Bosco

Plus, there are still 68 R160A1s assigned to the . Assuming the R179s don't get CBTC installation until after the shutdown (they can't afford doing it during), the remaining R160A1s will be needed for the for Queens Blvd CBTC. Until then, some R160A1s will likely be assigned to the to make it 480'--which is the best that can be done with it given everything.

IIMN, I've seen many of these stations in the planning phase for at least a year or two. The recent articles probably put pressure to get it done this time around, however. Still, while I know it's not as simple as building an elevator at a station and done, why does the MTA continue not to build elevators at ESI stations? Granted, Astoria Blvd in particular has been in planning for awhile but it's messed up that with all the local stations being part of ESI (which is long overdue), not one of those will be made ADA accessible. If extra staircases can be built at some of the stations, why not elevators?

It went to 207 St. Perhaps either for modifications or to be sent to upstate like 3015-3019 were.

Most (if not all) of the remaining R142As have the newer door motors. There are also plans to upgrade the remaining R142As to have CBTC, although it will be separate from the R188. In R179 news, 3050-3057 have been spotted doing burn-in testing (with the doors opening on the opposite side).

The R188s actually didn't get a true SMS AFAIK. They just put in the CBTC equipment, maps, door motors, and whatever else needed replacement. But the converted sets still don't look great (although they look better than when they first came back from Yonkers). They should've at least put in new lighting or cleaned up the interiors or something. Still, at least Corona also does a decent job of maintaining their trains.

With any luck, this means they'll be in service very soon. Now we just need 3010-3019 which will be awhile... 😜

The reason, as has been discussed, is that the priority is to get enough 4-car sets here to make ENY 100% NTT. Otherwise, there's no reason since even though 3010-3019 have the most issues, the 5-car sets are mechanically the same as the 4-car sets. Yeah, that set, along with 3078-3085 arrived before they even had a chance to start burn-in testing because of the e-brake valve issue. 3098-3101 was the last set to have done some testing before that happened. Wouldn't 3070-3077 be next to be delivered or does that set still need modifications?

From one of the Facebook groups, 3085 was spotted testing a few days ago.

Coupled to a set that's already been in service or a new set?

Lexington is obviously faster if you need a straight shot between the Bronx and Brooklyn, but on average, the Lexington Line is far worse. The reason is that both the and are long, unreliable expresses. Express service on 7 Avenue is a little better because the is a bit more reliable (going to Brooklyn), and the headways are longer which means less service, but less bunching if anything goes wrong. Also, having CPW is a big help north of 59 St. The WTC area is probably the only crowded area and one of the few open places in Lower Manhattan. Many stores aren't open at all on weekends (or are open Saturday but close pretty early). The area is virtually dead on weekends as far as regular users are concerned.

How come 3070-3086 have the original spec if 3058-3069 are in service? I'm just wondering, it wouldn't surprise me given how far out of number order the deliveries have been. 3010 and 3011, from the video above, are missing them. What's wrong with them? Is it a software issue or hardware issue? The signs look basically the same as the R160 signs but with a longer line of text.

I could see that being doable, but how would they turn the trains at 57 St? IMO, it would make more sense to run those few trips to 96 St. Something that some proposers seem to forget is how much construction takes place on the overnights. Even if you had redundant services ( to Manhattan for example), trains would be suspended/rerouted/flagged so often that the differences in the scheduled service patterns wouldn't even matter.

A post actually about the R179s on the R179 Discussion Thread! With things back to where they were a month ago, is there any timeline for when deliveries will resume (next week, first week of May)? There's over 200 cars to de delivered so even if they resume one car per day next week, it's cutting it very, very close.

I haven't heard anything about them coming to Yonkers, which means we're still a few months away from seeing them on TA property. The production cars are expected to arrive at Yonkers for final assembly/testing around June/July. https://tenor.com/view/fake-news-news-donald-donald-trump-trump-gif-7676808

I am not suggesting the MTA make the same mistake they made with the R160s, which in part contributed to the R179 situation. What I am suggesting is that replacements for the R62s and R68s come sooner, but that the trains that are still in good shape are kept as a reserve/spare fleet. There were plenty of R32s that at the very least could've been saved for a rainy day. No, but the R179s have provisions for CBTC, so once the rest of the issues are ironed out, I'd expect CBTC installation/testing to commence shortly after. I also wonder if the interface is any different given the advances in technology between the R160 and R179 awards. Good news. Are any of the other delivered sets doing burn-in testing or is it just the three sets that were in service before the e-brake handle issue?

