Bosco

On 1/27/2019 at 11:28 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Ah, ok, I didn’t know the R68As were built in Yonkers too. I don’t know if they had a “Made in NY” stipulation then (if so, then I’ll blame it on Mario Cuomo), but I do remember it being there when they began procurement of the R142s.

Hopefully, Kawasaki stays in the railcar business. They’ve been good to MTA all this time. There does seem to be quite a bit of chatter in the railfan community (the Forums, SubChat, Railroad.net, etc.) saying Kawasaki exiting the railcar business is all but inevitable. Hopefully it’s just that...chatter.

For now, it's just speculation, and the bigger issue is that the parent company in Japan isn't happy with how last year went.  They've been in the railcar industry for over a century and in the US market for almost 40 years and have good customer relations, so the only way it would get to that point is if the R211 is delayed like we've seen with the R179.  As far as the Chinese, yes, they have won a few contracts here, but there is still a high level of skepticism when dealing with them.  Not to mention the trade war, while it has affected some of Kawasaki's subcontractors, has hit the Chinese the most.

On 1/27/2019 at 10:26 PM, VIP said:

I’m curious to know if this order was calculated correctly, unless the  takes all the C cars and pair them with other C cars and purchases another IRT car order because  the former R142A’s won't last as long as the factory R188 cars, as they already have a 20 year head start... unless the R142A’s are going to exceed their life span the way the R32’s have...

It's actually more like a 15 year head start, but your point still stands.  And yeah, as @MysteriousBtrain and @S78 via Hylan mentioned, the newer trains just aren't holding up as well as some of the older ones have.  Worst case, those C cars become some sort of trailer work car (trailer as in they can't run on their own, nor can any A-car NTT IINM).

56 minutes ago, Calvin said:

Was the entire line crowded when the route ended at Times Sq-42 St (before the Hudson Yards opening)?

I don't take the regularly, but the few times I've been on there at Times Sq before Hudson Yards opened, the line was fairly crowded during rush hour.  Not as bad as Main St, but enough that SRO trains at 5 Ave weren't that uncommon.

On 1/26/2019 at 9:08 AM, Lawrence St said:

3070 is a parts set?

He was asking how extensive the modifications were on that set, since it has yet to be delivered.

20 hours ago, Enjineer said:

I don't even get how some of the conversion cars still have like dirt smears and whatnot from the . It boggles my mind that they wouldn't have at least gotten a nice power wash or something in the process of moving them onto the . 

IINM, the cars were supposed to get some sort of touching up as part of the conversion.  Even then, it's hard to believe the converted sets are almost 20 years old, so it will take little more than a power wash for those cars to look brand new.

On 1/26/2019 at 10:55 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

As much as I like to blame Prince Andrew for why the MTA and its policies are so dysfunctional, this one’s not on him. The “made in NY” stipulation was also a condition for the other New Tech Train-era fleets, so I blame George Pataki for that one. The R142 and R142A contracts were signed during Pataki’s first term as Governor, so that’s on him (and maybe on some key members of the state legislature at the time as well).

What about the R68As?  Those were the first cars for the MTA built by Kawasaki Yonkers, although the first cars from that plant were the PA4s.

The R211s are the first cars to comply with the new Buy America standards (which have nothing to do with Trump, these were set in September 2016).  As a result, only the mockup will be built in Japan.  All cars, including the pilot trains, will be built in Lincoln/Yonkers.

On 1/26/2019 at 10:55 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Other than Kawasaki, the only other train builders with a presence in New York State are Bombardier, Alstom and CAF. If Kawasaki pulls out of the ralicar busiest and Bombardier is not permitted to bid on the R262s, that would leave only Alstom and CAF. Assuming “made in NY” stays in effect, CRRC won’t qualify because they currently don’t have a facility in New York State. They planned to build one in Fort Edward in conjunction with Bombardier during the R211 bidding process, but when Kawasaki won that contract, the plans for Fort Edward got put on the back burner.

Is CAF currently qualified with NYCT?  It's too early to tell, but Kawasaki isn't pulling out of the railcar business anytime soon.  They still have the R211s, which guarantee work for at least the next 10 years.

