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

37 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Am I the only one who is sick and tired of the fact that the R179's have been on testing for ALMOST A YEAR 

Are there any other models that have taken this long from delivery to EIS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

Am I the only one who is sick and tired of the fact that the R179's have been on testing for ALMOST A YEAR 

When the train keeps failing, the clock restarts.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The R62s spent six months in testing

That was the 1980s, and QC standards have greatly changed since then.  Engineering-wise, the R62/As and R68/As were also really conservative so as to get them in service ASAP, so there wasn't as much that could go wrong.  

Even if we're talking about NTTs, the R160s took about a year from delivery to EIS.  I'm not defending Bombardier's lousy performance or the MTA's reactive approach to this situation.  But if you people complaining about the long testing period want these cars to enter service too soon--only to have them taken out, which was what happened with the R46s--then you probably just want your 4K RARE pictures and don't care about the other problems the MTA is dealing with.

10 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

When the train keeps failing, the clock restarts.

This!

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

what's funny is the R142/A didn't take a year to hit service, they were delivered in Dec 99 and were in service by the summer of 2000.

Being that those were the first production NTTs, the MTA had a lot to learn.  Even when the cars entered service, they had many more teething problems than their B-division counterparts (this includes the R142s and R142As).  Bad door motors, glitched AAS, etc.  It makes sense that the MTA wanted to put the R160 through more rigorous testing so that they wouldn't have as many problems after being placed into service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bosco said:

That was the 1980s, and QC standards have greatly changed since then.  Engineering-wise, the R62/As and R68/As were also really conservative so as to get them in service ASAP, so there wasn't as much that could go wrong.  

Even if we're talking about NTTs, the R160s took about a year from delivery to EIS.  I'm not defending Bombardier's lousy performance or the MTA's reactive approach to this situation.  But if you people complaining about the long testing period want these cars to enter service too soon--only to have them taken out, which was what happened with the R46s--then you probably just want your 4K RARE pictures and don't care about the other problems the MTA is dealing with.

This!

I don't want 4K exclusives or rare pics, (not that they're rare anyways.) I want trains that engineered well and built right the first time. Ho much money has the MTA lost because of this contract? Instead of looking for the cheapest bidder they should be looking for the best bidder that can produce. If I were the MTA I'd rather pay more for a company that can only produce one train set a month, and can do it right; over a company that produces a set a week, but with defects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case, there were two issues with that philosophy: 1) only two companies bid for the contract, Bombardier and Alstom-Kawasaki, and 2) Bombardier was a trusted vendor at the time.

In regards to the first point, due to familiarity with the subway system design, most car builders won't put in an offer. We see this here with the 179 order and we saw it previously with the much smaller 188 new build order. Other builders likely see little benefit to designing and building a couple hundred railcars when they can get more money for a larger order, which explains why everyone's interested in the 211 order procurement.

As for the latter point, it's not as though the MTA picked some random car builder for this order. Bombardier has been building subway cars for us since the '80s with the 62A order with very little cause for concern. We presently have nearly 30% of the in-service subway fleet built by Bombardier and all of those cars run relatively well, especially considering about half of those cars are well over 30 years old. Naturally, this doesn't excuse their excessive delays in delivery, but it does explain why the MTA chose Bombardier as the builder of the 179s, despite the growing concerns relating to production.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lance said:

In this case, there were two issues with that philosophy: 1) only two companies bid for the contract, Bombardier and Alstom-Kawasaki, and 2) Bombardier was a trusted vendor at the time.

In regards to the first point, due to familiarity with the subway system design, most car builders won't put in an offer. We see this here with the 179 order and we saw it previously with the much smaller 188 new build order. Other builders likely see little benefit to designing and building a couple hundred railcars when they can get more money for a larger order, which explains why everyone's interested in the 211 order procurement.

As for the latter point, it's not as though the MTA picked some random car builder for this order. Bombardier has been building subway cars for us since the '80s with the 62A order with very little cause for concern. We presently have nearly 30% of the in-service subway fleet built by Bombardier and all of those cars run relatively well, especially considering about half of those cars are well over 30 years old. Naturally, this doesn't excuse their excessive delays in delivery, but it does explain why the MTA chose Bombardier as the builder of the 179s, despite the growing concerns relating to production.

Good point, I'll give you that. But if the MTA selects a Bombardier bid again before they can prove that they are properly able to make another order, they are seriously going to regret it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lance said:

As for the latter point, it's not as though the MTA picked some random car builder for this order. Bombardier has been building subway cars for us since the '80s with the 62A order with very little cause for concern. We presently have nearly 30% of the in-service subway fleet built by Bombardier and all of those cars run relatively well, especially considering about half of those cars are well over 30 years old. Naturally, this doesn't excuse their excessive delays in delivery, but it does explain why the MTA chose Bombardier as the builder of the 179s, despite the growing concerns relating to production.

Plus, part of the reason is that contractors for the MTA are so scarse (moreso for bus orders as there are more players) is QC.  If Bombardier has built a third of the MTA's current fleet and almost all of the EMUs for MNR and LIRR, they had to have been doing something right.  And, I hate to say this as a Kawasaki fan, but the R142s appear to be aging the best of the NTTs.

 

38 minutes ago, IAlam said:

Good point, I'll give you that. But if the MTA selects a Bombardier bid again before they can prove that they are properly able to make another order, they are seriously going to regret it. 

Hence why they aren't even being considered for the R211:

http://montrealgazette.com/business/local-business/bombardier-shut-out-of-n-y-subway-contract-because-of-poor-performance-report

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Bosco said:

 And, I hate to say this as a Kawasaki fan, but the R142s appear to be aging the best of the NTTs.

