R32 3838

Just fount out the reason why that r46 got stuck, Wasn't the trains fault. the protection board was lose and ripped out all the 3rd rail contact shoes off the train. This was conformed by a TA worker.

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Then why don’t they get on with testing the R211 pilot train with passengers already? It’s been 15-16 months since those cars got here. What more tests or evaluation could they possibly need after all this time? How much more waiting truly is necessary before we really start seeing problems with the older cars? Get on with it already! 

They ran into issues during testing and some parts had to be replaced (which is normal)  But you tie in the supply shortages and labor delays, It also affects the testing of the cars. They want to make sure these work right out of the gate. They don't want a repeat of the R179s.

This is what happens when the get too confident and retires a whole fleet of subway cars instead of keeping them on reserve thinking "Hey we have the R211s, They'll be in service in the summer of 2022. We don't need this old shit." Meanwhile ridership continue to grow and the crew shortage is somewhat getting slightly better. But now they are still short on equipment and have no choice but to run the R46s/R68s to the ground.

3 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

Yes these 46s are taking a beating..Mainly cause of no spares and retireing 32s before the 211 are fully ready for service .. got to find a way to give some of these cars a break...I say jamaica should take over The N or Q on Weekends until 211 enters service...

I can see them doing this, They might have no choice, Bringing back the R32s would be a money drain due to the fact they would have to re train all the new hires from mid to late 2021 until present on top of repairing all the remaining cars they have only to run them for about 5-6 months. Plus it would be a big embarrassment to the   after doing the last run retirement trips. It's not worth it unless a very big emergency happens or Kawasaki foots the bill.

3 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

Q train had to be evacuated tonight due to an power problem, I assume the power problem was train related rather than 3rd rail or substation related. Considering that trains were able to run local passed it and the rescue train was able to pick up the riders from the disabled set makes me think it was an train related problem.

 

 

 

 

Reminds me of the two high profile breakdowns the 46s had on the and a few years ago.

That's because they run the damn things to death with barely to no spares. About 3 R46s were taken OOS this weekend on the and lines. On Saturday i saw an R46 empty at times sq on the express track and then today this shit happened.

This is what happens when bites more than it can chew. They have to deal with this mess until the R211s are officially in service. 

Hopefully this wakes and car equipment up.

11 hours ago, Calvin said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man-stabbed-in-neck-in-bronx-subway-station-by-metrocard-swipe-seller/ar-AA13NGux?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=4088fab23dd947aab13a3b89192b434a

A man was stabbed early today from a person selling metrocards (or swipes). An argument led to this incident but, the attacker was arrested. 

The swipers are always aggressive and do dumb shit just for $2. I almost got into it with one of them years ago when i refused a swipe. Normally they either back off or get into a fight. They never have to resort to stabbing someone.

1 hour ago, trainfan22 said:

On the and yes, QBL not yet but it will use ATO in the future.

I don't think they use it on the anymore until further notice. I could be wrong though. I know that the R188s slip and can't stop properly in the rain or when the rails are wet.

1 hour ago, Calvin said:

I noticed recently when seeing the R42s as regular trash trains, the rollsigns have been removed on the inside but, the "Not In Service" stays or is blank. I wonder if the letter scrolls are transferable on the R68 or R68A. There were R68/As that had missing rollsigns but later had the route indication placed back. 

R42's and R68 rollsigns aren't compatible. The R40,R42,R44,R46 and the R110B front rollsigns are compatible with each other. The R68/R68A uses their own roll signs.

27 minutes ago, Kamen Rider said:

Ah, yes, rush hour chaos on a saturday the moment something goes wrong... Ridership numbers say we only need one of the two and in the circumstances, the N wins.

 

Riding the trains on weekends sucks, 63rd Drive,Woodhaven,Grand ave, Elmhurst Ave and Steinway St are packed on weekends due to just having 1 service serve those stations and when something goes wrong, We have to wait double the time. Running the with the wouldn't hurt, a train every 6 mins isn't bad. I wish the could comeback during the weekends and nights because it's needed.

ridership numbers are bullshit compared to what i see and for 12 years straight since these neighborhoods grew in population they have been screwed and when the road screws up on the , They barely send a train to help so we wait 20 to 30 mins for the next train. It's annoying as f**k and makes me wish i could move back to Jamaica.

The can run with the if the goes to forest hills during those weekends. There are more than enough R160s laid up on the weekends that could be used on the for weekend service. The and all have trains laid up during the weekend, They could use most of those laid up trains which should be enough to cover weekend service. The has lay ups in ave X yard that they can use as well.

18 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

What I love about this is it's still being delivered through the SBK so basically the same thing would be happening like the R211A pilot.

Most or All of the order are going to come through that way since 207th is still being worked on.

2 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

The R46s have issues but they are not gonna go out of their way to sideline them, the R32/42 were running 24/7 on the right before the R179 pushed them out and had an even worse MDBF than the R46 do now. I don't recall this much concern when the R32s were running 24/7 on the and in their last days now everyone is so concerned about the R46s running 24/7 when it's a FACT that the 2022 R46s are more reliable than the R32 was towards the end of their service lifes.

 

 

The R46 have problems but they are not say, R16 levels of bad. They will last long enough until the R211s take over. I've seen this on here and Reddit this fear that one day the R46 fleet will suddenly drop dead which is silly considering that has never happened in the subway's 118 year history? 

 

 

IMO putting 46s on the wouldn't help much as I've personally been on 68s on the with defects in recent times. One four car set had one car with broken A/C (on a day where it was very humid) and dead motors on back to back cars. A fellow rider yelled out "JESUS CHRIST!" When he stepped inside the car cause it was so warm in there. 

The / had a spare factor of R32s,R42s,R160s and the R143s(2015-present) before the R179s. If you take out the R160s and R143s, Half of Those R32s and R42s would have not been able to make it and they would have only been able to run 50% service with 24/7 service. This was how they were able to run the R32s and R42s 24/7 without issue due to the healthy spare factor on top of the tech trains. When they did the / swap from 2010-2012, They had to borrow 3 sets of R42s from the and 2 R46s from the in order to make service and keep the spare factor normal. 

When the R179s were delivered and etc. This allowed them to replace all of the R42s and half of the R32 fleet with the intention to keep the other 50% of the R32 fleet up into 2022 when the R211s would have been in service because of the going up to 2nd ave and keeping the spare factor somewhat healthy. (originally the whole R32 fleet was going to stay along with the R42s for the shutdown)

The Big difference here is that they prematurely retired the R32s completely with the intention of the R211s going into service in the summer of this year (which makes sense on paper). That's not happening now (all subject to change).

Now you have a very low spare factor now leading up into 2023 . Regardless of of crew shortage, You will still need equipment to make service. 

That's the difference between back then and now, There are barely any spares. Why is it hard for you to understand that. The / has to share 5 sets of R46 spares, That's not enough due to the size of the line. They both don't have enough R179s to cover esp. the which has only 130 cars meaning the is 88% R46s.

If there were no spare factor in the past, The R32s and R42s would have not survived hence the R32s having a large spare factor when the whole fleet was at 207th st from 2010-2014.

And yes even the R68s are starting to feel the effect, I rode two R68As on the and they both were slow as shit.

Also they aren't going to sideline the R46s. If anything, once the R211s go into service, They'll probably send a few sets to CI yard to beef up their spare factor and give concourse their R68s back to also beef up their spare factor back to normal before they start retiring R46s which i would say by fall of 2023 (late november) we could start seeing R46 retirements

51 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Coney Island needs to utilize all the r68's from the B for the NQ trains during the weekends to give the r46s some rest. Same with Pitkin/207, they need to utilize all the r179's during the weekends as well. All three yards need to give the r46's as much rest as possible. 207 should consider loaning a few r179's from ENY until there's a good number of the base order of r211's in service.

Pitkin doesn't have enough R179s for the to do that. 130 cars is not enough for a line that needs about 60% of it's fleet during the off peak hours. Plus the R179s have to go through inspections as well.

CI is a different story since they have nothing but 75 footers and their fleet is old now.

Also Loaning R179s from ENY is a dumb idea since that would require transfers on Friday night and Sunday night and the is no where near ENY to warrant a loan unless its for a brief time like the R32 and R160 swap between 2013-2014.

17 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

Coney Island will also need to permanently improve its spare factor, regardless of which cars they get in the end. Remember that when the R160s were in the three yards ENY, Jamaica, and Coney Island, the Coney Island ones may have been the cleanest, but they had the lowest MDBFs because of low spare factors and having to run on full-time lines that have similar service frequencies all 7 days of the week. When subway lines provide an equal amount of service all 7 days of the week, their cars spend very little if any time in the yard, hence probably why lines like the  and  have lower MDBFs compared to lines in the A division 

Before the swap, CI was alright since they had the R160's to balance things out, Now that they got the R46s in return, It makes things more complicated since the R46s require more spares due to it's age compared to the R160s that require a lower spare factor.

10 minutes ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Just how much more testing do the possibly need to do? They started testing the R211 over a year ago!

keep in mind all things are subject to change and the train can enter service earlier than the spring. As of now it's just a projected date. They had to replace certain parts and etc. So they are now testing the cars to make sure they work. This is normal and why it's always good to test a train before throwing it in service.

Damn i just saw the press release and oof. So we got to wait until the spring for these to do their 30 day in revenue service test Smfh. I understand they want to make sure things work but these R46's can barely run as it is and now the R68s are starting to run like shit. I rode an R46 on the today and the floors were shot and mind you this car was SMS'ed back in 2008-2009 when it received a new floor. The R32s and R42s had their floors completely replaced in 2001-2004 and they didn't sag even during their last days.

I rode an R68A on the and the thing could barely run, Once in a while they would be slow but i took 2 R68A trains and they were dogs. I know it wasn't the T/O because even with full power the the train was slow.

3 hours ago, RandomRider0101 said:

 

Okay so let me clarify my last post. The R262s & R68/A replacement should probably come at the same time. The cars they're replacing (R62/A & R68/A) are roughly in the same age range and are pretty much the same mechanically, minus the obvious differences.

The R46s by comparison are much older, are in worse shape mechanically, and had many more issues since their introduction. They were even once known as the most troubled cars ever purchased; whether or not that still stands today is probably debatable depending on who you ask.

Even if the R46s had a higher spare factor, they still wouldn't be as good as the R62/As & R68/As; which is why no R62/A should be retired until all the R46s are gone. They are already well past their life span and should've been gone completely years ago.

Prior to the R46s going to Coney Island and The R32 retirement, The R46s were very reliable and have been since post GOH 1991 to present day.  Besides them Running on the , They were mainly on the with a few on the for rush hours. If it had a higher spare factor, reliability wouldn't be as bad, It's still drop a little due to them being on the   / 24/7 but it wouldn't be as bad.

1 hour ago, trainfan22 said:

I doubt the R211s are that much more complex than the first gen NTT (R142/143/160/179) . "Under the hood" I wouldn't be surprised if the R160s and R211s are identical  ... they even have the same trucks.

I believe all 50 cars that survived the R160 order got an SMS at least once. There's an photo of an SMS'd R42 in CI overhaul shop taken in 2017

 

https://nycsubway.org/perl/show?148099

 

 

Another photo of an SMS'd 42 on the  

 

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?152633

 

 

It wasn't all cars, They only did the ones that were on the M shuttle. The others just got a touch up like painting the end bonnets.

The R46's are bad because of the lack of spares and the fact they are running on the and 24/7 and the fact that the and is sharing the R46s with a very small spare factor plays a big part on why the R46s reliability has dropped.

If they have the spares, It would lessen the blow on the R46s. It would be smart to send about 6 to 8 sets of R46s to CI when the R211s are officially in service to increase their spare factor instead of downright retiring them until the 8th set of R211s enters service. 

1 hour ago, trainfan22 said:

The R68/68As will not fall apart, they are stainless steel and can run as long as the R32s did if necessary. With the Redbirds and 38/40/42/44s it was body issues (rusting, etc) that was an bigger issue than mechanical performance

 

I'll  never forget fans saying that the 42s wouldn't be able to last past the late 2000s..... only for them to run until 2020.

They really had no choice, They didn't even get an SMS and when they did they only did a very light one to 18 cars for that shuttle. They Even tried retiring them around 2012 with 50 R32s after they were SMS'ed but they decided not to do that because they didn't want to reduce the R32s spare factor.

44 minutes ago, RandomRider0101 said:

Yes they can and have exercised multiple car orders at one time before, but subway cars today are more complex than they were back then. They are bound to have more issues now than before.

The priority should be replacing the R46s first; they are older than the R62/As and are worse mechanically. The R62/As are in good shape and don't need to be replaced at the same time as the R46s. That's what I'm trying to say.

The R262s will most likely not be here until after the R211 order is done; and the following order (R68/A replacement) will probably not come until after the R262 order is done. So it doesn't make that much of a difference.

I think the R262 order and the R68 replacements will come within the same time frame, It's possible. Plus There is no rush to get the R262s since CBTC has been pushed back for Lexington ave.

