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

East New York

Program Update effective 2/20/19

E70AE3B5-BCC7-4242-8958-215EA3B3E968.jpeg

2A3D4B44-9846-4D37-8FFE-88142B572B51.jpeg

844D9F11-6BFF-4B1B-A0AA-CEEF1E3D444B.jpeg

D143F871-E911-4F90-BF83-14B590D436A2.jpeg

018FCF27-0E25-47C4-8133-9E14E0160D65.jpeg

FCAB8EC7-FC4C-45EB-95CC-8F213A2E4F1E.jpeg

Message added by East New York

Recommended Posts

6 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.

96xKkrp.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK just to clarify, since I've heard similar rumors to the ones that @Lawrence St has...

Its the headlights that supposedly had seizures on a late night test run. Supposedly both headlights and taillights were on and occasionally flashing like a school bus.

The thing about stanchions was that the brackets that hold the passenger seats to the wall were too brittle to hold the weight as designed. I have not heard anything about them coming off the wall though...

The seats in the cab apparently can't raise/lower/adjust the same way as the R160...

Again these are just third hand rumors so its entirely possible that they are a. wrong or b. details have been muddled up in a game of telephone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 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.

I certainly hope its not that bad.....

15 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

OK just to clarify, since I've heard similar rumors to the ones that @Lawrence St has...

Its the headlights that supposedly had seizures on a late night test run. Supposedly both headlights and taillights were on and occasionally flashing like a school bus.

The thing about stanchions was that the brackets that hold the passenger seats to the wall were too brittle to hold the weight as designed. I have not heard anything about them coming off the wall though...

The seats in the cab apparently can't raise/lower/adjust the same way as the R160...

Again these are just third hand rumors so its entirely possible that they are a. wrong or b. details have been muddled up in a game of telephone.

Now that is alarming. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this information is in fact correct. This R179 order is a complete disaster, and as I mentioned months ago I knew that u less there was some type of miracle, the September EIS date wasn't gonna pan out. 

It's darn near November now with absolutely no timetable for when these trains might enter service. Bombardier has not been able to deliver on one single promise as of this Monday morning.

In addition to what was already mentioned, the regenative breaking isn't working properly and blew up a transformer in the Brighton Line because the train are sending too much power back to the third rail. The onboard computer system (TOD) on one set keeps rebooting over and over again and is not functioning properly.

The seat brackets on one set did actually snap, and that's what prompted all of them to be replaced. I was also able to confirm that the replacements aren't much better at all.

The operators seats do not adjust the way the specifications call for them to. 

Etc.... Etc.... 

Sources: The Real/RTO/DCE

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to what I just mentioned..... For those that have been here on NYCTF since the beginning, I first posted about the R179 in the fall of 2010 saying that it was delayed and I would not start an official thread about it until it hit black and white because so many said it was a tumor and I was just making conversation as a rookie. Months later, I started this thread.... January 7, 2011. I mentioned that due to my personal tech evaluation, and what I had learned about RTO at the time (I was still a newbie and couldn't tell you an R62 from an R68 lol). 

Now all these years later.... I hate to tell the MTA I was right. But seeing as they have considered 99% of my recommendations that were stellar to date, this is one of those 1% instances where they decided to go the other way..... If you all want a good laugh.... Go back through this thread! Lol I was still a rookie and really didn't know what was going on in RTO. But it looks like one of my first recommendations ever would have been a great thing.

Now you all understand why I don't post on this topic much anymore..... There's no point..... None of the information out of Bombardier holds credibility anymore. So I just wait for the new from MTA. After this post, I may never get anything exclusive out of Bombardier ever, and I'm ok with that.... I no longer care because I'm 99.9% sure they won't be making anything for NYC before I retire..... Someone let me know when this train hits revenue service..... 

I'm over it.... And totally not interested. 

East New York out. 

 

 

 

Edited by East New York
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait until someone tells Andrew about all these issues and he unilaterally cancels this order.

Time to pack it in and tack on an extra 300 cars of R211's...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, East New York said:

All of this information is in fact correct. This R179 order is a complete disaster, and as I mentioned months ago I knew that u less there was some type of miracle, the September EIS date wasn't gonna pan out. 

It's darn near November now with absolutely no timetable for when these trains might enter service. Bombardier has not been able to deliver on one single promise as of this Monday morning.

In addition to what was already mentioned, the regenative breaking isn't working properly and blew up a transformer in the Brighton Line because the train are sending too much power back to the third rail. The onboard computer system (TOD) on one set keeps rebooting over and over again and is not functioning properly.

The seat brackets on one set did actually snap, and that's what prompted all of them to be replaced. I was also able to confirm that the replacements aren't much better at all.

The operators seats do not adjust the way the specifications call for them to. 

Etc.... Etc.... 

Sources: The Real/RTO/DCE

Was it true that the third rail shoe for the R179 at one point got knocked off during a test run?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I can't wait until someone tells Andrew about all these issues and he unilaterally cancels this order.

Time to pack it in and tack on an extra 300 cars of R211's...

That's what should happen tbh. But even so it would be a while before the first R211s even start service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, paulrivera said:

I can't wait until someone tells Andrew about all these issues and he unilaterally cancels this order.

Time to pack it in and tack on an extra 300 cars of R211's...

We don’t have time to wait years before the R211’s arrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, S78 via Hylan said:

We don’t have time to wait years before the R211’s arrive.

Thats a fact...But what choice we have.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of you seem to forget that we have the Canarsie tube reconstruction coming as well as lines that need service increases. Without the 179s, this cannot happen. The aging 32’s and 42’s alone won’t be sufficient enough. At this point, the TA will have to accept the cars and work out the issues. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, biGC323232 said:

Thats a fact...But what choice we have.. 

The (MTA) could always ask Kawasaki or Alstom to reopen the R160 assembly line, kinda like how they (along with Connecticut) asked Kawasaki to reopen the Metro-North M8 assembly line last year.

Although with Kawasaki in particular being busy with other orders and the R160 assembly line's been closed for over almost 10 years now, even that would take a couple of years, but by the time the cars get delivered there *I would think* there wouldn't be all that much prolonged testing that new models would get.

Share this post


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

The (MTA) could always ask Kawasaki or Alstom to reopen the R160 assembly line, kinda like how they (along with Connecticut) asked Kawasaki to reopen the Metro-North M8 assembly line last year.

Although with Kawasaki in particular being busy with other orders and the R160 assembly line's been closed for over almost 10 years now, even that would take a couple of years, but by the time the cars get delivered there *I would think* there wouldn't be all that much prolonged testing that new models would get.

That would be my suggestion, but they would have to ramp up and that would take at least a year. New contracts would have to be drawn, it would be a R2XX contract which would be wired since the 211's come after. But that's still  probably better than the option we have now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2017 at 8:50 AM, bstar1 said:

They were not built right.

not only that, they had weak undercarriages, if we're talking about the ones built by Bombardier. This also led to SEPTA cars being delayed as well.

If left unaddressed, it'd be like Chappaqua, but ten times as bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2017 at 3:00 AM, paulrivera said:

I can't wait until someone tells Andrew about all these issues and he unilaterally cancels this order.

Time to pack it in and tack on an extra 300 cars of R211's...

he probably already knows and doesn't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On October 23, 2017 at 11:54 AM, S78 via Hylan said:

A lot of you seem to forget that we have the Canarsie tube reconstruction coming as well as lines that need service increases. Without the 179s, this cannot happen. The aging 32’s and 42’s alone won’t be sufficient enough. At this point, the TA will have to accept the cars and work out the issues. 

It doesn’t work like that. The MTA can’t just say, “oh well, the seats can’t take wait, the computer keeps on glitching, and the lights are malfunctioning constantly,  but we need them in service, so let’s go!”

Nowadays, things go through rigorous acceptance testing, all of which gets heavily audited by the state and by the public. If word came out that MTA rushed in un-safe cars (which, they really couldn’t do considering the testing mandates) there would be so much negative press that it would be un-sufferable for the MTA. 

Yes, the MTA needs more, reliable cars, but they don’t need them for the Canarsie project. With the entire manhattan section of the (L) closed, and the significantly decreased ridership due to commuters seeking alternatives, you will be able to move the 24 R160’s the (L) has to the (M), and also take another 24 R143’s to either the (J) or the (M) , all without impacting the reduced crowds. 

Obviously, the R32s and R42s probably won’t be able to hold on longer than 2022, so they will need to be retired soon, but a postponement (or restructure) isn’t the worst case scenario. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, R42N said:

It doesn’t work like that. The MTA can’t just say, “oh well, the seats can’t take wait, the computer keeps on glitching, and the lights are malfunctioning constantly,  but we need them in service, so let’s go!”

Nowadays, things go through rigorous acceptance testing, all of which gets heavily audited by the state and by the public. If word came out that MTA rushed in un-safe cars (which, they really couldn’t do considering the testing mandates) there would be so much negative press that it would be un-sufferable for the MTA. 

Yes, the MTA needs more, reliable cars, but they don’t need them for the Canarsie project. With the entire manhattan section of the (L) closed, and the significantly decreased ridership due to commuters seeking alternatives, you will be able to move the 24 R160’s the (L) has to the (M), and also take another 24 R143’s to either the (J) or the (M) , all without impacting the reduced crowds. 

Obviously, the R32s and R42s probably won’t be able to hold on longer than 2022, so they will need to be retired soon, but a postponement (or restructure) isn’t the worst case scenario. 

I’m very well aware that new cars need to be tested before being placed in service which is why I said that the MTA would work out the issues.

Another thing you forgot is that just  (J) and (M) alone that will have increased service as the (G) will get a boost as well. Where are the cars going to come from without reducing spare factors for other lines? At least having the 179’s will offer that flexibility. We’re in a car shortage.

Edited by S78 via Hylan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the MTA pass the R179 that Bombardier makes to the Kawasaki or Alstom for "refurbishment?" That way these companies could fix the issues Bombardier can't. Because if sets are arriving on TA property, the welding issues must've been sorted out, now the only thing that needs to be fixed is the equipment on the train. Instead of sending it back forward it to someone else. If an option like this is possible it could save the order.

Edited by IAlam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what i heard, if this order fails, they will just add 300 more cars to the R211 order. We should find out who's building the R211's very soon anyway and the first set will be here by 2020-2021. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, S78 via Hylan said:

I’m very well aware that new cars need to be tested before being placed in service which is why I said that the MTA would work out the issues.

Another thing you forgot is that just  (J) and (M) alone that will have increased service as the (G) will get a boost as well. Where are the cars going to come from without reducing spare factors for other lines? At least having the 179’s will offer that flexibility. We’re in a car shortage.

I mean to say that the (J) and (M) will not be the only lines getting increases in service. 

As for the R211’s, we don’t know much aside from when the first set might be here if it’s on time.

 

Edited by S78 via Hylan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2017 at 8:06 AM, 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.


I thought you posted this as a joke

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James Goodwin said:

The MTA shouldn't have gotten rid of those R38s....

They really shouldn’t have gotten rid of the R40M’s though, as well as getting scrap happy with the R42’s

  • 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.