Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About BSmith

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  1. Besides digital signs and automated announcements what amenities do they have? I'm not sure about them, I find them underwhelming. The R160 seems the best of the bunch but let it get more miles before I can say so for sure. The 142As aren't impressive at all and only what, 13 yrs in service? I don't know how well they can do at speed because they rarely go at speed and they all make those pitchy NTT whiny sounds at lower speeds. In the tunnels, the 143 L's used to move swiftly. But they are beginning to get that wearing out sense, like more vibration and feeling juddery. At speed, the 68s and 46s in decent shape are more fluid, the 62s and 62As aren't bad either.
  2. I thought Jamaica didn't want the 32s?
  3. Yes. It would have shown too much dirt anyway and look ratty very soon no matter what. A subway needs mop-able floors. I hope people can see why the R44 was such a big deal in terms of the interior. Compare the cars before it and the color palette, design, everything was such an upgrade as well as how damned quiet the trains were in 1971 when they were introduced. The 44s and 46s may have been lemons, but they were fantastic trains to ride in at the time. I'll miss the 46s when they are retired. They are dated now, and they aren't good rush hour trains, but they were to me the first really nice subway cars (not for rail fans, for the average ridership).
  4. My favorite cars are the R44/R46. Lemons but first really quiet trains, modern curved sides, radically different interiors, 75 feet made them special. They've had their day but they were a treat to ride in in the 1980s. The R160s are good, they're pleasant enough to ride in but nothing beats the functionality of the R32s, they handle crowds best of all the cars and they seat a lot too. R68s are just R44s with silver walls for me, nothing special. R40s were cool, inefficient but cool looking due to their huge letter signs when they were new.
  5. But keep in mind the R160s have their original interiors. The R32 interior is much different than when it was new. When it was new it had blue walls, blue doors, white and blue tiled floors, different lights with ribs, no a/c except for 4 cars I think (or maybe it was the R38s that had the a/c). The R160 is retro in that the blue color scheme isn't that far away from the aqua blue of the 1960s but more periwinkle added in the blue. The warm interiors I think are in the R44/R46 due to the fake wood paneling and warm yellow/orange/red beige colors used.
  6. I'm sorry, many of you guys weren't around when those trains were new but the R44, even with all of its shortcomings and issues, were fantastic and important subway cars for the MTA. They were really the first modern trains and even the NTTs don't look that different from them. Their interiors looked outright luxurious when the trains were new, they were spectacularly quiet and smooth in operation, they were fast where they were allowed to be and it felt like another world riding in those cars vs. everything that came before. They were truly like a subway version of the M-series of the LIRR and resembled them. The R44 is the lesson the MTA had too learn and the R46 as well. The R68s were far less ambitious and by the time the NTTs were proposed, they knew extensive testing was necessary as to not repeat the issues with previous inadequately tested and proven car types.
  7. I agree. I think the R142As on the 6 are the poorest NTTs in the system. There's some cosmetic issues, they buck, they have too many flat wheels, they squeal more and just don't operate as smoothly as the other R142s and R142As. So Westchester Yard needs to step it up. The NTT's improve the reliability of the system, they are still fairly young trains. The 62/68s are good, some could use some work and some 46s are getting ragged and need attention but they don't that often have to go OOS. There are a lot of GOs, they count on performance but this is a 24-hour system.
  8. The 46s are workhorses that some could use some TLC. They are not "garbage", they have useful life left in them. The 42s are hanging on by a wing and a prayer and the 32s are just tired iron ladies having to stay around too long.
  9. The original plan is written down as I stated. Mostly 5-car sets. The idea that this has changed seems mostly like rumors as I read this thread. I've yet to see anything that states that it has changed. I go along with the argument of flexibility and long-term use for these trains. The C needs a system where you can take away 120 feet of a consist or use a full 600 feet if so desired over it's own cars where the lines that share its platforms, all of its platforms are 600 feet. Catering the cars for the C seems very short-sighted especially for a line that hasn't been historically prioritized.
  10. Y2Julio's post, 696 on this thread, page 35. I copied/pasted directly from that.
  11. 50 5 set cars is 250 cars which is 25 trains. 25 trains that would presumably go on the A, C (as 10 cars) or 2nd Av. line. I think most if not all of these will go on the A line. 10 4 car sets is 40 which sound like they'll go to replace the R42, there's about 40 of those in service and those may go to the Eastern division. That makes 290 cars, 25 5 car train sets for 10 car trains and 5 4 car train sets for 8 car train sets that run on lines like the L and Z. This still has the order coming out mostly for the A line as I see it, the A is a 10 car 60 foot line. The remaining 10 were test cars that will go on a line like the A or 2nd Av I guess. "Both got some welcome news when the MTA and Bombardier Transportation inked the contract to manufacture 300 new R179 subways cars at Bombardier’s Plattsburgh facility. The order specifies10 prototypes for testing and approval, followed by 50 five-car sets and 10 four-car sets, with revenue service expected around late 2016. "
  12. Art, why can't the A use 10 car 60 foot trains like other major lines like the F that went from 8 car R46s to primarily 10 car R160s? When has the C ever got new equipment and why would the MTA prioritize the C over the A? The A isn't wedded to 75 footers.
  13. Yes, the A runs 38 trains max AM rush and the R179 order is 300 trains. So, if most run on the A line, that's not even enough to cover the full 38, just 30 trains. And then some are 4 car sets for the Eastern Division, so it won't even be 30 trains. And some are slated for the 2nd avenue subway. The R46s still making up a good amount of the CPW trains and I can't see the C getting the priority of them over the A. Am I missing something?
  14. I know that the C runs R32s and they are being replaced but I still see most of the R179s going more to the A than C. I see a few on the C at times, but most of them on the A and not the C line. The R46s will still be in service and be replaced by the R211s, right? I don't see the C running R179s while the A runs R46s.
  15. Has the MTA said what lines the trains will go on? Yes the 2nd Av. subway makes sense but I think they are going on the A line. Some may make it to the C line but I don't see the C being R179s while the A is R46s. I think the A will get the R179s, the R46s will go to the C as the R46s are not being replaced by the R179s, the R32s and R40s are. As long as I can remember the C/CC has never had new equipment and always has run the oldest equipment, or next to it, in the system. The A though has had new equipment, like the R44 back in the 70s. As far as the rendering goes, I think most passengers would think it looks enough like an R160 that it is some version of it, maybe inside the floors will be lighter, but it looks R143/R160-like.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.