5 Years Later: Have you guys warmed up to the R160A and R160B?

[R188 7857]

Ok can we stop with the foam-or not thing? Its just a train. As long as they get people from point A to point B, it doesn't matter.

[Guest lance25]

the MTA uses Windows NT 4.0 on the metrocard machines. not 100% sure what they use on the trains but it's probably similar.

 

replacing hardware and upgrading software on the trains will only add to maintenance costs. the MTA should have used a custom modified version of linux imo.

 

the R160 warranties don't last forever; as far as I understand once the warranties run out then kawasaki/alstom won't be responsible for the costs of repair and whatnot.

 

the trains won't cost so much $$$ if the MTA doesn't order them with such extravagant features. they don't need to run Windows on the trains, they don't need those steel interior end walls and window trims, don't need 3 passenger intercoms for each car, don't need CBTC, don't need cab radios, the list goes on and on.

 

and like i said what happens when it's time to retire the R160 fleet...where is the MTA going to get the $$$ to buy so many cars to replace them all at once? unless if they get smart and phase them out slowly, they'll be stuck in the cycle of buying thousands of cars at once.

 

1) Regardless of what they use for their computers now, there's no way in hell said computers would last the entire lifespan of the cars. Who in their right mind would keep the same hardware and software for 40+ years? Especially when technology is improving every few years or so.

 

2) Of course warranties don't last forever. That's not news. Did St. Louis Car come to the rescue of the R44 when structural issues took the trains out of service? No. Does Westinghouse or Kawasaki pay for the general maintenance of the R68(a)s? No, the does. You know why? Because warranties expire after a certain amount of times or the trains hit a certain mileage; just like a regular car.

 

3) I'm almost positive most would disagree with what's needed on the trains. For starters, cars have three speakers per car so people won't have to strain to hear what the conductor of automated announcements are saying from one end of the car. Also, it's an ADA mandate that everyone is able to hear announcements clearly.

 

As to the cab radios, so you're saying that the conductor and T/O don't need to communicate with each other without using the public address system? Just making sure.

 

Concerning the CBTC system and the car build, the first is in place because the intends to upgrade it's aging signals with ones compatible for CBTC. For the latter, the cars were built the way they were because they have to deal with the damaging conditions of the NYC Subway, not some Mickey Mouse transit system. Would you rather they pay through the nose for repairs for cars made of materials akin to tinfoil or do you want them to pay for cars that will endure all the crap they're put through? One upfront cost will always outweigh repair costs for multiple major structural problems.

 

4) Who knows how the (or whatever agency exists in the future) will handle the retirement of the R160s. The youngest cars are just over a year old. I can tell you however that we won't be in this same economic situation we're in currently and if you believe otherwise, I suggest you brush up on your economic history. Also, like I said before, it's much more cost-efficient that the bought 1700 hundred cars at once rather than pay for several orders at increasing prices. The older cars needed to be replaced basically at the same time, so they needed that large order, just like the relatively large R142(a) order replaced several classes of redbirds in one fell swoop.

 

Ok can we stop with the foam-or not thing? Its just a train. As long as they get people from point A to point B, it doesn't matter.

 

No one's foaming here. It's quite alright to like or dislike a particular car class. It just annoys me when people have to find bullshit reasons why said car class sucks though.

[R188 7857]

[error46146]

1) Regardless of what they use for their computers now, there's no way in hell said computers would last the entire lifespan of the cars. Who in their right mind would keep the same hardware and software for 40+ years? Especially when technology is improving every few years or so.

 

2) Of course warranties don't last forever. That's not news. Did St. Louis Car come to the rescue of the R44 when structural issues took the trains out of service? No. Does Westinghouse or Kawasaki pay for the general maintenance of the R68(a)s? No, the does. You know why? Because warranties expire after a certain amount of times or the trains hit a certain mileage; just like a regular car.

 

3) I'm almost positive most would disagree with what's needed on the trains. For starters, cars have three speakers per car so people won't have to strain to hear what the conductor of automated announcements are saying from one end of the car. Also, it's an ADA mandate that everyone is able to hear announcements clearly.

 

As to the cab radios, so you're saying that the conductor and T/O don't need to communicate with each other without using the public address system? Just making sure.

 

Concerning the CBTC system and the car build, the first is in place because the intends to upgrade it's aging signals with ones compatible for CBTC. For the latter, the cars were built the way they were because they have to deal with the damaging conditions of the NYC Subway, not some Mickey Mouse transit system. Would you rather they pay through the nose for repairs for cars made of materials akin to tinfoil or do you want them to pay for cars that will endure all the crap they're put through? One upfront cost will always outweigh repair costs for multiple major structural problems.

