R179 Discussion Thread

[Around the Horn]

36 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Probably so, especially on SubChat. Though I didn’t seem to see all that much cheering over there about the R179s being late or pulled out of service (and none here; just frustration) so who knows?

Facebook is where most of the cheering was 

[trainfan22]

The R179 appears to be an expansion fleet like the 143s are so there's no reason for railfans to dislike those cars.. for now. Who knows what would happen if the Carnsie work is completed before the 211s hit revenue service.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by trainfan22

[R68OnBroadway]

On 1/1/2018 at 3:38 PM, trainfan22 said:

They probably rushed the bomb 142 order because most of the redbird car classes other than the 33ML/WF were in real bad shape and needed to be replaced ASAP, they were jokingly called "rustbirds" and people were regularly getting killed on the cars due to getting dragged in the doors. Whatever issues bomb 142s had early on probably wasn't a threat to the passengers safety and the TA probably thought they were better off with buggy 142s rather than dangerous Redbirds which were a PR nightmare at the time, they was always on the news because riders kept getting dragged in the doors.

 

 

Injured I would expect, but regularly people were killed? I searched for that but I could not fine anyone being killed, just injured. Do you know how many people were killed by faulty doors?

[trainfan22]

12 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Injured I would expect, but regularly people were killed? I searched for that but I could not fine anyone being killed, just injured. Do you know how many people were killed by faulty doors?

Nope. I remember seeing it on the news back in the day. The Redbirds are my favorite cars so I have no reason to lie. This was like 17 or 18 years ago so maybe I got some minor details wrong lol. Either way, people were getting dragged in the doors on the redbird cars towards the end of their life. 

[Bosco]

22 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

The R179 appears to be an expansion fleet like the 143s are so there's no reason for railfans to dislike those cars.. for now. Who knows what would happen if the Carnsie work is completed before the 211s hit revenue service.

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.

[rbrome]

So how many R179 trains are running now? Is it easier to find one to ride, and are they all still on the J so far?

[Calvin]

21 minutes ago, rbrome said:

So how many R179 trains are running now? Is it easier to find one to ride, and are they all still on the J so far?

1 out of the 3 are in passenger service on the . Two are currently being tested.  

Edited January 4, 2018 by Calvin

[Fan Railer]

 

[trainfan22]

The two 179 sets been laid up at that same spot in eny yard since at least new years day.

[Bill from Maspeth]

On ‎1‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 5:23 PM, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

Just wait when the R211's start getting delivered and the foamers go crazy over the death of the R32's

Oh, the humanity!

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 1/3/2018 at 6:29 PM, Bosco said:

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.

If that’s the case, then by the time the last R211 train enters service, it’ll be time to retire the R68/R68A cars. Maybe they should consider option orders to retire them too. That way, they can have more standardization within the B Division.

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

16 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If that’s the case, then by the time the last R211 train enters service, it’ll be time to retire the R68/R68A cars. Maybe they should consider option orders to retire them too. That way, they can have more standardization within the B Division.

This dips into the R211 thread but certainly agreed, retiring all 75 ft cars would be better now than starting another car order that may not be delivered for even more years due to testing on an entirely new fleet, and imagine all the maintenance costs and line swaps that might go onto R68's during the entire process. The idea sure is elaborate and maybe expensive today but if done right, this could be a serious win for the B division. 

Edited January 8, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[R68OnBroadway]

19 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If that’s the case, then by the time the last R211 train enters service, it’ll be time to retire the R68/R68A cars. Maybe they should consider option orders to retire them too. That way, they can have more standardization within the B Division.

Currently with all option exercised, 1695 cars can be delivered, but only 1175 are planned. Retiring all B-division OTTs would allow for 210 extra cars to expand the fleet (if 1695 are delivered), but I doubt the MTA is considering this as if they were, they would have ordered some non-SIR single units to replace the Franklin  R68s. However, considering how late new MTA rolling stock comes in, they could retire all 75 footers and then reconfigure some R160s or R179s to be married or triplet pairs for Franklin  service.

