Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
MattTrain

R160B on (F)

Recommended Posts

The R160B (Kawasaki-built ones) was running on the F line yesterday, caught me by surprise. Take a look for yourself.

001.jpg

002.jpg

R32 set on the F line.

 

Here's the R160B on the F the ones built by Kawasaki.

003.jpg

004.jpg

005.jpg

006.jpg

007.jpg

008.jpg

009.jpg

010.jpg

011.jpg

012.jpg

013.jpg

014.jpg

015.jpg

016.jpg

017.jpg

018.jpg

019-1.jpg

020.jpg

021.jpg

022.jpg

023.jpg

024.jpg

025.jpg

026.jpg

027.jpg

028.jpg

029.jpg

030.jpg

031.jpg

032.jpg

033.jpg

034.jpg

035.jpg

036.jpg

037.jpg

038.jpg

039.jpg

040.jpg

041.jpg

042.jpg

043.jpg

044.jpg

045.jpg

046.jpg

047.jpg

048.jpg

049.jpg

050.jpg

 

I'm still organizing these photos, there will be more later. Enjoy!

Edited by MattTrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice pix of the R-32 (F) and R-160B (F)... I so love the R-160B's, ;)!

 

Thanks a lot, well I saw only one set on the (F) yesterday. I thought the (E) 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 (F) was a surprise to me. The Alstom built R160A had only been running on the (F) and a R160B (the ones built by Kawasaki) is on the (F)

 

Yes there are 2 R160b's running on the (F) from CIY. CIY lent the (F) 2 trains so crews could get use to them faster so when there come in the change over will be smother.

 

Excellent, the (F) borrowing the Coney Island based R160B's are nice. Are there different propulsion motors used on the R160B cars the (F) is borrowing? Just wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice pics!

Yes there are 2 R160b's running on the (F) from CIY. CIY lent the (F) 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 (F) .

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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