You're not wrong there. Even after the move to Corona as part of the 188 order, the Kawasaki cars still feel like bucking broncos when they accelerate and slow down. You don't get that with the 142s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lance said:

You're not wrong there. Even after the move to Corona as part of the 188 order, the Kawasaki cars still feel like bucking broncos when they accelerate and slow down. You don't get that with the 142s.

This is stupid on the MTA's part, but for the R188s the only mechanical components that were completely replaced were the master controller and the door motors.  Putting those cars through an actual refurbishment (especially given the shape with which they came in) would've been a lot better in terms of aesthetics as well as maintenance.  Of course, the MTA rushed that contract too.  Hopefully when the R142s get converted (which will happen sooner or later) they are more thorough about it.

Part of the bucking might be the AdTranz/Bombardier propulsion, because it seems the R142As/R143s/R188s are the worst of the bunch.  The R160s are still bad, though no where near as bad.  The R142s, on the other hand, are some of the smoothest riders in the system.

With any luck, once all this is over with the R179s, the R179s will age as well as the R142s.

Edited by Bosco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Lance said:

In this case, there were two issues with that philosophy: 1) only two companies bid for the contract, Bombardier and Alstom-Kawasaki, and 2) Bombardier was a trusted vendor at the time.

In regards to the first point, due to familiarity with the subway system design, most car builders won't put in an offer. We see this here with the 179 order and we saw it previously with the much smaller 188 new build order. Other builders likely see little benefit to designing and building a couple hundred railcars when they can get more money for a larger order, which explains why everyone's interested in the 211 order procurement.

As for the latter point, it's not as though the MTA picked some random car builder for this order. Bombardier has been building subway cars for us since the '80s with the 62A order with very little cause for concern. We presently have nearly 30% of the in-service subway fleet built by Bombardier and all of those cars run relatively well, especially considering about half of those cars are well over 30 years old. Naturally, this doesn't excuse their excessive delays in delivery, but it does explain why the MTA chose Bombardier as the builder of the 179s, despite the growing concerns relating to production.

Not to mention that Bombardier has a production plant in NYS (one of four such companies I know of), which counts for a LOT politically.

Hopefully the merger with Siemens won't compromise the Alstom facility in Hornell; hopefully BBD can survive and keep the Plattsburgh plant going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bosco said:

This is stupid on the MTA's part, but for the R188s the only mechanical components that were completely replaced were the master controller and the door motors.  Putting those cars through an actual refurbishment (especially given the shape with which they came in) would've been a lot better in terms of aesthetics as well as maintenance.  Of course, the MTA rushed that contract too.  Hopefully when the R142s get converted (which will happen sooner or later) they are more thorough about it.

Part of the bucking might be the AdTranz/Bombardier propulsion, because it seems the R142As/R143s/R188s are the worst of the bunch.  The R160s are still bad, though no where near as bad.  The R142s, on the other hand, are some of the smoothest riders in the system.

With any luck, once all this is over with the R179s, the R179s will age as well as the R142s.

The R-142A's were originally intended to be fully overhauled and receive upgraded propulsion as the R-188 contract was originally drawn up, but this was later eliminated to cut the extremely high cost (at one point it would have almost as made as much economic sense just to get 380 wholly new cars built) and quicken the turnaround time for delivery.  When finished the Converted R-188's didn't even get any body work or floors (or anything done to remediate 15 years of wear & tear!).  Check out those "tired" MTA logos!

Ergo, the original and "crude," 1997-vintage ADTranz systems remained, and are now intermixed with the newer Bombardier versions on the R-188N's and the 7900-series single cars (C1).

You should try to run a train of R-142A's on the 6 in the snow--"fun" (not!).  I'm sure this issue is also prevalent now on the 7 and the L's R-143's as well (slip, slidin' away).

The R-179's have the same package as the R-188N (7811-7898) and the 7900-series C cars.

The R142's and R-160's (excepting the Siemens cars at Coney Island) all have the incredibly smooth and responsive "Onyx" propulsion system as provided by Alstom.  Again, hopefully, the merger with Siemens won't derail the further development and production of the Alstom propulsion package.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, m2fwannabe said:

Not to mention that Bombardier has a production plant in NYS (one of four such companies I know of), which counts for a LOT politically.

Hopefully the merger with Siemens won't compromise the Alstom facility in Hornell; hopefully BBD can survive and keep the Plattsburgh plant going.

IIRC you actually need a facility in New York to even consider bidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the R179’s have the “Cuomo scheme” and seats not built in at the ends of the cars???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is from a creditable source,

The past 3 weeks, the R179's have been failing left to right, from seizures to stanchions coming off the wall. They are not seeing service ANY TIME soon.

  • Thanks 1
  • LMAO! 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

So this is from a creditable source,

The past 3 weeks, the R179's have been failing left to right, from seizures to stanchions coming off the wall. They are not seeing service ANY TIME soon.

So... Is the MTA canceling the order or they going to continue testing until the R179s get it right???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

So this is from a creditable source,

The past 3 weeks, the R179's have been failing left to right, from seizures to stanchions coming off the wall. They are not seeing service ANY TIME soon.

First of all it is credible, not creditable. Second of all, have these reports been corroborated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

So this is from a creditable source,

The past 3 weeks, the R179's have been failing left to right, from seizures to stanchions coming off the wall. They are not seeing service ANY TIME soon.

How does a train have a seizure!?

I don't know, but a lot of these "credible sources" have been providing a lot of false information as of late, so I'm very skeptical. Much like the one with the 3rd rail shoes falling off while testing, when they were on bad tracks and such in Pitkin Yard, causing them to fall off in the yard.

2 hours ago, B22viaAtlanticAv said:

So... Is the MTA canceling the order or they going to continue testing until the R179s get it right???

They have no choice but to stay with the R179s.

Edited by Cait Sith
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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