[Amtrak706]

Just heard from a friend that saw 3088 plus one more on I-80 around 9:30 this morning. If he took pics I will post them here.

[Calvin]

Jake D Oster

Edited January 10, 2018 by Calvin

[Fan Railer]

Likely means two more tomorrow night.

[Calvin]

12 hours ago, Amtrak706 said:

Just heard from a friend that saw 3088 plus one more on I-80 around 9:30 this morning. If he took pics I will post them here.

3089

[Maserati7200]

On January 7, 2018 at 11:54 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If that’s the case, then by the time the last R211 train enters service, it’ll be time to retire the R68/R68A cars. Maybe they should consider option orders to retire them too. That way, they can have more standardization within the B Division.

 

On January 8, 2018 at 3:58 PM, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

This dips into the R211 thread but certainly agreed, retiring all 75 ft cars would be better now than starting another car order that may not be delivered for even more years due to testing on an entirely new fleet, and imagine all the maintenance costs and line swaps that might go onto R68's during the entire process. The idea sure is elaborate and maybe expensive today but if done right, this could be a serious win for the B division. 

 

On January 8, 2018 at 7:55 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

Currently with all option exercised, 1695 cars can be delivered, but only 1175 are planned. Retiring all B-division OTTs would allow for 210 extra cars to expand the fleet (if 1695 are delivered), but I doubt the MTA is considering this as if they were, they would have ordered some non-SIR single units to replace the Franklin  R68s. However, considering how late new MTA rolling stock comes in, they could retire all 75 footers and then reconfigure some R160s or R179s to be married or triplet pairs for Franklin  service.

The R68/A's were delivered between 1986 and 1988. In 2024 they will be 36-38 years old. That is a very young age to retire a subway car - especially reliable ones that were delivered after the bad old days of deferred maintenance. The R68/A's are about 10 years younger than the R46's, so their replacements should arrive 10 years after the R211. 45-50 years should be the new standard for subway car service life. There is no good reason to waste taxpayer dollars to retire trains that will likely have 15-20 years left of good life in them. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

8 hours ago, Maserati7200 said:

The R68/A's were delivered between 1986 and 1988. In 2024 they will be 36-38 years old. That is a very young age to retire a subway car - especially reliable ones that were delivered after the bad old days of deferred maintenance. The R68/A's are about 10 years younger than the R46's, so their replacements should arrive 10 years after the R211. 45-50 years should be the new standard for subway car service life. There is no good reason to waste taxpayer dollars to retire trains that will likely have 15-20 years left of good life in them. 

I’m going to have to disagree. Yes, the R68/As are about 10 years younger (actually, they’re more like 12-16 years younger). And they certainly are reliable cars (it certainly helps that most of them are running on part-time services like the  and  and the relatively short  line). But you are not seeing the big picture here. There are a total of 625 R68 and R68A cars. That sounds like a lot of subway cars, and it’s more than many other cities’ entire subway car fleets. But it’s a very small portion (under 10 percent) of the entire NYC subway car fleet.

Let me ask you, where are you getting 45-50 years as a “new standard” for subway car service life? And why? Especially when there are transit agencies withdrawing subway cars much sooner than that. PATH withdrew its 1987 PA4 cars from service in 2011 and MBTA is planning to withdraw its 1993 1800-series fleet so they can operate just one type of car on their Red Line (they currently have three types on the Red Line, many of which are much older than 1993). Granted, in both PATH’s and the T’s cases, the premature retirement of those cars also included the retirement of many more cars that were much older (the PA1 cars dated back to 1964). Retiring the R68/A cars wouldn’t be much different. Even the Redbirds and SEPTA's M3 "Almond Joy" cars didn't last that long. Those cars averaged in the 35-40 year range, which really is a more reasonable subway car life expectation than 45-50. The technology is advancing so much and you don't want to have rolling stock that ends up being obsolete for many years before being replaced. If the R68/As are replaced in the late 2020s (they will not be replaced in 2024; if anything, we may still have some R46s in service by then, so any option orders would come after that), the oldest of them will be more than 40. And that is not a "very young age" to retire a subway car.

