R179 Discussion Thread

[Far Rock Depot]

 

 

I was referring to the 4 CAR sets. If the C goes full length, it can't use them, leaving them for the G, J and Z.

With the G currently having 52 R68 cars, thats not enough to cover the C(6 full consists and a four car set). Thats an issue with lengthening the C sooner than later. The bulk of the 179s are in four car sets. That limits where they can be assigned to.

 

You can instead send the 179s to the G but now that make the G 480' trains instead of the proposed 600'. And they'll only need about 104 unless they not only lengthen the trains, but increase the headways. Are there plans to increase G train service?

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[djtoro7]

With the G currently having 52 R68 cars, thats not enough to cover the C(6 full consists and a four car set). Thats an issue with lengthening the C sooner than later. The bulk of the 179s are in four car sets. That limits where they can be assigned to.

 

You can instead send the 179s to the G but now that make the G 480' trains instead of the proposed 600'. And they'll only need about 104 unless they not only lengthen the trains, but increase the headways. Are there plans to increase G train service?

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

They'll have to increase G service once the L is shutdown which is why it would make sense to assign the 4 car 179s to this line running as 8 car trains. It would also make sense to use the R46s on the C as they did in years past.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Yankees4life]

The return of the R32 on the B train? I guess it could work. That train is only part time. But I don't want that train to JUST have the R32s...

[Eric B]

It has been noted plenty of times by me and others on this forum and others that R32's (and all remaining B Division passenger cars from R42  on down) are not allowed in the Montague Tube.  PERMANENTLY.  And this situation will not be corrected because of the small number of cars involved.  

Permanently? Then never again any museum train through there? Or a work train that might use older B Div cars?

What exactly did they do in that tunnel that can't be undone?

[Far Rock Depot]

Permanently? Then never again any museum train through there? Or a work train that might use older B Div cars?

What exactly did they do in that tunnel that can't be undone?

They raised the height of equipment in the tunnel to prevent it from being damaged by future flooding. It reduced the clearance enough to prevent the 32s from traveling thru the tunnel. Since most of The C div is to it specs, they really dont have to worry and just keep refuse trains using 32s off of there

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[FlushingExpress]

Actually, it is entirely possible to change the balance of 4 and 5 car units to include more 5-car units and less 4-car units.

 

Also, expect the first equipment swaps to start in September. 

 

Everything is subject to change though. Stay tuned I guess!

 

What equipment swaps? Are the R179s starting their 30-day acceptance test next month? I don't see big car assignment changes happening until many of them are in service.

 

 

It has been noted plenty of times by me and others on this forum and others that R32's (and all remaining B Division passenger cars from R42  on down) are not allowed in the Montague Tube.  PERMANENTLY.  And this situation will not be corrected because of the small number of cars involved.  

 

Does the B operate via the Montague Tube?  Of course not.  But the possibility always exists in case the railroad goes bad.  Senario: B train of R32's has already left Prospect Park and is at either 7th Ave. or Atlantic/Barclays.  NYPD calls NYCT and says "Suspend your service over  the Manhattan Bridge".  What happens to that B train and any others between Prospect Park and DeKalb?  You can't turn at Lawrence/Metro Tech because you have severe crowding and it will delay your only route to Manhattan.  Therefore NYCT will NOT assign any R32 to any Southern Division route.

 

 

And I said that it would cause more of a delay and crowd condition.  Don't you get it?  You have both tracks of the bridge off limits, and it does happen because things happen up there and NYPD will close it for "security".  You now only have one track to Manhattan: the route via the Montague.  IT IS a big deal if you have to halt things so you can turn a train at the interlocking between Court and MetroTech.  You are slowing down service even more because it takes time to get the passengers off that R32.  And you are crowding the station you discharged at with the passengers from that R32.

 

All this seems to be a railfan thing.  "I want those R32's on the B because they somehow belong on the Brighton Line".  Even though they will be laid up on weekends, the line does run till close to midnight M-F.  Plus air conditioning failures will be often because very little of the line is outside.  Once the R32 leaves Prospect Park, it takes a long time for that train to get back to Prospect Park for the a/c units to get outside air.

 

Once these 4 car units arrive, NYCT and NYCT alone, will decide where to run the R32's.  But rest assured they will not run on any line that goes near DeKalb Ave.

 

 

I am a retired t/o who had 34 years on the job, so I know a little something about how the place operates just like you. IJS. I realize you were discussing this with DJ, but I have a right to respond because the discussion was not messenger based, rather this is a member forum.

  

It may not matter to you on how infrequent a service interruption of this magnitude happens, but you should know by now how senior management thinks.  Something may have a very slight chance of happening, but management takes those precautions anyway.  They may allow the issue with an R32 happen once, but after that they always take precautions that the same issue does not happen again.  Hence my opposition to R32's on the B.  Don't you think senior management has thought of putting R32's on the B so they would have part time use?  I bet they did and they vetoed it for the reason I stated earlier.

