Talk:R62 (New York City Subway car)

Untitled

See discussion at: Category talk:New York City Subway passenger equipment

cleanup tag

The history section needs to be fixed because the formatting isn't working right.REwhite 21:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 February 2013

Hello. This is in regards to the problem with the edit war from today. There must be some mistake, there are no R62s on the (6) your proof is at View http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsumKhaEiM4 and at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdPwExTntS0. You must have mistaken it for the one set of R62As that has been transported to the (6) because the (7) is recieving R188s. Sorry for any inconvenience. 24.193.156.117 (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You have a problem with logic. When you show a photo of a lion, you cannot say that it isn't a tiger and therefore tigers don't exist.

Also, we don't decide on our own. We rely on sources, and if somebody has mistaken, it's our source and not us. Vcohen (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

UPD. We only show regular assignments according to the source. We don't know why that train on youtube ran there that day. Vcohen (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is youtube not a reliable soucre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.156.117 (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

See Self-published sources. Vcohen (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

UPD. It's true also for blogs and forums, like that one you have mentioned in your recent edit summary.

Also, this line in the infobox has changed its structure: {{NYCS const|car}}, when you edit it you have to preserve this new format.

Stop edit warring please. Vcohen (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What would be considered a reliable source? And also, am I in trouble? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.156.117 (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I am in trouble. I am tired of undoing your edits. This series of articles already has a source: NYCTA Car Assignments, and when it changes somebody updates them. Vcohen (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

would http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYXtIUD6NK8 count as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.156.117 (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you see it is youtube? Vcohen (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes...

24.193.156.117 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well?

What IS a reliable source, because when the block is off, I have to revert the (6) edit (cause i know it's wrong), and I know I'm gonna have to provide some kind of "reliable source". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.156.117 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I NEED to revert this article! It's February 8th! Why can't I edit the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.156.117 (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is OK, you don't need to revert it. Stop vandalizing wikipedia. Vcohen (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you okay with THIS as a RELIABLE source?!?!

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE.

Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

Subject

---

R62s and R62As

Discussion Thread

---

Response (Andrea Popp) - 02/08/2013 01:31 PM This is in response to your e-mail to New York City Transit inquiring about R62 and R62A trains.

We appreciate your interest in New York City Transit. As you may be aware, a new signaling technology called Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) is being installed on the 7 Flushing Line. This new signal system will allow trains to run faster and more frequently, at a high level of safety. CBTC requires special equipment to be installed on the cars, and the R188 order, which consists of both brand new cars and converted R142A cars, provides the cars for this purpose. The new R188’s will also allow us to run trains on the extension of the Flushing Line to the Far West Side, currently under construction and scheduled to open next year.

Unlike most of our new car orders, the R188 order will not be replacing any older cars. The R62A’s currently in operation on the 7 will be moved to the 6, because most of the R142A’s that currently operate on the 6 are being converted to R188’s. The first of these trains has already been transferred to the 6, where it has been operating since January 9.

You ask about our other car classes. On the A Division, our oldest cars are the R62’s, manufactured by Kawasaki in 1983-85. These cars operate on the 3. The R62A’s, manufactured by Bombardier to a similar design in 1984-87, operate on the 1, 7, and 42 St shuttle. The R142’s, manufactured by Bombardier in 1999-2003, operate on the 2, 4, and 5, and the R142A’s, manufactured by Kawasaki in 1999-2004, operate on the 4 and 6. On the B Division, the R32’s, built by the Budd Company in 1964, operate on the C, and the R42’s, built by the St. Louis Car Company in 1969-70, operate on the J/Z. The R46’s date from 1974-75 and were also built by the St. Louis Car Company; they operate primarily on the A and R and in smaller numbers on the F and the temporary Rockaway H service. The R68’s, manufactured by Westinghouse-Amrail in 1986-88, and the R68A’s, manufactured by Kawasaki in 1988-89, operate on the B, D, G, and Franklin Av shuttle. The R143’s, built in 2001-02 by Kawasaki and specially equipped for Canarsie Line CBTC service, operate exclusively on the L, and the R160’s, built jointly by Alstom and Kawasaki in 2005-10, operate on the E, F, J/Z, L (also with special CBTC equipment), M, N, and Q.

We hope this information is helpful.

