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.

After years of mechanical problems subway train breakdowns are finally on the decline


Maserati7200

Recommended Posts

It's getting harder to use the line, "My subway train broke down," as an excuse for being late to work, transit records show.

 

After more than two years of declines, trains, on average, traveled 185,000 miles between mechanical malfunctions in May, NYC Transit officials said. That's a 39% jump over the previous May.

 

In June, the mileage trains traveled on average before mechanical problems was 31% greater than June 2008, the stats show.

 

Full story: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/07/27/2009-07-27_subway_train_breakdowns_are_finally_on_the_decline_say_transit_officials.html#ixzz0NUz0ZTMf

 

According to this, the R160's (the cars on the (N)) have a MBDF of 690,000 miles, whoa! :eek:

post-1233-133288580696_thumb.jpg

post-1233-133288580696_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites


prob for being late for something ;):P

 

not a bad idea...

Ha.. my school won't take that kind of excuse. The 7 broke down a few months ago and my friend got caught in the mess. He was late to school and his house got a phone call from school telling his family "that he was late".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

N train for reliability is a complete joke. I have to wait for at least 20 minutes at 49 St every time I take the N from Midtown to Brooklyn. I'd rather walk a few blocks and hop on an A which only requires 5 minutes and transfer to the D at West 4th. I say that wait time on the N and R are absolute worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

N train for reliability is a complete joke. I have to wait for at least 20 minutes at 49 St every time I take the N from Midtown to Brooklyn. I'd rather walk a few blocks and hop on an A which only requires 5 minutes and transfer to the D at West 4th. I say that wait time on the N and R are absolute worst.

 

Dude, it's talking about the rolling stock, not the actual line. It is saying the cars on the (N) break down far less often than the cars on the (A)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to emphasize this: 690,000 miles, 690,000!!! This is double (almost triple) of the runner up in MDBF. The R68A had a MDBF of ~290K in 2007. The future looks bright for the R160's.

 

Japanese trains run extremely well especially during its first years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to emphasize this: 690,000 miles, 690,000!!! This is double (almost triple) of the runner up in MDBF. The R68A had a MDBF of ~290K in 2007. The future looks bright for the R160's.

690K is an extremely high number but keep in mind these cars are still on warranty. Once the order is finished and these cars are on their own the numbers will change. We shall see how the R160s hold up 10 years from now, in 2020. Hopefully not as problematic as the R142/As were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to emphasize this: 690,000 miles, 690,000!!! This is double (almost triple) of the runner up in MDBF. The R68A had a MDBF of ~290K in 2007. The future looks bright for the R160's.

 

That number is only for the CI yard R160s. The article said the 160s on the (N) have a MDBF of 690,000. I highly doubt Jamaica 160s will ever touch that mark, those 160s are going to go through crazy abuse pounding the (E) & (F) lines. I seen R46s come into Stillwell and go right back to 179th in less than a minute, they don't even get time to rest! Same goes for the (E) at WTC. Not to mention that the entire (E) is underground and has high ridership, causing the A/C to be overworked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The QBL are awful at operating their trains, period. The R160A braking system tend to brake when the train is at a slower speed than the R160Bs and in most cases lessens the squeaking effect. The QBL operators are seriously pounding on the brakes at the very last seconds. If you ride the R160As on the J/M/Z/L, those operators will brake making little to no noise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The QBL are awful at operating their trains, period. The R160A braking system tend to brake when the train is at a slower speed than the R160Bs and in most cases lessens the squeaking effect. The QBL operators are seriously pounding on the brakes at the very last seconds. If you ride the R160As on the J/M/Z/L, those operators will brake making little to no noise.

 

I really don't get how you notice these small things... they both seem the same to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I'm glad the (E) is all NTT

 

If you said that for the (A) or the (C) then I would approve. The R160s would do justice over the crappy R44s that are on that line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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