When will the first R160 be placed into passenger service.

I was just wonderning on when will the first R160 cars be placed into passenger service & will they run on the N line.

In addition, when will more R160 cars be delivered.

Rumor has it going to the F line

We don't know what cars are going to use the R160's yet so we cannot say what lines they're going to.

The R160 order is intended to replace the following:

Base order: 10 R-32 (GE overhauls), all R-38, all slant R-40, 110 R-42 (Coney Island overhauls) -- 53 cars for service increases

That would be partially the A line, all of the B line, small part of the C, J, and M lines.

Option I (if taken): remaining R-32

Some more of the A line, the rest of the C line, and all of the E line.

Option II (if taken): all R-40M, remaining R-42 -- possible 40 cars for service increases

Some more of the J, M, and N (?) lines.

The first 660 cars should be in service by 2006, with the option order (if taken) in service by 2009.

The F runs R46's which were built in 1974-75, so they should be around for 10 more years or less.

F40 wrote:

The R160 order is intended to replace the following:

Base order: 10 R-32 (GE overhauls), all R-38, all slant R-40, 110 R-42 (Coney Island overhauls) -- 53 cars for service increases

That would be partially the A line, all of the B line, small part of the C, J, and M lines.

Option I (if taken): remaining R-32

Some more of the A line, the rest of the C line, and all of the E line.

Option II (if taken): all R-40M, remaining R-42 -- possible 40 cars for service increases

Some more of the J, M, and N (?) lines.

The first 660 cars should be in service by 2006, with the option order (if taken) in service by 2009.

The F runs R46's which were built in 1974-75, so they should be around for 10 more years or less.

If you got that from nycsubway.org, then that's old news since the MTA wants to get rid of the R44's sooner than they thought.

F40 wrote:The F runs R46's which were built in 1974-75, so they should be around for 10 more years or less.

The F also runs some R32's.

Actually, the R46 was constructed in 1975-78, so maybe they'll stay longer than you stated. Other then the Rockwell Wheeltruck fiasco of the 80s, they should be just fine. However, I do like to see the R32s on the F so that I could get a nicer head-end view over the McDonald Avenue EL.

I think the A/C/E lines may see R160 action first.

I think there were more problems with the R-44's and R-46's than just the truck fiasco. Back in the late 1980's Transit Authority president David Gunn (current Amtrak President) was quoted in the media as follows: "The R-44 came in as a dog, it has remained a dog and it has never seen a Mean Distance between failures above 10,000 miles. It's a scandal. And the highest the R-46 ever hit was 17,500. That's a disgrace." If you're superstitious, you might believe it was because they were the first NYC subway cars with full-width cabs and that's what brought them bad luck; chuckle!

Now mind you that was 1986, before the massive rebuilding program. It's quite possible that their performance has improved since then. They were rebuilt, right? So those comments might not still be valid. But it gives you an idea of how bad those cars were. Surprising to me that St. Louis Car Corp. and Pullman could have built such a shoddy product. Especially when St. Louis had built several successful previous models for NYC.

And Amen Rob, to your suggestion re: R-32's on the F-Line, though I doubt we'll ever see it. But if you do please let us know immediately!

Head-end View wrote:I think there were more problems with the R-44's and R-46's than just the truck fiasco. Back in the late 1980's Transit Authority president David Gunn (current Amtrak President) was quoted in the media as follows: "The R-44 came in as a dog, it has remained a dog and it has never seen a Mean Distance between failures above 10,000 miles. It's a scandal. And the highest the R-46 ever hit was 17,500. That's a disgrace." If you're superstitious, you might believe it was because they were the first NYC subway cars with full-width cabs and that's what brought them bad luck; chuckle!

Now mind you that was 1986, before the massive rebuilding program. It's quite possible that their performance has improved since then. They were rebuilt, right? So those comments might not still be valid. But it gives you an idea of how bad those cars were. Surprising to me that St. Louis Car Corp. and Pullman could have built such a shoddy product. Especially when St. Louis had built several successful previous models for NYC.

And Amen Rob, to your suggestion re: R-32's on the F-Line, though I doubt we'll ever see it. But if you do please let us know immediately!

Are the R44s fairing better today in terms of MDBF?

Head-end View wrote:Now mind you that was 1986, before the massive rebuilding program. It's quite possible that their performance has improved since then. They were rebuilt, right? So those comments might not still be valid. But it gives you an idea of how bad those cars were. Surprising to me that St. Louis Car Corp. and Pullman could have built such a shoddy product. Especially when St. Louis had built several successful previous models for NYC.

And Amen Rob, to your suggestion re: R-32's on the F-Line, though I doubt we'll ever see it. But if you do please let us know immediately!

Yes, the R44 and R46's were both rehabbed fron 1990 to 1993 (except those that were involved in crashes before the rehab program started), so maybe they are a bit improved.

But as it was said, they were in horrid operation in the late 80s (when they were still fairly new, shame) before all of this.

Now, as for the R160's, lets just pray the the MDBF in these new units is.......80-100,000 range. Would be nice especially for the newest car order.

Rob: The latest car models have been much more successful because in the last 10 years or so the NYCTA has extensively tested the prototypes before ordering hundreds of them. One reason they had such bad luck with the 70's era fleet, was that there was hardly any testing of the new design. They just placed the order for a new fleet and rushed them into service. Ditto for LIRR's M-1 back then. The then new MTA was in a big hurry to modernize the fleet at that time, and they really didn't know what they were getting into.

I was in NYC today (8/16) and took my first ever ride on the L-line (just a couple of stops within Manhattan) to check out the R-143's. Well, they're nice cars; just a larger version of the similar IRT type. The cab door has that blurry window. Might be okay to view thru in daylight, but terrible in a tunnel. I wished they would have continued the mixed-transverse type seating arrangement. The all longitudinal seating isn't very interesting.

From nycsubway.org:

R44 MDBF
Date Mean Distance Between Failure (Miles)
05/1994 - 85273
06/1997 - 58944
07/1997 - 63181
12 Months Ending 07/1997 - 63215
12 Months Ending 11/1999 - 46332
12 Months Ending 12/2001 - 69446
12 Months Ending 12/2002 - 77504

R46 MDBF
Date Mean Distance Between Failure (Miles)
05/1994 - 82154
06/1997 - 75600
07/1997 - 61754
12 Months Ending 07/1997 - 69772
12 Months Ending 11/1999 - 90231
12 Months Ending 12/2001 - 115418
12 Months Ending 12/2002 - 108419

As for R32's on the F, there are only a few of them, so try your luck finding one!

F40 wrote:From nycsubway.org:

R44 MDBF
Date Mean Distance Between Failure (Miles)
05/1994 - 85273
06/1997 - 58944
07/1997 - 63181
12 Months Ending 07/1997 - 63215
12 Months Ending 11/1999 - 46332
12 Months Ending 12/2001 - 69446
12 Months Ending 12/2002 - 77504

R46 MDBF
Date Mean Distance Between Failure (Miles)
05/1994 - 82154
06/1997 - 75600
07/1997 - 61754
12 Months Ending 07/1997 - 69772
12 Months Ending 11/1999 - 90231
12 Months Ending 12/2001 - 115418
12 Months Ending 12/2002 - 108419

As for R32's on the F, there are only a few of them, so try your luck finding one!

Thanks. But why are the R44s worse than most other cars mechanically?

Head-end View wrote:Rob: The latest car models have been much more successful because in the last 10 years or so the NYCTA has extensively tested the prototypes before ordering hundreds of them. One reason they had such bad luck with the 70's era fleet, was that there was hardly any testing of the new design. They just placed the order for a new fleet and rushed them into service. Ditto for LIRR's M-1 back then. The then new MTA was in a big hurry to modernize the fleet at that time, and they really didn't know what they were getting into.

Yeah, instead, all they were interested back then was getting rid of the R1/9 series, which were wooden, antiquated and too ancient to continue running, so that's what they did, although some of those R1 thru R9 cars saw extended life after the R46 screw-up.

Head-end View also wrote:I was in NYC today (8/16) and took my first ever ride on the L-line (just a couple of stops within Manhattan) to check out the R-143's. Well, they're nice cars; just a larger version of the similar IRT type. The cab door has that blurry window. Might be okay to view thru in daylight, but terrible in a tunnel. I wished they would have continued the mixed-transverse type seating arrangement. The all longitudinal seating isn't very interesting.

That's how the R160 is gonna look like inside, just bench seating, I don't think they'll have backward/forward/commuter rail type seating, but I would like it to see that again, it's not like the 015/1600s here in Boston which such seating had to be taken out because it was a fire hazard.