news Riders on C train will have to wait longer for new Subway cars

[Harry]

 

Riders on the train, who endure the oldest and most battered subway cars in the entire system, will have to continue to do so for longer than planned. The manufacturer of a new model of subway car that was picked to replace those on the line has encountered problems with its prototypes. Bombardier discovered cracks in the prototype’s steel undercarriage and walls, Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials said Monday. The MTA had expected all 300 of the new R179 cars to be delivered by January 2017. That date could now be pushed back between six months and 11 months, officials said. The train’s current R32 cars, built in 1964 and 1965, break down more often than younger cars.

Read more: Source

[ttcsubwayfan]

screw it, nvm

[Thekilomoney11]

so it not going to retire next year?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Incredible... Why are these cars so different from previous ones that they've built that they have cracks in them?!??

[ttcsubwayfan]

so it not going to retire next year?

 

They were never going to. The current date is 2017.

[R32 3838]

That's because the MTA is they type of system where they want new subway cars and buses as soon as possible and some railcar and bus builders make mistakes like this one because of the demand, now that they fount cracks in all 3 major parts of the R179 prototype, they'll have to built from ground up again causing a 6-12 month delay

 

The R32's can survive due to their bodies, I bet the MTA regrets not SMS'ing the R42's now

[RollOver]

Ah well, more RFW and nostalgia on those remaining 224 R32 and 48 R42 cars for me. As for / riders, they're just going to have to continue getting used to the old cars.

[realizm]

That's because the MTA is they type of system where they want new subway cars and buses as soon as possible and some railcar and bus builders make mistakes like this one because of the demand, now that they fount cracks in all 3 major parts of the R179 prototype, they'll have to built from ground up again causing a 6-12 month delay

 

The R32's can survive due to their bodies, I bet the MTA regrets not SMS'ing the R42's now

 

Id love to see what the MTA is going to do with the R42s with this monstrous delay in production. The R42s has the poorest MDBFs in the entire fleet. Its worse then the R32s due to what I suspect is deferred maintainance. I dont think its oversight though, they are trying to stretch put dollars taking a gamble with the R42s and its span of usefulness. 

[Lance]

Incredible... Why are these cars so different from previous ones that they've built that they have cracks in them?!??

Different builders. The last time Bombardier was contracted to build subway cars was almost 15 years ago with the R142 order. The R143 and R160 orders were built by Alstom Transportation and Kawasaki Heavy Industries.

 

That's because the MTA is they type of system where they want new subway cars and buses as soon as possible and some railcar and bus builders make mistakes like this one because of the demand, now that they fount cracks in all 3 major parts of the R179 prototype, they'll have to built from ground up again causing a 6-12 month delay

 

The R32's can survive due to their bodies, I bet the MTA regrets not SMS'ing the R42's now

They're getting paid the big bucks to build cars in a timely manner. One would think they'd be able to handle such a small order. Of course, like I said before, it's better they found these problems while still in the production phase and not after all the cars were put in service with nothing around to replace them.

 

As for the 42s, hindsight is always 20/20. Besides, I think those cars need(ed) another overhaul, not just an SMS.

[realizm]

@ R32 3838: OK delving into a side topic but this has been on my mind for a long time as well as many others, from what we discussed before: I still don't get why on the R179 order they are ordering mostly 4 car sets? Its understood that on the J the R42s need to be replaced. But 240 cars is a bit overkill. They cant simply make the C 10 cars if there is a problem with C service?You mentioned this and I agree, this just doesn't make any sense!

 

Only 60 5 car sets? Thats retarded...

 

I think you are right... they are just cheap, really...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Different builders. The last time Bombardier was contracted to build subway cars was almost 15 years ago with the R142 order. The R143 and R160 orders were built by Alstom Transportation and Kawasaki Heavy Industries.

Yeah I'm aware of Bombardier. Their facility in Plattsburgh was not too far from my university, and in fact they were testing those trains right near the old airbase. I used to see the trains just there on the tracks being tested... 15 years or not, no excuse to have these issues.

