R179 Discussion Thread

[m7zanr160s]

I think the does need to be full length. The reason why the first and last car are always crowded is because of the people that had to run when they learned they were out of range. It's also frustrating to have to do that for a train you were waiting for. It also does get pretty heavy ridership in the morning rush towards Manhattan.

[Far Rock Depot]

so your saying you would ignore their new initative to lengthen trains?

I ride the A and C since 1990. Worked those lines too. Its never so crowded it needs two more cars. Its usually only the first and last cars that is that crowded due to the locations of the exits along Fulton st. They NEED to lengthen the G and dont need the 179s to do so.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[BreeddekalbL]

I ride the A and C since 1990. Worked those lines too. Its never so crowded it needs two more cars. Its usually only the first and last cars that is that crowded due to the locations of the exits along Fulton st. They NEED to lengthen the G and dont need the 179s to do so.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

i know they need to lengthen the and tell that to the gentrifiers who say you need to lengthen the that i does not need to be lengthen and guarantee there will be hissyfits 

[Far Rock Depot]

i know they need to lengthen the and tell that to the gentrifiers who say you need to lengthen the that i does not need to be lengthen and guarantee there will be hissyfits

Not a big as a hissyfit compared to the ones that will happen if the brand new cars the C was FINALLY going to get doest cone to the C if thats going to be the outcome. One of the worst mdbf lines in the B division.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[VIP]

The needs the two extra cars. Why wait til its crush loaded to then add cars? Have we not learned with the ? Or the and ? The remaining R32's and R42's can cover the while the and / gets the 8-car R179's. obviously the can get R46's

Edited August 9, 2017 by VIP

[Far Rock Depot]

The needs the two extra cars. Why wait til its crush loaded to then add cars? Have we not learned with the ? Or the and ? The remaining R32's and R42's can cover the while the and / gets the 8-car R179's. obviously the can get R46's

Wait, so you want to put the worst performing cars on the longest line in the system? Where's the logic in that???

And what happened to the L is basically because the neighborhoods its serves where the majority of the crowds happen had no other service. The C is the supplemental local of the Express A. As long as that continues, it won't see the crush loads. People will always switch to the A when the two meet.

But seriously, the worst cars on the longest line? Nah, that won't cause a problem. *rolls eyes*

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

Edited August 9, 2017 by Far Rock Depot

[Far Rock Depot]

Best shuffle off the top of my head?

179s on the A and C. This frees up the 32s, 160s and the borrowed 68 during the pm rush. The 160s go back to the J/Z freeing up their 32s. The 32s go to the B allowing them to see less road time. This frees up 68s for doubling the length of G trains. Then we can wait for the 211s for fleet expansion, then we can reevaluate the need for longer C trains.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[BreeddekalbL]

Best shuffle off the top of my head?

179s on the A and C. This frees up the 32s, 160s and the borrowed 68 during the pm rush. The 160s go back to the J/Z freeing up their 32s. The 32s go to the B allowing them to see less road time. This frees up 68s for doubling the length of G trains. Then we can wait for the 211s for fleet expansion, then we can reevaluate the need for longer C trains.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

where would the 46's go?

[Far Rock Depot]

where would the 46's go?

What about the 46s? there's only what, 4 sets of ten-car 179s coming in? They aren't a factor till they are replaced by the 211s

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[BreeddekalbL]

What about the 46s? there's only what, 4 sets of ten-car 179s coming in? They aren't a factor till they are replaced by the 211s

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

so the 46's will still be there wont be moved to another line since your pooling the 32's between the and ?

[Far Rock Depot]

so the 46's will still be there wont be moved to another line since your pooling the 32's between the and ?

I think you need to re read the post:

"Best shuffle off the top of my head?

179s on the A and C. This frees up the 32s, 160s and the borrowed 68 during the pm rush. The 160s go back to the J/Z freeing up their 32s. The 32s go to the B allowing them to see less road time. This frees up 68s for doubling the length of G trains. Then we can wait for the 211s for fleet expansion, then we can reevaluate the need for longer C trains."

Now show me where I said to pool the 32s between the A and C?

There's going to be four 10-car sets of 179s with the rest being 8-car sets. This is what's pooling between the A and C. Four sets won't displace any 46s. They will displace the two sets of 32s and the one pm rush borrowed 68.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[BreeddekalbL]

I think you need to re read the post:

"Best shuffle off the top of my head?

179s on the A and C. This frees up the 32s, 160s and the borrowed 68 during the pm rush. The 160s go back to the J/Z freeing up their 32s. The 32s go to the B allowing them to see less road time. This frees up 68s for doubling the length of G trains. Then we can wait for the 211s for fleet expansion, then we can reevaluate the need for longer C trains."

Now show me where I said to pool the 32s between the A and C?

