R179 Discussion Thread

[Lance]

After all of the false starts and development problems, it's good to finally see these cars in service, even if it is just for one day. Based on what I've seen on YouTube, while they do look incredibly similar to the 160s, there are some noticeable improvements to the design, especially as it pertains to the electronics and displays. Both the FINDs and the LED next stop displays on the 179s look more vibrant and visible than their 160 counterparts.

I have noticed a few things in regards to the announcements, much as everyone else has. Most noticeably, there's that gap between the destination and next stop announcements. I'm actually not concerned about that because that's the standard software coding at work here. We had something similar with the 160s when they were first entered into service back in 2006:

I'm sure this will be fixed at some point. The other issue I've seen is that the announcement use the "the next stop is/this is" recordings from the and lines for some reason. I assume that the wrong recording was coded for the queue of the line announcements when the AAS program was installed in the 179s. Obviously, it's nothing that will prevent the cars from running in service, unlike the door motor malfunction that did take the train out of service, but it would be nice if they did fix that glitch.

[R42N]

13 minutes ago, Lance said:

After all of the false starts and development problems, it's good to finally see these cars in service, even if it is just for one day. Based on what I've seen on YouTube, while they do look incredibly similar to the 160s, there are some noticeable improvements to the design, especially as it pertains to the electronics and displays. Both the FINDs and the LED next stop displays on the 179s look more vibrant and visible than their 160 counterparts.

I have noticed a few things in regards to the announcements, much as everyone else has. Most noticeably, there's that gap between the destination and next stop announcements. I'm actually not concerned about that because that's the standard software coding at work here. We had something similar with the 160s when they were first entered into service back in 2006:

I'm sure this will be fixed at some point. The other issue I've seen is that the announcement use the "the next stop is/this is" recordings from the and lines for some reason. I assume that the wrong recording was coded for the queue of the line announcements when the AAS program was installed in the 179s. Obviously, it's nothing that will prevent the cars from running in service, unlike the door motor malfunction that did take the train out of service, but it would be nice if they did fix that glitch.

No no, this is different. Go back on your video by five seconds, and you’ll notice that “This is a Manhattan Bound “ starts up immediately, like it always has, with “The Next Stop is” following right after. I excused and removed the gap of waiting time in my estimate above, and I still found a 35% increase. 

Of course, it will not hold up development, but it’s just another bullet point on my extremely long list of cons. 

(Speaking of which, I really miss that  announcement) 

[Lawrence St]

As Lance said, it's probably just a coding error or the program is lagging trying to find the right file to play. If I'm correct, I assume that they just took the program from the R160 and installed it in the R179, which of course will always lead to some problems.

 

For example, on the R179s, once the door opens, the FIND system won't update until this part of the announcement is announced "...local train." However, the interior LED signage updates instantly, and dosent do that blink that R160's do when the doors are open.

 

As for the next stop and this is announcements, I'm guessing the coding was done wrong when the AAS was installed, which again brings me to my point that installing programs from the 160 into the 179 always leads to problems. 

[R42N]

Any guesses on how long it’s going to take to re-start the test? I was hoping to go out and see it today, which obviously won’t be happening. Sunday was such a cold windy day, I decided against it. 

[CTK246]

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

As Lance said, it's probably just a coding error or the program is lagging trying to find the right file to play. If I'm correct, I assume that they just took the program from the R160 and installed it in the R179, which of course will always lead to some problems.

 

For example, on the R179s, once the door opens, the FIND system won't update until this part of the announcement is announced "...local train." However, the interior LED signage updates instantly, and dosent do that blink that R160's do when the doors are open.

 

As for the next stop and this is announcements, I'm guessing the coding was done wrong when the AAS was installed, which again brings me to my point that installing programs from the 160 into the 179 always leads to problems. 

Same thing happened with the R188s. The "next stop" announcement isn't Annie Bergen.

[Lawrence St]

That was intentional, I don't know why or who in their right mind would change 98% of the announcements when they were fine, but I don't work there so I can't tell who' stupid idea it was.

