Bosco

To be fair, the R160 cars went through an entire year of qualification testing. The other issue is that instead of jumping from pilot to production, we are making the pilot T cars, then pilot S cars, then production A and S cars.

Bottom line, the MTA should've learned its lesson during the R160 days when they got scrap-happy with the R32s. Maybe not all of the trains could've been kept in service, but some could've been kept as a reserve for emergencies or events when extra service is needed. The R211 project hasn't been delayed "officially," but I'd expect some sort of announcement soon as the subsystem suppliers have been impacted as well. The other challenge is that we don't know how long the shutdown will last. It could very well be extended if the situation doesn't improve, and it seems to be getting worse every day even with all the precautions we've been taking.

Parking brakes are applied only when there is low pressure in the main reservoir pipe, not necessarily the brake pipe. A loss of pressure in the brake pipe (represented on the duplex gauges by the black needle) will cause an emergency brake application.

No jinxing! Per the information that was provided in the staff summary in January 2018, we are not getting all three pilot trains at once. R211A 10-Car (30 months from NOA, or July 2020) R211T 10-Car (40 months from NOA, or May 2021) R211S 5-Car (47 months from NOA, or December 2021) The R211s are being designed for 4-, 5-, or 6-car configurations (similar to R160) but there are no plans for 4-car R211s, at least not yet. I don't know about the R160 pilot trains, but I want to say the first 8-car set 8313-8320 was not a pilot train because it has the knurled stainless steel on the car ends and window masks that the pilot R160 trains (8653-8662, 8713-8722) don't have.

No reason for that, considering the R188s are more than enough and run fine on there. Not confirmed, but having the remaining R142As upgraded to R188 in a similar manner would make sense. One of the reasons the conversion for R142/R142A was done at Kawasaki was because the conversion work was more extensive than originally thought. Remember, the R142s and R142As don't have the space for CBTC (only one TOD screen, and no CBTC locker). The R160s (and eventually R179s) can be converted in house by NYCT because the space and wiring for the equipment are already there. A bigger question (which is still unknown) is who will convert the R142s? Kawasaki won't have the resources to convert all those trains in the same time frame (with R211 and other projects at the same time), and are not familiar with the R142s at all, so that leaves Bombardier or CRRC as two possibilities.

On closer inspection, the latch handles are actually recessed into the cab door, which would explain why the window of the cab door is narrower. I wonder if that was changed to improve the ability of crew members to get on and off the train between A cars (which was a problem on the R179s), because the original renderings had the handles simply mounted on like on older fleets.

Nothing beats the Chevron trucks, especially for the tight curves of NYCT. I'm curious why Kawasaki didn't go with that design because they did for both the PA5 and WMATA 7Ks.

Good question, I’m not entirely sure about the answer, because it depends on the contract.

The mockup car does have some functional components, but it is not fully functional. The purpose of the mockup is to prove as many static tests/designs as possible, so HVAC, software, doors, etc. In addition to build quality and TS compliance, the MTA also looks for maintainability of certain components. The mockup does not have propulsion equipment included (no traction motor, no inverter). Only the boxes for where the components would go are included, to ensure everything fits together and can be accessed easily. Just wanted to clear that up in case anyone thinks that car will see service, or run on its own power.

I was actually mistaken, 9007-9008 is still at Yonkers frequently on the test track. 9017-9018 was delivered within the past two weeks, and 9019-9020 has also been on the test track. Generally, that test track (called the Function Test track) is the last step before the cars get sent out. I've seen up to 9038 (except 9035) at Yonkers at different stages, either inside the factory or out. Once the PA5 option order and R211 progress, it'll be a hell of a time to be fanning Yonkers station!

Case in point: R179 order. That went to Bombardier because they bid lower than Alskaw. Even if they prove to be reliable, I worry about the political implications of awarding this kind of contract to the Chinese... Especially considering that this is the first time they are announcing this order--and the R211s haven't even been tested, much less in revenue service--I would be surprised if this gets awarded before 2023. Also, who in the MTA is going to pay for these cars?

It's supposed to be within 5 years if Byford gets his way, but that doesn't seem likely. Has the supplier for the R179 CBTC carbon equipment been picked yet?

I'm not really up to speed on the R179 program so I don't know for sure, but it's likely they needed to do some sort of modification (most likely software) that was serious enough to warrant redoing the burn-in test. Remember, the original R179 trains (3010-3019, 3050-3057) had/have many more issues than the production cars.

This is actually the non-operational mockup, similar to the very first photos of the R179s that were leaked in 2014. So this particular car won't see service, it's just used to confirm maintainability, build quality, spec compliance, etc. Also, this is the first of three similar but functionally different mockups (this one is for the R211A, and there will be one for the S and T, since there are functional differences between the three classes). Mock-up review for the R211A is underway and continuing through next week. After that comes climate room testing in May. So far so good!

