Jump to content

R46 (A) Train and End of R40 Slants


trainspot12

Recommended Posts

From what I'm seeing, R160 option 3 is becoming more of a necessity as extra cars. The R68s should NOT go to Pitkin and the R160s should NOT be wasted on the G. Option 3 should bloat the Q well enough and perhaps supplement the D on special runs should the B and D share 416 R68s. It's best if the G becomes full length and runs the 200 R68A especially for its extension to Church Avenue and the reopening of the Culver Express.

 

Yeah, all that would be nice, except one thing. The (MTA) is kinda in a huge budget defecit and implementing service cuts (which I'm sure you are aware of). So the last thing they will do is increase service and buy extra cars. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply
From what I'm seeing, R160 option 3 is becoming more of a necessity as extra cars. The R68s should NOT go to Pitkin and the R160s should NOT be wasted on the G. Option 3 should bloat the Q well enough and perhaps supplement the D on special runs should the B and D share 416 R68s. It's best if the G becomes full length and runs the 200 R68A especially for its extension to Church Avenue and the reopening of the Culver Express.

The third option is not in any capital plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

68s on the (C) Now? this would mean the (G) will run bothe 68 and 46.. same for (C)..?

 

i did not say R68/68As WOULD run on the (C). just a speculation depending on where the R160s would go.

 

I don't think a daily commuter would know what a R40 or R32 is, a regular commuter would just go by his/her day. And that is just an assumption, you are making.

 

a regular commuter may not know what an R40 or R32 is, but i am sure if he/she rides the (A)(C) every day, he/she would agree the cars on the (C) are better than those on the (A).

 

All fleets, currently existing, should be safe to run. Are you saying that other fleets like the R42s and the R40s are "not safe" to run on the C?

 

did u forget what happened when the R40/42s ran on the (C)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i did not say R68/68As WOULD run on the (C). just a speculation depending on where the R160s would go.

 

 

 

a regular commuter may not know what an R40 or R32 is, but i am sure if he/she rides the (A)(C) every day, he/she would agree the cars on the (C) are better than those on the (A).

 

 

 

did u forget what happened when the R40/42s ran on the (C)?

Well yes, they had to run. Well, so? It's not like the car roof is going to come down on their heads.

Please, just stop the R40/R42 bashing already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes, they had to run. Well, so? It's not like the car roof is going to come down on their heads.

Please, just stop the R40/R42 bashing already.

 

It actually was quite dangerous because the cars stopped very far away from the end of the platform and there were many reported passenger injuries because they were running to catch the train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes, they had to run. Well, so? It's not like the car roof is going to come down on their heads.

Please, just stop the R40/R42 bashing already.

 

yeah i agree with this statement. But on the professional standpoint of view, any injuries taking place are bad injuries and if they can minimize this by running a different set of cars on line the MTA is obligated to do so. I was excited by seeing them there. But as a commuter I can't put my safety second to the excitement of the cars I see running on these tracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah i agree with this statement. But on the professional standpoint of view, any injuries taking place are bad injuries and if they can minimize this by running a different set of cars on line the MTA is obligated to do so. I was excited by seeing them there. But as a commuter I can't put my safety second to the excitement of the cars I see running on these tracks.

To be honest, don't run. I'm sure the employers and teachers would love to see their employees/students a bit late than to see them in the hospital because of uneventful injuries due to a train stopping a bit far ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people just commute from one place to another so to them a train is a train. You really only hear talk about these different trains from some form of rail fan.

To be honest with you, how many normal passengers do you see on the C go "I bloody hate that R32" or "I want that R42 off the C now!" ? Not a single one. Most of them just care about getting to work on time, that's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got on 6183 on the A train and it was a smooth ride to 175th street. 6182-6183-6185-6184 are here. So is the C train getting R46 also?

 

 

 

The (C) will get them and the R44 soon.last i heard,in november.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The R46 looks better on the (A)
R46s are much better on Queens Blvd since they are the only bucket seaters there. I'm always used to the smooth ride of the R44s or the extreme rocker R38. Despite the comfortable bucket seats, the R46s have the worst suspension of the 75 Ft cars.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people just commute from one place to another so to them a train is a train. You really only hear talk about these different trains from some form of rail fan.

 

There are places on the web where you can read what non rail fans have to say about the trains. And there are the surveys taken by the MTA. People notice when a train is more modern than another one and they absolutely complain if a line goes from something more modern to something less modern.

 

Some here may remember the B to Q swap. B ran R68s then went to slants. That did not go over well.

