Jump to content

R160 assignments


jimbob60

Recommended Posts

Exactly. Thank you. R160s are meant to replace the R32 , R40 , R42 fleet. The (E) got the R160 same reason why every other line got them. The only line that has a special reason for getting them is the (F).

 

not every line using R32s-R42s got the R160s. The (N)(Q) are also special in having them.

 

There are no (E) riders. There are people who frequently use the line for their commutes. And people who were Queens Blvd. express riders in the mid 1970s and 19780s, some from Hillside Av. and later Jamaica Center were used to the smooth riding and quiet R46s while the R32s ran on the local lines. That is why the Queens Blvd. express riders did not like the R32 on one of the express lines. Doesn't matter if they made the (E) all R32 or the (F) all R32, or if the R32 was an R40 or R42, it was going from a more modern and quieter train to an older, noisier one. And let's be clear. The (E) only had 60 foot trains due to dwell times. If the R46 had the same amount of doors and wasn't 75 feet as the R32, the R32 would never had replaced the R46 on the (E). The R32 was a replacement for the R46 to make the (E) load and unload faster, yet curiously, the (F), that had a slightly higher passenger load, stayed with mostly R46s from 1990-2008. No one gave a damn about RFW or Budd cars or anything like that as a reason for having them on the (E).

 

If the (E) supt. stepped in to have R160s on the line, he did his job. There was no good reason why any line on Queens Blvd. other than the (E) should have the newest 60-foot trains first. The (E) was one of the biggest reasons why the new cars are 60 feet. Whatever plans the MTA had at one time was changed, the (E) runs all R160s, I don't agree that they are in bad shape at all though they could be cleaner (but still are a lot cleaner than the ENY R160s), the (F) has a good amount of them, I don't see any need for them on the (R), but I think the (R) is bound to get them sometime.

 

I still think that the MTA should replace 75 foot cars with 75 foot cars, be creative with the design, and make them 5 doors per car. But I guess the new R179s, wherever they go, may be 60 feet. The R44s, have a few years left, then there's going to be replacing 75 foot cars for awhile and it would make sense to design other 75 foot cars that have good dwell time to replace the existing ones and have fewer trucks and components to maintain.

 

75 footers are problematic in the system despite their smooth suspension. that is why making the R179s that length would be a huge mistake.

 

Whined? No. As I said, riders of the Queens Blvd. Express lines didn't like a newer car being replaced with an older car. Not uncommon as (:P riders didn't like when the (B)'s R68s were replaced with R40 slants. And, back to the (E), it was the only one on the Queens Blvd. line running them exclusively, while most of the other lines had mostly R46s. As for attitudes and people in other countries, that's a curious statement. You absolutely trash the R42 and you are beginning to trash the R160s, at least the ones in Jamaica.

 

i cannot blame him for trash talking the R42s because they totally suck. just because a car is newer does not make it better. look at the R32s. they are older than the St Louis junks, but far better than them in everyway. the Phase II cars would still be in service had it not been for Jamaica's lousy maintance.

 

The (F) does not have a special reason for getting them. If you're referring to the fact that the (F) got them because they wanted to improve the reliability of the (F) as outlined in the (F) report...that's exactly the same reason why every other line got them in the first place.

 

Yes. There should only be 70-80 R42s left at Jamaica at best estimate (down from 110 around a month ago), because 40 R160s came into service within the past month (9563-9592, 9823-9832).

___

 

Oh, and another thing. WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HOW (E) RIDERS ARE GETTING SHAFTED BY NOT GETTING THE NEW CARS, IF THE (E) IS 100% R160S?!?!? There's nothing to argue about! I took the QBL today and every (F) I saw was an R160 too, so why are we arguing? It's all a moot point anyway.

 

good, i want more of those rust buckets gone now. (E) riders are now complaining about the R160s' numerous technical malfunctions. heck, the first train actually broke down in service on its debut on the (E). Jamaica still values the R46s over any other car type, which is why (E) riders will suffer no matter what cars they get.

 

Jamaica has atleast 90 R42's left, Now 2 sets on the (R), 6-7 sets on the (V), I have heard that Jamaica sent more R32's to CI but I see an R32 on the (R) or (V) or any Jamaica Line then they are still there, Jamaica lost 1 set of R160's to CI 9123-9132 (originaly CI) instead of sending another Trainset of R32 but I did not see a single R32 in sight on friday and that's very weird becasue Jamaica always bring out an R32 trainset, This week alone there was only 1 R32 Trainset running, Currently Jamaica owns 26 R32's 20 cars for service + 2 cars (a pair) spare and 4 cars that's the work motors for the Refuse (garbage train).

 

there are only 10 R32s at Coney Island and it does not run every day. There has to be at least 35 R32s at Jamaica because earlier this week, i caught three sets of them running on the (R)(V) in one day. the Jamaica R42s are next in line to go and i want them gone now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Why not send some R-46s back to the (E), and take those 160s and place them on the (F)? Will Queens riders still frown when they ride 46s?

 

That's not the concern or priority. For years the MTA has said they don't want 75 footers on the (E) due to the 32 doors vs 40 per side per train set. The station dwell time reason. That's why the (E)'s R46s were replaced in 1990 and ridership is even higher now than it was then.

 

Both the (E) and (F) need the most reliable cars, so it is now place lots of R160s on the (F), all R160s on the (E), and those R46s that are on the (F) will have undergone SMS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i cannot blame him for trash talking the R42s because they totally suck. just because a car is newer does not make it better. look at the R32s. they are older than the St Louis junks, but far better than them in everyway. the Phase II cars would still be in service had it not been for Jamaica's lousy maintance.

 

 

for your information, St. Louis made the PA1, a car series a few months younger than the R32 that is still in service on the PATH system. I don't think it had as extensive a GOH, really a rebuilt train, as the R32. Also, the R32 was a big order, more than 2/3rds of the original order has been retired. Yes, some still soldier on admirably.

 

Your newer is better statement is irrelevant in this context and no one has specifically stated that. A huge fleet is being updated and the 1960s manufactured cars are being retired. This updated fleet's technology will be more energy efficient and can be used with the crucial modernized signaling system the MTA will be implementing in the near future on heavily used lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not every line using R32s-R42s got the R160s. The (N)(Q) are also special in having them.

 

 

 

 

When the R160's started coming in,the (N) had R32's.not only that,CI also

had R40/M and R42's.so the (N) line wasn't a special case in getting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the concern or priority. For years the MTA has said they don't want 75 footers on the (E) due to the 32 doors vs 40 per side per train set. The station dwell time reason. That's why the (E)'s R46s were replaced in 1990 and ridership is even higher now than it was then.

 

75 footers have often run on the (E) in the past, even in the last few years with occasional R-46s and most notably last summer. I've also heard information to the contrary about the door issue and station dwell time which leads to me to believe that it's likely just foamer talk and nothing more.

 

for your information, St. Louis made the PA1, a car series a few months younger than the R32 that is still in service on the PATH system. I don't think it had as extensive a GOH, really a rebuilt train, as the R32. Also, the R32 was a big order, more than 2/3rds of the original order has been retired. Yes, some still soldier on admirably.

 

I believe the PA-1 through 3s were overhauled at some point to be compatible with the PA-4s. Unlike (NYCT) which did not make the R-44/46s compatible when they were overhauled. We're seeing the same thing with the NTTs also not being fully compatible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Wake me up when the system is all R160 or newer. Since that won't be happening anytime soon, I'll be sleeping for awhile yet.

 

So when can we expect the R32 and R42 to be off the (R) and (V) lines?

 

Almost done? Good!

 

No new updates on cars for awhile yet.

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.