4 hours ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

I hope so, but I am not betting on it. The R142/A CBTC upgrade will need to start soon too.

All of that is being pushed back, I wouldn't expect the R262 order to be awarded until at least 2024-2025. Lexington CBTC has been pushed back in favor for 6th ave and crosstown CBTC. So When it comes to that, The Conversions are up in the air.

23 minutes ago, Calvin said:

Quote from the article: 

"The shiny new carriages could be expected for delivery to New York between February 2025 and December 2026, per MTA procurement documents, and would replace the 1970s-era R46 cars on the A and C lines."

They didn't mention the R46s from the and  . From the thought of it, when CBTC is going to be in progress over 6th Av for the  and  lines, the R68 and R68As used on both lines will be covered to the three Broadway lines minus the  . So, Coney Island is going to be using the entire R68 and R68A class cars for a while. 

They pretty much saying the entire R46 fleet (* on paper*) is being replaced. People Think the Base order is going somewhere else when it says in the MTA Document

" The Cars to be Purchased under Option I will provide replacements for the R46 fleet that runs on the and lines . These Cars , Like the cars in the Base contract (Base order cars), Will be CBTC equipped and to facilitate the continued expansion of CBTC on the 8th ave Line."

Meaning pitkin will  still get the base order cars and a small chunk of the option I cars (150 cars i would say) to make the 100% full length.

27 minutes ago, RandomRider0101 said:

I forgot to mention in my last post that the already uses 5-car R160s; so if they were to send 8-car trains of R160s there, the would be mixed length with the same train type. That would cause confusion among riders and possibly operators; at least the doesn't have that issue.

The doesn't need to be 10 cars; 8 cars would be more than enough. Ridership is not THAT high; if that were the case, the would've been 8 cars a long time ago.

Also, the MTA didn't actually state that there would be 32 cars in 4-car sets. That was the number people came up with based on the number of sets MTA said there would be (89) out of the 437 cars in Option 2; 32 cars is the smallest possible 4-car estimate, and it is likely they may have not yet decided how many cars will be in 4-car sets yet. So I'm pretty sure that number is subject to change.

I once saw an MTA document that said that 112 cars of R160s were getting CBTC installed for 8th Ave. CBTC. That number is equivalent to 4-car sets. Why would a specific number of 4-car R160s be getting CBTC installed for 8th Ave. When it should be cross-compatible with Queens Blvd. CBTC, and 8th Ave. is expected to be all full length? Didn't make sense to me when I saw it; so I guessed it was a discrepancy.

I'm sure the set count for R211 option 2 will be adjusted later, as 32 cars is a very small amount. We don't need any more oddballs roaming the system .

They already have more than enough 8 car units. The has about 92 R179s which is 11.5 sets. There is no need to order more 8 car units than what is being ordered with the R211 order. It's better to consolidate the 8 car R179s in one yard instead of having them in 2 yards.

ENY already have a large fleet of 8 car units. When The R179s are CBTC equipped, They Can run on the line. This would reduce the need for spares since now the can use the R179s instead of using a dedicated fleet of R160s. Meaning the can share it's fleet except the R143s and R160 8313-8376 (a set in this pool did make an appearance on the post.  CBTC but it for that one day).

Jamaica can't get the R179s since it would already add another car type to their fleet and has to potential to get the R211s. R160s would be the better option. The only need 13 trains which it uses now with 5 cars.

They wouldn't have mixed length trains running on the because there will be more than enough 8 car R160s needed for the and it could use the spares (2 sets are laid up in Jamaica Yard) during the off peak hours (weekends)

And The reason why the never had lengthened trains because TA decided to reef 75% of the 60 foot SMEE fleet on top of having R44s with frame issues. This is also the reason why the never went full length because there weren't enough cars to make it happen. The has ridership and it will grow even more if congestion pricing goes into effect. The is a crosstown line so people coming from Downtown Brooklyn, Williamsburg, Bed-Sty and etc. will use the line more to transfer to the and lines to get into the city. So the being 10 cars would help and would be better off that way instead of being 8 cars anyway. 

Also All R160s 8377 and up, R179s and R211s CBTC has to be cross compatible with all current and upcoming CBTC lines except the line (this could change) for flexibility

They would have more than enough cars. ENY has a very large spare factor since their Fleets are used in groups. The uses 64 R160A-1s (8313-76) and all of the R143s. The uses It's own R160A-1 group (8377-8612, * 9551-54 and others outside of 8612 has also been used) The uses all of the R179s, R160A-1 8613-8652/9943-74 and the R143/R160A-1 spares from the / groups.

