R179 Discussion Thread

[biGC323232]

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

I agree ...Its not like the   wasnt never full length...R46's ran on the line just a few years back

[Far Rock Depot]

I agree ...Its not like the wasnt never full length...R46's ran on the line just a few years back

I remember that being one of the first "summer swaps"

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

[Around the Horn]

Do they do the burn in testing on weekend nights too?

[djtoro7]

Speaking of which, if you guys listen carefully at 0:25, you can clearly hear the doors sound like the R160 Alstom doors but w/ low pitch buzz

https://youtu.be/rLjbCUtyyWg

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Edited August 14, 2017 by DJ TORO

[LGA Link N Train]

What I'm thinking is that the 4 car R179's should be CBTC retrofitted and placed on the and lines. I'm not sure if the should get any R179's. As for the R179 5 car sets, ALL OF THEM should run on the line, putting some R46's on the just to lengthen the trains along it's route. As for the remaining R32's (which in my opinion should be about 140 left, don't know for sure) they should run as 10 car trains on the and the should run up to at least Ozone Park or Rockaway park for A/C purposes. As for the R32's on the and lines, they should remain the same with a few upgrades on the interior's. R211's in this case, should ALL BE 5 car sets and only 5 car sets to allow flexible service and full length trains on the and lines. Though trains will most likely still be using R68's during this time.

[Bosco]

What I'm thinking is that the 4 car R179's should be CBTC retrofitted and placed on the and lines. I'm not sure if the should get any R179's. As for the R179 5 car sets, ALL OF THEM should run on the line, putting some R46's on the just to lengthen the trains along it's route. As for the remaining R32's (which in my opinion should be about 140 left, don't know for sure) they should run as 10 car trains on the and the should run up to at least Ozone Park or Rockaway park for A/C purposes. As for the R32's on the and lines, they should remain the same with a few upgrades on the interior's. R211's in this case, should ALL BE 5 car sets and only 5 car sets to allow flexible service and full length trains on the and lines. Though trains will most likely still be using R68's during this time.

 

The bolded ideas are ones that the MTA already plans on doing.  Granted, it will be tricky to have the be 100% 10-car trains before the R211s come in.

 

And are the R179s CBTC ready?  IIMN, they should be.

[Coney Island Av]

What I'm thinking is that the 4 car R179's should be CBTC retrofitted and placed on the and lines. I'm not sure if the should get any R179's. As for the R179 5 car sets, ALL OF THEM should run on the line, putting some R46's on the just to lengthen the trains along it's route. As for the remaining R32's (which in my opinion should be about 140 left, don't know for sure) they should run as 10 car trains on the and the should run up to at least Ozone Park or Rockaway park for A/C purposes. As for the R32's on the and lines, they should remain the same with a few upgrades on the interior's. R211's in this case, should ALL BE 5 car sets and only 5 car sets to allow flexible service and full length trains on the and lines. Though trains will most likely still be using R68's during this time.

Wouldn't sending your proposed  to Lefferts or Rockaway Park cause a bottleneck at Grant Av? It has to switch to the local at Hoyt, but suddenly share the same track as the   at Grant. Also, sending it to Rockaway Park would make it wayyy to long. And why would the R32s need to have a few upgrades if the Canarsie shutdown is only for 15 months? The 32s would be retired shortly afterward.

 

- to 96 St 

[RTSTdrive]

The bolded ideas are ones that the MTA already plans on doing. Granted, it will be tricky to have the be 100% 10-car trains before the R211s come in.

 

And are the R179s CBTC ready? IIMN, they should be.

Forgive me if I provide any information that turns out to be wrong, but for now they're not CBTC ready.

 

The on-board equipment has to be compatible with transponders that will possibly be provided by different contractors for each of the separate IND trunk lines planned to get CBTC.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Neko Boy With Glasse

[Fresh Pond]

Forgive me if I provide any information that turns out to be wrong, but for now they're not CBTC ready.

 

The on-board equipment has to be compatible with transponders that will possibly be provided by different contractors for each of the separate IND trunk lines planned to get CBTC.

All new incoming car orders after the R143s (not counting the 188s) came/will come with CBTC capabilities, just gotta install the right hardware in them.

[RTSTdrive]

All new incoming car orders after the R143s (not counting the 188s) came/will come with CBTC capabilities, just gotta install the right hardware in them.

Yep basically

[Fan Railer]

And IINM, that's the definition of "CBTC ready", so yes, the R179s are CBTC ready.

