R160s, my opinion

[BSmith]

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.

 

That's the essential part of it. Here are the factors I'm considering.

 

Ultimately, it boils down to serving society. Trains move us from point A to B, that's the primary function. What we need is reliability, safety, and from an engineering and security standpoint, I do think the R142/R143/R160 address and succeed in this regard. The mechanicals are working out well, the intercom system is a great idea witnessed by the kids who used it when those cowards bullied them in the thread on the incident on the F train. The increased visibility from car to car leads to a feeling of safety and security.

 

There are other factors. NYC is a highly congested piece of real estate and riding the subway can be stressful. A quiet, comfortable subway helps the ridership and invites ridership. As we go through certain periods, we find different ideas of what is soothing, I think the new trains are based on the white/blue as soothing studies. In the 70s it was about "warm" colors, in the 80s it was transitioning to cooler tones mixing the steel tones with the warm colors and in 2000 to 2010, blues are used in most of the newer rolling stock (M7, bilevel NJT, R142/R143/R144). The HVACs are designed for optimum passenger comfort, the trains pay attention to smoothness and quietness so all are happy, riders and train crew will operate better than in a noisier environment.

 

My comments in starting the thread were not to knock the NTTs. I rather like the R142. It was more a feeling that the R160s could have been better since they are years after the R142/R143, and also that the R179s need to address some of the concerns riders observe with the R160. Seeing that some agree with my initial points, then perhaps the MTA will consider some of the comments from those of us that are really into trains and post on these boards as well as the TOs and conductors and other MTA personnel that post on these boards.

 

For the R179, 5 doors per side, offset doors on trailer cars, and careful placement of poles, and perhaps some variations on seating are some of the things they'd like to look into when approving the final design of the next series of trains.

[7LineFan]

It was more a feeling that the R160s could have been better since they are years after the R142/R143, and also that the R179s need to address some of the concerns riders observe with the R160.

 

IAWTP 110%

[MTR Admiralty]

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...

 

Here are my points:

-You have to think in the bigger picture. What century are we in? We are in the computer age. Many of these commuters are now used to a computerised setting. They want better amenities. Look at every major system around us. Look at London, even the 1973 Stock as automated announcements. Look at Paris... Berlin... Moscow. Don't forget that some of these passengers go aboard too. You want them to go to Helsinki, take the subway and come here ranting about how awful the subway is compared to the one in Helsinki? Passengers expect more from the MTA. Look at them, they are ranting about a $2.50 fare. They want something to come out of what they are paying for. They don't want shoddy service, nor do they want shoddy trains.

-You are comparing entirely different scenarios. The R44/R46s had mechanical issues (faulty trucks) that ought to be rectified. What major mechanical issue has these guys got? The biggest fiasco was the oil thing last year, and that was rectified in months. The major problem that has been plaguing the R160s is the technology glitch. Will that affect service in any manner? Will broken FINDs mean trains sitting OOS? No.

-To be honest with you, we made relatively small transitions compared to the other cities. London, this year, will replace all of the sub-surface stocks with revolutionary S stock. There was no intermediate stepping stone. They went from 60's technology straight to technology of the new age. Their trains are articulated. Our trains? Our trains are still built into coupled sets. Look at the cities that were using Soviet cars. Warsaw and Moscow, as well as Sofia have new cars that are technologically different than the Cold War era stock. No stepping stone. Why should we make even smaller changes?

-The new stock will be able to take advantage of CBTC when it gets implemented. And if CBTC works correctly, it can pave way for better frequencies, favouring the commuters. Older stock are not able to take advantage of the technology fully, relatively 'newer' cars may have to be rebuilt in order to the capability for the technology in place.

-You have to look at the other side of the picture. There are more regular straphangers than are there railfans. If the MTA ever listens to the people, whose voice would be heard more? The straphanger's or the railfan's? At such a position, I would hear a non-biased story coming out of a regular straphanger's mouth.

[R10 2952]

Look at the cities that were using Soviet cars. Warsaw and Moscow, as well as Sofia have new cars that are technologically different than the Cold War era stock./QUOTE]

WERE using Soviet cars? You mean ARE using Soviet cars. I've ridden the subways in Warsaw time and again. They still have many of the old Soviet rolling stock, including the very first units that were built in 1989 and delivered in 1990, as a gift from communist Russia to communist Poland (work on the subway had started in 1983). YES they do have some Bombardier trains here and there, and they have a handful of new Russian cars, but many of the trains in the Warsaw Metro are merely refurbished Soviet units. And as for the 'new' Russian cars, they are almost exactly the same as the old Soviet cars from the 1970s and 1980s, at least from a technological standpoint. The carbodies of old and new are of the same design, and so are the doors and interior layout, and lighting. The only NOTICEABLE differences are the car ends, which are ultra-modern in appearance, and made out of some sort of white pre-fabricated plastic/fiberglass. Otherwise, the 'new' cars are technologically identical to their brethren of 20-30 years ago. And as far as I'm concerned, Moscow still uses many Soviet units too. Prague and Budapest still have a few, but I'm not so sure about Sofia. I have no way of showing a picture, but just Google 'Warsaw Metro' and I'm sure you'll see old cars with blue front ends, and 'new' cars with white front ends.

[Maserati7200]

R10 1989,

 

You say that the is going straight to new tech, which is bad because it hasn't been tested, just like the R44/R46 fiasco. Well, did you ever hear of the R110A and R110B? Those trains (only 1 set of each) were used to test out new technology for NYC subway. So our revenue NTT's aren't using untested technology never used before in NYC subway that will fail.

