MattTrain Posted March 31, 2009 Share #1 Posted March 31, 2009 The R160B (Kawasaki-built ones) was running on the F line yesterday, caught me by surprise. Take a look for yourself. R32 set on the F line. Here's the R160B on the F the ones built by Kawasaki. I'm still organizing these photos, there will be more later. Enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 31, 2009 Share #2 Posted March 31, 2009 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted March 31, 2009 Share #3 Posted March 31, 2009 Superb shots there dude! I would have taken shots but this caught me off guard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North-Eastern T/O Posted March 31, 2009 Share #4 Posted March 31, 2009 Yes there are 2 R160b's running on the from CIY. CIY lent the 2 trains so crews could get use to them faster so when there come in the change over will be smother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTrain Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted March 31, 2009 Nice pix of the R-32 and R-160B ... I so love the R-160B's, ! Thanks a lot, well I saw only one set on the yesterday. I thought the was only going to use the cars. Superb shots there dude! I would have taken shots but this caught me off guard. Thanks, man. The R160B on was a surprise to me. The Alstom built R160A had only been running on the and a R160B (the ones built by Kawasaki) is on the Yes there are 2 R160b's running on the from CIY. CIY lent the 2 trains so crews could get use to them faster so when there come in the change over will be smother. Excellent, the borrowing the Coney Island based R160B's are nice. Are there different propulsion motors used on the R160B cars the is borrowing? Just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTrain Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share #6 Posted March 31, 2009 Hi, everyone, I have more of the R160B on the . Here they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSmith Posted March 31, 2009 Share #7 Posted March 31, 2009 No advertising in many of the cars. That teal plastic looks kinda nice. You know, looking at the pics of the inside of the R32, the R32 is wider inside than the R160. Curved sides are eating up space. But, why is the R160 more narrow inside than the R44/R46/R68? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bracamonte Posted March 31, 2009 Share #8 Posted March 31, 2009 No advertising in many of the cars. That teal plastic looks kinda nice. You know, looking at the pics of the inside of the R32, the R32 is wider inside than the R160. Curved sides are eating up space. But, why is the R160 more narrow inside than the R44/R46/R68? R44/R46/R68 are 75-foot cars. The R160 are 60-foot cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metsfan Posted March 31, 2009 Share #9 Posted March 31, 2009 I've seen a lot of cars without ads recently. - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tbirdbassist Posted March 31, 2009 Share #10 Posted March 31, 2009 R44/R46/R68 are 75-foot cars. The R160 are 60-foot cars. And you don't know the difference between length and width. The R160's appear to have less interior room due to the curved bodies, but in reality I think have a bit more standing room and a few more seats than R32-42 since only 4 of the cars have full width cabs as apposed to the others with half width in every car at every end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSmith Posted March 31, 2009 Share #11 Posted March 31, 2009 And you don't know the difference between length and width. The R160's appear to have less interior room due to the curved bodies, but in reality I think have a bit more standing room and a few more seats than R32-42 since only 4 of the cars have full width cabs as apposed to the others with half width in every car at every end. The R160s do not feel spacious. Standing room increasing, I'm not sure. Kinda doubt it. Seating room, for 60-footers can't beat the R32 and retired R38. The doors are not as wide as the R42. If you go on an R32 train, and notice how many are seated between the doors, it is between 6 and 7. If you go on an R42, it is between 5 and 6. On an R160, it's usually 5 and some area is open because of that pole in the center of the bench seats. As for the original question about the R160 vs. the R44/46/68 width, the R44 to R68 also have curved sides. But they are wider inside than the R143/R160. I have the feeling that the R160 is narrower due to bridge clearances on the J/M lines, but I'm not sure. The 75 footers can not run on the J/M and I think one of the reasons is because they are too wide. I'm sorry, but the R32, as outmoded as it is, is the most functional passenger-wise. The poles are very intelligently placed going away from the doors to the seated areas (very obvious in the pic of the R32 F's interior). That's a big problem with people standing by the doors with the R42, because those poles are placed by the doors clogging that critical area of the subway car. The doors aren't offset on the R160, another design decision I don't understand. They are in some of the R142s. That too helps passenger flow. I understand there are less seats, the doors have more space around them for standees. This helps. But, I have to say, riding the crowded A and E and F for years, the R32/R38, to this day, carries passengers