Jump to content

What is the MTA going to do with the Remaining R160s?


CTK246

Recommended Posts

In light of the (V) and (W) elimination, what do you think the MTA is going to do with the (V) and (W)'s R160s? Hopefully they transfer them to the (:) and (D) lines, but knowing the MTA, they will probably store them at a yard. What do YOU think they are going to do with the remaining trains?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


In light of the (V) and (W) elimination, what do you think the MTA is going to do with the (V) and (W)'s R160s? Hopefully they transfer them to the (:) and (D) lines, but knowing the MTA, they will probably store them at a yard. What do YOU think they are going to do with the remaining trains?

Some of the (W)'s went to the (N) and some went to the (Q) and there is still extras from that only a few.The (V)'s 160's went to the (F) and (R) and some of the (F)'s 46's went to the (A).I heard some things about the (B) may get 160's and the (G).(From the crews)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard some things about the (:) may get 160's and the (G).(From the crews)

That's smart. The (N) and (Q) already has enough 160s, why would they need more? I think it would of been smarter to put them on the (C) line. It's in need of a serious upgrade. It's simply tragic when an R32 closes on people and don't open back up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (C) runs 8-car trains, there's not enough cars for it to run a 10-car train.

And why shouldn't the R160s go on the (N) and (Q)? They have them because:

Astoria-Ditmars may sometimes cause trains to be switched and the (Q) will have 2 daily terminals. There's no need to put them on any other line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (C) runs 8-car trains, there's not enough cars for it to run a 10-car train.

And why shouldn't the R160s go on the (N) and (Q)? They have them because:

Astoria-Ditmars may sometimes cause trains to be switched and the (Q) will have 2 daily terminals. There's no need to put them on any other line.

 

the (:) can use them being that they have 2 terminals during the day:

 

(B) Bedford Pk Blvd, Bronx (Rush Hours Only from 6AM to 9:30AM, and 3PM to 7:30PM)

(B) 145 St (Middays from 9:30AM to 3PM)

(B) Brighton Beach (All day)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's smart. The (N) and (Q) already has enough 160s, why would they need more? I think it would of been smarter to put them on the (C) line. It's in need of a serious upgrade. It's simply tragic when an R32 closes on people and don't open back up.

 

:) Oh snap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CIY is now (:)(N)(Q)(S). Eliminate the shuttle for R160's. I heard the (N) is half-and-half, so that means less NTT's there. I did the math on making the (N) and (Q) all NTT, which is about 41 trains (joekorner). That would still leave 7 R160 trains left over. I'm thinking there's more than 7 left over now because the (N) is not all R160. I'm thinking we'll see some 160 (B) trains soon. Unless of course, I'm missing something...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's smart. The (N) and (Q) already has enough 160s, why would they need more? I think it would of been smarter to put them on the (C) line. It's in need of a serious upgrade. It's simply tragic when an R32 closes on people and don't open back up.

 

that happens on any of the trains, sometimes you just dont make it in time, so then you wait for the next train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's smart. The (N) and (Q) already has enough 160s, why would they need more? I think it would of been smarter to put them on the (C) line. It's in need of a serious upgrade. It's simply tragic when an R32 closes on people and don't open back up.

 

Did we not already cover this several times...

 

R160s CANNOT RUN ON THE (A) OR (C) BECAUSE OR STRUCTURAL TRACK PROBLEMS!

 

IT'S BEEN COVERD HERE SEVERAL TIMES! GET OVER THAT DREAM!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The V had none assigned, so there is nowhere for them to go.

 

The W line R160s, as well as some of the N line R160s went to the Q.

 

The (V) did use R160s, so they went back to the (F) or (R). Since those were the other two lines that used R46s (in conjunction with R160s) which were transferred when the (V) was eliminated, they went back to those lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's smart. The (N) and (Q) already has enough 160s, why would they need more? I think it would of been smarter to put them on the (C) line. It's in need of a serious upgrade. It's simply tragic when an R32 closes on people and don't open back up.

 

Tragic? I call it "tough shit".

 

And FTR, the (C) is fine as it is. Just because they have the older trains does not mean they aren't doing their job. And they shouldn't be sidelined as a backup fleet because of their age either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CIY is now (;)(N)(Q)(S). Eliminate the shuttle for R160's. I heard the (N) is half-and-half, so that means less NTT's there. I did the math on making the (N) and (Q) all NTT, which is about 41 trains (joekorner). That would still leave 7 R160 trains left over. I'm thinking there's more than 7 left over now because the (N) is not all R160. I'm thinking we'll see some 160 (:) trains soon. Unless of course, I'm missing something...?