 

4) Who knows how the (or whatever agency exists in the future) will handle the retirement of the R160s. The youngest cars are just over a year old. I can tell you however that we won't be in this same economic situation we're in currently and if you believe otherwise, I suggest you brush up on your economic history. Also, like I said before, it's much more cost-efficient that the bought 1700 hundred cars at once rather than pay for several orders at increasing prices. The older cars needed to be replaced basically at the same time, so they needed that large order, just like the relatively large R142(a) order replaced several classes of redbirds in one fell swoop.

 

 

 

No one's foaming here. It's quite alright to like or dislike a particular car class. It just annoys me when people have to find bullshit reasons why said car class sucks though.

there are more than three public address speakers on the r160 or any subway car. im talking about the passenger intercoms to talk to the train crew, there is no need to have 3 of those.

 

the t/o's each carry individual portable radios, and in addition there is also a private cab-only communication system on the trains so the crews can still communicate without using the public address system.

 

CBTC is a waste of $$$ and effort, and will only lead to failure like the MTA's previous attempts at automated train operation.

 

your statement #4 proves my point about the short-sightedness of the massiveness of the R160 order. there are plenty of older cars that are in well working condition; they may not be in mint condition or have all the bells and whistles of a new train but nevertheless they still serve their purpose in an appropriate manner.

[Guest lance25]

First off, CBTC and ATO are two separate things entirely. Look for SubwayGuy's post on the subject for more details. Not even getting into the automated train operation part of the system, CBTC is slated to add more trains to the lines, something that is desperately needed. It's not just a waste of money as you claim. If it was, there wouldn't be so many transit systems worldwide clamoring for the technology. Plus, our signalling system needs an upgrade as they are positively ancient.

 

Secondly, no matter how you slice it, we needed 1700 cars at around the same time. You're not gonna win this argument. Look at the cars that were retired: R32s (366 cars), R38s (all 200), R40s (all) (400), R42s (352) and R44s (all 378). That's 1,696 cars retired between 2007 and 2010, all of which were reaching the end of their nominal lifespans. If the waited to order small amounts of cars gradually, there would've either been a serious car shortage or we'd be seeing cars in and out of service with problems similar to the R32s and R42s we have left. And that reminds me, look at how long it's taking to get the R179 order started. If we had to wait for several small orders to replace the SMEE fleet, we'd be waiting for new trains through the next decade.

[error46146]

the MTA wants to install CBTC so they can eventually use it for ATO. the other transit system can do whatever they want, we are not them. other transit systems do not run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year so they can test whatever they want there. I dont see any reason why the MTA cannot add more trains to the line using the existing signal system they have now.

 

I don't believe that every single car the R160 has replaced was in a dire need of disposal, many of the cars in the older fleets ran just fine. They should have replaced only the worst off, and slowly phased out the rest.

 

the R179 is taking so long to work out because the MTA is now broke having spent soo much $$$ on the R160 that now they are willing to refurbish the R32s to last until 2017.

 

whether I win this petty argument or not I will always see the R160 as a nuisance, not much I can do about it but I can always have an opinion against it. they are not fun to ride in, they aren't even photogenic, and I have no reason to like them.

[SubwayGuy]

the MTA wants to install CBTC so they can eventually use it for ATO. the other transit system can do whatever they want, we are not them. other transit systems do not run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year so they can test whatever they want there. I dont see any reason why the MTA cannot add more trains to the line using the existing signal system they have now.

 

And that's why you're a railfan, and you don't work in ops planning.

 

With conventional block signalling used by NYCT, let's take an example.

 

Suppose it is safe for two trains traveling 25 MPH over the same stretch of track to be a minimum distance of 600 feet apart. 599 feet is not safe, but 600 is. At 600 feet, the second train can be stopped in time to prevent a collision with the first one in any type of condition.

 

Suppose conventional block signals are placed every 500 feet.

 

Now, in order to maintain a safe following distance, those trains must be spaced 1,000 feet apart, to leave the mandatory (under block signalling) 600 feet distance.

 

CBTC allows those trains to be 600 feet apart, and stops the second train if it gets an inch closer.

 

CBTC allows trains to wrong rail or single track at high speed - safely - without the need for a baton, a pilot, signal personnel to hook stop arms and flaggers to flag trains through, or slow speed restrictions.

 

I've said before that ATO is unnecessary, and I stand by that. But CBTC is useful and does serve a purpose. It's just too expensive to make a priority system wide at the present time.

 

I don't believe that every single car the R160 has replaced was in a dire need of disposal, many of the cars in the older fleets ran just fine. They should have replaced only the worst off, and slowly phased out the rest.

 

Not true at all. A lot of the older cars ran like shit, or had serious body rot problems. Keeping a few of each around would have been a headache for car equipment which would need to stock parts for all kinds of different equipment then.

 

the R179 is taking so long to work out because the MTA is now broke having spent soo much $$$ on the R160 that now they are willing to refurbish the R32s to last until 2017.

