Phil D. Posted February 20, 2008 Share #26 Posted February 20, 2008 The R179 is in its planning stages its not a "rumor" overheard by Two Tranist Employees BS'ing.. I got my info from a Supt where did you get yours from? When the R179 theory first came out it was because someone over heard to T/A employees talking about a 75 foot R179 and how it will replace the current 75 footers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil D. Posted February 20, 2008 Share #27 Posted February 20, 2008 I think the R46 needs replaced by the R179.Over the past couple of weeks the R46s have been becoming crap. Making weird noises.The floor starts vibating when the train is braking.And just when the train stops trucks jerk vioently.Jamaica is just not keeping up with them anymore.Or age is just catching up to them.Rofl, not even going to respond to this trash. You always find something wrong with every train and you make assumtions about the entire fleet based on your experience on one of your commutes. When 46s stop, they jerk forward and backwards slightly. Its how they were designed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainfan22 Posted February 20, 2008 Share #28 Posted February 20, 2008 Rofl, not even going to respond to this trash. You always find something wrong with every train and you make assumtions about the entire fleet based on your experience on one of your commutes. When 46s stop, they jerk forward and backwards slightly. Its how they were designed. You just did respond And I find something wrong with every train? Did i ever find anything wrong with the R68/A did i ever find anything wrong with the Redbirds did i ever find any thing wrong with the R110A And you should be the last one talking about finding something wrong with every train.You find something wrong with every train made by kawasaki.get your facts straght before you start making assumtions.YOU make assumtions on the R68/A fleet based on one of your commutes. Just because an R68 was operating slow one day. Doesnt mean the whole fleet is slow.The R46 have NOT been holding up well latley. I dont feel like agruing with you i really dont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTOMan Posted February 20, 2008 Share #29 Posted February 20, 2008 When the R179 theory first came out it was because someone over heard to T/A employees talking about a 75 foot R179 and how it will replace the current 75 footers. You did not say that in your first post correct? You said it was just a "rumor" you didnt say anything else to back that up right? :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil D. Posted February 20, 2008 Share #30 Posted February 20, 2008 You just did respond And I find something wrong with every train?Did i ever find anything wrong with the R68/A did i ever find anything wrong with the Redbirds did i ever find any thing wrong with the R110A And you should be the last one talking about finding something wrong with every train.You find something wrong with every train made by kawasaki.get your facts straght before you start making assumtions.YOU make assumtions on the R68/A fleet based on one of your commutes. Just because an R68 was operating slow one day. Doesnt mean the whole fleet is slow.The R46 have NOT been holding up well latley. I dont feel like agruing with you i really dont. Your dead wrong. Everytime I ride on a 68, its a slow and depressed ride. The only time 68s are fast is downhill because they are so damn heavy. They weren't operating slow just one day. They are slow in general. And the reason why you never find anything wrong with your 68s/redbirds/and 110As is because you love all of those trains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMT4Life Posted February 20, 2008 Author Share #31 Posted February 20, 2008 So there are a few truths to the rumors: there definitely is a new train in development so far most likely it will be a 75 footer most like to replace the SIR 44's or the Jamaica 44/46's the name will be classified as R179 The only thing that is not known is an estimated delivery date when ever that may be. Is it safe to put an estimate around the next three to five years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted February 20, 2008 Share #32 Posted February 20, 2008 Renamed thread to 'R179 Rumor Thread' and stickied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted February 20, 2008 Share #33 Posted February 20, 2008 So there are a few truths to the rumors: there definitely is a new train in development so far most likely it will be a 75 footer Damn. and i was almost finished with the exterior to my version. :eek::confused:B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainfan22 Posted February 20, 2008 Share #34 Posted February 20, 2008 Your dead wrong. Everytime I ride on a 68, its a slow and depressed ride. The only time 68s are fast is downhill because they are so damn heavy. They weren't operating slow just one day. They are slow in general. And the reason why you never find anything wrong with your 68s/redbirds/and 110As is because you love all of those trains. Uh no the R68s is fast smooth and a great ride.Ive rode that R68 train on brighton express.That train was moving the R68 are fast trains.So YOUR just dead wrong.Your always making up lies like no