[LGA Link N Train]

Wouldn't sending your proposed  to Lefferts or Rockaway Park cause a bottleneck at Grant Av? It has to switch to the local at Hoyt, but suddenly share the same track as the   at Grant. Also, sending it to Rockaway Park would make it wayyy to long. And why would the R32s need to have a few upgrades if the Canarsie shutdown is only for 15 months? The 32s would be retired shortly afterward.

 

- to 96 St 

The whole point of upgrading the R32's is to accomindate current needs for the city before the R211's come in. As for creating a bottleneck, a simple solution is to build a connection from Montague Street and connect it to the transit museum so that trains can run local to Euclid Avenue due to lack of demand from south Brooklyn, allowing trains to run express to Lefferts or Rockaway Park. Also, if sending the to rockaway Park is wayyy to long, then howcome this isn't a problem on the line??? Doing this may potentially replace the huttle

[Coney Island Av]

Upgrading the 32s only has to do with restoration of the equipment. You specifically only said "a few upgrades on the interior". While I can see the need for such a connection to Fulton for the , I'm afraid is isn't happening until after the  shutdown. The 32s don't really make sense to stay on the  since the MTA plans to only keep 110-160 of them, and also four-car consists of 179s are expected to go on the , while the gets five-car sets. IMO the shouldn't be full length because some of the cars wouldn't really be filled to capacity. We also don't have enough cars for such an extension to the Rockaways. And even if we do have enough, that would be after the 32s are retired, so why extend it in the first place?

 

-  to 96 St 

[LGA Link N Train]

And IINM, that's the definition of "CBTC ready", so yes, the R179s are CBTC ready.

As of right now no, the R179's are not CBTC ready

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[Art Vandelay]

Every car since the last R142A was delivered has been CBTC ready from day 1. That includes EVERY R143, R160, R179 and R188. 

And IINM, that's the definition of "CBTC ready", so yes, the R179s are CBTC ready.

To create a new acronym: YANM. 

[LGA Link N Train]

Every car since the last R142A was delivered has been CBTC ready from day 1. That includes EVERY R143, R160, R179 and R188.

 

To create a new acronym: YANM.

What about the R142's? ??

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[Bosco]

What about the R142's? ??

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

The R142s and R142As were NOT delivered CBTC ready--hence the need for the major conversion of most of the R142As to R188s.  I imagine they'll want to do the same with the R142s sooner or later (God knows how that's gonna pan out with all the problems Bombardier's been having) ...

 

I'm aware that all new trains come "CBTC ready."  However, when I asked if the R179s were CBTC ready, I meant to ask whether they had the necessary equipment already on board (i.e. so, for example, they could run on the on day one if need be).  So the answer to that question is no.  Thanks for the answers.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The whole point of upgrading the R32's is to accomindate current needs for the city before the R211's come in. As for creating a bottleneck, a simple solution is to build a connection from Montague Street and connect it to the transit museum so that trains can run local to Euclid Avenue due to lack of demand from south Brooklyn, allowing trains to run express to Lefferts or Rockaway Park. Also, if sending the to rockaway Park is wayyy to long, then howcome this isn't a problem on the line??? Doing this may potentially replace the huttle

  

Now this, I can agree with! It would take away one of the merges between the and trains, and eliminate any real reason to object to extending the past Euclid, because all trains going past there would still be express in Brooklyn. Then, there would be a stronger case to make the the full time Astoria train, which could in turn permit the to go up 2nd Ave, eliminating the 34th St merge as well.

Upgrading the 32s only has to do with restoration of the equipment. You specifically only said "a few upgrades on the interior". While I can see the need for such a connection to Fulton for the , I'm afraid is isn't happening until after the  shutdown. The 32s don't really make sense to stay on the  since the MTA plans to only keep 110-160 of them, and also four-car consists of 179s are expected to go on the , while the gets five-car sets. IMO the shouldn't be full length because some of the cars wouldn't really be filled to capacity. We also don't have enough cars for such an extension to the Rockaways. And even if we do have enough, that would be after the 32s are retired, so why extend it in the first place?

 

-  to 96 St

 

They are? Shouldn't they keep all remaining active R32s in service until we get, say, at least 110-160 R211 cars in service, so we don't wind up with yet another B-Division car shortage?