 

23 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

I did hear some chatter towards Bombardier before the section started. Seems like some people such as Andrew A. remain skeptical over Bombardiers preformance as brought up. However, Byford though was much more supportive towards the manufacturer in contrast. So Bombardier may not be banned for the bidding in theory, but time will tell how they stand against other bidders if not banned. Just gotta wait and see to actually know I guess...

Byford has halted delivery of the R179s until the issues with them are resolved:

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/nyc-transit-chief-slams-bombardier-halts-deliveries-you-have-to-hold-their-hands-1.1203566

This doesn't mean they're disqualified from bidding on this, but it's certainly not good news.  Assuming they are and the Chinese don't qualify for this order, it probably will have to go to Alstom (at least partially) because Kawasaki is pretty booked for awhile with the R211.

The windows are tinted slightly light blue but for now, the lighting on the factory R188s is still brighter than it is on the converted ones.  So it is likely both.

On 1/17/2019 at 4:37 PM, trainfan22 said:

There's a whole bunch of M9s outside of the Kawasaki plant in Yonkers with no trucks on them. IDK if these same units that orgainally had the yellow face and to be repaired due to derail while being delivered.

Most of those appear to be production cars from the Lincoln plant.  When I went up there two weeks ago, the highest number I saw was 9024.  The only pilot I saw outside the shop was 9008.

On 1/17/2019 at 4:37 PM, trainfan22 said:

There's also some PA5 (Old ones) there.

That's part of the PA5 overhaul.

5 hours ago, Eagle Railfanning said:

Does anyone know where R179 set 3070-3073 is? Over 120 cars have been delivered since then, and it's nowhere to be seen as far as I know.

Best guess would be that there's some quality issues with that set and Bombardier is focusing their resources on getting the rest of the cars built.  There was at least one R188 set that came out of order too.

6 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Interesting. I never knew they built non-operational prototypes to test HVAC, carbody and those other tests. But it’s certainly a good thing they do.

It was the case for the R179, though I'm not sure about older fleets.

48 minutes ago, m2fwannabe said:

This was the translation on the video title:

December 27 "State of Kawasaki Heavy Industries Hyogo Factory ~ ALFA-X Second Report and New Type of Foreign Type After a Long Time ... Sanyo Train 6000 Series"

Draw your own conclusions, but recall that most of the R-211's will (like the R-188) be a Lincoln & Yonkers production.  My conclusion is its probably a non-operational body prototype, as surmised above.  What it does make me feel is an urge to get to some riding in on the  Jamaica R-46's ( and ) soon.  By next New Years' Eve they could very well be elsewhere.

The R211 is actually the first time the pilot train will be built entirely in the US, in the same procedure as the production cars.  Only this prototype is supposed to be built in Japan.  As for the R46s, don't worry about getting rides on them just yet, there's still time before the swap begins.  And they definitely won't be retired for awhile.

On 12/30/2018 at 12:53 AM, Around the Horn said:

That has to be an actual R211 shell... It's way too close to delivery to be making mockups now.

Didn't we start seeing pics of the first R179 shell roughly 16-18 months before delivery also?

This could be the non-operational mockup, which I believe is what you're referring to for the R179.  They use that prototype for climate control, carbody, and other tests that do not require actually driving the train.

On 12/29/2018 at 2:52 PM, Dan05979 said:

The 179 operating cabs are smaller than the 160's There is less room for the t/o to operate with the seat all the way back & down. The master controller is very uncomfortable to operate on a long run. The C/R's have a hard time with the cab window latch right up on their chins when doing their platform observation. It's even tougher for shorter c/r's to look out the window. There is absolutely no space to climb between cars on these 179's Unless you are built like a pencil. There is no way to climb up between cars or remove car barrier springs when doing yard moves. I personally never operated one but I hear all the complaints from my fellow co workers. Yes they are shiny & new but they are big lemons. They should have gotten input from operating crews on what should be improved from the 160's to the 179's but they didn't 

Most of those issues that you mentioned are the fault of the MTA, not Bombardier, although I'm not defending Bombardier and their lousy build quality at all.  The master controller is the same as on the R188 which has this weird curvature that the R160 MC does not have.

