Jump to content

R179 Discussion Thread


East New York

Recommended Posts

And on top of that, the R179's right now don't have any of the route programs or ANY programs what so ever.

 

Alstom does it differently, they make the car shells with their respective car numbers and install the route programs after the who car is finished.

 

Right now, I have no clue why they reverted back to the original R160 design for the R179's.

 

From my perspective, the original design had crack flaws which was the original 4 car prototype set we saw back in March. Right now, the new prototype which we saw in the plant is the prototype that's still being tested that's the 5 car set, hence why it is 3019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 10.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

So if this is the prototype set, they're skipping 3001-3010? Because if this is a prototype set, the first car number would start at 3015 or 3014, depending on its a 5 car set or 4 car set.

 

 

I would assume a 4-car set since most of the fleet will be in that configuration.

 

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk

 

There are supposedly more than 20 cars built already. A 10 car train, an 8 car train, and a few more cars for the next 10 and 8 car trains respectively. Bombardier has a handle on the structural issues, yet other technical issues have been plaguing the program.

 

In the meanwhile, they haven't stopped building cars. As I mentioned some months back, Bombardier will continue to build cars until MTA finally issues the Notice To Proceed (NTP).

 

Upon that time, if anything is rejected, the technical changes can be incorporated into the cars already built.

 

If that's the case, then let's hope it will actually be here by the end of this month or early next month. Getting tired of these delays. I like the 32's, but recently I have concerns about them, especially the 42's. 

 

I CANT STAND the R32's anymore. Once upon a time I didn't mind them at all, but it's finally time for that POS to meet it's maker. It not what it used to be, they are not as reliable anymore, many components are failing, and I have yet to meet an T/O who hasn't grown tired of them. My thing has always been "They aren't so bad." However, over the last 3 months thats all I seem to get on the (C) and (J). They aren't really comfortable if you don't have a seat. A/C units have been failing, doors have been failing, and some have just outright been breaking down. It's time for them to go ASAP.

 

Has anybody actually SEEN the contract between Bombardier and the MTA?  I bet the MTA only has a remedy in damages for late delivery, not the right to cancel unilaterally.

 

I have. It only has provisions for late compensation. The contract can only be canceled if the trains fail in-service testing multiple times and MTA feels as if they could affect safety or reliability.

 

The original R-179 order (2012) was for 240 4-car sets and 60 5-car sets:

 

3010-3249 (4's)

 

3250-3309 (5's).

 

Some observations:

 

If pilot is a 10-car train, the numbers may have been reversed in accordance with anticipated production:  3010-3069 (5's) and 3070-3309 (4's).

 

The live test train in the canned video from March was a 4-car set and I can't see enough of the side view if its the same one.

 

Note the R-179 "B" end next to the end view of "3019" (paper label).  BOM simply "snaps together" 4 or 5 sets as needed for any particular test or inspection with very little difficulty.

 

Fleet numbers are relative during production.  The cars are generic and usually handled by production (i.e. "serial") number until output is finalized for the contractor (NYCT).

 

The MTA is constantly reviewing the order's quality, construction and content as they always have.  It's possible (probable?) that the 60 & 240 formula could be modified substantially by the time deliveries occur.  This would involve cost analysis and result in change orders but the cars themselves are designed to be modular in a relative sense.  It's a simple matter of how many "A" cars vs "B" cars to produce.  Presumably the "B" cars are cheaper than the "A's," (not important) but it seems clear that the NYCT of 2016 needs additional 10-car trains (and more than 6) rather urgently for the November service expansion than it needs (the eventual) 8-car trains for C and J/Z to replace the R-32's and R-42's as planned for the NYCT of 2012 and now aren't being retired anytime soon to enable even more service preservation and expansion.

 

That's a matter for MTA and more specifically Dept. of Subways to decide, and SOON.

 

The original order has already changed. Originally the 4 car sets were to be first with the 5's coming last. That was switched around and the option for 80 cars was cancelled. And the B cars are definitely cheaper than the A cars.

 

Technically MTA only needs the 2 10 car trains to be operable for an immediate service increase on the (A). All the others can hold off for a bit longer. Not only that, but the new preliminary plans called for trains to go to the (A)(C)(J)(M) and (Z) lines with R160's being displaced from the M to the (C). This however is not set in stone due to the fact that the pilot has still not arrived. 

 

And on top of that, the R179's right now don't have any of the route programs or ANY programs what so ever.

 

Alstom does it differently, they make the car shells with their respective car numbers and install the route programs after the who car is finished.

 

Right now, I have no clue why they reverted back to the original R160 design for the R179's.