 

Just because you worked for the MTA does not make you Mr. Know-It-All. What are the odds of something catastrophic happening that shuts down all four tracks of the Manhattan Bridge? A lot less than winning the lottery. Besides, there would be no reason to send the B down Montague Street if something like that were to happen as the N, Q, and R have priority down there, plus trains can just sit there and wait or be stored at the DeKalb Avenue outer tracks or the tunnels toward the bridge. I cannot think of any other train service the R32s can run on. The are too long and have little outdoor portions, are fully underground, no 96th Street roll signs for the , putting them on the would require new conductor boards and stop signs, and no reason for them to stay on the or Eastern Division when the four-car R179s come on, thus the is the only suitable service for them. Not only is it a weekday-only service, giving them plenty of time to cool off outdoors at Coney Island and Concourse, trains can also be stored on the tracks between Brighton Beach and Ocean Parkway during the day. The only other suitable service is the as it is also a weekday-only route and has a relatively short line, but the problem is it shares cars with the , which would create assignment mixups.

 

I think that the R32 will most likely stay on the A during the Canarsie Tunnel shutdown, in addition, some R46 cars from the A that will be replace by the R32 will go to the F line & the remaining R160 cars from the F will go to the G.

 

Current plans are for the five-car R179s to go on the A, transfer the R46s to Jamaica, which will then give more R160s to Coney Island for the N, Q and W

The return of the R32 on the B train? I guess it could work. That train is only part time. But I don't want that train to JUST have the R32s...

 

The B requires 23-25 trains a day, so there are not enough R32s for the entire route. The TA still plans to retire all R42s by next year and only keep 160-170 R32s, so the B will likely be no more than 30-35% R32s, just enough to make the G full-length R68/68As during the Canarsie Tubes shutdown.

 

And with it being Bombardier (honestly their name is making more sense by the order) they have enough issues as it is and are late with most of their deliveries. A change by NYC might make them break

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

All-in-all, I don't except the C to be full length. The TA already determined last year that there is not enough ridership to warrant 600-foot trains on that service, so unless ridership suddenly sky-rocketed in the last few months, the C Will remain 480-foot long. Besides, most people just take it to the next express stop for the A and when it used R44s and R46s, the trains were practically empty. All trains are crowded during rush hours, you can't do anything about it.

 

I don't know what you're talking about.  The has already stated publicly that the WILL be longer in length.  You're welcome to doubt that but it came from the horses mouth:

 

If the runs with one less car currently, then that means it will be full length.

 

Source: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Subway-Audit-State-of-Emergency-MTA-Plan-Modernize-Lhota-Cuomo-436541583.html

Just because Joe Lhota said the MTA plans on lengthening C trains does not mean they will actually do it. It is just an option at the moment.

Edited August 10, 2017 by FlushingExpress

[Via Garibaldi 8]

All-in-all, I don't except the C to be full length. The TA already determined last year that there is not enough ridership to warrant 600-foot trains on that service, so unless ridership suddenly sky-rocketed in the last few months, the C Will remain 480-foot long. Besides, most people just take it to the next express stop for the A and when it used R44s and R46s, the trains were practically empty. All trains are crowded during rush hours, you can't do anything about it.

I don't know what you're talking about.  The has already stated publicly that the WILL be longer in length.  You're welcome to doubt that but it came from the horses mouth:

 

 

 

- Adding cars to trains on C line, where platforms can accommodate longer trains; each car will be able to hold 145 more riders. (Most of the other lines are already operating with as many cars as the platform can accommodate.) 

If the runs with one less car currently, then that means it will be full length.

 

Source: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Subway-Audit-State-of-Emergency-MTA-Plan-Modernize-Lhota-Cuomo-436541583.html

Edited August 10, 2017 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Eric B]

They raised the height of equipment in the tunnel to prevent it from being damaged by future flooding. It reduced the clearance enough to prevent the 32s from traveling thru the tunnel. Since most of The C div is to it specs, they really dont have to worry and just keep refuse trains using 32s off of there

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

Raising the height of equipment? I understood it was a width problem, where car bodies without the side curvature of the R44's and after couldn't clear.

I don't know what you're talking about.  The has already stated publicly that the WILL be longer in length.  You're welcome to doubt that but it came from the horses mouth:

From what I saw in the initial report everyone want on, the was simply used as a general example of a line that COULD be lengthened because of capacity in the stations (where can't).

Unless there was some further statement saying they would specifically lengthen it.

If the lengthening is connected with the shutdown, then I would think the is what they would really be thinking of.

