, we have been using the previously mentioned Datta/Man datasheet. The official roster goes into substantially more detail than is true as trains must, for federal purposes, be assigned to a line. That said, Does the N's fleet consist only of Siemens R160Bs and R68As? No. Alstom R160As and R160Bs with Alstom propulsion run on the N all the time. In reality, when trains are sent out for an N/Q, nobody cares if it is an R160A, R160B1 or R160B2. In reality nobody cares if it is an R68 or R68A when they are preparing trains in the morning for the B/N. Because of the looseness of these assignments we have historically used the Datta/Man datasheet.
(Copied from my post on the R68 discussion page)
96.232.72.179 (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: R160A-2s and Alstom R160Bs do run on the N.  The situation with the N and Q at Ditmars is similar to that with the 2 and 5 at Flatbush-A train that enters Ditmars as a N might leave as a Q, and vice versa.  The JoeKorNer assignments are a general guide for what can be expected, just as R160s still sometimes appear on the R, and R46s sometimes appear on the F.   The Datta/Man datasheet, however, does not specify the type of R160 that will appear on the F, and that same sheet says that R160s may still appear on the R, and R46s may still appear on the F.  Hope this will help. Coasterlover1994 03:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  R68s on N 

message: i took a r160 D train on january 21, and i also have a picture for proof. the N train now is giving the r160b to the D. Now the Q has only r160b and the n has r68 and r160a. i was on all that on january 21. I HAVE PROOF.Do not change the information. if you want to talk to me first!Subwayrox (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  r160a alstom on the N line and 160b kawasaki on the D 

message: I saw a r68 N train twice in 10 minutes at Astoria blvd!!! they are leaving the D and Going ON THE N LINE!!!!!!Please do not edit the information because i take the N train to D for work all the time every day i know!If you want to change talk to me first!Subwayrox (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all the R is not a line. The R is a train or a route. Secondly, do NOT insert unsourced information. All of current rolling stock assignments are sourced. Wikipedia does NOT report the news. Information such as rolling stock changes must be reported elsewhere FIRST. Wikipedia doesn't lead; it follows. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I have once again reverted these unsourced additions. Wikipedia can't accept first person observation, that's original research. The latest car assignment sheet is from October 3rd, 2011, which is inserted as a reference in the first paragraph. If you have a newer car assignment sheet, please insert it using the  template. Otherwise this edit warring must stop! Acps110 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay first of all, www.nycsubway.org does not list the car assignments, is an extremely unreliable site  run by a bunch of railfans with no connections to the actual transit system, and most of the information there is extremely outdated. In fact, the BMT Fourth Avenue Line has not changed since 1998. Second, R46s are assigned to the F as proven by the official car assignment sheet from the MTA, by R160s are not assigned to the R. Wikipedia already says R46s run on the F. The site's owner, Joe Korman, is a former transit worker who has permanent access to information not accessible to others. Third, photos and videos do not prove car assignments because they were taken by railfans, not transit workers. Fourth, a number of things can lead to temporary assignment changes, including General Orders, emergency repairs on cars, and age of certain fleets. Most recent examples of this happened last summer when the N and Q used R68/68As due to the R160s needed maintenance and the A and C swapping cars to alleviate the R32s' air-conditioning. In general, we only list what the official, normal assignments are, not emergency reroutes or changes (you do not even have proof that R160s are going on the D and leaving the N). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a railfan guide's to what runs on where. 69.122.93.239 (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Just because a particular car type is testing on a particular service that does not mean it will actually run there permanently. New subway cars have to be tested on every single mile of track possible before being able to run in service. R160s did their 30-day on the A in 2006, but entered revenue service on the N. There are car assignment changes for the foreseeable future (except when the R188s displace the R62As on the 7), so please, no more editing to this article! 24.146.216.244 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  r68 are on the N line! 

message: Per our article on the topic "Rolling stock comprises all the vehicles that move on a railway." Work equipment is appropriate to cover here, and there are several references to work equipment in the article. --agr (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope 

message: How do I edit the NYCS Canst Template?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.156.117 (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:NYCS const. Vcohen (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Like an article. Vcohen (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I edit 

message: I created a new article for contracts carried out by the NYCTA. If you are interested, please have a look at it. Thank you. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article for R-type contracts 

message: The car model list is divided into two tables by division (A or B), i.e. by car width. The B division table has a column titled Car Length with values 60 or 75.
I tried to slightly re-organize the list, dividing the B division table by car length and converting the Car Length column to a subtitle. IMHO, grouping car models by length logically continues their grouping by width, and both groupings reflect the routes a car model can be used on.
An IP user reverted my edit, saying "that makes no sense". Does anybody think this argument is more reasonable than mine? Vcohen (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , the reason it makes less sense than the previous version is because many readers prefer to have list items from the lowest to the highest numbers (or contract numbers in this case); i.e. R32 to R160. A sortable option can be added, with the widths of the rolling stock in another column, and the table will appear as you intended. Epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, but the current sorting is not by contract number. It is by division, and only then by contract number. The sorting that I tried would make it more consistent. Vcohen (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then, the tables can be merged, and the division in another column, if applicable. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it's exactly what I want to add to your version. Vcohen (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  ; hopefully the new table is correct. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's perfect. Only one thing bothers me: one merged cell that splits into two identical cells when I sort the table. Vcohen (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where's the merged cell that's bothering you? If you want, I can fix it. The merged cells, by default, split up as part of the wikitable. I think I have fixed it, however. Epicgenius (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now it's more perfect than perfect. I made an edit and reverted it, because I am not sure: does "All car sets are sequentially numbered" mean that they are sequentially numbered across these two groups or separately within each group? Vcohen (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The structure of the car model list 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on New York City Subway rolling stock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060721173038/http://www.keyrailpix.org:80/gallery2/v/rsrwy/?g2_GALLERYSID=16a556a5a54869ad73aacf5b4f943432 to http://www.keyrailpix.org/gallery2/v/rsrwy/?g2_GALLERYSID=4dd8eb0c7ca05ec834e713218a3583ee
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New York City Subway rolling stock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090702202725/http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/460 to http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/460
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160129071849/http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/160125_1345_CPOC.pdf to http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/160125_1345_CPOC.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: why does it not say that some R143s are assigned to the J? They have been their for years, i believe it is permanent. Olsen24 (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The official car assignments from Joe Korner  does not show them being assigned to the J/Z; same for R160s on the R or R68As on the G, N and W.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.34.147 (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  R143 J 

message: I have no idea why there was a redundant section on retired trains and work cars. Readers don't need to see a super comprehensive list and should refer to this and individual NYC railcar articles for information. Mtattrain (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Preserved" section 

message: R39 - we need this. because in the patent by Budd, it shows it has 3 doors, yet its made for both A and B Divisions. the MTA can use this to their advantage if either the A or B Divisions is having trouble with overcrowding in rush hours.
A and B Divisions expectation of rolling stock to retire - where do I even start? every expectation they make, they get jinxed and the rolling stock (rolling stock a for example) the expect to retire in a specific year (year a for example) but the said rolling stock lasts for a few years after retiring in a different year (year b for example)
I'll give an example of the A and B Divisions "expectation vs reality"
A and B Divisions: expects rolling stock a to retire in year a
rolling stock a: continues to work in A/B Divisions past year a and retires in year b
See how unorganized the MTA gets with retiring rolling stock?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenal Pro 1975 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  R39 and A, B Divisions expectation of rolling stock to retire