Them losing a portion the 8 car R160s isn't going to hurt them because they will gain the 8 car R179s from 207th st which by then will be equipped with CBTC to run on the line meaning the & can share both R160s and R179s meaning you can slightly reduce the spare factor by 5-10%.

The R211 order only calls for 32 4 car units that would help the line or allow more cars to run on the line.

IMO if the stays at Jamaica which is very likely, It should just be full length of 10 cars for fleet uniformity (share with the fleet) which i think might happen. 

Have the 8 car R179s at ENY and either create a new line between chambers st and Bay ridge or just extend the to south Brooklyn (9th ave) Have every other go to 9th ave during the rush hour this way it wouldn't screw up skip stop service.

4th ave need an additional local anyway which I'm surprised still isn't addressed.

18 minutes ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

The R142/As were not delivered CBTC ready?

No, That's why the R142As had to be completely converted and that's why there's a large cabinet on the right side outside of the cab on the R188s. The R142/R142A order was signed in 1997 and didn't have CBTC in mind when it came to the IRT. The line however was planned hence the R143s being built CBTC ready.

2 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

The base order cannot guarantee 8-car R160s for the  since the 8-car sets of R211s are not scheduled to be there until option 2. It would leave the  and  with a very low spare factor until then, since it’s presumed that the  would need all R179s + some R143/R160 cars from the  pool. That leaves only 308 cars to split between the  and , of which the  needs 248 R160s.

R179 will be CBTC compatible before option Order II. They need the 130 R179s (5 car units) to Be CBTC ready and the 8 car ones as well meaning they can run on the . This would allow ENY to lose a portion of their 8 car R160s for the

33 minutes ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

I thought the R179s were delivered with CBTC.

R143s,R160s and R179s were delivered without CBTC kits but were built CBTC ready (meaning all TA or the vendor has to do is install the CBTC kits)

7 hours ago, RandomRider0101 said:

Didn't get the chance to respond to this part. The Mainline A division will get CBTC after the R262s fully arrive (CBTC ready) & the R142/As get CBTC kits installed; both events are expected to happen simultaneously.

I doubt the R142s will get kits. Just like the R142As they would have to do more than just install kits. The R143s-R179s were built with CBTC in mind while the R142/R142As weren't. By the time the R262 order is on property (if it gets approved)  the R142s would be at age for retirement along with the R62s (they would be way over the retirement age) It wouldn't be wise to do the same they did wit the R188s. The R188 conversion was planned and done over a decade ago. Plus the R142s would need a complete rebuild. The R142A's would be cheaper for conversion since there are over 200 left vs over 1,000 R142 cars.

But, they will only need the entire R262 order (all options as well) to make Lexington 100% CBTC enabled while all the unconverted R142s would be pushed to the 7th ave line.

This could also mean changes in terms of the routes to avoid swapping CBTC and Non CBTC equipment meaning the or the could change southern terminals while the and could also change southern terminals putting those trunk lines together instead of ex. / at flatbush.

By the time 7th ave get CBTC, The R142s would be up for replacement anyway since that line is dead last when it comes to CBTC.

15 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait, what? "The cars to be purchased under Option 1 will provide replacements for the R46 fleet that runs on the A and C lines", but... what's the base order doing then?

The Base order cars are still in line to replace the already retired R32s (50% of the remaining fleet, The other 50% were replaced by the R179s) The SI R44s and the some of the R46s.

The Option order would replace the remaining R46s completely.

Option Order II is just for fleet expansion.

6 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

There is currently no problem with lacking spare trains… because there aren’t enough people available to run them. 

 

We’re still short hundreds of train operators and conductors. Hell, the current conductor’s list will be used at least until 2024, 8 years after the test was given. Just imagine that… like applying for a job on your first day of high school and starting the day you graduate college.

There is a spare issue, Besides the crew shortage. One of my friends who is a senior T/O even explained this to me that on some days they have ABDs due to having no equipment. Esp on the line. It's a weird situation, You have the R46s at CI which run like pure garbage (those issues could be solved by running the R46s on the ). They Can get away with certain things for now due to the crew shortage but they will have to figure out something within a year or two. If Congestion pricing wasn't pushed as hard, Then this wouldn't be an issue. I wish all parties involved come up with a solution and push Congestion pricing back until at least 2025.