Talk:R32 (New York City Subway car)

Untitled

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

Retirement & Scrapping

R32's 3878/3879 & 3928/3929 were removed from MTA-NYCTA property, and are now at the Brooklyn Army Terminals 65 Street barge loading site in Sunset Park, to be sent to Ohio for scrapping on February 27, 2022.

Merge proposal

I have proposed merging the R32A article with this one, as there is virtually no difference. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no reason to have a separate article named 'R32A' when they are now the same thing. Just mention in the r32 article that there used tobe a difference between car models and that it is now gone.Krisricky627 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes a lot of sense to me too. Perhaps R40/R40A too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.162.226 (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really R40 and R40A, there actually is a difference between them as of right now.Krisricky627 (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

R32A no longer exists.

I just clicked on the R32A link and was redirected right back to the R32 page. Since the article no longer exists, it's pretty pointless to keep the merger proposal on the page. I'm not going to delete it just yet to spare myself from some scolding on my talk page. I just wanted to see your opinion on the issue before (and if) I do anything. Thanks! -Fan Railer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fan Railer (talk • contribs) 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree Fan Railer, go ahead. Acps110 (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Go ahead. It's logical especially since the train isn't classified as R32A anymore. However someone should remove the R32A link at the bottom of the page, if that's possible.Krisricky627 (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of it (the nonexisting link). -Fan Railer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fan Railer (talk • contribs) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the amount of R32s preserved/saved to 6 since this was confirmed on nyctransitforums.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by EMD4LIFE (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Times article on C train service

An editor continues to revert or water down a paragraph I added here sourced to the recent New York Times article, "For the C Train’s Rickety and Rackety Cars, Retirement Will Have to Wait."[1]. If there's a further difference of opinion on use of this source it should be discussed here, not in the edit summary. In my view, the facts contained in this article need to be fully reflected in this article, especially since it otherwise consists almost entirely of technical details of little value to anyone except a train buff. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

New York Times quote

Should the following quote from this New York Times story be used in this article:

The survey found that "C trains break down three times as often as the average subway car, arrive only once every 10 minutes at peak periods, and have the least understandable announcements in the system."

Should this and other text from the Times article concerning the problems on the C line (the only subway line using the R32 car) be broken out into a separate section, as in the version that was reverted in this edit? Requesting input from previously uninvolved editors please. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The text you would like to include appears to be well supported by a very reliable source and also is relevant to the article about this model of train. The article does go on to compliment this model's sturdiness and explain why lesser quality models are being replaced before this model can be. Perhaps if you included the good with the bad for a more balanced presentation you won't be reverted so often. Veriss (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My aim is to add the Times text, not to remove any of the positive aspects of the article. I did remove one sentence of puffery, but it's not in dispute. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is it verifiable by other RS that the issues on the C are related to the R32s? The info belongs definitely at C (New York City Subway service), but unless there is verifiability on the cause being R32 and R32A rolling stock, it is a bit WP:SYNTH to include here. For example, the C line is one of the longest lines in the system, normally entirely underground , its stations and signaling are decrepit etc, so without verification, the causes could be other than the rolling stock. --Cerejota (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think the Times quote is usable, however I don't think it should be in a section all by itself. Maybe you could split the 'history' section into 'history' and 'current status' sections, where the Times article - along with the information on numbering, refurbishment, the R160 replacements, and other present-day material - would be in the 'current' section. That would temper the negativity of it some... --Ludwigs2 05:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Cerejota is right. User:ScottyBerg, the way you are adding this information is imply that the R32s are the only reason why the C ranked worst or is considered the least favored line in the system. That is not the case. There are other factors that determine a train's ranking. If you look at the Straphangers' Campaign's report, found here, you will see that the C ranked worst because it ranked last in amount of scheduled service, breakdowns, and announcement quality, all of which have nothing with the R32s. The MTA determines scheduled frequency for each train, every subway car will breakdown eventually, and most non NTT cars provide poor announcements. Also, this article is about the R32s, not the C train, which the R32s happen to only service. The C's performance in the report has nothing to do with the R32s. Car assignments can change without warning, so if the R32s are suddenly taken away from the C and put somewhere else, then the whole statement would have to be removed.

In response to your question on the C train article, the article may not directly emphasis its low scheduled service, but the official report from the Straphangers' Campaign does. We may have to include that as a source for both articles being questioned because the New York Times article alone is not enough to verify information because it only talks about the cars while the SC report card is about the line they serve. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this IP edit yours? ScottyBerg (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Straphangers Campaign report says that scheduled maintenance is actually better overall, and as far as I can see doesn't even mention the R32 car at all. (If I've missed it, kindly quote the passage.) The Times article is quite clear; it is an article about the R32, its age and its use on the C line. Let's get fresh views please. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, the NY Times article is mainly about the R32s, not the C ranking worst in the system even though it is mentioned briefly in it. R32s and the C train are two very different things. It just so happens that R32s run only on the C and the C does not use any other car type. That does not mean the they are connected in terms of the C's performance in the Straphangers Campaign's report card. R32s have ran on other lines in the past (they were the signature fleet for the E until 2009) and they never ranked worst in the system. To say that the R32s break down frequently because the C has the worst breakdown rate of all lines is not fair and explaining why the C ranked worst is irrelevant because the Straphangers Campaign does not care what car type it uses. If the C was using another car type (i.e. R46 or R68/68A) and it still ranked worst, would you say they are to blame for its poor performance? Uh no. As a result, the only thing from the article that we can include on this page is how the NY Times describes the R32s as "a dreary reminder to passengers of an earlier subterranean era," and that "time has taken a toll" on the cars. This article would become dated if the R32s are put somewhere else, which is always a possibility.

Yes, that is my IP edit. For some reason, my laptop signed me out while I was editing the article and I did not know. The fact that you removed a positive statement about the cars that has been on this article for years and replaced it with negative comments caused an imbalance. That statement is properly sourced as the NY Times article says that the R32s remain in service primarily because of their durable stainless steel bodies and that five other car types built afterward (R38s, R40s, R40As, NYCS R44s, and most R42s) have been retired.

As for the conflict for the C train article, perhaps saying "low amount of scheduled service" would be more appropriate because "amount of the scheduled service" is the name of that category in the report card. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I disagree that the NYT article is clear - it isn't very clear at all. That's were the WP:SYNTH issue is raised: the article is about the C line, and then mentions the R32s directly as having issues, but doesn't connect the two in an explicit fashion (in fact, it seems to use the terms as synonyms, which they are not - even the article mentions that half the R32s are used on the A in summertime!). This is why I say the information does belong, without a doubt, on the article on the C line, but unless verified by at least one other source, it shouldn't be here. It should be trivial to find sourcing that backs the assertion, I would be surprised if there isn't as the R32s are notoriously awful as they approach 50 years. Your removal of unsourced puffery, however, was entirely correct.

As a note, the NYT article also mentions a number of positives that shouldn't be ignored, in particular it compares R32s favorably and unambiguously with models that have already been retired but began service afterwards. If the NYT source is used as a negative source, it should also be used for the positive as per WP:UNDUE. --Cerejota (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times is a reliable source, and there is no need to corroborate the article with a second source. Your point on unsourced puffery is well taken, and I'm removing it.ScottyBerg (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that even the most reliable sources do need to be verified if there is a dispute, no matter how reliable (it doesn't mean all sources must be cited, just that a verification exercise should be in order). In this particular case, the NYT source is unclear, and it is being used to say something it doesn't say. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. If there were no dispute, it wouldn't matter, even unsourced information not in dispute and that is patently verifiable is acceptable. --Cerejota (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps one approach would be to quote the portion of the survey which found that "C trains break down three times as often as the average subway car." That definitely relates to the R32, and I can't conceive of any reasonable objection to including that passage. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A Daily News article provides corroboration on the R32-C train issue.[2] I'm not even sure why we're having this discussion, as Legendary Ranger acknowledges that the C train uses only R32 cars so that is not in dispute. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

2013 Summer Swap on the A/C has been confirmed to not happen

At New York City Transit Forums, several users who happen to be official members of the New York Transit Authority have been hearing and officially saying that the R32s will not be switched over to the A nor nearly half of its R46s will be switched over to the C (making it 100% of those) despite the Rockaways getting their fully restored service back. I think its fair to follow what the transit employees are saying in the forums. Why not? JoesphBarbaro (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

But the MTA took the very intelligent. smart, and easy way way out of this crisis by May 2013, by swapping 128 R32's from the 207 Street's fleet by sending them to the East New York Yard for (J)/<Z> services which ran mostly outdoors, which also took better care of them, in exchange for an equivalent numbered four car sets of R160's which were sent to 207 Street Yard and used on the (C) line just to keep the (C) line riders happy. By late October of 2013, all swapped equipment's were returned to their respective assigned facilities. In 2014, this arrangement was made semi-permanent until the arrival of the brand new R179's. which did NOT fare well on the (C) line at all, and have contributed,and lead to the present day crisis with same. The R179's assigned to the (J)/<Z> at East New york fared much better than the ones assigned to the (C) line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:610B:4600:E4A5:A082:CA47:DD3E (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Five other car types built after them have been mostly or completely retired.

I know this is from the NYT article, but shouldn't it be six (R36, 38, 40, 42, 44 and 110). I am assuming the NYT wasn't counting the R110s as a proper car class, but technically they were built and retired (long) after the R32s had been introduced. Thoughts?Avman89 (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Oldest

They have long been in the class of older rolling stock, but recently they've passed several other contenders and may now be the oldest operating cars in regular service anywhere. The Lo-V (New York City Subway car)s had a span of about 52 years, a line in England for about 50, Buenos Aires of course had the 100 year old wooden cars (now retired), a record which may never be matched, and even Boston has no heavy rail cars this old. SEPTA Route 15 is a stretch to count, for one thing it's a streetcar, additionally they were refurbished at over one million dollars each which is comparable to the cost of a new vehicle. Once so many things have been rebuilt or replaced, it's not fair to go by the year of origin. Strictly in terms of subways, I'm pretty sure the R32s have got the record, but when you expand for other rail transit types, it gets a little more grey. It's hard to imagine they will be in service for at least eight more years (2022), with the reputation they already have. By then they may also have the record of the longest lasting NYC Subway rolling stock ever. This is why I mentioned the long retired Low-Vs, because they are a non-R train that the R32s have surpassed. B137 (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe the R32s are currently the oldest rolling stock used in any subway system in the country, and maybe one of the oldest in the world. I can't say anything about the other rolling stock, though. The R32s have been in service for 51 years so far, and by the time they retire, they'll be 58.

Incidentally, London Underground 1972 Stock, London's oldest rolling stock, will be 55 when it retires. I guess bigger rapid transit systems use their rolling stock for longer (except Tokyo Metro and Seoul Metropolitan Subway, whose stock gets replaced after 25-30 years on average). Epic Genius (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm seem to be no obvious contenders. Too crystal ballish to consider the London stock for now. Both are a long way from retirement and dates could change (e.g. I could imagine an emergency order to replace sooner if they became horrendously unreliable). As far as the NYC system goes, the article states that 51 years is the "longest for any R-type car." So what are some pre-IND cars to be in regular service longer? B137 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like 2022 was removed without mention as the new plan is for enough R179s to replace them all several years earlier. B137 (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

So final retirement for about 120 remaining R32s (about have of the 220 in service now), has been set at 2019, when they'll be 55 years old. Looks like they are undergoing a final renovation to push them through the past few years. B137 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

R42 retirement first?

Since it seems the R179s will replace the R42s first, the R32s will be the only 60s cars left, if they go first, and will be older than at least 5 other new car types that have been fully retired. Will some R32s still have to wait for the R211s? Because it seems the R179s are in fact replacing R32s. B137 (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Ref for world's oldest

The C train is still running trains that debuted in 1964, the oldest of any subway system on the planet NYC subway ridership dropped for the second straight year in 2017 The C train has the oldest running subway cars in the world B137 (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Not the oldest in the world. Paris is operating older MP59 cars on the 11, and Berlin is operating older A3E and D class cars on their U-bahn as well. While both classes were built at roughly the same time as the R32, I believe currently active cars from each were in service prior to the R32s. Pyongyang's D class cars date from the 1950s. Some active former soviet E class cars also date from the early 1960s too. MrLincoln (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

In popular culture

They are also used at least in the background on the promotional image from the recent Spider Man Homecoming movie. B137 (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2019

Add official retirement year of 2022 per 68.194.117.152 (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The MTA has been delaying retirement for years. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Retirement in 2022 may be delayed again. Orville1974^talk 02:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

References

R32 retirement in the first or second quarter of 2020

Well i guess today is a very bad day for the MTA. The r32 is not being retired by the r211 but instead being retired by the r179. Also according to the r179 article, the r32 is being replaced by March 2020, which was totally unexpected because I thought they would be retired by 2022, along with the r44 and r46. Can somebody verify if this is true or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eti15TrSf (talk • contribs) 00:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kew Gardens 613, Epicgenius, Mtattrain, and Cards84664, so I looked up on New York City Transit Forums and it has been confirmed that a handful of the R32s have been officially retired from service - https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/51397-new-york-city-subway-car-listing/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-1055705 - there are now only 122 R32s left in revenue service. The ERA Bulletin source is also heavily outdated, due to the ongoing R32 phase-out following the R179s' return to service, and the current car swapping underway between Jamaica and Coney Island yards. Also the Twitter "source" that confirms the R42s' retirement "will happen later in the year", is all due respect, no longer reliable...does anyone have a subway roster source that confirms all the 50 R42s have been officially retired from service?

Please I need help to address this issue. Thanks and appreciate it. Jemorie (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

> nycsubway.org luckily updated its R32 roster recently so we can use that, since it has been around so long that trainheads usually find it to be a reliable source. Mtattrain (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jeromie The R42 roster hasn’t been updated unfortunately, so we can’t use that. The roster still says “In-Service 2012” lol. TheThingISee28 (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Lets just all have some patience, since only 100 cars (60 cars as of March 10, 2020) remaining in service, and more R46's from Jamaica can very easily replace these R32's very easily, just like the R30's were prematurely retired back in 1994, which created a massive car shortage within the B division fleet with nothing to fall back on as well. Another thing one must consider is that maybe the MTA does NOT own these R32 cars anymore, and the scrap dealer does now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:610B:4600:E87F:7AC7:768E:B067 (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, being informed by some very reliable source's, there has been NO or Zero R32's operated on either the (A) or (C) after Friday March 13, 2020. Hmmmmmm. that's strange. Also with ridership on the NYC Subway System dropping-off very sharply over 60% this week, I have a very funny feeling the R32's might have already met their end.

If any more R32 in-service sighting's is observed please feel free to post it here. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:610B:4600:5873:A661:43C9:A03C (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thursday, March 19: Is anyone else still out there???:ph34r:

Today, we appeared to have seven (7) R-46s and ten (10) R-179s on (C).

I think there were two R-32 trains in the bullpen from Pitkin ready for pinch-hitting duties, but they didn't make it on the road.

If anyone actually SAW what might be the last (Wednesday), please sing out!

See http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1541151 for more info regarding the R32's. That's all I can really say for the time being.

Does anyone know if and when the final run for the R32 will be? 24.104.250.197 (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

On March 24, 2020 the final ten R179's 3040-3049 entered service on the (A), and it appears that all of the R32's are now out of service until further notice.

Since the R32s have been officially retired as of April 24, 2020, there will be a ceremonial farewell of those railcars as those get transported to the New York Transit Museum after the SARS CoV-2 passes.

Number of trains

If there are 600 built, 74 in service, 8 preserved, and 360 scrapped, aren't there 158 trains unaccounted for? SportsFan007 (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Out of the 222 that were recently active over the last year, 96 of those are still active @ East New York Yard for (J)/<Z> service's. The rest are in storage and have not been scrapped yet. I believe they are being used for parts.24.104.250.197 (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

R32 final run

Does anyone know if there will be a final run for the R32. Even though they are temporarily out of service because of the single cab and COVID-19 precautions. I know they are still on property since I saw quite a bit of them at 207 yard recently. 24.104.250.197 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Your answer, they last ran on March 23, 2020, when they last ran some trips on the A and C. They have not been seen after that date, since the COVID 19 service reductions that suspended the (C) line entirely. That's as far as we all know my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:610b:4600:a173:de34:fcac:f073 (talk • contribs)

Well, here's the sad news about the requiem for the R32's we were all waiting for http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1542790 Sorry folks, it appears that their days are over for now, so don't kill the messenger bringing you this sad news.

Enjoy what you have now, and y'all be well & be safe out there, because with the way thing are presently there may not be a final ceremonial trip with the R32's..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:610B:4600:4DFF:953:C7B5:5F5A (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

RIP R32's for a very successful 55 years career from September 14, 1964 on the (Q) until March 26, 2020 on the (C). They will be missed indeed.

> They're temporarily out of service, not permanently retired. Mtattrain (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC) They may NOT be needed after President Trump lift's this National Emergency, since service cuts will definitely be initiated, since service will be slowly or gradually be restored on an line by line basis. The disaster economy we are in now would largely become the permanent economy, as more people will start to work from home with telecommuting instead.