 

whether I win this petty argument or not I will always see the R160 as a nuisance, not much I can do about it but I can always have an opinion against it. they are not fun to ride in, they aren't even photogenic, and I have no reason to like them.

 

Your opinion but then you don't make the decisions right?

 

So on and on the "i like this i don't like that" thread will go...

 

cooler heads never prevail..

[traildriver]

As new cars go, I like the R160’s well enough. They are generally comfortable to ride in and are reliable. I don’t get the hate about the bench seats – they are no different than the classic subway bench seats of yesteryear and much better than bucket seats in my opinion.

 

I like the benches in the R160's better than the 'bucket type' and also better than the short backed ones in the R40 and R42's. The older cars like the R32 and R38's (and older as well), were to me a bit more comfortable in design.

The dividers on the new cars adjacent to the doors, are better to lean on than the older cars, (except for the solid panels on the R44-46's), unless you go waaaay back to the old BMT Standards that had those fold down seats that would block off a door.

[8thAveExpress]

 

What game is that??

[DJ MC]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[The I Man]

It was love at first sight(or ride). I miss the 38's, 40's and 44's, but heck, its progress

[Ms. W Supporter]

I have not warmed up.

 

I miss the various styles of trains.

 

If they want upgrade due to technology and safety, at least make some variation in styling. A train doesn't have to look like a clone..it can be pleasing to the eye too. Some of those trains in Japan look hott.

 

I also like window seats. I once saw an image of a proposed train with window seats. I wish they kept that idea.

[DJ MC]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Roadcruiser1]

The R68's along with all the other old trains up to the R44's had the window seat, and the R68's along with the R46's besides the R68's still have it, but people riding the subway started complaining about the lack of seats when they were introduced, because bench seating actually gives more seats for passengers to sit down, and the window seating concept died.

[trainfan22]

I have warmed up to these cars, I still really like the SMEEs for as they got me into the hobby. But all these NTT cars are pleasant to ride, good A/C, smooth ride and nice pickup. I got one on the today with broken A/C, I stayed in the car as that is rare (Only the third time that that has happened to me on the subway).

[Ms. W Supporter]

The R68's along with all the other old trains up to the R44's had the window seat, and the R68's along with the R46's besides the R68's still have it, but people riding the subway started complaining about the lack of seats when they were introduced, because bench seating actually gives more seats for passengers to sit down, and the window seating concept died.

 

I thought window seating arrangement gave more seats, because that middle area (the window seats) stick out...creating more seating...

 

I miss my (R68a) N train..

[Roadcruiser1]

Not really. If you look it up bench seating offers more seating space.

[Grand Concourse]

Bench seating makes it more comfortable overall since people are not sitting in small bucket seats. Those bucket seats are lacking a 'divider' as in it was designed when people were thinner and perhaps the designer forgot that people have 'arms'. that is why I prefer bench seating over pre-arranged bucket seats.

 

Meh, my only thing with these R160s is the A/C, It's like a fan blowing around compared to the R68s that at times have brick cold A/C.

 

I somewhat agree. To me they are both 'about the same'. I really don't 'like' nor care much about the R160s. But if they do the job, that's all I care about at this point. My interest in the subways has gone way down when the R38-40s were retired. The system will become even more boring if the R179s look the same as the R160s. So I'm not looking forward to the system when the R32s retires.

 

I know the R32 haters will likely rejoyce, but then gone will be the rfw and anything unique in the system.

 

"You only appreciate something when it is gone."

[R32 3348]

Not really. If you look it up bench seating offers more seating space.

75-footers like the R46s (the R68s/R68As too if they had the cabs removed) have 70 seats per A car and 76 seats per B car. That's 584 seats per train, keeping in mind there are only 8 cars to a 600' train. A 60-footer such as the R160 has 42 seats per A car and 44 seats per B car. That works out to 432 seats per train, given that there are 10 cars to a 600' train. 75-footers have more seating space but are not as efficient when it comes to standing space, so it evens out.

 

Also, were the to order 75-footers in the future they would most likely come with 10 doors per car (so they would align with the doors on a train made up of 60-footers - this is how the original 75-footers should have come IMO). This would further reduce seating space and increase standing space making them more or less the same as 60-footers. Bucket seating on the 75-footers takes up more space because it's transverse seating. Bucket seats on the R62/R62As are hardly any different than bench seats on the R142/R142As.

[nightrider]

I don't ride the R160s that often, unless I go to my friend's house in Brooklyn. I like the cars. They ride smooth and have good acceleration and speed. Although, I never liked their seats. The design of the backs always made me slightly uncomfortable. I think the R-32 had the best design for bench seating. Anyway, with the white walls and light blue seats of the cars' interior I always thought of it as a little bland.

 

The cars are great and I just hope they don't fall apart before their time like the R-44s. :confused: