Jump to content

R188 Discussion Thread


East New York

Recommended Posts

Hell yeah. Look at the R143 and R160. The MTA had some upgrades on R160 such as FIND system, Brighter interior, Dead-man handle, Metal plates around the window edges (in interior) to prevent vandalism, and glass not being able to be scratched. The cab corners is made of metal and not plastic. The R188 (fresh built sets) has same traction motors as R142A. It holds on to that old technology such as strip maps. It so very unoriginal not creative. 

 

The stainless steel panels in the R160 interiors seem to attract more vandalism instead of preventing it. Most if not all of those R160 interiors look awful now because of the stainless steel. Most notable are those acid tags which seem to be on most R160 interiors. I would have preferred it if the MTA had dropped the stainless steel interior for the R179s. 

 

 

I noticed the converted R188s are coupled in a specific number

Ex: West to 34 St: end units with 1 and the 5 as the 5th car, 6th car ends with a #6 and 10 as the 11th car

 

Yeah, 5 car sets are always (7XX1-7XX5) with the X5 car conducting. 6 car sets are always (7XX6-79XX-7XX0) with the 6 car in the middle as well. I noticed this awhile ago, that all R188s that are paired in the middle have a "No coupler adapter in this car" sticker. It is very rare that a car with this sticker leads, unless it's testing, when they do have them lead occasionally. However, there was one instance where a car with no coupler adapter lead in service. I'm guessing the reason to have those cars conduct is in the event the train stalls, to have the coupler adapter accessible in the first car.

Edited by Tech And Transit
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 7.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Are you kidding me? $3 will be completely worth it. It will help finance the Second Phase of the SAS, and it will allow for new subway car orders, it will allow for station rehabilitations, and it will make sure that the system is not driven into the ground. I would be willing to pay that much per ride. Also, it is a real bargain if you are going from Inwood–207th Street to Far Rockaway!

I can't wait. I'm sure they'll be awesome.

 

Buses north of 287 can go an average of 37-42 MPH and have an average route length of twenty miles, and provide access to as many as two to three malls per route.

 

Transit and commerce go hand in hand but it's a delicate balance I believe the MTA is disregarding. There will be improvements but there will be fallout.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

No. $3 per ride is extortion plain and simple. I'd rather pay $2 for each new MetroCard than $3 a ride which is ridiculous.

Glad someone agrees. BTW it costs 15¢ to extract $1 from vending machine sales so I believe a physical card price increase would help make up for lost costs without pricing out poorer riders.

 

Also, a rewriting and renewed promotion of the EasyPay program. The more riders on that program, the less TVMs will be needed and the easier it'll be to transition the system to contactless.

 

As I said before, I don't expect the MTA to bargain on that. I'm a realist before an optimist because I hate disappointment. I will prepare myself for $140 monthlies...

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

Did you honestly expect something different when the majority of the cars are simply upgraded versions of the 142As?

Good point. :\

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell yeah. Look at the R143 and R160. The MTA had some upgrades on R160 such as FIND system, Brighter interior, Dead-man handle, Metal plates around the window edges (in interior) to prevent vandalism, and glass not being able to be scratched. The cab corners is made of metal and not plastic. The R188 (fresh built sets) has same traction motors as R142A. It holds on to that old technology such as strip maps. It so very unoriginal not creative. 

The 143s were designed and built for the (L) line. The fact that they appear on the (J) and (Z) occasionally is irrelevant. When the 160s were designed, they were intended to run on several B-Division lines, which necessitated the much more flexible FIND system instead of the strip maps found on the 142s, 143s and 188s. All of the other things you listed are minor cosmetic things that the MTA decided to add on in the intervening years between when the 143s were ordered and when the 160s were. 

 

I know it's hard to comprehend, but the MTA, along with its predecessors, usually stick with a tried and true design for several classes of cars, usually based around a particular decade. That's why the 44s and 46s look very similar, much like the retired redbird cars and the 62s and 68s to their A-counterparts. The MTA, or whatever agency running the subway system, will choose a design for a car class and stick with it for several orders for cost efficiency.

 

Ha ha ha ha ha.

 

Oh wait, you're serious.

 

Let me laugh even harder.

It is amusing. I don't know why he thinks every car class is going to involve a completely new design. It's even more hilarious when the subject in question is a car order like the R188, which was basically a conversion order with a few additional cars to make up the difference between the Westchester and Corona fleet requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part which I enjoyed the most was the proclamation that using strip maps and R142A traction motors is uncreative.

 

I mean, I can't say that vehicle designing doesn't involve any creativity - the PCC streetcar, IMO, was a very imaginative and creative design - but come on.

I think the (2)(5) combo map is a great first step.

 

I also think they should create a (4)(6), (A/C)(Fl and (3)(4) combo maps too since those lines are pretty much hitched at this point.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (2) and (5) only have combined strip maps because the fleets of those two lines are so often shared. The (4)(6), (3)(4) and (A)(C)(F) don't share fleets, so such a venture would be pointless.

 

^^^ THIS

 

At Flatbush, some (2) trains will go back up to the Bronx as (5) trains and vice versa, hence why the combined strip map is useful and it works.

 

The (4) and (6) only run together in Manhattan, so that's not gonna work. Same with the (3) and (4), they only run together in Brooklyn, afterwards they don't overlap anywhere else. The (A) and (C) could work as one strip map, but definitely not with the (F), as the (A) / (C) and (F) don't run on the same line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (2) and (5) only have combined strip maps because the fleets of those two lines are so often shared. The (4)(6), (3)(4) and (A)(C)(F) don't share fleets, so such a venture would be pointless.

The (2) and (5) also share the same tracks and routes in the Bronx and Brooklyn, making such a line map more understandable to the average rider. Combining the other routes onto one line map would be incomprehensible since the latter's commonality is its shared connections at W 4 Street and Jay St. The other two "potentials" branch off at certain points. All three run widely different routes that the average person would not understand if it's crammed on one of those line maps simply for the sake of combining the "shared routes". It also ignores the most important things about all of this: none of these lines use 142s or 143s, nor do they share fleets at any point besides the odd car move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (2) and (5) also share the same tracks and routes in the Bronx and Brooklyn, making such a line map more understandable to the average rider. Combining the other routes onto one line map would be incomprehensible since the latter's commonality is its shared connections at W 4 Street and Jay St. The other two "potentials" branch off at certain points. All three run widely different routes that the average person would not understand if it's crammed on one of those line maps simply for the sake of combining the "shared routes". It also ignores the most important things about all of this: none of these lines use 142s or 143s, nor do they share fleets at any point besides the odd car move.

One other thing you forgot to add about the (2)(5)... Both lines suck, especially in the Bronx... Knocked out of service more than anything... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (2) and (5) only have combined strip maps because the fleets of those two lines are so often shared. The (4)(6), (3)(4) and (A)(C)(F) don't share fleets, so such a venture would be pointless.

Lately they have. Those suggestions are in line with recent service changes.

 

Also, the (A)(C)(F) may not share a fleet, but they share several stations, switches and station designs. And they're all a part of the IND division.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

You have to remember this is the guy who also suggested (J) / (L) strip maps in the R143

That would make even more sense as (J) have borrowed (L) cars often. And when construction begins on those tubes the (J) might as well have a (G) combo map too.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

Lol...VG Im surprised you dont have a car by now...You have 0 patients when it comes to the subway...

Agreed. And I have way too much, I just don't spare any down here where transit is at its most deplorable and disrespected.

 

The constant shutting down of those lines is bound to have DYRE CONSEQUENCES... OWO

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

Edited by MassTransitHonchkrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lately they have. Those suggestions are in line with recent service changes.

 

Also, the (A)(C)(F) may not share a fleet, but they share several stations, switches and station designs. And they're all a part of the IND division.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

That would make even more sense as (J) have borrowed (L) cars often. And when construction begins on those tubes the (J) might as well have a (G) combo map too.

 

But... why? There is no point in creating an über confusing strip map on the basis that "Hey, these lines might share cars... possibly."

 

The (A)(C) share literally two stations with the (F). Creating a merged strip map would make as much sense as creating an (E)(J) shared strip map. The fact that they share switches, station designs, and are a part of the IND is barely a justification for such extravagance. Why not, then, create a merged (A)(C)(G) line map?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol...VG Im surprised you dont have a car by now...You have 0 patients when it comes to the subway...

To be honest if most of my commuting wasn't in Manhattan I would, as parking would likely be less of a headache.  That's likely the only reason.  Where possible I just take Metro-North or the express bus or even hop in taxis of late if somebody else is paying and don't want to take the subway with me (lol).  I ALMOST took the subway last night since I was staying in the city, but opted for Metro-North at the last minute. lol

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has turned into the Combo Strip Map discussion thread... which I believe there is a thread for already.

 

Also why is there even a discussion about merged strip maps on the B Division when the only B Division trains with strip maps are the 143s and the 160s outnumber them by quite a substantial amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lately they have. Those suggestions are in line with recent service changes.

 

Also, the (A)(C)(F) may not share a fleet, but they share several stations, switches and station designs. And they're all a part of the IND division.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

That would make even more sense as (J) have borrowed (L) cars often. And when construction begins on those tubes the (J) might as well have a (G) combo map too.

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

 

Service changes only happen on weekends, late nights, and middays. With the service changes you're referring to, there's absolutely no point in creating a combined strip map for that, which is why the MTA often makes brochures with the information and maps on that change. 

 

With your argument of the (A) / (C) and (F) sharing "several stations, switches, and station designs", there's no need as the R160s have FINDs, and they're able to display this info easily. Not to mention that it's really not that good of an argument for a combined (A) / (C) and (F) map.

 

And no... the (J) / (L) combo map is just as useless (if not more useless) than the others, since those two lines only meet at one station, and the R143s on the (J) are mainly for the (L) and thus don't need Nassau Street Line strip maps.

 

I'm not even going to mention the (J) / (G) map because I don't want to make my headache worse than it already is after reading this... But that's got to be the most useless idea out of all of these by far...

 

(That last one just made all of Wallyhorse's proposals look legit.  :lol:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has turned into the Combo Strip Map discussion thread... which I believe there is a thread for already.

 

Also why is there even a discussion about merged strip maps on the B Division when the only B Division trains with strip maps are the 143s and the 160s outnumber them by quite a substantial amount.

Agreed. This sub-discussion is completely pointless given the distribution of the 142s and 143s, the only cars with those line maps, and I'm surprised it continued as long as it did. There will not be any other combined line maps created any time soon. Move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has turned into the Combo Strip Map discussion thread... which I believe there is a thread for already.

 

Also why is there even a discussion about merged strip maps on the B Division when the only B Division trains with strip maps are the 143s and the 160s outnumber them by quite a substantial amount.

 

 

Seconded, it's called the Random Thoughts Thread. Not to mention that the R143s are specifically for the  (L) and don't need other strip maps.

Edited by r142a 7795
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But... why? There is no point in creating an über confusing strip map on the basis that "Hey, these lines might share cars... possibly."

 

The (A)(C) share literally two stations with the (F). Creating a merged strip map would make as much sense as creating an (E)(J) shared strip map. The fact that they share switches, station designs, and are a part of the IND is barely a justification for such extravagance. Why not, then, create a merged (A)(C)(G) line map?

Not permanently. In fact, the lighting system is fixed in a way that allows for the map layer to be hot swappable.

 

By no means did I mean permanent. Last Wednesday I was on the (2) and it the array was akin to the old (2) strip map even though the new one was there.

 

So I figured they could hot swap the outer layer depending on what they wanted to use the train for. Don't tell me it's impossible. But I'm sure they're just lazy.

 

I can relate...[emoji42]

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Service changes only happen on weekends, late nights, and middays. With the service changes you're referring to, there's absolutely no point in creating a combined strip map for that, which is why the MTA often makes brochures with the information and maps on that change.

 

With your argument of the (A) / (C) and (F) sharing "several stations, switches, and station designs", there's no need as the R160s have FINDs, and they're able to display this info easily. Not to mention that it's really not that good of an argument for a combined (A) / (C) and (F) map.

 

And no... the (J) / (L) combo map is just as useless (if not more useless) than the others, since those two lines only meet at one station, and the R143s on the (J) are mainly for the (L) and thus don't need Nassau Street Line strip maps.

 

I'm not even going to mention the (J) / (G) map because I don't want to make my headache worse than it already is after reading this... But that's got to be the most useless idea out of all of these by far...

 

(That last one just made all of Wallyhorse's proposals look legit. [emoji38])

Fashioning it like a roller is plausible. That way, you could turn a key and transform the map immediately. That way there'd be no reason to combine them like the (2)(5). You could simply stitch them to a belt.

 

When it comes to suggestions I'm on a roll... ',:-)

 

Sent from my m8 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or they could just be left the way they are...

 

^^^ This, please.

 

I'll say this again for the last time, the (2) / (5) combine map actually works because those lines are actually two sides of the same coin: they pretty much serve the same terminals, except one route goes along the East Side and one route goes on the West Side. From time to time, the (2) will run on the (5) and vice versa, and because of the combined map, you can display the (2) via the Lexington Ave Line or (5) via the 7th Avenue Line without having to put up "Route Map is not in use". That's why the (2) / (5) map is a success and that's why the others won't ever work.

 

Now can we please stay on topic from here on in?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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