On 12/29/2018 at 12:50 PM, RR503 said:

There needs to be transparency, yes, but the multitude of 480s being placed on the  are generally a result of slow 179 deliveries and the need to familiarize 207 shop forces with the 179s before the 5 car sets hit the . Unless I'm missing something big, plans about the  going full have not changed. 

Even if all the R179s were on property now, I'm still not convinced there would be enough trains for the  to be full-length.

It’s still too early to tell who will supply the propulsion, but I expect it to be an existing supplier (either Alstom or Siemens).  Top speed and acceleration will always be the same for all cars, except for CBTC.

8 hours ago, U-BahnNYC said:

Can someone tell me what exactly the 5-car sets are doing? I mean, it's been a month since the return to NYCT. Some 4-car sets enter service quicker than that.

Any idea when it might possible enter service?

The 5-car sets needed (and possibly still need) extensive modifications.  Even the original spec for 3050-3057 was different from the newest spec, which is why 3058-3065 was the first set to enter service.

Are the R179s on the  a permanent thing or temporary until enough R32s are pushed out?

55 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

They worked on the R142A and R143 at the same time and it worked out. 

The R211 has a pretty crazy delivery schedule though... I'm curious if anyone on here knows how many cars per month were delivered for both of those contracts?  In addition, while this may have nothing to do with it, the American content on those contracts was more lax, so more components were made in Japan.  With the R160 and R188, 100% of the production cars had to be built in the US.

On 10/19/2018 at 4:41 PM, Union Tpke said:

LIRR M-9 and LIRR/MNR M-9A Railcar Procurements Briefing to CPOC

*Not quoting the photos to save space*

This is good news and finally some progress with the M9/A.  It looks as though the M9A is going ahead, with renderings and all.  I'm just worried if Kawasaki gets it, since they will be working on this and the R211 at the same time.  I'm hoping they don't bite off more than they can chew.

1 minute ago, Far Rock Depot said:

Because its cheaper to repair those then refit. Especially since the cars that are getting new lights and stanchions have about two decades minimum left in them, unlike the 46s.  Which have what, 6-8 years left in them approximately? 

Except they have upgraded a few R46s to have brighter lights and stanchions.  I agree it's a waste for those cars, but if the MTA is going to upgrade them for their last few years, they should at least do it right.

4 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

I will say A LOT of the R46s sign glitch... I've seen multiple trains having individual cars in the same train with three different readings on them

Same thing on the .  Those signs are almost 30 years old and at the very least, the MTA should consider putting in new ones.  The technology is relatively inexpensive these days, and the R46s have the necessary conduit.  If they can put in new lights and stanchions, why not new signage?

1 hour ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

The MTA should revised those interlockings at Dekalb Avenue. It's ridiculous how northbound B, D, N and Q trains are constantly delayed around that particular area.

It's long overdue, but not likely to happen for at least 10 years (and that's assuming Byford gets the money for his plan).
 

1 hour ago, U-BahnNYC said:

Can't they already displace more R46s as the R32s go on the ? Then just wait for the final arrival of 10-car R179s.

Remember it's not a true swap since the  (and ) uses 8-car R32 trains while the  uses 10 cars.  For every train swapped, an additional pair of R32s that would otherwise be a spare now sees revenue service.  So there aren't enough cars to do a complete swap until the 10-car R179s arrive.

On 10/19/2018 at 11:12 PM, Coney Island Av said:

Just a heads up for those that don't know, there's a permanent R68A  that runs during rush hours. 

With the  using Coney Island sets and R68As popping up on the  seems to point that some sort of swapping has already begun. The R68As weren't really used on the  between the opening of SAS and now, but now it's happening more and more. 

As ATH mentioned, that R68A set is just a loaner from the , same as the R68A  during the PM rush.  Also, the former Coney Island sets on the and are the "Cuomo" sets.  Coney Island got in exchange a few 9200s and 9400s from Jamaica, so there's no swap (yet).

On 10/20/2018 at 12:23 AM, subwaycommuter1983 said:

If that's the case, then this means bad news for B train riders, especially in the Bronx, who are already experiencing delays and now the MTA is reducing service on that line???