There's going to be four 10-car sets of 179s with the rest being 8-car sets. This is what's pooling between the A and C. Four sets won't displace any 46s. They will displace the two sets of 32s and the one pm rush borrowed 68.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

good. and with your idea could it stop sending the 68 over from the B?

[Fresh Pond]

good. and with your idea could it stop sending the 68 over from the B?

That's what he said. To make it even simpler...

 

: R46, R179

: R32

: R179

: R68/A

: R160

: R143, R160

 

...not for nothing, I was thinking that same thing

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

That's what he said. To make it even simpler...

 

: R46, R179

: R32

: R179

: R68/A

: R160

: R143, R160

 

...not for nothing, I was thinking that same thing

That makes perfect sense, wow. Put the R32s on the B since its weekdays only, part time. And those R68s can go to the G for an actual full length extension.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danielhg121]

Huh. Read through part of your post and I saw the puzzle pieces fit together almost perfectly. Wont there be a lot of R32s that don’t see service then, the uses a lot of R32s, will the displaced 160s alone cover it?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[JayJay85]

In all honesty, the C doesn't need full length trains. The order was catered for 480' trains. I'm not going yo go into a "what I would do is....", but one thing is for sure, the c could use those 179s and doesn't need 600' trains.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

I believe that they will change the last 160 cars or so from 4car to 5car units so the can be 600ft.

[Fan Railer]

I believe that they will change the last 160 cars or so from 4car to 5car units so the can be 600ft.

... uhhh, it doesn't work like that.

[biGC323232]

Huh. Read through part of your post and I saw the puzzle pieces fit together almost perfectly. Wont there be a lot of R32s that don’t see service then, the uses a lot of R32s, will the displaced 160s alone cover it?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

It should be enough....and the  getting 179's too..

[JayJay85]

What about the 46s? there's only what, 4 sets of ten-car 179s coming in? They aren't a factor till they are replaced by the 211s

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

I think the R179 could be change to mostly 5car units before the 200 sets get build.

[JayJay85]

... uhhh, it doesn't work like that.

They could change it before the last 200 R179s get built, it's nesscary for them to change it before it built.

[Around the Horn]

They could change it before the last 200 R179s get built, it's nesscary for them to change it before it built.

 

Uh, no they can't...

[djtoro7]

They could change it before the last 200 R179s get built, it's nesscary for them to change it before it built.

The contract is already established. They can't just change it out of nowhere. That's not how business works.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Uh, no they can't...

 

 

The contract is already established. They can't just change it out of nowhere. That's not how business works.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Changes could be made in theory. You could have change orders made depending on what the contractual agreements are, however I do agree with the general consensus. You can't just go making changes on the fly, and such modifications can be quite expensive.  We had clients that would make TONS of changes to the original job specs, and before you knew it, the job was now thousands of dollars more expensive if not millions. lol It's best to stick to the original order unless the modifications needed are so important that they must be implemented.

[Far Rock Depot]

Huh. Read through part of your post and I saw the puzzle pieces fit together almost perfectly. Wont there be a lot of R32s that don’t see service then, the uses a lot of R32s, will the displaced 160s alone cover it?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Chances are, we'll see some 32s elsewhere but mainly they could add to the spare factor. Remember, the L shutdown is coming....

I believe that they will change the last 160 cars or so from 4car to 5car units so the can be 600ft.

Um, no. See, this is a subway car contract. One that is a few years late already. In most industries, maybe. But not in this one. In this one, changes like that are done with option orders, which this one does NOT have.

It should be enough....and the getting 179's too..

Thus is true as far as we were told

Changes could be made in theory. You could have change orders made depending on what the contractual agreements are, however I do agree with the general consensus. You can't just go making changes on the fly, and such modifications can be quite expensive. We had clients that would make TONS of changes to the original job specs, and before you knew it, the job was now thousands of dollars more expensive if not millions. lol It's best to stick to the original order unless the modifications needed are so important that they must be implemented.

Pretty much. But with this particular order....well, what is it, three years late so far?

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Pretty much. But with this particular order....well, what is it, three years late so far?

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

Likely the case.  In such a situation, I'm sure the vendor is paying the late penalties for failing to meet its contractual obligations.  If that's the case and modifications are indeed needed, if I were the , I would only request them if they wouldn't further jeopardize the deadline severely, otherwise, who knows when those trains will be built.  I would imagine that unless such changes were minor that the deadline would indeed be pushed back further, and the vendor could argue as I always do when clients want changes made to projects... Turnaround is always based on the size and scope of the project, and if you want changes, there will be additional charges with such and such deadline. If the charges are substantial and the deadline is really elongated, that usually stops them dead in their tracks, not unless they don't care what the cost is and they absolutely need the work done and can live with the additional time needed to finish the project.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Via Garibaldi 8