T/O likes the R160s.Ask any ( line T/O that operated that R68s on brighton express.And they will tell you that those trains are fast on that run.And you never find anything wrong with the R32/R40/R42/R46 is because you love those trains.But you find something wrong with every A div train every NTT train and every train made by kwawasaki.Your hatered for the R68/A is pointless and lame. You cant even come up with a good reason as to why you hate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68 Subway Car Posted February 20, 2008 Share #35 Posted February 20, 2008 Uh no the R68s is fast smooth and a great ride.Ive rode that R68 train on brighton express.That train was moving the R68 are fast trains.So YOUR just dead wrong.Your always making up lies like no T/O likes the R160s.Ask any ( line T/O that operated that R68s on brighton express.And they will tell you that those trains are fast on that run.And you never find anything wrong with the R32/R40/R42/R46 is because you love those trains.But you find something wrong with every A div train every NTT train and every train made by kwawasaki.Your hatered for the R68/A is pointless and lame. You cant even come up with a good reason as to why you hate them.I agree with this post. He has made several cruel remarks about the R143, R160A, and R160B. He used racist remarks when commenting on these three fleets as well as the R68A on TransitStuff (the old version that was replaced with the current one). He stated on this very board that all cars made Kawasaki have problems when everyone here on this board as well as everyone in the transit industry knows that is false. Kawasaki has a proven record of making efficent Passenger Cars. The R68A had the best MDBF in the fleet in 2006, at 306,261 miles, and it was made by Kawasaki. The R32s which he (and I) like had the worst MDBF in the fleet in 2006, at 100,301 miles and it was made by Budd. He has even gotten to the level where he states that all of the R68s were made by Kawasaki. The R68As were made by Kawasaki. The R68s were made by the Westinghouse Amrail Company, a company formed by combination of American and French companies. The R68s had also performed well in 2006, with an MDBF of 306,132 miles. The R68s and R68As are among the smoothest riding cars in the fleet. The cars are able to go fast on regular, straight tracks. I rode on board an trainset of R68s recently and the ride was decent and quick. It got speeds just as fast as an R40. As I stated before, all NYCT fleets can get 40 to 45 Miles per hour on regular tracks. As for the A-Divison cars, they are very great cars to ride. He has made several remarks that all A-Divison cars are toy trains. I find them to be decent and unproblematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68 Subway Car Posted February 20, 2008 Share #36 Posted February 20, 2008 I think the R46 needs replaced by the R179.Over the past couple of weeks the R46s have been becoming crap. Making weird noises.The floor starts vibating when the train is braking.And just when the train stops trucks jerk vioently.Jamaica is just not keeping up with them anymore.Or age is just catching up to them.The R46s are great cars. I have not experienced the problems that you have encountered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Bosco Posted February 20, 2008 Share #37 Posted February 20, 2008 I agree with this post. He has made several cruel remarks about the R143, R160A, and R160B. He used racist remarks when commenting on these three fleets as well as the R68A on TransitStuff (the old version that was replaced with the current one). He stated on this very board that all cars made Kawasaki have problems when everyone here on this board as well as everyone in the transit industry knows that is false. Kawasaki has a proven record of making efficent Passenger Cars. The R68A had the best MDBF in the fleet in 2006, at 306,261 miles, and it was made by Kawasaki. The R32s which he (and I) like had the worst MDBF in the fleet in 2006, at 100,301 miles and it was made by Budd. He has even gotten to the level where he states that all of the R68s were made by Kawasaki. The R68As were made by Kawasaki. The R68s were made by the Westinghouse Amrail Company, a company formed by combination of American and French companies. The R68s had also performed well in 2006, with an MDBF of 306,132 miles. The R68s and R68As are among the smoothest riding cars in the fleet. The cars are able to go fast on regular, straight tracks. I rode on board an trainset of R68s recently and the ride was decent and quick. It got speeds just as fast as an R40. As I stated before, all NYCT fleets can get 40 to 45 Miles per hour on regular tracks. As for the A-Divison cars, they are very great cars to ride. He has made several remarks that all A-Divison cars are toy trains. I find them to be decent and unproblematic. Well said, can't agree more. (Qx) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainfan22 Posted February 20, 2008 Share #38 Posted February 20, 2008 The R46s are great cars. I have not experienced the problems that you have encountered. I never said that the were bad cars.But they have been having some problems latley.Its ethier one of two thing happening with them 1]jamaica yard is not keeping up with the cars 