more efficiently and handles crowds better than anything that has been designed since. So, functionally, I don't think the designers of the R143/R160s learned their lessons from trains designed over 40 years ago. :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted March 31, 2009 Share #12 Posted March 31, 2009 Walls may be thicker on the R160. Other than that, I think their roofline is about an inch wider than the R44/46s. The outline of an R160 will fit entirely into that of an R32. At the level of the roof, R44/R46s are slightly narrower than A division equipment. I think the R160s roof width is almost exactly the same as that of IRT equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSmith Posted March 31, 2009 Share #13 Posted March 31, 2009 Walls may be thicker on the R160. Other than that, I think their roofline is about an inch wider than the R44/46s. The outline of an R160 will fit entirely into that of an R32. At the level of the roof, R44/R46s are slightly narrower than A division equipment. I think the R160s roof width is almost exactly the same as that of IRT equipment. Per Wikipedia: (I know, not the greatest source) R46 Car length 75 ft (22.9 m) Width 10 ft (3.0 m) Height 12.08 ft (3.7 m) R32 Car length 60 ft 3 in (18.4 m)[over coupler faces] Width 10 ft (3.0 m) Height 12.08 ft (3.7 m) R160 Car length 60.21 feet (18.35 m) Width 9.77 feet (2.98 m) Height 12.13 feet (3.70 m) Can anyone verify these numbers? .22 feet less in width and thicker walls, R160 would be narrower.(the walls seem thicker to me, also r46 walls seem thicker than r32 walls) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted March 31, 2009 Share #14 Posted March 31, 2009 While I do not have any such documentation at hand at the moment, I can tell you that the measurements are visibly incorrect(Meters and Feet are not in agreement.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tbirdbassist Posted March 31, 2009 Share #15 Posted March 31, 2009 The R160s do not feel spacious. Standing room increasing, I'm not sure. Kinda doubt it. Seating room, for 60-footers can't beat the R32 and retired R38. The doors are not as wide as the R42. If you go on an R32 train, and notice how many are seated between the doors, it is between 6 and 7. If you go on an R42, it is between 5 and 6. On an R160, it's usually 5 and some area is open because of that pole in the center of the bench seats. As for the original question about the R160 vs. the R44/46/68 width, the R44 to R68 also have curved sides. But they are wider inside than the R143/R160. I have the feeling that the R160 is narrower due to bridge clearances on the J/M lines, but I'm not sure. The 75 footers can not run on the J/M and I think one of the reasons is because they are too wide. I'm sorry, but the R32, as outmoded as it is, is the most functional passenger-wise. The poles are very intelligently placed going away from the doors to the seated areas (very obvious in the pic of the R32 F's interior). That's a big problem with people standing by the doors with the R42, because those poles are placed by the doors clogging that critical area of the subway car. The doors aren't offset on the R160, another design decision I don't understand. They are in some of the R142s. That too helps passenger flow. I understand there are less seats, the doors have more space around them for standees. This helps. But, I have to say, riding the crowded A and E and F for years, the R32/R38, to this day, carries passengers more efficiently and handles crowds better than anything that has been designed since. So, functionally, I don't think the designers of the R143/R160s learned their lessons from trains designed over 40 years ago. :mad: Two 75ft cars can't pass each other on the Crescent St curve, they'll knock into each other if they do. I do believe they can run on the M but I'm not sure of the turn after Myrtle, they might knock into each other there too if two tried passing each other. And I agree with you that the R32/38 are/were the most efficient for passenger flow. Maybe someone from the car design department at the MTA will think to change things around for the R179 when it ever materializes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted March 31, 2009 Share #16 Posted March 31, 2009 The issue with the R44/46/68s on the eastern division is ENTIRELY due to length and not width. The R179 designs are interesting to say the least... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted March 31, 2009 Share #17 Posted March 31, 2009 Nice pics! Yes there are 2 R160b's running on the from CIY. CIY lent the 2 trains so crews could get use to them faster so when there come in the change over will be smother. Interesting, you have the numbers for the other set? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTrain Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share #18 Posted April 1, 2009 No advertising in many of the cars. That teal plastic looks kinda nice. You know, looking at the pics of the inside of the R32, the R32 is wider inside than the R160. Curved sides are eating up space. But, why is the R160 more narrow inside than the R44/R46/R68? That plastic was covering the board that would have some advertisements on it. Its really weird not to see any adds on the R160B . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.