Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
East New York

R179 Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Bosco said:

The 5-car sets needed (and possibly still need) extensive modifications.  Even the original spec for 3050-3057 was different from the newest spec, which is why 3058-3065 was the first set to enter service.

Are the R179s on the (C) a permanent thing or temporary until enough R32s are pushed out?

They already went through extensive mod's when they were sent back to Bombardier earlier this year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Bosco said:

The 5-car sets needed (and possibly still need) extensive modifications.  Even the original spec for 3050-3057 was different from the newest spec, which is why 3058-3065 was the first set to enter service.

Are the R179s on the (C) a permanent thing or temporary until enough R32s are pushed out?

Now I see why 3050-3057 look different (in terms of wall ad placement) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, VIP said:

The R179’s aren’t getting those cuomo floor mats right? 

Hopefully, I'm sure the (MTA) has figured out those things are nothing but a waste of time...

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks
Actual Answer: We'll have to wait and see
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2018 at 3:36 PM, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

I'm sure the (MTA) has figured out those things are nothing but a waste of time...

Lol do not underestimate the close relationship between "MTA" and "waste of (time, money, energy, labor, etc)"

  • LMAO! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Elfamoso2020 said:

A lot of conductors and T/O hate the 179. 

Thought you knew that already. But if you didn’t, that’s alright. 

15 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

Why?

From what I heard, they complained that it’s just, overall uncomfortable. I don’t really know for sure. Maybe a T/O on this site can shed some light for us here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Elfamoso2020 said:

A lot of conductors and T/O hate the 179. 

I don’t Know why... it’s the same functions and who you heard this from ? because this statement sounds like a rumor. The conductors on the (J) don’t have an issue with the cars. The only thing that I can conceive is (C) crews getting used to the new technology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, VIP said:

I don’t Know why... it’s the same functions and who you heard this from ? because this statement sounds like a rumor. The conductors on the (J) don’t have an issue with the cars. The only thing that I can conceive is (C) crews getting used to the new technology. 

I heard from operators that the cab seat is very uncomfortable "stiff as a board" and that the cab window kind of rests against your chest in an uncomfortable position when your trying to observe the platform. Other than that idk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, VIP said:

I don’t Know why... it’s the same functions and who you heard this from ? because this statement sounds like a rumor. The conductors on the (J) don’t have an issue with the cars. The only thing that I can conceive is (C) crews getting used to the new technology. 

With the (C) they do have the R160s so I can’t imagine there being a tremendous difference between the two. 

 

Its cool to to see the (J) back to mostly NTT’s again. They still have R143’s on the line which I was surprised at because, 

I thought by this point they would be off the line too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

With the (C) they do have the R160s so I can’t imagine there being a tremendous difference between the two. 

 

Its cool to to see the (J) back to mostly NTT’s again. They still have R143’s on the line which I was surprised at because, 

I thought by this point they would be off the line too. 

I think management puts R143’s on the (J) as rotating spare factor while some R179’s rest or go into inspection. They run the hell out of those R42’s -which is a bad idea. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, VIP said:

I think management puts R143’s on the (J) as rotating spare factor while some R179’s rest or go into inspection. They run the hell out of those R42’s -which is a bad idea. 

This will probably continue to be the case until all the ENY R160s are back (at least) or until after the (L) shutdown. Still not enough NTT cars at ENY to allow the full (J)(M)(Z) to be fully NTT and spare factor is still low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, VIP said:

I think management puts R143’s on the (J) as rotating spare factor while some R179’s rest or go into inspection. They run the hell out of those R42’s -which is a bad idea. 

Originally I thought the (J) had R143 for mileage reasons but I guess that’s not the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2018 at 12:48 PM, R179 8258 said:

3190-3193 3194-3197 is undergoing burn-in-testing on the (C) just pass spring st headed toward Eucid 

 

23 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

3202-3205 is the next set to be delivered. 3204 and 3205 are coming in tonight while the others probably tomorrow. 

And that puts us at about 13.5-15.5 trains for the 8 car sets if I’m not mistaken? I’m unable to do the math right now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3198-3205 would put us at 19 trains since 3070-3073 is AWOL

12 trains are on the (J)(Z)

4 trains are on the (C)

2 trains are burn in testing

1 train is being delivered

Edited by Around the Horn
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

3198-3205 would put us at 19 trains since 3070-3073 is AWOL

12 trains are on the (J)(Z)

4 trains are on the (C)

2 trains are burn in testing

1 train is being delivered

So what's left to be delivered??

6 1/2 8 car trains and 11 10 car trains.

Also, I have been riding the C a few times this week, but I haven't seen any r46's running on the C, but I have been seeing a handful of 8 car r32's, which is odd because there are very very few r32's left at ENY and 10 car r32's can operate on the C.

I guess only time will tell if the plans for making the C is simply delayed or secretly scrapped by the MTA. Let's see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

I guess only time will tell if the plans for making the C is simply delayed or secretly scrapped by the MTA. Let's see what happens.

I have a feeling it's the latter, which, truth be told, is good because the (C) never really had to be full length anyway. What matters more is frequency and with more rolling stock a greater headway can be achieved, if desired.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

So what's left to be delivered??

6 1/2 8 car trains and 11 10 car trains.

Also, I have been riding the C a few times this week, but I haven't seen any r46's running on the C

There are R46s still running on the (C). Saw one on Wednesday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, U-BahnNYC said:

I have a feeling it's the latter, which, truth be told, is good because the (C) never really had to be full length anyway. What matters more is frequency and with more rolling stock a greater headway can be achieved, if desired.

Good f*cking luck handling the Hoyt crowds when Canarsie goes down without full length (C)s. You can't (well, you can, but let's not get into that) increase frequencies beyond 26tph through there, and if a third of your trains are running only eight cars...you have an issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RR503 said:

Good f*cking luck handling the Hoyt crowds when Canarsie goes down without full length (C)s. You can't (well, you can, but let's not get into that) increase frequencies beyond 26tph through there, and if a third of your trains are running only eight cars...you have an issue.  

The (A) is more frequent in the rush anyway. Hopefully, by April, the (A) will consist of mostly 60-foot cars (R179s, R32s or R160s).

Besides, the (G) will be a "full length" of 480 ft, not any longer than a standard (C) train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said:

The (A) is more frequent in the rush anyway. Hopefully, by April, the (A) will consist of mostly 60-foot cars (R179s, R32s or R160s).

Besides, the (G) will be a "full length" of 480 ft, not any longer than a standard (C) train.

The (A) is already packed, and the (C) increasingly is too — remember, they have to absorb crowds along all of Fulton and then deal at HS. You need those 600’ (C) trains, or you simply will be unable to load the additional riders.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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