[realizm]

Yeah I'm aware of Bombardier. Their facility in Plattsburgh was not too far from my university, and in fact they were testing those trains right near the old airbase. I used to see the trains just there on the tracks being tested... 15 years or not, no excuse to have these issues.

What I am wondering is why the cracks developed. Its alarming since this was exactly the problem Alstom had on the R160's based of the same basic design with some enhancements.

[realizm]

Different builders. The last time Bombardier was contracted to build subway cars was almost 15 years ago with the R142 order. The R143 and R160 orders were built by Alstom Transportation and Kawasaki Heavy Industries.

 

They're getting paid the big bucks to build cars in a timely manner. One would think they'd be able to handle such a small order. Of course, like I said before, it's better they found these problems while still in the production phase and not after all the cars were put in service with nothing around to replace them.

 

As for the 42s, hindsight is always 20/20. Besides, I think those cars need(ed) another overhaul, not just an SMS.

I realize this was why Bombardier backed out of the R188 contract because of the difficulties of dealing with a small order.

[ttcsubwayfan]

That doesn't make any sense. Why would they have issues with a small contract if they managed the R62As and R142s just fine?

[RollOver]

@ R32 3838: OK delving into a side topic but this has been on my mind for a long time as well as many others, from what we discussed before: I still don't get why on the R179 order they are ordering mostly 4 car sets? Its understood that on the J the R42s need to be replaced. But 240 cars is a bit overkill. They cant simply make the C 10 cars if there is a problem with C service?You mentioned this and I agree, this just doesn't make any sense!

 

Only 60 5 car sets? Thats retarded...

 

I think you are right... they are just cheap, really...

 

Well, the doesn't have an unlimited capital budget, from what I've understand at least. The part-time has about 28 trains total and the has 6 trains of R42s, the only older cars left at ENY. Had them make the former route 100% 10-car units, then that means the entire R179 fleet would be like this:

 

280 cars (5-car units)

48 cars (4-car units)

 

So that's 328 R179 cars total. Long ago, I've heard Art Vandelay said that more than 50 sets of R179s will be assigned to ENY, but we'll just wait and see.

[Dj Hammers]

Incredible... Why are these cars so different from previous ones that they've built that they have cracks in them?!??

Do some more research. The first couple of R160A body shells also had hairline cracks.

 

Every new contract has significant teething issues. The MTA should have budgeted an extra 6 months in its delivery schedule, as historically there are always delays like this.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That doesn't make any sense. Why would they have issues with a small contract if they managed the R62As and R142s just fine?

That's what I want to know... What makes these cars different from the previous ones that they've built?

[realizm]

Well, the doesn't have an unlimited capital budget, from what I've understand at least. The part-time has about 28 trains total and the has 6 trains of R42s, the only older cars left at ENY. Had them make the former route 100% 10-car units, then that means the entire R179 fleet would be like this:

 

280 cars (5-car units)

48 cars (4-car units)

 

So that's 328 R179 cars total. Long ago, I've heard Art Vandelay said that more than 50 sets of R179s will be assigned to ENY, but we'll just wait and see.

Right true and the original contract called for about that number of cars, then they slashed it. On this one though I dont think that was a wise idea.

 

 

That doesn't make any sense. Why would they have issues with a small contract if they managed the R62As and R142s just fine?

Got me on that one.

[Lance]

Regarding why the car order is the way it is, the whole thing is a cost savings measure. The original proposal of 290 cars (with options), consisting of mostly five-car sets would not be enough to meet service demands for the C and J while still having enough cars for any kind of fleet expansion. 180 cars or 18 ten-car trains would be required for rush hour service plus a spare factor of 20-25% brings the total requirement for the C-line to about 220 or so cars. That would leave just about 30 cars for any other line. In the East, the 40 cars built in four-car sets would be just enough to retire the 42s needed for rush hour service. Forget about adding service to the J, L or M lines. There wouldn't be enough cars to spare if (when) a train needed to come out of service.

