R160s, my opinion

[MTR Admiralty]

Also, I'm not too sure that it is a great idea to order such a huge batch of trains. I think around 600 or so at a time is better. Let them be in service for awhile and then make modifications if necessary. I think if that was done, improvements could have been made to passenger flow for NTTs servicing the and .

 

Their intent is to get rid of the R32-R42 classes ASAP.

[MattTrain]

Their intent is to get rid of the R32-R42 classes ASAP.

 

And the R160 cars are coming in quite fast, I don't see any R40 slants, R42 cars, and R32 cars serving the anymore. I wonder until now why the R40 modified cars haven't been scrapped yet.

[via White Plains Road]

The R68s always bounce around in the 59th St. Tunnel, but the 160s don't.

 

 

Thank you....the R-46's do the same thing bounce around!

[MTR Admiralty]

And the R160 cars are coming in quite fast, I don't see any R40 slants, R42 cars, and R32 cars serving the anymore. I wonder until now why the R40 modified cars haven't been scrapped yet.

 

Negative.

I've seen R32s and R42s on the F this past week. The A still has slants (albeit, decreasing in number). The J will still run R42s until there are replacements for them.

[LTA1992]

 

Wonder if the MTA gets them working correctly if they could be retrofitted to the R142/R143. It may be a big job, though, something that could be done in a GOH way down the road.

 

Ive been suggesting the same thing.

 

Anyway, instead of those stupid bars on the ceiling, bring back the Metal Straps from the Redbirds. About the R46s running smoother, i agree except for the fact that most of them have a really annoying kick when they start to accelerate.

 

P.S., as of about a week and a half ago, the R160s claimed their first victims, the R38s. They're completely off the rails.

[MTR Admiralty]

P.S., as of about a week and a half ago, the R160s claimed their first victims, the R38s. They're completely off the rails.

 

We've noted that already, there were a couple of threads on that.

[BSmith]

Ive been suggesting the same thing.

 

About the R46s running smoother, i agree except for the fact that most of them have a really annoying kick when they start to accelerate.

 

 

 

Yes, they developed this sometime after their GOH. However, I've been on some R142s that have this "feature". Lots of R42s have this as well.

[BSmith]

Hmmm... IDK about this one. The R68s always bounce around in the 59th St. Tunnel, but the 160s don't.

 

I didn't ride the R68s in the tunnel. I rode from 7th Av to 57th.

 

Trains get less smooth as they are in service for awhile. And less quiet. The R68 has a gliding quality to its ride, like the R44 and R46. The R160 has a somewhat "busier" feel when it is moving. The R160 has air bags, as they age, we'll see how smooth they remain.

[LTA1992]

I didn't ride the R68s in the tunnel. I rode from 7th Av to 57th.

 

Trains get less smooth as they are in service for awhile. And less quiet. The R68 has a gliding quality to its ride, like the R44 and R46. The R160 has a somewhat "busier" feel when it is moving. The R160 has air bags, as they age, we'll see how smooth they remain.

 

Busier? In about 10 years then yes. It also depends what lines you ride them on. I've found the R160s on the to be smoother than the (W)s R160s. I dont know, it might just be the tunnel im riding in.

 

This may be off topic but has anyone else noticed that every Elevated in the system has a different sound. All the Els. sound different from each other.

[Urbanfortitude]

 

Anyway, instead of those stupid bars on the ceiling, bring back the Metal Straps from the Redbirds.

 

no thanks....I could see those things slapping people in the head very often. I heard they were a safety hazard on the redbirds too.

[MTR Admiralty]

Busier? In about 10 years then yes. It also depends what lines you ride them on. I've found the R160s on the to be smoother than the (W)s R160s. I dont know, it might just be the tunnel im riding in.

 

This may be off topic but has anyone else noticed that every Elevated in the system has a different sound. All the Els. sound different from each other.

 

The ones on the E, F, J, M and L are R160As. (E and F uses 1 set of R160Bs by the way). The ones on the N, Q and W are R160Bs (there are some R160As). It could be the propulsion they are using.

[Orion]

 

And the R160 cars are coming in quite fast, I don't see any R40 slants, R42 cars, and R32 cars serving the anymore. I wonder until now why the R40 modified cars haven't been scrapped yet.