 

From my perspective, the original design had crack flaws which was the original 4 car prototype set we saw back in March. Right now, the new prototype which we saw in the plant is the prototype that's still being tested that's the 5 car set, hence why it is 3019.

 

The do have route programming, it's just not operable. Same program as the 160's and it just needed to be uploaded into the FIND. Each manufacture does something slightly different from the others. The Programs are required to be installed when MTA conducts final audit inspection. These cars have been built for quite a while now, and should have been programmed months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are supposedly more than 20 cars built already. A 10 car train, an 8 car train, and a few more cars for the next 10 and 8 car trains respectively. Bombardier has a handle on the structural issues, yet other technical issues have been plaguing the program.

 

In the meanwhile, they haven't stopped building cars. As I mentioned some months back, Bombardier will continue to build cars until MTA finally issues the Notice To Proceed (NTP).

 

Upon that time, if anything is rejected, the technical changes can be incorporated into the cars already built.

 

 

I CANT STAND the R32's anymore. Once upon a time I didn't mind them at all, but it's finally time for that POS to meet it's maker. It not what it used to be, they are not as reliable anymore, many components are failing, and I have yet to meet an T/O who hasn't grown tired of them. My thing has always been "They aren't so bad." However, over the last 3 months thats all I seem to get on the (C) and (J). They aren't really comfortable if you don't have a seat. A/C units have been failing, doors have been failing, and some have just outright been breaking down. It's time for them to go ASAP.

 

 

I have. It only has provisions for late compensation. The contract can only be canceled if the trains fail in-service testing multiple times and MTA feels as if they could affect safety or reliability.

 

 

The original order has already changed. Originally the 4 car sets were to be first with the 5's coming last. That was switched around and the option for 80 cars was cancelled. And the B cars are definitely cheaper than the A cars.

 

Technically MTA only needs the 2 10 car trains to be operable for an immediate service increase on the (A). All the others can hold off for a bit longer. Not only that, but the new preliminary plans called for trains to go to the (A)(C)(J)(M) and (Z) lines with R160's being displaced from the M to the (C). This however is not set in stone due to the fact that the pilot has still not arrived. 

 

 

The do have route programming, it's just not operable. Same program as the 160's and it just needed to be uploaded into the FIND. Each manufacture does something slightly different from the others. The Programs are required to be installed when MTA conducts final audit inspection. These cars have been built for quite a while now, and should have been programmed months ago.

 

Would those two sets add on or replace to the train of R68As and the train of R32s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are supposedly more than 20 cars built already. A 10 car train, an 8 car train, and a few more cars for the next 10 and 8 car trains respectively. Bombardier has a handle on the structural issues, yet other technical issues have been plaguing the program.

 

In the meanwhile, they haven't stopped building cars. As I mentioned some months back, Bombardier will continue to build cars until MTA finally issues the Notice To Proceed (NTP).

 

Upon that time, if anything is rejected, the technical changes can be incorporated into the cars already built.

 

 

I CANT STAND the R32's anymore. Once upon a time I didn't mind them at all, but it's finally time for that POS to meet it's maker. It not what it used to be, they are not as reliable anymore, many components are failing, and I have yet to meet an T/O who hasn't grown tired of them. My thing has always been "They aren't so bad." However, over the last 3 months thats all I seem to get on the (C) and (J). They aren't really comfortable if you don't have a seat. A/C units have been failing, doors have been failing, and some have just outright been breaking down. It's time for them to go ASAP.

 

 

I have. It only has provisions for late compensation. The contract can only be canceled if the trains fail in-service testing multiple times and MTA feels as if they could affect safety or reliability.

 

 

The original order has already changed. Originally the 4 car sets were to be first with the 5's coming last. That was switched around and the option for 80 cars was cancelled. And the B cars are definitely cheaper than the A cars.

 

Technically MTA only needs the 2 10 car trains to be operable for an immediate service increase on the (A). All the others can hold off for a bit longer. Not only that, but the new preliminary plans called for trains to go to the (A)(C)(J)(M) and (Z) lines with R160's being displaced from the M to the (C). This however is not set in stone due to the fact that the pilot has still not arrived.

 

 

The do have route programming, it's just not operable. Same program as the 160's and it just needed to be uploaded into the FIND. Each manufacture does something slightly different from the others. The Programs are required to be installed when MTA conducts final audit inspection. These cars have been built for quite a while now, and should have been programmed months ago.

how many cars in 5cars sets 40 or 60 cars?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to my contact in BOM the only set that has the route programs installed are 3019-3015 which is part of the prototype 5 car set.

 

Unless they're swapping out 3015-3019 and replacing it with 3001-3005-3006-3010, 3011-3019 is now the prototype 5 car set.

Correction: 10 car set made up of two 5 car sets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we know there aren't any route programs installed? For all we know, the AAS has been installed but has been turned off in testing.

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

I've seen photos of the R179's in the plant. For the completed sets, when ever they are in testing the TOD systems turns on (no figure.) However, the TOD screen displays nothing, not even "Not In Service." Normally when NTT'S are turned off, they either display NOT IN SERVICE or ROUTE_DEFAULT. The R179's except for 3015-3019 don't have either. This is how I know the ATS SYSTEM still dosent have the programs installed yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quantities of 4 and 5 car R-179's have to be arranged far in advance through car equipment and service planning because they are permanently arranged in 10 car trains suitable for certain lines, and 8-car trains, which are only suitable for certain others (i.e. C and the ENY lines).  The ONLY equipment on the system now which can make up flexible, customized train lengths at a moment's notice are the old married pairs, the R-32's and R-42's--for better or worse.  That's one of the main reasons for their medium-term retention, until the depth of future service needs is more clearly defined.

 

New Tech Trains thus get trapped on the routes for which they are built.  Ergo, it won't be (easily) possible to switch R-179's at will between the A and C or ENY.  Once they reach their pre-determined assignments in packaged quantities they have to remain.

 

Two other observations, FWIW:

 

One is that the R-179's, as designed, are technological outliers which won't be functionally compatible with the R-160's.  They'll have their own parts and CI procedures which will further entrap them at whatever facility they wind up at.

 

Also note that lengthening the C to 10 cars is off the table as an option (Best of My Knowledge), because of the capital requirements to upgrade or replace the inspection shed at 207 Street, which can't house 5-car units.

 

How's this idea for size?

 

NYCT will have to move a significant quantity of R-160 equipment from Jamaica to Coney Island this fall to provide for Second Avenue Q "Extension" and restoration of the W.  This involves tightening spares almost across the board, particularly of R-68/68A's and R-160's, which will also inhibit NYCT's ability to effectively increase service anywhere for some time (that is, until new equipment can be delivered).  To counteract this need, swap the quantities of 5-car R-179's vs. 4's around to reflect the greater, more urgent need for 10-car trains that will very shortly exist.  As for the 4's which ARE built, produce a fleet of sufficient size for captive assignment to the G, where they can be run in 8-car trains ahead of the Canarsie Tunnel closure and stay there "forever" afterward, like the R-143's on L.  This would release the 52+ R-68's that have been used on G, which can be used as (true) "full length" trains on several lines using 8 75-footers (B, D, N, soon to be W?) to fortify what's out there now and will be in years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen photos of the R179's in the plant. For the completed sets, when ever they are in testing the TOD systems turns on (no figure.) However, the TOD screen displays nothing, not even "Not In Service." Normally when NTT'S are turned off, they either display NOT IN SERVICE or ROUTE_DEFAULT. The R179's except for 3015-3019 don't have either. This is how I know the ATS SYSTEM still dosent have the programs installed yet.

 

May you PM them to me? Why wouldn't you be allowed to post them? How did you get to see them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, please don't harass Javier for things. Whether he has pictures or not, he is not obligated to post anything he doesn't want to.

 

 

The MTA is constantly reviewing the order's quality, construction and content as they always have.  It's possible (probable?) that the 60 & 240 formula could be modified substantially by the time deliveries occur.  This would involve cost analysis and result in change orders but the cars themselves are designed to be modular in a relative sense.  It's a simple matter of how many "A" cars vs "B" cars to produce.  Presumably the "B" cars are cheaper than the "A's," (not important) but it seems clear that the NYCT of 2016 needs additional 10-car trains (and more than 6) rather urgently for the November service expansion than it needs (the eventual) 8-car trains for C and J/Z to replace the R-32's and R-42's as planned for the NYCT of 2012 and now aren't being retired anytime soon to enable even more service preservation and expansion.

 

That's a matter for MTA and more specifically Dept. of Subways to decide, and SOON.

The majority of the 179s will remain as four-car sets, regardless of how "easy" it is to change the A-cars to B-cars, as the purpose behind the order setup is to maximize the number of total trains and replace the aging 32s and 42s. Having more B-cars would reduce the number of trains. With a significant number of 32s remaining on property, there will be enough trains for all service.

 

I CANT STAND the R32's anymore. Once upon a time I didn't mind them at all, but it's finally time for that POS to meet it's maker. It not what it used to be, they are not as reliable anymore, many components are failing, and I have yet to meet an T/O who hasn't grown tired of them. My thing has always been "They aren't so bad." However, over the last 3 months thats all I seem to get on the (C) and (J). They aren't really comfortable if you don't have a seat. A/C units have been failing, doors have been failing, and some have just outright been breaking down. It's time for them to go ASAP.

Be careful there. To some, those are fighting words.  :P

 

I've seen photos of the R179's in the plant. For the completed sets, when ever they are in testing the TOD systems turns on (no figure.) However, the TOD screen displays nothing, not even "Not In Service." Normally when NTT'S are turned off, they either display NOT IN SERVICE or ROUTE_DEFAULT. The R179's except for 3015-3019 don't have either. This is how I know the ATS SYSTEM still dosent have the programs installed yet.

And? I'd imagine that installing the AAS into the computers is not such a complicated process that it must be done by a certain point. 

 

How's this idea for size?

 

NYCT will have to move a significant quantity of R-160 equipment from Jamaica to Coney Island this fall to provide for Second Avenue Q "Extension" and restoration of the W.  This involves tightening spares almost across the board, particularly of R-68/68A's and R-160's, which will also inhibit NYCT's ability to effectively increase service anywhere for some time (that is, until new equipment can be delivered).  To counteract this need, swap the quantities of 5-car R-179's vs. 4's around to reflect the greater, more urgent need for 10-car trains that will very shortly exist.  As for the 4's which ARE built, produce a fleet of sufficient size for captive assignment to the G, where they can be run in 8-car trains ahead of the Canarsie Tunnel closure and stay there "forever" afterward, like the R-143's on L.  This would release the 52+ R-68's that have been used on G, which can be used as (true) "full length" trains on several lines using 8 75-footers (B, D, N, soon to be W?) to fortify what's out there now and will be in years to come.

Again, the retained 32s will be enough to make service, even with the delays in delivery of the 179s. Changing the 179 car order will force the (C) to keep its remaining 32s indefinitely because the MTA has no interest in expanding the length of trains on the line to 600 feet or adding more total trains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, please don't harass Javier for things. Whether he has pictures or not, he is not obligated to post anything he doesn't want to.

.

The only reason I asked to see the pictures is because of that whole (Q) train timetable thing that happened a couple of months ago. Edited by Around the Horn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I again submit:

 

The R-179 order in its original form for the NYCT of 2012 was fine at the time, but the operational landscape will have changed so much by 2017 that it is very much worth altering the content as conceived in a significant way.  Unforeseen and unrelenting ridership pressures now abound as have been widely publicized and there are (or should be) higher priorities at this point than simply getting rid of aging equipment for its own sake.  That is why the R-32's and R-42's are BOTH currently receiving life extension SMS of various kinds, and MTA is disposed to invoke a moratorium on car dispositions until these issues are sorted out.

 

--Ridership is the heaviest its been since at least 1948 and show no sign of abatement, with necessary, planned service expansions yielding little, if any, wiggle room for fleet reduction.

 

--The R-179 quantities as originally configured do nothing to fortify the existing B-Division fleet against the abruptly added requirements (8 10-car trains, at least) that loom with the "extension" (really truncation) of Q service at 96 St./2 Ave.  They also add nothing to the existing fleet that protects against pressures from the potential doubling of the equipment (8-car trains, 10 if 75-footers) that will be required on G by the time the Canarsie Tunnel project commences in 2019.

 

There's simply no way any OTHER new equipment will be on hand before 2022 (assuming the R-211 acquisition proceeds smoothly, that is) to address these issues.

 

Another big factor is the unique technological nature of the R-179, which will make it operationally incompatible with the R-160s.  Again that will engender separate stocks of parts (probably not all but some) and also require separate Car Inspector familiarization and procedures.  For example, from what I can see in the photos they appear to have a truck design of their own.  What parts are then interchangeable with the KRC models that currently abound on all the R-143's and R-160's now in service?

 

Fleet standardization, with few exceptions, has been a key and historically-enforced technological linchpin across the long history of NYC Subways.  Whereas the R-179's are not compatible with the R-160's, best if they are confined to service from one barn, if possible, and not spread to various routes from several facilities (ie A @ Pitkin, JZM @ ENY and C @ 207).  

 

Another consideration is CBTC, which in time will prevent the ready interchange of equipment between Jamaica (where ALL cars will have to be equipped for Queens Blvd. and lower Eighth Avenue) and Coney Island (where all lines will have old-fashioned ABS for the foreseeable future).  Assigning part of the R-179 fleet to C and the rest to J/Z and M just to replace the R-32's and R-42's leads into a later need to retrofit only SOME of the R-179's to provide for C.  This would work greatly against any operational flexibility that may be required to meet ridership trends that would dictate the two fleet portions be freely interchanged between 207 and ENY.

 

All cars used on C (new or existing) will have to receive CBTC as part of the eventual R-211 acquisition, though if contract date of 2021 holds the CBTC would already be installed well before the next generation of rolling stock arrives.  This also means that ALL cars used on M will require that CBTC be installed, which impacts the fleet at East New York as well.  With so many "moving parts" to the planning process, it would (again) make a lot more sense to confine the "unique" R-179's to one facility, where their exposure to the overall system and the necessity of sharing multiple routes would be minimized.

 

The best way to meet this multitude of challenges, again, is to use the R-179 contract as a means of producing the additional 10-car trains that the NYCT of 2017 needs for its imminent expansion, and not the few that the NYCT of 2012 required for A.  As well the R-179 contract is a paramount opportunity to produce the added 8-car trains that the G will soon need.  All 300 of the "non-standard" cars could then stay at these original assignments (G, N, Q, W out of Coney Island) on a permanent basis, which would make whatever quantities of R-160's are needed for CBTC installation available elsewhere, thus standardizing their use on C, E, F, M and R for the longer term.  It seems pretty obvious that the non-CBTC R-46's on A will be completely replaced by CBTC R-211's whenever in time they will be delivered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already told you why this is unnecessary and to be honest, quite foolish. The trains on the (J)(Z) and (C) need to be replaced NOW. The best R32s will remain for the Canarsie closure.

 

As for the R179 trucks, they are the same as the R142.

 

As for CBTC, any NTT can be retrofitted with it, so that isn't an issue. Also, if need be, a CBTC equipped train can operate on CBTC bypass on a regularly signaled line as demonstrated by the R143 on the (J). The whole idea that the R179 is unique is completely unfounded and ridiculous.

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, the R-32's won't do any good for the Canarsie Tunnel closure unless they run on the G, which uses equipment from Coney Island.  Is that the planned strategy, to send R-32's to Coney Island to expand the fleet until they are later replaced?  If used on G, would they be assembled as 8- or 10-car trains?

 

Also, is there a comfortable margin of spares in the existing fleet for Coney Island to provide the necessary extra equipment for the coming Q to 96 Street and W restoration?

 

Finally, the R-142 trucks have zero in common with anything now in use on the B-Division.  Different parts, different procedures.  Won't be electrically or mechanically compatible with R-160s or anything else over there, as the R-142 and R-142A have already proven since 2001.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, the R-32's won't do any good for the Canarsie Tunnel closure unless they run on the G, which uses equipment from Coney Island.  Is that the planned strategy, to send R-32's to Coney Island to expand the fleet until they are later replaced?  If used on G, would they be assembled as 8- or 10-car trains?

 

Also, is there a comfortable margin of spares in the existing fleet for Coney Island to provide the necessary extra equipment for the coming Q to 96 Street and W restoration?

 

As most of the required additional capacity for the Canarsie Shutdown IS on the G, that is not a problem. They could also run elsewhere, displacing whatever cars are on a different line over to the G. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already told you why this is unnecessary and to be honest, quite foolish. The trains on the (J)(Z) and (C) need to be replaced NOW. The best R32s will remain for the Canarsie closure.

 

As for the R179 trucks, they are the same as the R142.

 

As for CBTC, any NTT can be retrofitted with it, so that isn't an issue. Also, if need be, a CBTC equipped train can operate on CBTC bypass on a regularly signaled line as demonstrated by the R143 on the (J). The whole idea that the R179 is unique is completely unfounded and ridiculous.

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Every car built after the 143 was built with provisions for CBTC capabilities. It's just a matter of installing it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We still have 3 years until the (L) shutdown. As we saw with the R44s, anything can happen by then. We know that the (G) will be getting 600' trains, the (L) will be suspended west of Bedford, the (J)(M)(Z) will see additional service, the (J)(Z) will run local and 2 out of system transfers are being added. Anything else is pure speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to point out that there is a lot of misinformation and incorrect statements in the last 5 pages or so of this thread.. 

 

Just wait and see. 

 

Precisely. We'll see everything when it happens. Knowing how things have been working over at Bombardier lately with their Toronto orders, that might be a while, but we won't know anything until the trains have arrived in New York.

 

With all of the nonsense here, I don't remember if somebody has already answered what I am about to ask: Has the test train (supposedly due for delivery this month) arrived yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely. We'll see everything when it happens. Knowing how things have been working over at Bombardier lately with their Toronto orders, that might be a while, but we won't know anything until the trains have arrived in New York.

 

With all of the nonsense here, I don't remember if somebody has already answered what I am about to ask: Has the test train (supposedly due for delivery this month) arrived yet?

Nope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.