[Bill from Maspeth]

The whole point of upgrading the R32's is to accomindate current needs for the city before the R211's come in. As for creating a bottleneck, a simple solution is to build a connection from Montague Street and connect it to the transit museum so that trains can run local to Euclid Avenue due to lack of demand from south Brooklyn, allowing trains to run express to Lefferts or Rockaway Park. Also, if sending the to rockaway Park is wayyy to long, then howcome this isn't a problem on the line??? Doing this may potentially replace the huttle

 

They are not upgrading a car (R32's) just to scrap them shortly thereafter.  As it is they are receiving bare bones maintenance because transit knows they are on the way out.  That's just how things are done with all old equipment.  "A simple solution" would cause billions of dollars.  What happens to the transit museum?  Where do we get the money from?  You propose to run A and C via the express and just the W local.  Not enough service on the W as it can only run at a 10 minute headway (because it shares with the N in Astoria and the R after Queensboro), yet you would have all that express service on the A and C.  Those at local stops lose a 1 seat ride.  Finally the C to Rock Park is too long because it's local, whereas the A is express.

[LGA Link N Train]

They are not upgrading a car (R32's) just to scrap them shortly thereafter. As it is they are receiving bare bones maintenance because transit knows they are on the way out. That's just how things are done with all old equipment. "A simple solution" would cause billions of dollars. What happens to the transit museum? Where do we get the money from? You propose to run A and C via the express and just the W local. Not enough service on the W as it can only run at a 10 minute headway (because it shares with the N in Astoria and the R after Queensboro), yet you would have all that express service on the A and C. Those at local stops lose a 1 seat ride. Finally the C to Rock Park is too long because it's local, whereas the A is express.

Ok, forget what I said about the R32's. The Transit museum would be relocated in my proposal. (I also made a separate thread called A New Transit Museum). The would replace the local train. As for headway's on the , just reorganize the train schedules and the amount of trains that run on the . Also the commuters won't lose a one seat ride if they're going to Times Square, Fulton Center/Oculos, or Hoyt-Schermerhorn. Also, if the runs express, it would allow it to extend to Lefferts Blvd and replace the Lefferts Bound trains.

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[Around the Horn]

Ok, forget what I said about the R32's. The Transit museum would be relocated in my proposal. (I also made a separate thread called A New Transit Museum). The would replace the local train. As for headway's on the , just reorganize the train schedules and the amount of trains that run on the . Also the commuters won't lose a one seat ride if they're going to Times Square, Fulton Center/Oculos, or Hoyt-Schermerhorn. Also, if the runs express, it would allow it to extend to Lefferts Blvd and replace the Lefferts Bound trains.

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

That's not how it works at all...

[CDTA]

Idea:

gets the R68s from the , , and , along with the five-car R179 sets.

and get the 8-car R179 sets.

The remaning R32s are assigned in the former R68 slots on the and .

Basically it'll look like this:

 

 

C: 14 R68s and 4 R179s
G: 13 R179s
J/Z: 15 R179s and 5 R160s
B: 19 R68As and 6 R32s
N/W: 30 R160s and 3 R32s
A: 37 R46s and 1 R68A

 

 

This will allow the to be 8 cars and the to be full length.

[Around the Horn]

Idea:

gets the R68s from the , , and , along with the five-car R179 sets.

and get the 8-car R179 sets.

The remaning R32s are assigned in the former R68 slots on the and .

Basically it'll look like this:

 

 

C: 14 R68s and 4 R179s

G: 13 R179s

J/Z: 15 R179s and 5 R160s

B: 19 R68As and 6 R32s

N/W: 30 R160s and 3 R32s

A: 37 R46s and 1 R68A

 

 

This will allow the to be 8 cars and the to be full length.

 

That's almost perfect except that R32s are definitely banned from the .

[Jchambers2120]

Idea:

gets the R68s from the , , and , along with the five-car R179 sets.

and get the 8-car R179 sets.

The remaning R32s are assigned in the former R68 slots on the and .

Basically it'll look like this:

 

 

C: 14 R68s and 4 R179s

G: 13 R179s

J/Z: 15 R179s and 5 R160s

B: 19 R68As and 6 R32s

N/W: 30 R160s and 3 R32s

A: 37 R46s and 1 R68A

 

 

This will allow the to be 8 cars and the to be full length.

What are you going to do with the surplus of R160A-1's under this proposal and aren't the R32's banned from the B,D,N,Q, and R lines?

[LGA Link N Train]

What are you going to do with the surplus of R160A-1's under this proposal and aren't the R32's banned from the B,D,N,Q, and R lines?

Logical, leave em on the

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk