R179 Discussion Thread

[Fan Railer]

isn't the new streetcar order for their trolleys still behind also too? i take what you are talking about is for a new route they are building

lol I was actually talking about the Bombardier Flexity order, not the route. It's currently 8 years in the making, and they only have a fraction of the cars they should have had by now.

[Bosco]

Smart move given bombardier's track record, if only the MTA had done the same thing with the R179 order... the R32s and R42s would been history by now.

 

The R32s and R42s staying for longer is not necessarily Bombardier's fault.  The MTA needs additional cars especially for the L train shutdown.  Remember, this contract was signed in June 2012, months before Hurricane Sandy hit.

 

That being said, the delays in their other contracts are inexcusable and it would be a travesty if they are even considered for the R211s.  The R179s aren't even anything new and they've been dropping the ball on them.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Bosco

[BreeddekalbL]

The R32s and R42s staying for longer is not necessarily Bombardier's fault.  The MTA needs additional cars especially for the L train shutdown.  Remember, this contract was signed in June 2012, months before Hurricane Sandy hit.

 

That being said, the delays in their other contracts are inexcusable and it would be a travesty if they are even considered for the R211s.  The R179s aren't even anything new and they've been dropping the ball on them.

 

don't they intend on partnering with the chinese for the r211 bombardier?

[beelinefan]

The R32s and R42s staying for longer is not necessarily Bombardier's fault.  The MTA needs additional cars especially for the L train shutdown.  Remember, this contract was signed in June 2012, months before Hurricane Sandy hit.

 

That being said, the delays in their other contracts are inexcusable and it would be a travesty if they are even considered for the R211s.  The R179s aren't even anything new and they've been dropping the ball on them.

I thought it was posted somewhere on here that bombardier was disqualified from the R211 order.

[Bosco]

I thought it was posted somewhere on here that bombardier was disqualified from the R211 order.

 

I remember ENY saying something about that a while ago, but this is the MTA.  And even if that were the case, by default the contract should've been awarded already to Alskaw as they are the only qualified bidder ATM, and not considering CRRC's numerous problems, there's no way they'd be qualified in time if at all.

[ttcsubwayfan]

isn't the new streetcar order for their trolleys still behind also too? i take what you are talking about is for a new route they are building

 

The route in question is the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, and it is not going to be operated by the TTC. It is not scheduled to begin service until 2021.

[Union Tpke]

The route in question is the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, and it is not going to be operated by the TTC. It is not scheduled to begin service until 2021.

 

Who would operate it?

[ttcsubwayfan]

Metrolinx, the same company that operates GO Transit and pioneered the PRESTO fare card.

[trainfan22]

Just saw on the news that part of that six step plan is to add 300 new subway cars, which will start coming in September. 

[Tonyboy515]

Just saw on the news that part of that six step plan is to add 300 new subway cars, which will start coming in September.

And then subtract some lol

 

 

Sent from my iPad using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Around the Horn]

That six step plan pretty much guarantees that the pilot sets will have to go into 30 day testing in June or July in order to give the go ahead and receive the first production cars in September

[Dj Hammers]

R179s 3050-3057 were on the C line doing simulated stop testing:

 

[Lawrence St]

What about the 10 car set? It's been here longer.

 

And by it testing yesterday I'm guessing its going to go into service on June 15?

[Around the Horn]

What about the 10 car set? It's been here longer.

 

And by it testing yesterday I'm guessing its going to go into service on June 15?

I assume the ten car set may be doing other testing.

[Union Tpke]

I assume the ten car set may be doing other testing.

 

It would probably do testing on the .

[Around the Horn]

It would probably do testing on the .

 

But do you really need two sets doing AAS tests at the same time? You could test other components with the ten car set sitting in Pitkin

[R179 8258]

Is it me or does the R179 left all those station really quickly or maybe it could be a 8car train ?

[P3F]

Is the car body design the exact same as that of the R160s? Maybe it's just me, but the I think R179s look slightly more angular.

Edited May 17, 2017 by P3F

[Far Rock Depot]

Is the car body design the exact same as that of the R160s? Maybe it's just me, but the I think R179s look slightly more angular.

Not the exact same. There's a number of small differences

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[Fresh Pond]

Is it me or does the R179 left all those station really quickly or maybe it could be a 8car train ?

8 car train

[Tonyboy515]

I'm noticing that the R179's have some pretty fast acceleration...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Amtrak706]

8 car train

Isn't the power-to-weight ratio the same though?

[Fan Railer]

Isn't the power-to-weight ratio the same though?

It's close enough. Owing to the trailer truck under the low end A-car in each unitized set, each 10-car train has 9 powered cars; each 8-car train has 7 powered cars.

[Amtrak706]

8 car train

It's close enough. Owing to the trailer truck under the low end A-car in each unitized set, each 10-car train has 9 powered cars; each 8-car train has 7 powered cars.

OK...so then why would an 8 car train accelerate faster? All car types from the R10 on have been designed for 2.5mph/second. I doubt the 179s have broken this rule.

 

Old tech trains with D.C. propulsion, as I understand it, have a system of resistor banks that automatically keep this rate of acceleration until maximum current is applied to the traction motors, and the acceleration rate starts naturally dropping off. Field shunting used to enable further acceleration, but nowadays this is disabled and "balancing speed" is around 35-40mph. I'm not familiar with the A.C. version of all this, but I would assume that some computer regulates initial starting current to limit acceleration like the resistor banks do. If it's possible that this could be turned off, then maybe they turned it off during testing? Unlikely, but I guess possible.

[Fan Railer]

OK...so then why would an 8 car train accelerate faster? All car types from the R10 on have been designed for 2.5mph/second. I doubt the 179s have broken this rule.

 

Old tech trains with D.C. propulsion, as I understand it, have a system of resistor banks that automatically keep this rate of acceleration until maximum current is applied to the traction motors, and the acceleration rate starts naturally dropping off. Field shunting used to enable further acceleration, but nowadays this is disabled and "balancing speed" is around 35-40mph. I'm not familiar with the A.C. version of all this, but I would assume that some computer regulates initial starting current to limit acceleration like the resistor banks do. If it's possible that this could be turned off, then maybe they turned it off during testing? Unlikely, but I guess possible.

They've not broken the spec as far as I am aware. Starting acc should still be 2.5 mph/s. People are probably just visually misjudging the acceleration on these things from the videos.

 

You are correct; on the newer equipment, the traction computer limits the train to a pre-programmed acceleration profile, then controls the input to the motors to govern acceleration. It is possible, therefore, to change said acceleration profile if so desired, but I doubt it has been done in the videos that we've seen.