2]Age is catching to them I like the R46 but they havent doing good lately.Now i dont think they are great or anything.I think they are just average subway cars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMT4Life Posted February 20, 2008 Author Share #39 Posted February 20, 2008 I don't know how this turned into a dispute about the R68/A. We are discussing the R179 in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted February 20, 2008 Share #40 Posted February 20, 2008 I don't know how this turned into a dispute about the R68/A. We are discussing the R179 in this thread. He's right guys. Stay on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queens Surface Posted February 20, 2008 Share #41 Posted February 20, 2008 But that's the thing the MTa doesn't want anymore 75 foot cars due to their inneficiency and incompatibility with large parts of the system . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastman346 Posted February 20, 2008 Share #42 Posted February 20, 2008 But that's the thing the MTa doesn't want anymore 75 foot cars due to their inneficiency and incompatibility with large parts of the system . I can understand why. Is what your saying an actual fact or also a rumor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3348 Posted February 20, 2008 Share #43 Posted February 20, 2008 they should not make it a 75 foot car since a 10-car 60 foot train kinda looks longer than a 8-car 75 foot train Question: WHO CARES? They're both the same size, so what does it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3348 Posted February 20, 2008 Share #44 Posted February 20, 2008 YOU make assumptions on the R68/A fleet based on one of your commutes. Just because an R68 was operating slow one day. Doesn't mean the whole fleet is slow. And you make assumptions on the R142/A fleet based on one of your commutes. Just because 1% of the fleet is having it's brakes fixed does not mean the whole fleet sucks. This is to everyone, but we all need to keep our opinions about other cars out of this. It's about the R179 (the thread), not other cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOB2RTO Posted February 20, 2008 Share #45 Posted February 20, 2008 I'll take what the two T/Os on here heard from the Superintendents. Why replace 8 75ft cars, with 10 60ft cars. 15ft less doesn't really bring the cost down. Don't forget, different people are running the agency now. Things do change (except unreasonable DANs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo M 201 Posted February 20, 2008 Share #46 Posted February 20, 2008 But that's the thing the MTa doesn't want anymore 75 foot cars due to their inneficiency and incompatibility with large parts of the system . That was the thinking concept before in the high top of the MTA, but now they've sort of reconsidered and think 75 footers is the best thing to do with the next order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
error46146 Posted February 21, 2008 Share #47 Posted February 21, 2008 Question: WHO CARES? They're both the same size, so what does it matter? no, 10-car 60 foot its longer, and also there's more doors for people to enter and exit. yes, mathematically it should be the same, but the cars are not EXACTLY 60 feet point 00000000 feet long and that extra space adds up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOB2RTO Posted February 21, 2008 Share #48 Posted February 21, 2008 no, 10-car 60 foot its longer, and also there's more doors for people to enter and exit. yes, mathematically it should be the same, but the cars are not EXACTLY 60 feet point 00000000 feet long and that extra space adds up Those cars are 60ft from couple to couple, not fiberglass cap to cap. Just like the 60ft buses are 60ft from bumper to bumper, and 40ft buses are 40ft from bumper to bumper. A 10 car train of 60ft cars, has 9 spots of unusable customer space (between the cars). An 8 car of 75ft trains has only 7. That means with 8 car 75ft trains you gain 2 usable spaces. That is unless one likes riding between the cars............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelham Bay Dave Posted February 21, 2008 Share #49 Posted February 21, 2008 One of the reasons I heard the wants 75 FT cars is because its cheaper to run 8 long cars instead of 10 shorter cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N-Trizzy2609 Posted February 22, 2008 Share #50 Posted February 22, 2008 A little inside info tell me the R-179's being worked on. MTA wants new car for the and . The 75-Foot Long possibility is on the table but wants to also look at 60 and 67 feet due to the many problems that R-44's, R-46's and R-68's caused. A little point, 75 Footers can't operate through out the system so if a line is need of cars due to a shortage of some sort, they only have limited possibilities. Two, 75 Footer take longer to load and is trying to run a Utopian subway system. Delay due to loading pissed off. Third, 75 Footers are very failure prone. R-44's had door problems, R-46's had cracked trucks, and R-68's had trouble with signal identification. If you ask me, 75 Footers maybe a possibility but I doubt we'd want to go through these problems again. We'll wait and see the rumored R-179's outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.