Andrea Popp Staff Analyst II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.156.117 (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What are you trying to prove? Your source says, "The R62A’s, manufactured by Bombardier to a similar design in 1984-87, operate on the 1, 7, and 42 St shuttle." Not on the 6. Vcohen (talk) 08:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, even if it says that they aren't on the (6), it says that the R62s only operate on the (3)Italic text. Capeesh? 24.193.156.117 (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

So, we have three sources: thejoekorner (currently used in the article), your links to youtube and the email you've quoted here. Each of them contradicts the other two. The email seems to have omitted one set of cars. I prefer to leave the article as is, with its traditional source. If indeed there is an error, some day Joe will fix it, and then we will be able to update the article. Vcohen (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeah? Well, I hit "CONTACT JOE" on his webpage, and he said he uses the stupid spread sheet from the MTA. Apparently, he READ the sheet WRONG. He MUST HAVE mistaken it for R62A. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There are NO R62s on the (6). 24.193.156.117 (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop it, or you will be blocked. I don't have time to undo your edits more and more. Vcohen (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to do it again, but FYI, TheJoeKorner is a FORUM. You said that a forum is NOT a reliable source. 24.193.156.117 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

These are the official car assignments from the MTA as Mr. Korner is a former employee who continues to keep in touch with the agency to this day. The YouTubers are railfans who have no affiliation with the MTA, shoot transit videos for fun, and get lots of conflicting and misleading information. If the datasheet is wrong, then it is not our fault, it is the MTA and Mr. Korner's, but before we can change our information, they have to change theirs. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we can't assume that because the 6's R142As are being converted to R188s on the 7, the 7's R62As will return to the 6. It is possible that they may be sent to the 4 instead because Pelham riders say they want the NTTs to keep running on the 6, or maybe the 5 to distinguish it from the 2 or 4 because riders complain about constantly jumping into the wrong train when they are in a rush, or the 2 to make 7th Avenue all R62/62As and Lexington Avenue all NTTs so that both corridors would be easier to monitor and maintain (or to convert Lexington Avenue for CBTC, which the MTA plans to do) 69.122.93.108 (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you even SEE where at the bottome of Mr. Korner's page that it said "Morning peak requirements have decreased from the June 10, 2012, assignment by one train, or ten cars, on the 6. Afternoon peak requirements are unchanged. Effective January 2013, six R62A single units at Livonia will have been linked into three-car units and 190 R62A single units at Corona will have been linked into five-car units. Fifteen R142A’s assigned to Pelham are currently being converted for Flushing Line service as part of the R188 contract." That is a COMPLETE sign that there is an R62A on the (6). Capeesh? 24.193.156.117 (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Vcohen? I may take off (6) again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.156.117 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Remember my email from the MTA, "Unlike most of our new car orders, the R188 order will not be replacing any older cars. The R62A’s currently in operation on the 7 will be moved to the 6, because most of the R142A’s that currently operate on the 6 are being converted to R188’s. The first of these trains has already been transferred to the 6, where it has been operating since January 9." Is what is said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.156.117 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

i don't care if i get blocked, my edits are true, and your source is wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.156.117 (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Look here: "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." Vcohen (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In brief about the current edit warring

There are a series of articles about the NYC Subway train cars, this one is one of them. If a car model is still in service, its infobox has the lines parameter filled with the corresponding list of services/routes the car is used on. The source for this data is linked at the bottom of each article, it is the official MTA Car Assignment tables published on thejoekorner.com for the A Division and for the B Division.

User:24.193.156.117 (or User:ManofQueens) is trying to claim that the tables on thejoekorner.com are wrong. He changes the lines parameter again and again, without providing reliable sources, only saying "my edits are true". This talk page (two previous sections) is a good example of discussion where we tried to explain him the rules of wikipedia. Vcohen (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any past discussion where the editors agreed that Joseph Korman's web site could be relied upon for the New York Subway articles? EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, but I have invited other people, maybe somebody will help us. Vcohen (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, That IP address is someone that I know. I wouldn't blame him. He's just a 7th grader, but we share the same IP adress. Also, whoever said that TheJoeKorner is not a reliable source, I agree, because Vcohen said that self published aren't reliable, and TheJoeKorner is self published. ManofQueens (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The author if I am not mistaken is a former employee, in a position where one would know such things. It is quite reliable and mirrors the internal assignments, and is without a doubt the best resource publicly available for this information. That said, line assignments are rather fluid, and trains regularly appear on lines which are not shown on car assignments, especially those which are based out of the same shops. Considering that, if someone edits the R160 page to show that they run on the R, it should not be considered vandalism. Such is not a rare occurrence, but it is not the actual assignment. I suggest being very polite and explain that it is policy to show only the official assignments here, despite common actual deviations from them.74.64.111.51 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If there is disagreement on whether thejoekorner.com can be used as a source for subway car information, consider asking for advice at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if joekorner.com is a personal site, the webmaster works for the MTA. He is a reliable source. If someone wants to delete this source, they must also delete all the other links on other rolling stock pages as well. Epic Genius 23:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked, and this was the response:

OK. So I see we are talking about subway cars. The source in question is a self-published source. Whether it can be used or not is governed by WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Taking a quick trip around Google, it appears to me that there is some recognition in various sources that the author, Joseph D. Korman, has some reputation as a train/subway buff, and has occasionally been interviewed and quoted in various news sources on the general subject matter. But, as near as I can tell, he has never been previously published by reliable third party sources within the relevant field. It does appear that he co-authored (last person listed) a technical paper on transportation traffic patterns when he first started his career,over 40 years ago, but nothing since and even that would be on a different subject matter. Thus, even if regarded as meeting the first requirement, this source fails on the second prong of the two-prong, bright-line test for a SPS. Sorry, this website can't be used as a source. As for the template issue, that is for some other messageboard. Fladrif (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Mangus This article seems largely unsourced and unworthy of wikipedia. I suggest it be deleted. 24.193.156.117 (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You copied some text not related to our discussion. Vcohen (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Who cares? The point is that they said that thejoekorner is not a reliable source. Remember, I'm in 7th grade (12 yrs. old), so I'm not a miracle worker! I guess we'll have to shut down all subway car articles until we can find a new source. 24.193.156.117 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What does it mean shut down? Don't guess so. The Don Mangus article is not about NYC Subway cars. Vcohen (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You're a seventh grader. What do you know about subway cars at that age? Epic Genius 23:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, remember that we have a picture of an R62 3 train, that's good enough evidence and a source. Now, if we can get a current picture of an R62 on the 6, than we can put back the 6. For right now, when the protection is off the 6 on the "lines" parameter will be removed. In addition, I saw that edit warring is not vandalism, so I am not vandalizing Wikipedia. 24.193.156.117 (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I already tried to explain it to you, let me do it once more. If a train runs on a certain route, it may be temporary replacement. Vcohen (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Attention. I have changed the infobox to say 'Services assigned' rather than 'Lines served'. From now on, there is no need to reflect actual running trains. The infobox only shows official assignments, even when they are not exactly carried out. Vcohen (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but when you said "this line in the info-box has changed its structure:
As of June 30, 2024", now we have to put back the NYCS bull small X if we want to change something. So if we put the const template, that would be no fair because the 6 would be there, and that's not true!

What I said is to change the template. However, now, when the infobox has changed to say 'Services assigned' instead of 'Lines served', your edits will be wrong (because all these examples from youtube may be relevant for lines served, but they are definitely not for services assigned). Vcohen (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

How do i edit the const template, because there is nothing there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.156.117 (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the template: Template:NYCS const. However, don't forget that the infobox now says 'Services assigned', so you have to provide a source (other than thejoekorner.com) for your edits regarding assigned services (not photographed trains). I think I have already said you that. Vcohen (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(1)

I edited the template for the services line in the info box, but when I came back to the article it read the same thing. Get back to me with support on this issue. Thank you. 72.226.15.68 (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because you don't see R62s on the 1 doesn't mean they don't exist. I just saw a R62 (1) train recently. epicgenius (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Current source used for assignments

Have we ever considered the possibility that maybe we need to use a new source for the car assignments? After looking at it, it looks like a dilapidated forum with not much proof of it being official. This is in regards to not just this particular article, but all NYCT car-type articles as well. 69.12.17.214 (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2021

Would like to update the image link to the non-bucket style seating note in Description section as the old Photobucket link is out-of-date/does not contain an image. (proposed new url: https://www.flickr.com/photos/47904859@N08/49801629928). Also want to add the note that only ~2% of NYC 3 trains have the non-bucket style seating. Andrewbowen19 (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: That image is copyrighted, and the current image shows the bench seats. There also has to be sourcing for the non-bucket style seating factiod. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Retirement Of R62

R62 Will Be Replaced By R262 (2026-2031).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.142.79 (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources, per the policy on verifiability. Otherwise, it is merely guesswork, with the possibility of crystal-ball gazing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)