Cars don't have to be replaced in order. If the next R68 SMS is forgone to accelerate retirement, that has nothing to do with the R62 situation. I will say though that for CBTC purposes, they should do the same type of treatment for the R62s, and keep them as either spares or work trains. The work trains we have know are starting to get old too. And honestly, knowing how the MTA is about logical planning, I wouldn't be surprised if there's still a few R68s in service after 2030. While there have been some good ideas in the past (and yes, some really BAD ones), I'm not holding my breath that the MTA planners would listen...

There was speculation that the R179s would make that service on the , but it makes no sense since Coney Island as of now is not planned to get any R179s and ENY will have the bulk of them anyway. Plus, Coney Island already has the R160s, so it makes sense for fleet uniformity. service isn't great right now (what line is?), but unfortunately, nothing can be really done about improving service (except perhaps not suspending it anytime it snows an inch) for now. The and see more ridership and are a lot less reliable. Also, if you're coming from the Bronx, Lexington is the fastest, most direct way to Brooklyn (hence the traffic on the and ). In terms of fleet, if the MTA is smart, they will consider another option of R211s to retire the R68s sooner and also accelerate fleet uniformity and potentially PSDs. If there are R68s that are still in good shape, they can be kept either as a reserve fleet or as work trains for the mainline B division.

The only way the and can be 'full length' (by each of their standards, so 600' and 480' respectively) is if the gets 4-car R160s. The for right now can't get much help besides the R32s; I was using it as an example comparing it to when the line ran R40s. The will have to be exclusively 480' cars, so that means no R68s. Also, the and have nothing to do with each other despite running parallel in the Bronx. The is crap because it runs on Lexington.

The door width on almost all trains is 50 inches. The only exceptions: R110A (irrelevant): 63" R142/R142A/R188: 54" R211: 58" The doors only seem wider on the R143/R160/R179 because there is about an inch (two-three inches on the B-cars) between the end of the seat and the doorway that isn't there on the SMEEs. Frequency doesn't matter if there's a conga line of trains, which is inevitable for a line like the that is the longest in the system and has numerous switch points. To use another example, the suffers from bunching in the PM rush, and ever since they got the R68s that situation has only gotten worse. Frequency is important, but service can recover faster or not deteriorate as rapidly if a route has shorter dwell times made possible by using 60-foot cars.

Particularly, it was used at the joints. There are a few pictures floating around showing the steel rotting between the lower side panel and the floor panel. The R46s used stainless steel there, but even those aren't aging too well. No one is questioning the structural integrity of the R32s. Hell, with a good enough overhaul, the MTA could probably get another 20 years out of them if they wanted to (which obviously won't happen for reasons). The R42s, on the other hand, have shown rust on the roof and near the bonnet similar to the R38s/R40s. Not nearly as dire as the R44 situation, but enough that the R42s required a much more extensive SMS than the R32s the last time around. Fortunately, CI did a great job repairing them.

As DJ Hammers said, this really isn't a setback. It would still be awhile before they enter service on the anyway. Remember, 3010-3019 and 3050-3057 have numerous differences from the rest of the fleet. They just decided to do it on Bombardier's facility instead because we don't have the resources currently to bring them up to spec. This would be like saying the R188s being converted in Yonkers instead of 207 St caused delays there. If anything, this move could actually speed things up a little (which is why they did it this way). They're long lines with numerous switches and chokepoints. The isn't much better either. Most lines that run in more than 2 boroughs are usually pretty bad by rule of thumb, regardless of fleet. It's not about people wanting NTTs one place or another. We saw this with the R188 contract. The MTA couldn't care less about what foamers think. CBTC is being installed on Queens Blvd (even if very glacially) as we speak. The , frankly, is just overloaded. (Side note: even with CBTC, it isn't running at true capacity because there isn't enough juice to power the line at capacity. This is why the Canarsie work includes adding another substation.) The is overcrowded, has terminal constraints on both ends, and runs on fixed-block signaling and has to merge 3 times along its route (which is a lot considering its length). Installing CBTC will alleviate some of those delays, which is why there is a good chance the R160s will go to Jamaica. The only question that's up for debate (that I understand) is if it's too early to do a swap, considering it's only the first phase that will be online in a few years and the R211s will be here long before the rest of the line is done. But they are preparing the R160s for CBTC on Queens Blvd either way, and a swap could still happen. If anything, it's the R46s that could potentially show structural issues...

While he's not wrong that some people would probably be annoyed if the and went from R160s to R46s, if the MTA does go ahead with this swap, rider complaints won't stop it (as we saw with the and swap).

How come? Was that set beat up that badly, is something else being tested, or both?

I mean, it is cutting it close right now. It was close even before the issue with the e-brake handle, and having another three-week's delay is not helping matters. They still need to get at least one car in per day, and that's assuming NOTHING else goes wrong. Let's hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, as they say.

With the issue resolved (for now), should we expect new deliveries in the near future? Needless to say, they’ve been on hold since this issue came up.