First production pair (9015-9016) was sent from Yonkers to Hillside last week. 9017-9018 (now the lowest pair at Yonkers) have been on the test track, and cars up to 9034 are at/outside Yonkers either undergoing or about to undergo final assembly.

The brighter FINDs are because, despite being a similar design, the parts are 10 years newer. That's why the LCD screen is bigger. Bombardier's problem. In case any one else is curious, they're officially called: Fault Light: Lights up when the corresponding door is open Interior Guard Light: Lights up when any door on the corresponding side is open Exterior Guard Light: Lights up when any door on any side is open The reason they are bigger on the R179 is probably parts similarity. They are the same as the Interior Guard Lights on the R142s. One can hope...

I may have been mistaken on what is defined as "museum fleet," but I meant that at least one is preserved, not necessarily at Court St. This is the case with all fleets. If by the original you mean the rejected pilot set (with the slightly different bonnet), then probably not. AFAIK, they're not allowed to reuse parts from the rejected set.

At least one car is part of the museum fleet, and 3005 is at the NYCTA Training School and used for training purposes (I believe for NYPD, but not entirely sure).

Similar to the R160 manufacturing, with the carbodies being built at Nebraska and final assembly and testing at Yonkers.

I definitely wouldn't mind having one of these in New York. In addition to the rolling sound, they are also quieter than what we have here. The only one that I could find in Europe that sounds similar is the Metropolis 98B (which isn't in that video). Even if they use ONIX, I can't imagine it sounding like the R160. Besides the fact that the R142/R160 design is 20 years old, I'm sure the newer systems are quieter, lighter, and more energy efficient, all of which matter to the MTA as much as parts commonality if not more. Speaking of commonality: The only reason they had Bombardier bring back the 1508C for the R188 was because the other option would've been to replace the propulsion on all converted R142As. That was a special case. Also, as I mentioned, the newer systems are much lighter and smaller which are both big benefits for NYCT. The boxes for the 1508C are HUGE.

The primary reason for expediting the upgrade of the R142s and R142As is to have them ready for Lexington Avenue CBTC. Given that the remaining R142As make up only half of the 's fleet, there's no way they can do just the R142As. The other half of the and all of the use R142s. I am curious to see who will bid on the R142 upgrade contract, given it's a much larger contract than the R142A upgrade even though they're similar contracts. Kawasaki probably won't as they have their hands tied with the R142A upgrades, plus the M9 and R211.

In addition to the hardware/software differences, the power curves are notably different due to the fact that the B-divsion cars are bigger and heavier. The power-to-weight ratio is also different (all R160 cars have traction motors, while only one truck per R142 B car is powered). The audible sounds from the propulsion system are not from the motor itself, but from the IGBT (insulated gate bipolar transistor) inverters. The inverters take DC from the third rail and convert it to AC for the traction motors. However, changing the output speed on AC motors isn't as simple as turning a dial like it is for DC motors. Thus, the inverter works in such a way to maintain smooth acceleration, while meeting the performance curve which is set by NYCT.

The jury is still out on that, but it will likely either be Siemens or Thales. The Alstom Onyx system on the R160s was CBTC ready. Yes, it is similar (and sounds very similar) to the R142 propulsion, but the hardware/software is significantly different. Also, the Alstom Onyx on the R142s is 20 years old, so it should be upgraded anyway.

The garbage trains (R127/R134) are actually based on the R62 design, and those have always been stainless, so probably not. While we're on the subject, the R62, while conservatively designed, is significantly historic in that it was the first NYCT model not to be built in the US and by a foreign manufacturer. I am curious to see if any of the other Japanese manufacturers would be interested in working for NYCT in the future. Nippon Sharyo is probably out of the question since they just closed their US plant, but Hitachi has a relatively new plant in Florida.

MDBF doesn't tell the full story (yard maintenance, etc.), but the MDBF for the NTTs in general isn't much better than the legacy fleets (in some cases, worse): https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/newer-mta-trains-beating-performance-starting-lag-article-1.3184932 Not sure if this is a new issue or if older cars had similar issues, but most fleets going back to the R142 not only had software issues, but quality issues. The R160As and R179s were delayed due to manufacturing issues. Even Kawasaki's quality isn't quite what it used to be 10 years ago. They've had quality issues with the WMATA cars. Given how some older trains wind up being used for work service, the bodies themselves should in theory be designed to last longer than the 40-year standard set. But if the quality issues we've seen across the board continue to persist, then there's no way even the car bodies will hit 40.