Bosco

Confirmed and posted in the R211 discussion thread. No surprise there. Not to play semantics, but can we even consider the R211 part of the NTT family or is it an entirely new class? I know we've had this discussion before, but I'm curious especially now that we know roughly what they will look like and who will build them.

The Staff Summary implies that Alstom/Siemens did not bid at all on the R211, even if with Kawasaki (Alskaw or Siekaw). Can someone confirm/deny/explain?

Perhaps. But let them prove themselves first. This isn't the time for bringing new players to the table. As it is, as this order wraps up, we'll be looking at the replacements for the R62/As and R68/As. There will be plenty of work to go around, and by that point perhaps Bombardier will get out of the rut they're in.

The R179 is the same platform as the R160s. IMO, they're very much like the R142s of the B division. The side windows are larger, as is the front window on the cab. The improvements with comfort (the additional grab bars on the blind ends too) and the FIND system are welcome. I do feel like some of the finishing touches are cheap especially when compared to Kawasaki trains. For example: • The speakers look a lot like the ones on the R62s as opposed to the more seamless design on the R160 • The hinge for the exterior sign cover is visible on the R179 as it is on the R142, but hidden on the R160 • The corner plastic roof pieces on the blind ends (the ones directly above the seats) don't have vents, as opposed to the R160 • The radiator cover on the R179 looks incredibly cheap • The grab handles near the cab partitions (the ones near the L1 and R1 doors) look tacky when compared to the R160 These are the least of the cars' issues, but it is yet another testament to Bombardier cutting corners wherever they can. Don't get me started on the R142 aesthetics...

MTA logic. Although VG8 is right, it seems to be the worst on the R46s. I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but structurally those cars aren't doing too great. As for the different flooring that Art mentioned, it has more of a matte look to it. Not sure if the material itself is any different. A proposal on this thread is to put them on the since it could use an extra train or two and Coney Island might be operating R179s anyway assuming the gets the 4-car sets. This would bump some R160s back to Jamaica and then some R46s to the or . IMHO, it seems the assignments are still up in the air as major service changes are imminent. Plus, the reconfiguration of the contract is still a rumor. And even if it is true, there's still at least a year to go for the bulk of the R179s to be in service (assuming no further issues). A year's plenty of time for the MTA to change their minds, which they've been doing a lot of especially ever since Cuomo stepped in. The R179s were booted from the right before they would've started revenue testing--the same line that's been promised those trains since the contract was awarded.

Most will go to the and some will probably go to the to make 480' trains.

If a thread is dead for awhile, it implies there's no news. The award for the base contract is tentatively set for this January, which means we'll know in about two weeks time at the Board Meetings.

The green circle/red diamond actually started on the , when the bulk of the R62As were still there. When the R62As were transferred to the , they kept the displays intact. It has nothing to do with what color the route is. I'm not a fan of the new LED signs but as others have said, those old LCD signs need to go. Even the ones on the R142 are crapping out left and right. IMO, they should just install full LCD side signs for the R142s and R142As since they're nearing their midlife stage anyway. At the very least, the R211s will have full color LCD signs.

Are any more R188s planned to receive the new destination displays?

Even if the R211 is awarded this month (which it's supposed to be), the first train won't be here for testing until late 2020-early 2021.

In addition to that, the R142As had their share of major teething issues as well, having to be pulled from service along with the R142s: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/17/nyregion/new-subway-cars-show-flaws-and-are-removed-for-repairs.html

If anything, I'd sooner take an R32 on the than an R46 (better ride quality, and more doors per train). As more R46s go to the , R32s on the will be more and more common.

I wouldn't be surprised to see 3050-3057 on the very soon, but what about 3010-3019? Last time someone saw that set was on Brighton, and it was just 3010-3014. Where is 3015-3019?

I remember a few years ago, the and northbound used to fly into 96 St. Now I understand the northbound express track dips a little, as opposed to the local track which stays level, but trains often slow down to 10MPH on a straight track. That dip (around 91 St) isn't even that significant. I've missed countless connections to the because of this (and the always flies into that station). Also, CBTC would be so much better than these timers; they account for safety and decrease runtimes.

They will never be able to couple two different classes of NTTs together, primarily because of electrical incompatibilities and secondarily because of propulsion differences. The only time that two distinctly different NTT car classes was a test run of R142s and R142As, which didn't go very well. They are responsible, so yeah. I wonder why 3010-3014 is having so many problems compared to the other test trains. And what happened to 3015-3019? Has it been seen anywhere as of late?

Have you seen the R142 or R142A lights lately? Those look damn near how the older trains look. The wall panels and colors though help in making the car seem brighter than it actually is. This was the plan all along: Bombardier would have some of the production cars ready to go while the pilot trains were testing. And according to Dan Rivoli, there are still 8 more that can be delivered at any time.

Don't want to jinx it, but ever since that software issue was resolved, it's been doing fine.

How would the hold up the ? It already runs to Church Av at all times for that reason. As for the discussion on the full-length and , with the current R179 configuration, the MTA could really only do one or the other. Even if the is extended to just 480' (which will likely be the case), you still have to account for the extra cars going to the --whether they be R46s or R32s. The currently will only get 4 R179 trains, which won't be enough as many R46s would have to go to the .

I don't see this happening. The needs all the newer trains it can get, especially 60' cars; additionally, those 10 car sets will really only replace the R32 and R68 put ins at rush hour. The MTA really should consider restructuring the R179 order to include more 5-car sets, if it isn't too late; I don't see how they're going to achieve all of this otherwise.

LGA Link N train beat me to it: https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/51339-canarsie-shutdown-fleet-swap-thread/ The is a given (the 5-car sets) but the is still up in the air as they test out 600' trains.

According to the Facebook group, 3050-3053 was seen going from 207 to Pitkin. Wonder when (if) that set will go to the . A general, open-ended question: should we have a separate thread for fleet swaps pertaining to the Canarsie shutdown? I understand that the possibilities of fleet swaps involve almost all B-division fleets, but I think it's a big enough issue to have its own thread. Also, doing so would declutter this thread as delivery of the production R179s commences over the next few months.

What is accomplished by swapping the and again? Other than that, most of these are likely to happen.

Very impressed with the progress, as slow as it's been. What's the story with Cortlandt St on the ? Will there be a free in-system transfer to there as well?

I remember reading about this. I wonder why it hasn't been used for more cars. Perhaps it will be a possibility for the R211.

According to Dan Rivoli, there's still 8 more cars waiting to be delivered, so they could come in anytime.