 

 

I don't think you'll see R160's on the (B),CI has enough R68/A cars to cover the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now the R160s have no 2-car married pairs.

 

What's so hard about linking Two R160s together! Does it really have based on specifics. If the M shuttle only has 4-car R160s then the MTA should have no problem linking two simple R160s together to make a (S)huttle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's so hard about linking Two R160s together! Does it really have based on specifics. If the M shuttle only has 4-car R160s then the MTA should have no problem linking two simple R160s together to make a (S)huttle.

 

The lack of a legitimate reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's so hard about linking Two R160s together! Does it really have based on specifics. If the M shuttle only has 4-car R160s then the MTA should have no problem linking two simple R160s together to make a (S)huttle.

 

The R160A-1s come in 4 car paired sets. The R160A-2s, and R160Bs are in 5 car paired sets. You can't recouple just 2 cars for service. If the (MTA) was thinking about replacing the fleet for the shuttles, they would have ordered them as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CIY is now (B)(N)(Q)(S). Eliminate the shuttle for R160's. I heard the (N) is half-and-half, so that means less NTT's there. I did the math on making the (N) and (Q) all NTT, which is about 41 trains (joekorner). That would still leave 7 R160 trains left over. I'm thinking there's more than 7 left over now because the (N) is not all R160. I'm thinking we'll see some 160 (B) trains soon. Unless of course, I'm missing something...?

You are. They need those extra R160s for spare trains.

Did we not already cover this several times...

 

R160s CANNOT RUN ON THE (A) OR (C) BECAUSE OR STRUCTURAL TRACK PROBLEMS!

 

IT'S BEEN COVERD HERE SEVERAL TIMES! GET OVER THAT DREAM!

That's not true. The R160s have no problems running on the (C). The other day some (E) trains went up CPW on the (C) line due to a problem on the (E) line. Also, R160s regularly test out in the Rockaways. Multiple users here have gotten pics and vids of R160s testing out there. That "power problem" out in the Rockaways that was causing problems for the R160s on the (A) has likely been solved already, what with all of the work they've been doing out in the Rockaways recently (if not in the years immediately following the R160 testing on the (A)).

The (V) did use R160s, so they went back to the (F) or (R). Since those were the other two lines that used R46s (in conjunction with R160s) which were transferred when the (V) was eliminated, they went back to those lines.

The (V) ran R160s, but there were no R160s specifically assigned to the route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did we not already cover this several times...

 

R160s CANNOT RUN ON THE (A) OR (C) BECAUSE OR STRUCTURAL TRACK PROBLEMS!

 

IT'S BEEN COVERD HERE SEVERAL TIMES! GET OVER THAT DREAM!

NO! The (C) could run R160s

 

The R160 (E) got rerouted over CPW Local a couple months ago and it ran fine

R160 (E) also run on the same track as the (C) from PABT to Canal St

R160 (F) ran fine when it got rerouted onto the (C) from Jay to W4 and vice versa

R160 (F) has ran both Fulton Local and Fulton Express before

 

The R160 (A) cant run in the ROCKAWAYS smart one, because the salty air causes power loss and rust to the R160s, however R160 (A)s still run fine to Ozone Park

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did we not already cover this several times...

 

R160s CANNOT RUN ON THE (A) OR (C) BECAUSE OR STRUCTURAL TRACK PROBLEMS!

 

IT'S BEEN COVERD HERE SEVERAL TIMES! GET OVER THAT DREAM!

 

NO! The (C) could run R160s

 

The R160 (E) got rerouted over CPW Local a couple months ago and it ran fine

R160 (E) also run on the same track as the (C) from PABT to Canal St

R160 (F) ran fine when it got rerouted onto the (C) from Jay to W4 and vice versa

R160 (F) has ran both Fulton Local and Fulton Express before

 

The R160 (A) cant run in the ROCKAWAYS smart one, because the salty air causes power loss and rust to the R160s, however R160 (A)s still run fine to Ozone Park

 

What the hell are you two talking about???There is absolutely no issue running R160s on the (A) or the (C). Rusting? Get real. Structural problems??? Yeah right!

 

Get your facts straight or don't don't post!

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.