The reason for the service cuts was because there was a lack of crew members. Once the stay at home order is lifted, Service may return as more employees will be able to operate the trains and need the trains for travel. Even if the R32 doesn't run regularly, that could possibly be the time for a farewell run.24.104.250.197 (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Then why isn't it listed as retired in the article?! Eti15TrSf (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Its not officially retired. Once it is, it will be removed. 24.104.250.197 (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Once again, I'm sorry to have to bring you the sad news, All R32s are officially retired from customer service as the new B division car assignments dated April 24, 2020. I can certainly hope that some sort of retirement ceremony, similar to the one given honoring the R42's could still happen once this COVID-19 pandemic is over. But with everything being as unpredictable as it is right now, I wouldn't hold my breath, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:610B:4600:E432:8755:5EFD:4519 (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

If they are still on property at that point, I can't see why they wouldn't do that. Also, I cant see them sending them anywhere during the pandemic. They were the longest lasting MTA subway cars. Maybe in May/June they will do something. 24.104.250.197 (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

R32 J train

The R32 (J)/<Z> train's are back now due to a R179 lemon train issue. Should the Infobox have a R32 J train instead of an R32 A train? Eti15TrSf (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep - and East New York does a very good job doing minor repairs, and inspecting them, and if major repair work is needed, then it goes up to the 207 Street Main Overhaul Shop. The 100 R179's (3050-3149) assigned to the (J)/<Z> at East New York fared much better than the ones assigned to the (A) & (C) line.

Oldest subways running

The Paris MP59 will be retired next year, the German U5 and U55 line will be connected this year to re-retire the Class D stock, and the Japanese 500 cars in Argentina are exiting service somewhat at least, and most if not all of these have been greatly refurbished, where R32s had one normal overhaul. Also the Paris cars are rubber tyre. If the R179 turn into true lemons and don't come into service by next year, it might revert once again to the R32's not being fully retired until the R211 come out in 2022 or so. 50.48.171.95 (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

50.48.171.95, stop dreaming that the R32 will become the oldest subway car or that they will be retired by the R211s. You have not cited any sources to prove your points. If the R179s do get replaced, then it will show the R179 replacing the R32 and R211 replacing the R179. Stop thinking the R32s will win some sort of world record because soon the R179 will come back to service and replace the R32s. Eti15TrSf (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The R179s likely won't get thrown away, but if they are out of service long enough, some 211s might come in first I meant. And within the next year, all three cited older rolling stock are getting replaced. So they might briefly make it, but will never be the oldest ever because Argentina used to have wooden rolling stock that was literally 100 years old until recently. 50.48.171.95 (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

50.48.171.95, checked all articles, retirement is never mentioned. The R32 will never be the oldest stock that is in service. Cite your sources to prove that these trains will all be crushed by 2021. Eti15TrSf (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Rubber tired as well but it was in another article. MP_14_(Paris_Métro) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.48.171.95 (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Guess what, 50.48.171.95 I checked fr:MP 14, and it says will replace the MP 59 from 2022, which does not mean they will all be gone from 2021. Eti15TrSf (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional cars used for Museum excursions

Aside from the units saved by NYTM and RPC, there seem to be at least 8 other cars (4 pairs) used for public excursion trips time to time. Should we include these cars in the "preservation" section? 199.98.31.165 (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

> Pinging @Davidng913: Mtattrain (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mtattrain: @199.98.31.165: These seem to be part of the pairs used on the final run back in January 2022. I heard the pairs used on the parade and excursion in the Rockaways were used for movie shoots, since they have the older M logo. There are also statements that claim 3360-3361 are being saved. Right now, we are waiting for official sources to confirm that these pairs are indeed being saved; you never know whether or not the cars used recently are indeed being saved or are being removed for scrapping at a later date. Davidng913 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Davidng913: The roster on nycsubway org seems to have been updated recently, and it lists 6/8 of the cars on the last run as being preserved or active. Unsure if that warrants listing more cars as saved. Mtattrain (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mtattrain: We will have to see. If the legend is correct, 3646-3647, 3828-3829, 3888-3889, and 3894-3895 may be saved along with 3360-3361, which I'm sure will be kept. 3698 is also reported as saved upon being purchased by a private owner. This leaves 15 cars preserved (or 17 counting the training cars), of which fourteen are in the museum fleet, shared between the NY Transit Museum and Railway Preservation Corp. In addition, the roster also seems to point out that some R32s are still in work service, although I'm not sure if that changed. --Davidng913 (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the work service part is wrong empirically, so maybe nycsubway org isn't the best to count on. Mtattrain (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mtattrain: recent video from DJ Hammers shows that 3646-3647, 3828-3829, 3888-3889, and 3894-3895 are running for a movie train. They also had security cameras installed recently. Maybe that will confirm that they are indeed being saved. Davidng913 (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Didn't hear about security cameras on the non NYTM units. Mtattrain (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The latest: 3828–3829 went away and is being sent out for scrap. There will be another pair to replace it supposedly. Davidng913 (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)