 

This is what a few "real" riders had to say about the E when it ran mostly R32s.

http://www.yelp.com/biz/the-e-train-new-york

 

There are a lot of comments on how old the cars are.

 

There's a definite difference in the experience riding an R68 vs. an R40. There isn't that much between an R44 and a R46 or even an R68. Between R32 and R40? Some can tell. They do look quite different from the outside. And riding an NTT, with the automated announcements, digital signs, and brighter interiors is noticeable. Of course, peak hours when trains are packed, you may not pay that much attention to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (C) will get them and the R44 soon.last i heard,in november.

 

I heard the same but that might change, But if there is NOT enough subway cars to make the (C) full legth then The (C) would stick to R32's until the R179's come in, That's why, I would wait until every R160 is on property then I would decide if there's enoguh subway cars to make the (C) full lengt of R44/46's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest with you, how many normal passengers do you see on the C go "I bloody hate that R32" or "I want that R42 off the C now!" ? Not a single one. Most of them just care about getting to work on time, that's it.

 

TRUE, I take the (C) every day, The People do not complain, That's why I think the (C) should get R160's, The (C) riders deserve it, I know the R160 part is not going to happen. I like the R32's back on the (C).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also, it is quite obvious that even though they are older than the St. Louis cars, any daily commuter can tell R32s are far superior to the R40s-R44s in every way.

Uh, no they can't. Most commuters likely like the R44s the best because they offer the smoothest and quietest ride.

From what I'm seeing, R160 option 3 is becoming more of a necessity as extra cars. The R68s should NOT go to Pitkin and the R160s should NOT be wasted on the G. Option 3 should bloat the Q well enough and perhaps supplement the D on special runs should the B and D share 416 R68s. It's best if the G becomes full length and runs the 200 R68A especially for its extension to Church Avenue and the reopening of the Culver Express.

There is no Option 3. The (MTA) is cutting service too, so any extra cars would not be needed as there would be extra cars left over from the cuts.

It actually was quite dangerous because the cars stopped very far away from the end of the platform and there were many reported passenger injuries because they were running to catch the train.

You are completely right. But this is just my opinion on the matter. Quite dangerous my @ss! At every station on the line (at least in Manahttan) at the ends of the platform, there were signs on every other platform telling riders to move to the middle of the platform. No one obeyed those signs so they ran for the (C) train and always missed their train.

R46s are much better on Queens Blvd since they are the only bucket seaters there. I'm always used to the smooth ride of the R44s or the extreme rocker R38. Despite the comfortable bucket seats, the R46s have the worst suspension of the 75 Ft cars.

Still, R46s have one of the best suspension in the fleet.

I heard the same but that might change, But if there is NOT enough subway cars to make the (C) full legth then The (C) would stick to R32's until the R179's come in, That's why, I would wait until every R160 is on property then I would decide if there's enoguh subway cars to make the (C) full lengt of R44/46's.

Every car being retired is being replaced with an R160, so it's not like there will be a shortage. With the service cuts, there will be extra cars, so the (C) will be able to become full-length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TRUE, I take the (C) every day, The People do not complain, That's why I think the (C) should get R160's, The (C) riders deserve it, I know the R160 part is not going to happen. I like the R32's back on the (C).

 

Most likely the C would end up R179 via the option orders. If so, then definitely before the A gets new trains.

 

Uh, no they can't. Most commuters likely like the R44s the best because they offer the smoothest and quietest ride.

 

Still, R46s have one of the best suspension in the fleet.

 

 

Most commuters actually like the R44s b/c of more seats much like how most of the Q riders wanted more seats.

 

If you count the remaining 60 ft SMEEs, then yes the R46s have one of the best suspensions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are places on the web where you can read what non rail fans have to say about the trains. And there are the surveys taken by the MTA. People notice when a train is more modern than another one and they absolutely complain if a line goes from something more modern to something less modern.

 

Some here may remember the B to Q swap. B ran R68s then went to slants. That did not go over well.

 

This is what a few "real" riders had to say about the E when it ran mostly R32s.

http://www.yelp.com/biz/the-e-train-new-york

 

There are a lot of comments on how old the cars are.

 

There's a definite difference in the experience riding an R68 vs. an R40. There isn't that much between an R44 and a R46 or even an R68. Between R32 and R40? Some can tell. They do look quite different from the outside. And riding an NTT, with the automated announcements, digital signs, and brighter interiors is noticeable. Of course, peak hours when trains are packed, you may not pay that much attention to it.

"based on 12 reviews" So 12, 'reviewers' = (E) ridership? ha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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