I just rode car #4390 on the today, they're still around.

[Maserati7200]

[To Metatops]

Yeah, I saw about 5 R40/R42 (F)'s today and 3 R32 (F)'s today. Just yesterday I rode an R40 Slant train. Old 60' SMEE's are still here.

[KTrainExp]

This may be off topic but has anyone else noticed that every Elevated in the system has a different sound. All the Els. sound different from each other.

 

It does because I think they used a different quality track when it was built. Take into consideration that not everything was built all at once. And plus the tracks might be stuck together more frequently.

[dustclee]

My dislike of the R160's grows everyday.

The center bench pole annoys me; how the seats don't extend all the way to the doors and therefore creates uncomfortable situations when a fat people comes along and takes a seat; it's LOUD (compared to R68's at least); there aren't enough poles so people all still crowd around the door areas.

 

I really wish they introduced these trains to lines that actually needed upgrades... Broadway lines were perfectly fine with R68/A's.

[MTR Admiralty]

My dislike of the R160's grows everyday.

The center bench pole annoys me; how the seats don't extend all the way to the doors and therefore creates uncomfortable situations when a fat people comes along and takes a seat; it's LOUD (compared to R68's at least); there aren't enough poles so people all still crowd around the door areas.

 

I really wish they introduced these trains to lines that actually needed upgrades... Broadway lines were perfectly fine with R68/A's.

 

The interior design is a complete joke. They expect short people in the middle to be able to reach those overhead bars on the top. They have to be kidding me. What is more feasible is, to have bars down the middle like the SMEEs so that people could stand more comfortably.

[R44 5278]

They should've brought back the R16's seating with transversed benches. Those were the true classics!

[LTA1992]

The ones on the E, F, J, M and L are R160As. (E and F uses 1 set of R160Bs by the way). The ones on the N, Q and W are R160Bs (there are some R160As). It could be the propulsion they are using.

 

Its the same with the pre-75 foot cars also. The R42s on the Easter Division Felt smoother than the R40/R42 sets on the Southern Division.

[MTR Admiralty]

Its the same with the pre-75 foot cars also. The R42s on the Easter Division Felt smoother than the R40/R42 sets on the Southern Division.

 

That's really awkward.

[Maserati7200]

Its the same with the pre-75 foot cars also. The R42s on the Easter Division Felt smoother than the R40/R42 sets on the Southern Division.

 

Probably because Coney Island yard held Coney Island rebuilt R42's, while ENY had MK rebuilt R42's. The CI rebuilt R42's retired first from the incoming R160 order because they were in the worst condition and had really bad MDBF.

[R10 2952]

MY OPINION of the R-160s is that they are a a characterless, overly hi-tech, and relatively ugly subway car, whose 'ego' is overblown to absurd proportions. I would rather ride a graffiti-covered, slow, unreliable, and rattling R-16 in 1985 over a shiny and exaggerated R-160 in 2009. To me, the R-160 is a menacing monster of sorts. They have come to kill our reliable old friends: the R-32, the R-38, the R-40, the R-40M, and the R-42. I'm not that fond of the R-44, R-46, R-68, or R-143, either. The old SMEE trains have/had a lot of character, and were aesthetically rather pleasing. AS for the R-160; its exterior is boring, its front is half-made of cheap black plastic, and its interior is ridiculous, especially with the FIND and the idiotic poles that go from roof to seatedge. Unlike most other subway cars, i will be GLAD:)B):cool: to see the R-160 die in 35-45 years. I would choose an Old Technology Train over a New Technology Train anyday.

[MTR Admiralty]

MY OPINION of the R-160s is that they are a a characterless, overly hi-tech, and relatively ugly subway car, whose 'ego' is overblown to absurd proportions. I would rather ride a graffiti-covered, slow, unreliable, and rattling R-16 in 1985 over a shiny and exaggerated R-160 in 2009. To me, the R-160 is a menacing monster of sorts. They have come to kill our reliable old friends: the R-32, the R-38, the R-40, the R-40M, and the R-42. I'm not that fond of the R-44, R-46, R-68, or R-143, either. The old SMEE trains have/had a lot of character, and were aesthetically rather pleasing. AS for the R-160; its exterior is boring, its front is half-made of cheap black plastic, and its interior is ridiculous, especially with the FIND and the idiotic poles that go from roof to seatedge. Unlike most other subway cars, i will be GLAD:)B):cool: to see the R-160 die in 35-45 years. I would choose an Old Technology Train over a New Technology Train anyday.