[danielhg121]

If they were to send a via Lower Manhattan, in the s/b direction, would it be possible to clear it out at Canal street and move it to the city hall yard underneath?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Raising the height of equipment? I understood it was a width problem, where car bodies without the side curvature of the R44's and after couldn't clear.

From what I saw in the initial report everyone want on, the was simply used as a general example of a line that COULD be lengthened because of capacity in the stations (where can't).

Unless there was some further statement saying they would specifically lengthen it.

If the lengthening is connected with the shutdown, then I would think the is what they would really be thinking of.

What I just posted was NOT a general example.  It clearly states that they will be:  

 

"adding cars to trains on C line, where platforms can accommodate longer trains; each car will be able to hold 145 more riders." 

 

Can't make it any clearer than that.  If there's any error, it's on the media for how they reported it, but reading it as is, it is not presented as a general example, but rather a very specific one.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Eric B]

But yes, that's just the news reporting that. It seems they too heard the earlier report as a positive declaration that the was specific. Did Lhota or the ever make another statement making it specific?  

Again, I think the may have been what was in mind, but the currently is the only full "mainline" route running with less cars, and so is the most obvious one that first comes to mind. They might not right away think the would need full length trains, but of course, it might when the is shut down.

[LTA1992]

What I just posted was NOT a general example.  It clearly states that they will be:  

 

"adding cars to trains on C line, where platforms can accommodate longer trains; each car will be able to hold 145 more riders." 

 

Can't make it any clearer than that.  If there's any error, it's on the media for how they reported it, but reading it as is, it is not presented as a general example, but rather a very specific one.

That does not specifically say that they will do it. They are just saying how many people would be added per car IF they did.

Edited August 10, 2017 by LTA1992

[RR503]

If they were to send a via Lower Manhattan, in the s/b direction, would it be possible to clear it out at Canal street and move it to the city hall yard underneath?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

 

Much more interesting question: how would a southbound  ever get stuck on the Broadway line in Lower Manhattan... 

Edited August 10, 2017 by RR503

[Art Vandelay]

 

What equipment swaps? Are the R179s starting their 30-day acceptance test next month? I don't see big car assignment changes happening until many of them are in service.

 

 

 

Just because you don't see them happening does not mean they won't happen. 

 

 

 

 

 Just because you worked for the MTA does not make you Mr. Know-It-All. 

Bill is a transit professional. There is no excuse for disrespecting him here. I happen to disagree with him as to how insurmountable the issue of R32s on the B is, but the Montague clearance issues are significant potential issues. 

 

 

What are the odds of something catastrophic happening that shuts down all four tracks of the Manhattan Bridge? A lot less than winning the lottery. Besides, there would be no reason to send the B down Montague Street if something like that were to happen as the N, Q, and R have priority down there, plus trains can just sit there and wait or be stored at the DeKalb Avenue outer tracks or the tunnels toward the bridge.

All 4 Manhattan bridge tracks being down is not hard to imagine. Any issue on the bridge itself, or anything knocking out Gold street interlocking could easily take all 4 tracks out (or 2 tracks in a single direction) Leaving trains in the tunnel is not a viable solution if there are passengers aboard. 

 

 

 

 I cannot think of any other train service the R32s can run on. The         are too long and have little outdoor portions,     are fully underground, no 96th Street roll signs for the  , putting them on the   would require new conductor boards and stop signs, and no reason for them to stay on the   or Eastern Division when the four-car R179s come on, thus the   is the only suitable service for them. Not only is it a weekday-only service, giving them plenty of time to cool off outdoors at Coney Island and Concourse, trains can also be stored on the tracks between Brighton Beach and Ocean Parkway during the day. The only other suitable service is the   as it is also a weekday-only route and has a relatively short line, but the problem is it shares cars with the  , which would create assignment mixups.

 

R32s run on the C today, so it is obviously possible to run them underground. The A and D would both provide them with more outside time than they get today.

96th street stickers could easily be made if there was a desire to run them on the Q- you probably just need to crop the R68 sticker slightly differently. (They won't run there or any other Broadway train, due to Montague.)

Nothing at all prevents them from being on the G during the 14th street shutdown. Proper stop markers/CR boards are present for 10 car G trains. 

 

 

 

 

 Current plans are for the five-car R179s to go on the A, transfer the R46s to Jamaica, which will then give more R160s to Coney Island for the N, Q and W

 

I don't believe that has ever been the plan. 

 

 

 

 

The B requires 23-25 trains a day, so there are not enough R32s for the entire route. The TA still plans to retire all R42s by next year and only keep 160-170 R32s, so the B will likely be no more than 30-35% R32s, just enough to make the G full-length R68/68As during the Canarsie Tubes shutdown.

 

Correct- They can't make the B entirely R32. Where does that 160-170 number come from? R42s will certainly be staying into next year.  

 

 

 

 

All-in-all, I don't except the C to be full length. The TA already determined last year that there is not enough ridership to warrant 600-foot trains on that service, so unless ridership suddenly sky-rocketed in the last few months, the C Will remain 480-foot long. Besides, most people just take it to the next express stop for the A and when it used R44s and R46s, the trains were practically empty. All trains are crowded during rush hours, you can't do anything about it.

 

 

Just because Joe Lhota said the MTA plans on lengthening C trains does not mean they will actually do it. It is just an option at the moment.

If Joe Lhota and Andrew Cuomo want it to happen, it will happen. 

Edited August 10, 2017 by Art Vandelay

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That does not specifically say that they will do it. They are just saying how many people would be added per car IF they did.

Reading the whole plan it says that if such a plan is implemented, just like it talks about "Launching a pilot program on the S line (the Times Square shuttle) and the L line -- where crowding has "just been extraordinary" -- to remove seats from select cars so that they're standing-only cars; this will increase passenger capacity by 25 riders per car"

 

Those are specific examples.  Nothing general at all there. 

[R32 3838]

Imho i can see the being R32's,R42's and R46's if the rumored swaps were to happen. (R160's CI-Jam, R32's eny/207th-CIY R46's Jam-CIY)

Edited August 10, 2017 by R32 3671

[Jemorie]

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

I guess he's referring to that full-line review of the and lines that came out 2 years ago. One of the pages said something about the not being full length due to it "meeting guidelines" or something like that.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Jemorie

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I guess he's referring to that full-line review of the and lines that came out 2 years ago.

I guess so, but that was two years ago.  The system has seen a series of changes since then.

[Jemorie]

I guess so, but that was two years ago.  The system has seen a series of changes since then.

 

Yeah I know. I just now edited my previous post to add a second sentence. I don't disagree with you that the shouldn't be full-length, as I said in another thread. It really has to be.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Jemorie

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yeah I know. I just now edited my previous post to add a second sentence. I don't disagree with you that the shouldn't be full-length, as I said in another thread. It really has to be.

If not for any other reason than to alleviate the strain on the , plus the is always hit or miss along Central Park West.

[Far Rock Depot]

 

 

Raising the height of equipment? I understood it was a width problem, where car bodies without the side curvature of the R44's and after couldn't clear.

When said the height of the equipment, the equipment I was referring to was the equipment inside the tunnel, begging raised enough to restrict the width of what cars can pass thru. Given that the two is round, what we both said is correct.

 

 

Now as far as the B and 32s. Bill is correct that they will not want Bs in the tube. And even though we disagreed on if they would assign the 32s there, respect was still shown. I too am a former employee (3 years ago) and still in contact with many of my former transit brethren and get a lot of the going ons down there and also was working the B dying a block where I was on a northbound and got turned just In Time. The B ahead of me just made it thru. I stated (and will state again) that only one B is almost any case during a suspension of the B only one would probably have to be turned. And thats N/B. Southbound wont have this issue. It may be enough to allow this particular car swap in the future. This rumor (keyword) has not only been going around in our transit community, but also inside transit. The rumors always start somewhere. But even inside of transit, nothing is set in stone. Threw the years we have heard things that wouldn't happen and have as well as things that we were so sure were going to happen, didn't. For now, I suggest we get back to 179 updates and info. We still dont know when exactly these cars will start revenue testing. I can't remember the last time a railcar design had this many issues being this late and testing. And I remember getting the 62s and 68s when I was a kid, riding the 110s, and seeing the mock ups of the first NTTs and the actual cars being tested as a young adult.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[Union Tpke]

• A majority of lines are already operating with as many subway cars as station platforms can accommodate, but we’re able to add cars to trains on the C Line, where platforms are long enough. Each additional car holds approximately 145 more customers.

 

http://www.mtamovingforward.com/#phase-one

[Far Rock Depot]

 

• A majority of lines are already operating with as many subway cars as station platforms can accommodate, but we’re able to add cars to trains on the C Line, where platforms are long enough. Each additional car holds approximately 145 more customers.

http://www.mtamovingforward.com/#phase-one

We can. But the question is is it needed on the C. As a daily rider, I personally dont think so. But I'm not the one who makes the decisions

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[R32 3838]

The needs to be full length within a year to two years. The westside and brooklyn is growing. The ridership will rise.

[RailRunRob]

We can. But the question is is it needed on the C. As a daily rider, I personally dont think so. But I'm not the one who makes the decisions

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

Yeah isn’t to bad yet. I use it often as a alternative to never working Eastern Parkway Line. Just a little crowding in the 1st and last cars might be nice to balance it out I guess.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app