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

18 minutes ago, James Goodwin said:

I would have scrapped those and kept the R38s and most of the R32s.

The R38’s wouldn’t have held up well as they were already in poor condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, S78 via Hylan said:

The R38’s wouldn’t have held up well as they were already in poor condition.

Exactly. 207 didn’t maintain their trains well enough. At least with the Mods aka R40M’s they were maintained well by Coney Island. At least with those cars they could have been paired interchangeably with R42’s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, S78 via Hylan said:

The R38’s wouldn’t have held up well as they were already in poor condition.

That's too bad.... I liked those R38s. Perhaps more than the R32.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing a lot of you are forgetting is that the older cars (32s-42s) were not in the best of shape when they were taken out of service. You guys like to wax poetic about how good these cars ran, but the fact of the matter is, towards the end of their lives, those cars were in not in great shape. That's why they were retired en masse with the large R160 order. The worst performers of each class were retired first, starting in 2007 when the 160s were being placed into service. Had those cars been retained for whatever reason, which, remind you, was infeasible as the problems with this car order along with the early retirement of the 44s, would not come into play until 2010, they would have needed serious work to keep them road ready. It's easy to look at this in hindsight and say that retention and rehab of the older cars would've been more beneficial than dealing with this car order, but you have to ask yourself this question. In 2008, when reefing and scrapping of the older cars were well underway and it appeared that nothing would prevent the MTA from procuring more cars to replace the 44s, why keep the older cars around when it's more beneficial for everyone to simply replace them? This is a terrible occurrence, but it isn't something the MTA could've seen in their crystal ball a decade ago.

Also, on the subject of the Canarsie tunnel work, we know that the (L) will see a reduction in service with those cars shifted over to the (M). However, there will also be an increase in car demand on the  (G) and (J) lines as well, along with the possibility of adding more cars for general service improvements. The current B-Division fleet will not sustain this growth, which is one of the current objectives of the R179 order. Shifting this order over to be combined with the R211 one will not be feasible given the slow design-build time frame we see with new cars. Remember that the 211s will be a departure from the Millennium car orders starting with the 142s, which is why the 179s look so similar to the 160s. We cannot afford to wait for another lengthy test phase as Transit gets used to a brand new design of train, not with the Canarsie shutdown approaching in 18 months. If the MTA wants to get Kawasaki/Alstom or whomever to build these 300 cars, they need to be on the phone with them yesterday with a guarantee that the plant is opening today. Since that is not possible, they need to lean on Bombardier to get those cars road worthy now.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


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

Wonder if they'll end up ever looking at buying used cars from somewhere.

 

1 hour ago, James Goodwin said:

Is that even possible?

I doubt it.  The only train built to similar specs as our trains is the PA5s, and those are roughly IRT-spec so they would be useless for the current situation. 



To piggyback off of what Lance said, even if the MTA didn't get "scrap happy" with the 60' SMEEs, their retirement started 10 years ago.  It's highly unlikely that they would be usable in the future for the L train shutdown.  If usable at all, those R38s/R40s/R40Ms (even the best ones when they were retired) wouldn't be in much better shape than the few R42s we still have (which are on life support).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 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.

If push comes to shove the (G) will not get a boost. Relatively few (L) Passengers will be transferring to the (G) as it doesn’t go to Manhattan, and the number of passengers taking the (G) to the (E) or (7) will be few and far between, as the (M) or (A) is a one-time transfer, not two transfers with tons of staircases. 

The (L) will only need about 70% of it’s cars to run the limited service it will be providing, shifting those displaced cars over to the (J) and (M) is more than what’s needed. 

The problem lies in the mean distance between failures of the R32’s and R42’s. Both of which are becoming alarmingly low, but that’s what happens when you have 50 year old cars in service. 

The most practical thing would be to re-open the R160 assembly line, but that would be admitting defeat, which would be to problematic for the MTA in their “The New - New York” campaign. They are probably going to wait it out on the R179’s or transfer them over to the R211’s. 

Share this post


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

 

I doubt it.  The only train built to similar specs as our trains is the PA5s, and those are roughly IRT-spec so they would be useless for the current situation. 



To piggyback off of what Lance said, even if the MTA didn't get "scrap happy" with the 60' SMEEs, their retirement started 10 years ago.  It's highly unlikely that they would be usable in the future for the L train shutdown.  If usable at all, those R38s/R40s/R40Ms (even the best ones when they were retired) wouldn't be in much better shape than the few R42s we still have (which are on life support).

Out of curiosity, are the CQ310’s (from Atlanta) up to our specifications? They are retiring them and were built in the 1980s, they might be a quick stop gap measure (kind of like how the LIRR leased MARC cars this past summer). The only line that would need them would be the (G) (about 32 cars) just until the R179’s come through. 

Another (expensive) option is to rehab the R32s/42s to the point where they aren’t even the same car, almost a complete replacement. 

The only reason I’m throwing out these crazy ideas is because one has to face reality that the R179s are going to be significantly delayed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R42N said:

If push comes to shove the (G) will not get a boost. Relatively few (L) Passengers will be transferring to the (G) as it doesn’t go to Manhattan, and the number of passengers taking the (G) to the (E) or (7) will be few and far between, as the (M) or (A) is a one-time transfer, not two transfers with tons of staircases. 

The (L) will only need about 70% of it’s cars to run the limited service it will be providing, shifting those displaced cars over to the (J) and (M) is more than what’s needed. 

The problem lies in the mean distance between failures of the R32’s and R42’s. Both of which are becoming alarmingly low, but that’s what happens when you have 50 year old cars in service. 

The most practical thing would be to re-open the R160 assembly line, but that would be admitting defeat, which would be to problematic for the MTA in their “The New - New York” campaign. They are probably going to wait it out on the R179’s or transfer them over to the R211’s. 

The (G) will be running at 12 TPH. The question is whether it is decided to make it 480 or 600 feet.

Edited by Union Tpke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To respond to a couple of points, the (G) will definitely see an increase in car demand as it will be used as a bridge between the Canarsie and Jamaica lines during the closure. While it won't be as much as the (J) and (M), the (G) will see increased patronage as a result of the loss of Manhattan-bound (L) service. Also, regarding "reopening the 160 assembly line", that lies in my point about a lack of time to get a different car builder to build the necessary cars. The MTA simply cannot demand Kawasaki to build the cars because Bombardier's unable to do so. If Transit shifts the order to another builder, even as exact clones of the 160s, the design-build-delivery schedule restarts. That means we would have another 18 months at least before they are able to deliver on this hypothetical car order. And that depends on what else Kawasaki is working on for other transit agencies. They are not going to rush our order because we picked a bad hand.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

If push comes to shove the (G) will not get a boost. Relatively few (L) Passengers will be transferring to the (G) as it doesn’t go to Manhattan, and the number of passengers taking the (G) to the (E) or (7) will be few and far between, as the (M) or (A) is a one-time transfer, not two transfers with tons of staircases. 

The (L) will only need about 70% of it’s cars to run the limited service it will be providing, shifting those displaced cars over to the (J)and (M) is more than what’s needed. 

The problem lies in the mean distance between failures of the R32’s and R42’s. Both of which are becoming alarmingly low, but that’s what happens when you have 50 year old cars in service. 

The most practical thing would be to re-open the R160 assembly line, but that would be admitting defeat, which would be to problematic for the MTA in their “The New - New York” campaign. They are probably going to wait it out on the R179’s or transfer them over to the R211’s. 

Lest we not forgot the August 17' MDBF for the R143's is 68,193 miles, which isn't much better than the R32's 38,186. I wonder if their addition will noticeably improve service, not to mention overcrowding which will happen on the (J) and (M). That will probably counterbalance any good the R143's would do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The low MBDFs on the 143s are in part due to CBTC signaling failures and not necessarily actual car borne issues.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Out of curiosity, are the CQ310’s (from Atlanta) up to our specifications? They are retiring them and were built in the 1980s, they might be a quick stop gap measure (kind of like how the LIRR leased MARC cars this past summer). The only line that would need them would be the (G) (about 32 cars) just until the R179’s come through. 

Another (expensive) option is to rehab the R32s/42s to the point where they aren’t even the same car, almost a complete replacement. 

The only reason I’m throwing out these crazy ideas is because one has to face reality that the R179s are going to be significantly delayed. 

What works in one system may not work in ours. The Rockwell trucks on the R46s as-delivered proved that. Additionally, you'd NEVER be able to get away with having a 75 foot car with only 3 doors per side. It's already bad enough with only 4 doors per side on the R46/R68/As.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

To respond to a couple of points, the (G) will definitely see an increase in car demand as it will be used as a bridge between the Canarsie and Jamaica lines during the closure. While it won't be as much as the (J) and (M), the (G) will see increased patronage as a result of the loss of Manhattan-bound (L) service. Also, regarding "reopening the 160 assembly line", that lies in my point about a lack of time to get a different car builder to build the necessary cars. The MTA simply cannot demand Kawasaki to build the cars because Bombardier's unable to do so. If Transit shifts the order to another builder, even as exact clones of the 160s, the design-build-delivery schedule restarts. That means we would have another 18 months at least before they are able to deliver on this hypothetical car order. And that depends on what else Kawasaki is working on for other transit agencies. They are not going to rush our order because we picked a bad hand.

I wouldn't be so sure, remember.....

On 7/15/2016 at 12:43 AM, East New York said:

 

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take that long, and I will explain a bit more.

 

 

See below.

 

 

Actually, it is possible, and Federal Monies don't really make a difference at the end of the day at all. Not only that but the MTA is investing in this as well. If they wanted to, they can do the exact same thing Department of Buses did. he CBG award to Orion was with FTA money, MTA cancelled the order and awarded/transferred the contract to New Flyer citing many issues that could arise with the introduction of buses to a fleet when the company was going through a situation where quality control could be affected. They can legally do the exact same with this contract as well.

 

Not only that, but Kawasaki could theoretically put the R160 back in production in as little as 6 months. If it was to keep the designation R179, it still wouldn't take too much longer as the architecture is built off a train already in service. Kawasaki already has the ability to start up R160 production in no time, and there was internal talk about what could be done if said order was cancelled. It's not anything new for Kawasaki. They don't have to design a new train, and they already have the tolling for the design. All they have to do is get the supply chain ramped up. Now if the train was of a different class, then it would take them much longer. They could have a pilot in 12 months. At this point, Bombardier has continued to change their delivery dates, and they are having many technical difficulties. 

 

Kawasaki has the capacity, and experience. The don't have to do anything at all theoretically except re-start the assembly line. This is what Kawasaki says. Thats one of the reasons they blew Bombardier away on the technial evaluation and overall proposal of the R179. Bombardier won because they quoted a lower price, and promised the same delivery schedule as Kawasaki. You know my specialty is surface transit. I'm just the messenger for RTO.

 

 

It may be better for MTA to just roll with what they have now and just ride it out, but it can still be cancelled if they wanted to do it. 

Granted, that post is over a year old by now, and I know the MTA can make some stupid decisions sometimes, but given all the issues not just with this contract, but with pretty much every current Bombardier rail order in North America, I'd be shocked if they didn't keep this option open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more of a timing issue at this point. It'll still be around 18 months from contract confirmation to delivery, which puts it firmly against the Canarsie tunnel closure. something Transit was obviously trying to avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, the MTA can't cancel this order. A lot is riding on the R179s and if the order was cancelled, we would really be up a creek without a paddle. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2017 at 12:08 PM, Bosco said:

 

I doubt it.  The only train built to similar specs as our trains is the PA5s, and those are roughly IRT-spec so they would be useless for the current situation. 



To piggyback off of what Lance said, even if the MTA didn't get "scrap happy" with the 60' SMEEs, their retirement started 10 years ago.  It's highly unlikely that they would be usable in the future for the L train shutdown.  If usable at all, those R38s/R40s/R40Ms (even the best ones when they were retired) wouldn't be in much better shape than the few R42s we still have (which are on life support).

Any second hand car would have to be made surplus prior to us receiving it. The only cars currently being actively retired that come anywhere close to our dimensions are WMATA's 1K, 4K, and 5K series. Considering their floor height is significantly different and their terrible crashworthiness, I don't see them as being a reasonable alternative. 

They'd be in approximately the same condition- and they would have had to have gone through an SMS cycle too. Had the condition of the R44s been properly evaluated prior to the stripping and sinking of most R32-R42 cars, perhaps different choices of what to retain would have been made, but that is not how things came to be.

That all said- Had the R179 fleet come on time, there would have been no fleet shortage. It is SAS which is causing the current fleet shortage. (Yes- SAS was planned not to need any additional cars. That was never actually true, but R32s could (would/will) have been saved so there wouldn't have been a shortage) 

On 10/24/2017 at 9:53 PM, S78 via Hylan said:

The R38’s wouldn’t have held up well as they were already in poor condition.

Anything would have gone through an SMS cycle regardless. Would the MTA have picked different cars had they had the choice? Maybe? The bottom line is, they did not have the choice. 

On 10/25/2017 at 12:31 PM, R42N said:

If push comes to shove the (G) will not get a boost. Relatively few (L) Passengers will be transferring to the (G) as it doesn’t go to Manhattan, and the number of passengers taking the (G) to the (E) or (7) will be few and far between, as the (M) or (A) is a one-time transfer, not two transfers with tons of staircases. 

The (L) will only need about 70% of it’s cars to run the limited service it will be providing, shifting those displaced cars over to the (J) and (M) is more than what’s needed. 

The problem lies in the mean distance between failures of the R32’s and R42’s. Both of which are becoming alarmingly low, but that’s what happens when you have 50 year old cars in service. 

The most practical thing would be to re-open the R160 assembly line, but that would be admitting defeat, which would be to problematic for the MTA in their “The New - New York” campaign. They are probably going to wait it out on the R179’s or transfer them over to the R211’s. 

The G is absolutely essential. Roughly as many riders are forecasted to take the J as are forecasted to take the G. Without expanded G service, the shutdown can't happen. 

Yes, the L cuts will allow for the J and M increases. It won't cover the G increases. 

There is no R160 assembly line to reopen. Even if ordered a year ago today, the R211s will not come in time. There is no choice- we need the R179 order before 14th street line can be rebuilt. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MTA is also purchasing 180 articulated  (accordion) buses to be used during the L train shutdown. They might have to buy more of these buses if the r179's are delayed to a point that the delivery won't be completed by April 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2017 at 2:00 AM, BreeddekalbL said:

Exactly how close to service could we be?

Even once the train starts its 30-day test run, it has to go 30 consecutive days without a problem before we see more of them.  When we get there, it's not a question of whether the clock will be reset, but how many times ...

  • 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.