Lastly, let’s talk about your “waste of taxpayer dollars” comment (oh boy, if only I had a dollar for every single time I’ve seen those four words together on the Internet or in print media or heard them on TV or radio, then I’d be able to buy subway cars for Transit once every 10 years!). Ok, so the State and MTA save a few billion dollars by hanging onto the R68/As for another 15-20 years. Those cars have to properly be maintained with the right parts, or else they won’t be the reliable cars they are now. Will the right parts still be available in the 2020s and 2030s to keep these back-to-basics, low-technology cars in reliable service? How much will it cost to procure parts that may have to be specially made by then? You have to remember, the R68s (along with the R62s) were purchased with a back-to-basics mentality the MTA took in the 1980s in response to the technology fiascos that were the R44s and R46s. But the industry moved on from that decades ago. It's like trying to get parts for classic sports cars from the 1950s and 60s. There aren't a whole lot of suppliers out there and those that do exist charge a lot of money because it's not profitable for them to mass-produce such old parts. Thus, it will cost Transit more to maintain them. Or they may have to pare down the R68/A fleet by cannibalizing some of the cars for parts. Look at how much trouble Transit has maintaining the extremely outdated signals, for why holding onto old technology isn't always such a great idea.

And then, eventually, they will have to be replaced. It will now have been years after the last R211s went into service. It’s not like the MTA can just negotiate another option order like they could have during the R211 procurement process. It'll be much too late for that. But they didn’t want to “waste taxpayer dollars,” so they kept them on for another two decades. Now, they have to go back and start over with a brand new subway car contract. For only 625 cars. It’ll probably cost more than an R211 option order would have. And it’ll certainly be more expensive per car. I’d say this is definitely an example of “penny wise, pound foolish.”

Edited January 11, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 9:41 PM, Calvin said:

 

Jake D Oster

That one really looks virtually identical to the R143s and the R160s, thanks to all the grime it has on it. And without running in service yet, .  

[Maserati7200]

15 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’m going to have to disagree. Yes, the R68/As are about 10 years younger (actually, they’re more like 12-16 years younger). And they certainly are reliable cars (it certainly helps that most of them are running on part-time services like the  and  and the relatively short  line). But you are not seeing the big picture here. There are a total of 625 R68 and R68A cars. That sounds like a lot of subway cars, and it’s more than many other cities’ entire subway car fleets. But it’s a very small portion (under 10 percent) of the entire NYC subway car fleet.

Let me ask you, where are you getting 45-50 years as a “new standard” for subway car service life? And why? Especially when there are transit agencies withdrawing subway cars much sooner than that. PATH withdrew its 1987 PA4 cars from service in 2011 and MBTA is planning to withdraw its 1993 1800-series fleet so they can operate just one type of car on their Red Line (they currently have three types on the Red Line, many of which are much older than 1993). Granted, in both PATH’s and the T’s cases, the premature retirement of those cars also included the retirement of many more cars that were much older (the PA1 cars dated back to 1964). Retiring the R68/A cars wouldn’t be much different. Even the Redbirds and SEPTA's M3 "Almond Joy" cars didn't last that long. Those cars averaged in the 35-40 year range, which really is a more reasonable subway car life expectation than 45-50. The technology is advancing so much and you don't want to have rolling stock that ends up being obsolete for many years before being replaced. If the R68/As are replaced in the late 2020s (they will not be replaced in 2024; if anything, we may still have some R46s in service by then, so any option orders would come after that), the oldest of them will be more than 40. And that is not a "very young age" to retire a subway car.

Lastly, let’s talk about your “waste of taxpayer dollars” comment (oh boy, if only I had a dollar for every single time I’ve seen those four words together on the Internet or in print media or heard them on TV or radio, then I’d be able to buy subway cars for Transit once every 10 years!). Ok, so the State and MTA save a few billion dollars by hanging onto the R68/As for another 15-20 years. Those cars have to properly be maintained with the right parts, or else they won’t be the reliable cars they are now. Will the right parts still be available in the 2020s and 2030s to keep these back-to-basics, low-technology cars in reliable service? How much will it cost to procure parts that may have to be specially made by then? You have to remember, the R68s (along with the R62s) were purchased with a back-to-basics mentality the MTA took in the 1980s in response to the technology fiascos that were the R44s and R46s. But the industry moved on from that decades ago. It's like trying to get parts for classic sports cars from the 1950s and 60s. There aren't a whole lot of suppliers out there and those that do exist charge a lot of money because it's not profitable for them to mass-produce such old parts. Thus, it will cost Transit more to maintain them. Or they may have to pare down the R68/A fleet by cannibalizing some of the cars for parts. Look at how much trouble Transit has maintaining the extremely outdated signals, for why holding onto old technology isn't always such a great idea.

And then, eventually, they will have to be replaced. It will now have been years after the last R211s went into service. It’s not like the MTA can just negotiate another option order like they could have during the R211 procurement process. It'll be much too late for that. But they didn’t want to “waste taxpayer dollars,” so they kept them on for another two decades. Now, they have to go back and start over with a brand new subway car contract. For only 625 cars. It’ll probably cost more than an R211 option order would have. And it’ll certainly be more expensive per car. I’d say this is definitely an example of “penny wise, pound foolish.”

45-50 years comes from the fact that that's how old the R46's will be when they retire, and that's how old the R32's would've been retired at had the R44's not completely crapped out. And again, both of those cars were around during the bad old days of deferred maintenance; the R68/A's were not. I honestly think the R68/A's could even last for 55 years of reliable service. The R32's are 54 now, and will be closer to 60 when they retire. And while their MBDF is the lowest, it isn't THAT bad considering their age. Not to mention it's really the A/C units that are the biggest problems. It bears repeating, the R68/A's were, and will continue to be, well maintained throughout their life, unlike the R32's and R46's.

And why are you looking to the Port Authority, one of the most wasteful and corrupt public agencies in existence, as a good example of an agency properly spending public money? Have you seen their $3 Billion dollar subway station? Do you not remember how inept they were at finally rebuilding the WTC? Not that I even agree with the decision to prematurely retire the PA4's, but at least there were only 95 of them, and doing so allowed them to have a completely uniform fleet, which they needed for CBTC anyway. Apples to oranges.   

Our fleet is already pretty uniform. The R160 order replaced 7 car classes (Most R32's, R38, R40, R40M, R42, R44) with 1 - that's VERY good in terms of uniformity. The R142/A's replaced 8 car classes (R26, R28, R29, R33, R33 WF, R36, R36 WF) with 1, which, again, is VERY good. And 625 IS a lot of cars in the absolute sense, and ~10% IS a lot. You're also not considering the fact that they're 75 feet, so they're really equivalent to 781.25 60 footers ((625 ÷ 8) x 10) = 781.25). Furthermore, they'll probably want to expand the fleet with the R68/A's replacements, so I wouldn't be surprised if the R68/A replacement order is closer to 900 cars. 

I also think you're overstating how much it would cost to maintain them for another 15 years. Comparing SMEE train technology to the original 1930's IND signaling is apples to oranges. At MOST it would be in the tens of millions over the course of 15 years, probably a lot less. Those Billions for the capital budget would be much better spent on much needed system maintenance and expansion. Also, speaking of technology, I'm pretty sure only a small portion of the R211's are going to have open gangways - this is a very important technology. If the initial open gangway R211T set goes well initially, we'll get at most 650 of them, which would be about a 3rd of the entire order - not bad. But if it doesn't go well initially the MTA gets to test it out for 10 or so years and work out the kinks, we could end up having an entire 800+ car order with open gangways - a very important feature for our ever increasingly crowded subway cars. And in those 15 years or so extra, maybe even better technology will come along for the R68/A replacements. It'll also give sometime for the MTA to asses it's ever changing future needs, so it'll give them a chance to have more flexibility.  So I actually think you have it the completely opposite way - your idea is penny wise pound foolish (lets spend a lot of money to save a little money). And evidently the MTA agrees with me considering there are no plans to replace the R68/A's with the R211's. 