Here's what I have to say:

I don't see the point of people ranting about the R160s, saying how much it sucks and whatnot. Like it or not, they're here. They have flaws, but there is no reason to unequivocally reject any car (be it an OTT or a NTT). I'm sure back in the 60's, the old folks didn't like the fact that the R42s were replacing the Standards. I don't care about the technology or its aesthetics... as long as I get home without delays or as long as the roof doesn't fall on me, as long as the train doesn't break down all of a sudden, I'm fine. The purpose for the NTTs is to replace older cars that, when still kept in service for a longer period, may break down. It will cost more to upgrade an older fleet than to buy an entire new fleet. Plus, it has pluses to the average straphanger, the average commuter is more upbeat with the technology thing. The commuter wants change, wants improvements. The TA pays attention to that. Plus, every new subway car in the world is being fitted with similar technology. Whether it is London or Paris or Hong Kong or Tokyo, every major system has have cars with similar stuff.

Why do you want these guys to retire so badly? Are they THAT bad? Is it because of the absence of the bloody RFW that you want them to go that bad? Listen. I'm sorry to say, even if the RFW offers such a good view, the advocates of it are rather selfish. RFWs minimise cab space, which does not do much good to the train crew. Plus, look at the married pairs of the SMEEs. The C/R has to cross between cars. I know the C/R is adept at crossing between cars, but the act of doing it (while the train is in motion) jeopardises the C/R's safety.

I think it is time for people to be "in". We should all be moving forward. This is the 21st Century, after all. I am not a full advocate of the R160, nor am I an opponent of the old cars. But I find flatly rejecting the concept of progress (no matter how faulty it can be) to be absurd.

[R10 2952]

...I don't care about the technology or its aesthetics... as long as I get home without delays or as long as the roof doesn't fall on me, as long as the train doesn't break down all of a sudden, I'm fine. The purpose for the NTTs is to replace older cars that, when still kept in service for a longer period, may break down. It will cost more to upgrade an older fleet than to buy an entire new fleet.... Plus, it has pluses to the average straphanger, the average commuter is more upbeat with the technology thing. The commuter wants change, wants improvements. The TA pays attention to that. Plus, every new subway car in the world is being fitted with similar technology. Whether it is London or Paris or Hong Kong or Tokyo, every major system has have cars with similar stuff.

Why do you want these guys to retire so badly? Are they THAT bad? Is it because of the absence of the bloody RFW that you want them to go that bad?

...I think it is time for people to be "in". We should all be moving forward. This is the 21st Century, after all. I am not a full advocate of the R160, nor am I an opponent of the old cars. But I find flatly rejecting the concept of progress (no matter how faulty it can be) to be absurd.

 

I fully understand all of that. What I'm saying is that the R-160s don't have to be so hi-tech and everything. Look at what happened to the R44s/R46s in the 1970s and 1980s. They were hi-tech for their time, but by 1980 the TA was putting retired R-16s back in service to fill in the places of cars newer than it, because the new cars were so plagued with problems, that they could barely move 100 feet before the P-wire burned out (R-44) or the truck cracked (R-46). Instead of making such an extreme leap forward, the MTA could just go simple and easy, just like they did in the 1980s with the R-62/A and the R-68/A. Both of those car classes are relatively low-tech, and yet they are currently some of the best performing cars in the system. We needn't argue. It's just that I am very sentimental when it comes to the older trains...

[S78 via Hylan]

I agree. As long as we have trains to ride whether old or new, we can use them. B)

[7LineFan]

I agree. As long as we have trains to ride whether old or new, we can use them. B)

 

True. Remember that the purpose of a subway car is to get people from point A to point B. Doesn't matter how ugly or pretty it is, as long as it gets the job done reliably.