 

With the order as it is now, 144 cars of four-car 179s would be needed for service on the C-line with a lower total requirement because the trains wouldn't need as much maintenance as the 32s. Using the same percentages for spares, the C would only need about 180 cars at 207th Street, freeing up the remaining 80 cars for the East and/or any service improvements on the C. The five-car sets, while not much to do with in terms of service improvements or something, would actually be just enough for a revival of W (Ditmars to Whitehall) service, if we can go along with previous car assignments.

 

 

I realize this was why Bombardier backed out of the R188 contract because of the difficulties of dealing with a small order.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would they have issues with a small contract if they managed the R62As and R142s just fine?

Bombardier didn't want any part of the R188 order not because of any potential difficulties in the order, but rather because the order is so small. There are only be 126 new cars being built. The rest of the order consists of conversions of now-former R142A cars. They probably felt the potential return on investment wasn't worth the expense of building and converting the cars.

 

[realizm]

Regarding why the car order is the way it is, the whole thing is a cost savings measure. The original proposal of 290 cars (with options), consisting of mostly five-car sets would not be enough to meet service demands for the C and J while still having enough cars for any kind of fleet expansion. 180 cars or 18 ten-car trains would be required for rush hour service plus a spare factor of 20-25% brings the total requirement for the C-line to about 220 or so cars. That would leave just about 30 cars for any other line. In the East, the 40 cars built in four-car sets would be just enough to retire the 42s needed for rush hour service. Forget about adding service to the J, L or M lines. There wouldn't be enough cars to spare if (when) a train needed to come out of service.

 

With the order as it is now, 144 cars of four-car 179s would be needed for service on the C-line with a lower total requirement because the trains wouldn't need as much maintenance as the 32s. Using the same percentages for spares, the C would only need about 180 cars at 207th Street, freeing up the remaining 80 cars for the East and/or any service improvements on the C. The five-car sets, while not much to do with in terms of service improvements or something, would actually be just enough for a revival of W (Ditmars to Whitehall) service, if we can go along with previous car assignments.

 

Had a feeling so, they are just cheap. 

 

But thats a good theory on the 5 car sets. Since with the SAS Q reroute they will need extra cars for the W. But thats only 6 ten car sets. The W I think used to run a 8 TPH. The order wont be displacing much cars to do anything else unless we do have a slight surplus at the moment that I may niot be aware of.

[RollOver]

I see now, so the would only need about 5-6 trains on standby and 17-18 trains for revenue service. I keep forgetting that the 179s (as the new cars) wouldn't need a higher spare ratio, like the 32s (as the older cars) which have their spare ratio at 54%. The rest of the four-car 179s would then head to ENY for the 42s' demise and for fleet expansion (as Art said two years ago). I think the , with its current 46 fleet, has the same spare ratio at 54%, like its local shorten version the .

[Lance]

Had a feeling so, they are just cheap.  

 

But thats a good theory on the 5 car sets. Since with the SAS Q reroute they will need extra cars for the W. But thats only 6 ten car sets. The W I think used to run a 8 TPH. The order wont be displacing much cars to do anything else unless we do have a slight surplus at the moment that I may niot be aware of.

 

It's not about being cheap. It's about being able to replace the aging 32s and 42s as quickly as possible. With the original order plan, we would've had to wait for an option that may not have materialized to fully replace the older trains in the East because the rest of the current older fleet would be 75-footers.

[realizm]

 

 

It's not about being cheap. It's about being able to replace the aging 32s and 42s as quickly as possible. With the original order plan, we would've had to wait for an option that may not have materialized to fully replace the older trains in the East because the rest of the current older fleet would be 75-footers.

 

 

But that messes up interchangeability on the lines that make up 8th Avenue. The A is prone to delays. They should have made the long term investment. 

 

*I'll add that more cars will be required to run the W (as you said) and to add the SAS. Were not gaining a number advantage with the R179 order as it stands now.

[realizm]

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that I believe the MTA is going to regret the move they made. They stand risking having a car shortage again since the order will only be replacing cars not adding on to the fleet for added service. That and the fact that the C should have been 10 cars. 

[m7zanr160s]

Yeah, the should be full length. This move I don't understand. They are basically ordering an oddball fleet that won't have much flexibility. that's it! That's really only three lines, though.