Edited January 12, 2018 by Maserati7200

[subwaycommuter1983]

10 hours ago, Maserati7200 said:

45-50 years comes from the fact that that's how old the R46's will be when they retire, and that's how old the R32's would've been retired at had the R44's not completely crapped out. And again, both of those cars were around during the bad old days of deferred maintenance; the R68/A's were not. I honestly think the R68/A's could even last for 55 years of reliable service. The R32's are 54 now, and will be closer to 60 when they retire. And while their MBDF is the lowest, it isn't THAT bad considering their age. Not to mention it's really the A/C units that are the biggest problems. It bears repeating, the R68/A's were, and will continue to be, well maintained throughout their life, unlike the R32's and R46's.

And why are you looking to the Port Authority, one of the most wasteful and corrupt public agencies in existence, as a good example of an agency properly spending public money? Have you seen their $3 Billion dollar subway station? Do you not remember how inept they were at finally rebuilding the WTC? Not that I even agree with the decision to prematurely retire the PA4's, but at least there were only 95 of them, and doing so allowed them to have a completely uniform fleet, which they needed for CBTC anyway. Apples to oranges.   

Our fleet is already pretty uniform. The R160 order replaced 7 car classes (Most R32's, R38, R40, R40M, R42, R44) with 1 - that's VERY good in terms of uniformity. The R142/A's replaced 8 car classes (R26, R28, R29, R33, R33 WF, R36, R36 WF) with 1, which, again, is VERY good. And 625 IS a lot of cars in the absolute sense, and ~10% IS a lot. You're also not considering the fact that they're 75 feet, so they're really equivalent to 781.25 60 footers ((625 ÷ 8) x 10) = 781.25). Furthermore, they'll probably want to expand the fleet with the R68/A's replacements, so I wouldn't be surprised if the R68/A replacement order is closer to 900 cars. 

I also think you're overstating how much it would cost to maintain them for another 15 years. Comparing SMEE train technology to the original 1930's IND signaling is apples to oranges. At MOST it would be in the tens of millions over the course of 15 years, probably a lot less. Those Billions for the capital budget would be much better spent on much needed system maintenance and expansion. Also, speaking of technology, I'm pretty sure only a small portion of the R211's are going to have open gangways - this is a very important technology. If the initial open gangway R211T set goes well initially, we'll get at most 650 of them, which would be about a 3rd of the entire order - not bad. But if it doesn't go well initially the MTA gets to test it out for 10 or so years and work out the kinks, we could end up having an entire 800+ car order with open gangways - a very important feature for our ever increasingly crowded subway cars. And in those 15 years or so extra, maybe even better technology will come along for the R68/A replacements. It'll also give sometime for the MTA to asses it's ever changing future needs, so it'll give them a chance to have more flexibility.  So I actually think you have it the completely opposite way - your idea is penny wise pound foolish (lets spend a lot of money to save a little money). And evidently the MTA agrees with me considering there are no plans to replace the R68/A's with the R211's. 

Makes sense.  I think that the MTA  should use the r179's experience as an example of not waiting  for the last minute to replace old subway cars.

I  think the MTA should already be planning the replacement of the r68s as well as the r62s in the A division, which are about the same age as the r68s.

Edited January 12, 2018 by subwaycommuter1983

[Fan Railer]

 

[subwaycommuter1983]

3 minutes ago, Fan Railer said:

 

Awesome!!! It's about time!!!

[Around the Horn]

Two sets are out today:

3093-3090, 3058-3061 and 3065-3062, 3066-3069