Talk:New York City Subway rolling stock

R143's on the M

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)

Total size of fleet?

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)

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)

New York City Subway merge into here

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)

• Since no-one has objected to your merge request from a year ago, I have merged the text from the main NYC Subway page to the overview section. Acps110 (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep or remove the Subway Centennial pictures?

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)

Wrecked doesn't mean retired!

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) Rock On!

• I initially disagreed with the poster who inserted the retired tags on the R44-R62As, but upon further thought; most of the wrecked cars have been disposed of. Since they are no longer on the property, I would say that's retired. Two of the R46s were wrecked prior to the General Overhaul campaign of the early 1990s so they have been gone for over 15 years. Acps110 (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Third Avenue Elevated rolling stock

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://wiki.riteme.site/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)

• Hello. Those cars are Manhattan Elevated MUDC (Multiple Unit Door Control) cars which ran until the 1950's in Manhattan. You can see further information on those cars here: http://www.nycsubway.org/cars/manhel.html You can also find further technical specs and historical information in Gene Sansone's New York Subways: An Illustrated History of New York's Transit Cars (Centennial Edition). I haven't gotten around to adding a page for Manhattan El and MUDC cars yet, but it's on the to do list. I'm still trying to correct the mistakes on all of the prewar car pages in the meantime, but if you feel equipped to start a Manhattan El and MUDC page, be my guest. They can be reasonably classified under retired private operators/IRT in the rolling stock template as the IRT operated the Manhattan Els from 1902 onward. Hockeyman001 (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Why 4-car and 5-car train sets

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)

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)

R68s on N

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)

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)

Yes, you are correct. I have been on a r160a-1 Alstom Q train. At Astoria-Ditmars Blvd It changed to a N train an ran the normal N route in the middle of an average weekday, so therefor, you are correct. Subwayrox (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of cars in train

• This article says: A typical revenue train consists of 8 to 11 cars, although shuttles can be as short as two, and can range from 150 to 600 feet (45.72 to 182.88 m) long.
• The 7 (New York City Subway service) article says: The 7 service operates with 11-car trains, more than any other New York City Subway route.
• The G (New York City Subway service) article says: To increase service and reduce waiting time, the G would need more trains, but there were not enough cars, so the solution was to reduce the length of trains from six cars to four, sticking all the leftover cars together to make the extra trains.

Is there a more detailed version of this information? A table of service / number of cars?

Vcohen (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

IRT services – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 use 10-car trains – 510 ft long trains. 7 uses 11-car trains – 561 ft long trains. 42nd Street Shuttle has two 3-car trains and one 4-car train. The 4-car train runs rush hours only.

IND/BMT services – A, B, D, E, F, N, Q, R use 10-car trains if they are using 60 ft long cars – 600 ft long trains; or 8-car trains if they are using 75 ft long cars – also 600 ft long trains.

C, J, L, M and Z use 8-car trains of 60 ft long cars only – 480 foot long trains. (Occasionally, the C will use 8-car trains of 75 ft long cars – 600 ft long trains, but this is not normal.)

G, Rockaway Park Shuttle use 4-car trains of 75 ft long cars – 300 foot long trains.

Franklin Ave Shuttle uses 2-car trains of 75 ft long cars – 150 foot long trains. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot a lot. What do you think about to add it to the article?

Vcohen (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

We'd have to find a source for it. The list I gave you is WP:OR. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's more complicated than I thought... Vcohen (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, we do not need to include how many cars each train assigned to a specific service has. The MTA is never likely going to list this because it is not important. No one needs to know and probably even cares how many cars their train has. They just want it to take them to their destination. Besides, the number of cars a specific train has can change without warning. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to discuss this, but are you really sure that the people that "just want it to take them to their destination" are interested in the difference between models of cars or in the numeration of each individual car? Vcohen (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No one is really interested in the number of cars on their train or what type of cars they are using. These have no impact on service at all. The only people who really care about this are railfans like me, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a transit buff site. Besides, the information that Acps110 put, while true based on my experience, is unsourced and not likely ever going to be sourced, so if anyone were to say on this article how many cars each train assigned to a specific service has, it will be removed. Besides, things like construction and off-peak hours can affect the number of cars the train has. The reason why the 7 train article states the information at this start of this discussion is because it is the only service whose trains use an odd numbered amount of cars while the G train article has car length information because the reduction of cars in its trains in 2001 was one of many controversial moves by the MTA that has angered G riders. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

All of this can easily be sourced from the JoeKorNer Roster with simple math. Cars assigned/Trains assigned = cars per train. 128.122.2.41 (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Bingo! Vcohen (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

1, i do work for the MTA and 2, i know websites for proof, if you go to nycsubway.org it is run by people who work for the subways. it shows that thr r46 runs on the F and r160a does run on R. And i have pictures of these trains(r160 R and R46 F) how do i show them so i can proove my point? Please comment.74.90.100.153 (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

r160a alstom on the N line and 160b kawasaki on the D

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)

r68 are on the N line!

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)

Nope. You are incorrect. Wikipedia does NOT allow any views from any user. Your eyes aren't a source. You have to provide actual proof in order for your edit to stay the way it is on the article. You must look at sites of [1] and [2] that tells you the subway car assignments to a train route of the NYC's subway. Frankly, the R68s are NOT officially assigned to the N train and the R160s are NOT assigned to the D train neither. The reason why you see a different subway car on a train route is because of service disruption and that it's only there temporary. Other than that, you will find nothing but the subway cars that ARE OFFICIALLY assigned to this route or that route. So next time, please don't shout out that you see an R160 operating on the C train (for example etc). 68.194.58.106 (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Theories which are opinions are not acceptable here at Wikipedia, only facts and official sites. You must provide a source but not sites like a forum website or video sites like YouTube which only includes discussions of people seeing this or that or their opinions and expectations. 68.194.58.106 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

sorry im seen those cars on those lines for a long time now but not alot, maybe its just service changes. but i still think some are assigned to the R line i know a sight with lots of subway info, go to http://www.nycsubway.org. Subwayrox (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

the r160b are on the R line i take the R line to Work every day. Its because at forrest Hills 71st, sometimes the M line changes to the R. not alot but i have seen it and some r160a are on the N and r160b on the R. thank you. 69.127.247.204 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Yeah, the R is a train or a route, not a line. And yes, anything that's OFFICIALLY happening in reality, Wikipedia follows, not lead. And how could the M train change destinations to an R route when the M uses 8 cars. The R train uses 8 cars but are the same length as the other IND/BMT subway cars like the these. Please learn more about the Wikipedia and everything else over the internet before vandalizing and guessing ignorantly and naively. 68.194.58.106 (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ive seen 160 R trains, not alot but i have. The weeks around the time the W went out of service, there were lots of r160 R train, now theres only a few r160 R trains. I dont get the M train part.74.90.100.153 (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

there is 2, 5-car sets of r160a trains from the jamacia yard on the R train. its rare, but soon there will be more when r179 comes in to service. I work for the MTA.74.90.100.153 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

the r160 is not on the G route or the C route, the G only uses r160 when there is F line changes. there was a r68 F train once when the F was via west end but that was once only. same with the N train. r68 only run the N when it runs via west end. the r160 only run the D when the D runs via sea beach. some times the r160 J shuttle will turn to a r160 B train at chambers st. but its doesnt enter B service untill Decalb ave. but thats only when the essex street j shuttle was in play now its not.74.90.100.153 (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct but the r160a on the R line only runs in ruch hour, it takes the sets from the F line. 74.90.100.153 (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

please comment74.90.100.153 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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 {{cite web}} template. Otherwise this edit warring must stop! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The r160 runs the R only in the morning so its not a perminate use for the R train. The r46 do run the F line i have a picture but i dont know how to upload it. Please tell me how. Thank you. you can also look at my most sourseful website, www.nycsubway.org. It will show you all the Valid train assignments. But im not going to change anything untill you verify it with me that its ok. Thank you.Subwayrox Please comment so I know you understood me. Thank you.Subwayrox (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC) (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Sorry, thought nycsubway.org was offical. There for i wont change anything. The only reason i thought the r160s where going to run on the D was because there was test r160s on the D line So i thought maybe, but i was wrong. Sorry,please comment so i know you read this.Subwayrox (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC) And if you know, what is the next change going to be for the car assignment? Please answer. Im just curious to know what the next move is.Subwayrox (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Article scope

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)

I will not make any changes to the article my self, but just to inform you, r160b-1 are running on the R route. I saw a handful of r160b-1 on the R route at the lexington avenue station on my way back to Queens. I saw one northbound r160b-1 on the R, then a northbound r160b-2 on the R and then an r46 on the southbound side. I would consider changing the article unless it was just temporarily. 74.90.100.233 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

How do I edit

How do I edit the NYCS Canst Template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.156.117 (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:NYCS const. Vcohen (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

How do I edit the NYCS Canst Template? 24.193.156.117 (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Like an article. Vcohen (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

New article for R-type contracts

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)

The structure of the car model list

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)

Vcohen, 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)

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)

Then, the tables can be merged, and the division in another column, if applicable. Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's exactly what I want to add to your version. Vcohen (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done; hopefully the new table is correct. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New York City Subway rolling stock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

R143 J

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)

The official car assignments from Joe Korner [3] 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)

"Preserved" section

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)

> Pinging @TheVintageResurrector, Epicgenius:

Looking more closely at the R-type contract page, I understand what you mean. It does actually make more sense to see individual pages than looking at one comprehensive list. All these individual pages include preserved cars, work cars, and cars in long-term storage, so this does make this “Preserved cars” section redundant. I agree with you. Will delete. TheVintageResurrector (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

R39 and A, B Divisions expectation of rolling stock to retire

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)