The MTA needs to do some serious revisions on the B/D in the Bronx.

The MTA, the media and on our own eyes are the only credible sources.

 service is atrocious (especially in the PM rush hour), but they're not cutting service.  The has a decent (by MTA standards) spare factor, and being a part-time line, one set from Coney Island already goes on the in the evening, and now one for the .  Capacity on the is hindered by poor scheduling and all the interlockings it has to go over--including 59 St and DeKalb, which are two of the worst.

A friend of mine spotted 3154-3157 NIS at 145 St tonight.  Not sure if there was another set attached to it.

There haven't been any posts regarding numbering of the 5-car sets, nor confirmation of them.

That said, 3010-3049 is likely still the same as before; I'm guessing the rest of them will be 3246-3325.  The only other possibility for them would be to start numbering backwards (2930-3049), which isn't likely given the MTA's option not to number over the R110Bs in the first place.

16 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But the majority of those mechanical problems were not related directly to the subway cars themselves, but rather the signals and the switches. And the MTA (unfortunately) couldn’t just divert money towards purchasing additional R179s. There’s a whole lengthy process they would have had to go through towards purchasing additional R179s beyond the original 300 they ordered. They’re only getting the 16 extra cars as a result of a settlement deal with Bombardier over the order being so far behind schedule.

And think about this, even if they could simply put more money towards ordering more R179s, what good would that do given how far behind Bombardier is on the order? Those cars would just be that much farther away from getting onto NYCT property and the MTA would have still had to spend that money to keep the R42s going. Were it not for Bombardier screwing up on the R179 order, the R42s would have already been gone by now. 

The stay of execution for the R32s and R42s actually is more about the increase in fleet requirements rather than the delays in the R179 delivery.  The order was placed in 2012, when ridership was on the rise but still not reaching the near record levels set immediately after World War II.  Then there's the issue of the L train shutdown, which on its own requires more cars and they will likely keep levels close to that even after the shutdown, given the surge of ridership in Williamsburg.  Again, the order was placed before Hurricane Sandy, so the MTA in their shortsightedness did not think of increasing the spare factor for any of these reasons.

22 hours ago, RR503 said:

So there isn't a single mention of subway car performance in that article... It simply says signal/mechanical issues, which can be really anything. 

Regardless, I'd like for you to look at this. Read that number next to "Subway Car" for me, would ya. Ah, yes, 3.1% of all delays. So, basically, irrelevant. 

Spot on.  

On 9/17/2018 at 1:27 PM, subwaycommuter1983 said:

For those who think that mechanical problems in subway cars don't affect service performance, read this article:

https://www.amny.com/transit/subway-delays-riders-alliance-1.21064946

This will get worse due to the fact that the MTA did not purchase enough 10 car r179's and as a result the most unreliable cars: r32's and possibly the r42's will be preserved during the shutdown.

I'm pretty sure that the amount of money 💰that the MTA is spending on those old clunkers could've been used to purchase more 10 car r179's and we could've been in much better shape for the Canarsie shutdown. Imagine the A and G being fully NTT for the Canarsie shutdown. That would've happen if the MTA made the right decisions with the r179's.

Many of the delays aren't just caused by signal issues, but right-of-way issues as trains have to merge and divert at interlockings the same way they did in the '30s.  If the fleet were so significant in the reliability of train service, why are lines such as the  and  some of the least reliable?

On 9/12/2018 at 9:39 PM, VIP said:

Who said that? They’re staying put for the time being...

The goal is to have ENY be 100% NTT well in time for the shutdown, so they will go to other lines.  Which line they run on remains to be seen.

On 9/9/2018 at 9:50 PM, Railfan 007 said:

It will have the same path to revenue service all of the current cars at ENY have gone through. Testing in the Rockaways, then Burn-in testing, then 30-day revenue testing. 

There are several tests that have to be done, but I think the 30-day test is only for the pilot train.

On 9/6/2018 at 10:52 PM, Calvin said:

7848 has digital advertisements

Wondering if that isn't a pilot for the R211 ads.  That's basically how they will look.