[R10 2952]

R10 1989,

 

You say that the is going straight to new tech, which is bad because it hasn't been tested, just like the R44/R46 fiasco. Well, did you ever hear of the R110A and R110B? Those trains (only 1 set of each) were used to test out new technology for NYC subway. So our revenue NTT's aren't using untested technology never used before in NYC subway that will fail.

 

I'm not saying that the R-160s are bad because they haven't been tested, I'm just saying that I don't like them, and I gave my reasons as to why I don't like them. And yes, I have heard of the R-110A and R-110B. And you know what happened to them? After 5-7 years in sporadic operation, the R-110A was taken out of service due to debiliating brake problems that have not been corrected since (they now lay derelict in a Bronx IRT yard), and the R-110B caught fire in 2000, and also has not been repaired since, due to the lack of sense/need to repair them. One R110B set is at a firefighter training academy, another set has been cannibalized for parts, and the other remaining set sits in 207th Street Yard with The Condemned (R-38s prepared for reefing/scrapping).

[Maserati7200]

I'm not saying that the R-160s are bad because they haven't been tested, I'm just saying that I don't like them, and I gave my reasons as to why I don't like them. And yes, I have heard of the R-110A and R-110B. And you know what happened to them? After 5-7 years in sporadic operation, the R-110A was taken out of service due to debiliating brake problems that have not been corrected since (they now lay derelict in a Bronx IRT yard), and the R-110B caught fire in 2000, and also has not been repaired since, due to the lack of sense/need to repair them. One R110B set is at a firefighter training academy, another set has been cannibalized for parts, and the other remaining set sits in 207th Street Yard with The Condemned (R-38s prepared for reefing/scrapping).

 

I know what happened to them, but they weren't meant for long term service. The R110's were here so the new NTT's wouldn't fail like they did. The saw what was wrong with the R110's so they can improve them for the next NTT order.

[R44 5278]

the R179s need to address some of the concerns riders observe with the R160. Seeing that some agree with my initial points, then perhaps the MTA will consider some of the comments from those of us that are really into trains and post on these boards as well as the TOs and conductors and other MTA personnel that post on these boards.

 

For the R179, 5 doors per side, offset doors on trailer cars, and careful placement of poles, and perhaps some variations on seating are some of the things they'd like to look into when approving the final design of the next series of trains.

I'm definitely pro-transversed seatings only with the spaces for side benches used for standing room. As for speed, the R179s should have an upgrade up to 75 mph for the Fulton Express, 60th Tube, and Central Park Express. Bombardier should have the job done!

[Tbirdbassist]

The trains we have now can do those speeds.

 

Top speed is not limited by the rolling stock. First off the top speed for subways by law is 50 MPH. Second, speed is limited by the track condition and signals and such.

 

 

The only tunnel section I know of that has proof of speeds over 50mph is the 60th st tunnel. Only reason is because of the downgrade. There's a vid of an R68 doing 62mph or something in that tunnel.

 

 

If the Queens Blvd Super Express was ever finished, trains would probably be doing LIRR speeds (70+)

[INDman]

The top speed of most subway cars is 55mph, but they have removed field shunting so the motor balancing speed is about 45mph. When the R46s entered service, they ran at 55mph. There speed was limited after one train rear-ended another on the 6th Ave line since the signal system can't protect trains at speeds over 45mph. The is no law limiting subway trains to 50mph, it is because the signal system can't protect at those speeds.

[Urbanfortitude]

I don't get it...I mean wouldn't the T/O be able to see the train ahead even traveling at that sort of speed or is it simply just an issue of braking and signaling?

[INDman]

Say the motorman had a heart attack and died holding the controller down in parallel (which did happen once) and the trains reaches MPH with another train in front. That train will get tripped but the signals are too close together to stop the speeding train in time and then you have a collision.

[Urbanfortitude]

oooh ok. in that scenario it makes perfect sense. Sometimes I forget to think critically.

[MTR Admiralty]

Look at the cities that were using Soviet cars. Warsaw and Moscow, as well as Sofia have new cars that are technologically different than the Cold War era stock./QUOTE]

WERE using Soviet cars? You mean ARE using Soviet cars. I've ridden the subways in Warsaw time and again. They still have many of the old Soviet rolling stock, including the very first units that were built in 1989 and delivered in 1990, as a gift from communist Russia to communist Poland (work on the subway had started in 1983). YES they do have some Bombardier trains here and there, and they have a handful of new Russian cars, but many of the trains in the Warsaw Metro are merely refurbished Soviet units. And as for the 'new' Russian cars, they are almost exactly the same as the old Soviet cars from the 1970s and 1980s, at least from a technological standpoint. The carbodies of old and new are of the same design, and so are the doors and interior layout, and lighting. The only NOTICEABLE differences are the car ends, which are ultra-modern in appearance, and made out of some sort of white pre-fabricated plastic/fiberglass. Otherwise, the 'new' cars are technologically identical to their brethren of 20-30 years ago. And as far as I'm concerned, Moscow still uses many Soviet units too. Prague and Budapest still have a few, but I'm not so sure about Sofia. I have no way of showing a picture, but just Google 'Warsaw Metro' and I'm sure you'll see old cars with blue front ends, and 'new' cars with white front ends.

Warsaw Metro (new units): Alstom Metropolis

Prague has Soviet units rebuilt for one line, I believe that will be the A line. The C line, AFAIK, runs entirely new units. The B line there runs Soviet units in their original condition.

Kiev may have some Soviet units left, but AFAIK, there are quite a number of new stock there.

By the way, this does not pertain much to your view of new-tech in New York City Subway stock.