[R42N]

49 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

That was intentional, I don't know why or who in their right mind would change 98% of the announcements when they were fine, but I don't work there so I can't tell who' stupid idea it was.

I agree. Luckily announcements can be re-programed, and is not a tangible issue, so it won’t cost much, but it’s an issue nonetheless. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by R42N

[Around the Horn]

Can anyone confirm or deny a return to passenger service this Friday? That's the rumor swirling around at the moment...

[subwaycommuter1983]

10 hours ago, R42N said:

Well, that was tweeted out prior to Sunday’s commencement, so while scary, I feel like the MTA thinks they can deal with it. 

I think the mechanical issues with the r179's is a bigger priority than any changes  in the automated announcement, which is not a big deal. 

 

10 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

If what I'm reading on Twitter is correct, they have way bigger problems than malfunctioning doors on their hands...

 

This is a big issue which we all need to pay attention. 

[LTA1992]

Excuse my ignorance, but I think that if it was such a huge issue, something would have been done about it in the last year it's been on the property. 

 

Why is this JUST NOW becoming an issue?

[MysteriousBtrain]

1 hour ago, LTA1992 said:

Excuse my ignorance, but I think that if it was such a huge issue, something would have been done about it in the last year it's been on the property. 

 

Why is this JUST NOW becoming an issue?

Yeah even though maybe Bombardier could of made it a bit safer, I don't get why this part wasn't tested before the 30-day testing. But since it was the TWU that pointed this out, I feel like they are hopping on the R179 blame game to get something out of it. Just my thoughts. 

[RR503]

1 hour ago, LTA1992 said:

Excuse my ignorance, but I think that if it was such a huge issue, something would have been done about it in the last year it's been on the property. 

 

Why is this JUST NOW becoming an issue?

 

9 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Yeah even though maybe Bombardier could of made it a bit safer, I don't get why this part wasn't tested before the 30-day testing. But since it was the TWU that pointed this out, I feel like they are hopping on the R179 blame game to get something out of it. Just my thoughts. 

I’m confused. If this is an issue, how will open gangway cars work? Does the TWU oppose the 211s? 

And don’t they think that not having massive gaps between cars will make things safer? 

Edit: also see above for more discussion 

Edited November 22, 2017 by RR503

[rbrome]

36 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I’m confused. If this is an issue, how will open gangway cars work? Does the TWU oppose the 211s? 

And don’t they think that not having massive gaps between cars will make things safer? 

Exactly.

This reeks of the union having some kind of agenda against the R179. Which is completely insane, and yet would not surprise me. 

[R42N]

2 minutes ago, rbrome said:

Exactly.

This reeks of the union having some kind of agenda against the R179. Which is completely insane, and yet would not surprise me. 

First off, this is just a tweet from a few days ago that never caught on, that being said I believe this is exactly what rbrome is suggesting. 

I have absolutely no idea why the MTA Employees would want to nefariously block new cars, but if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it’s a duck, and this right here is a duck. 

[Around the Horn]

I think this has to do with the A cars specifically, which would be where the two sets connect to make a full train. Since the R211s will still be in five car links, the open gangways won't be an issue.

[R42N]

I wish the  never went in on this R179 order. So many headaches and problems, it fails in mere hours after entering a 30 day test, and is getting critics from every angle including inside the . I’m biting back saying “just cancel the damn order” because obviously that’ll never happen at this stage. But this is like a company that is so defective, that you just want to take it behind the bar and shoot it until you can’t see it anymore. 

What a horrible train. 

[Bosco]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I’m confused. If this is an issue, how will open gangway cars work? Does the TWU oppose the 211s? 

And don’t they think that not having massive gaps between cars will make things safer? 

Edit: also see above for more discussion 

The bonnets on the R160s are flatter than on the R179s, hence leading to the smaller gap.

As others have mentioned, the timing of the memo is bizarre and reeks of them trying to do anything to get attention.  Besides, even if the MTA were to fix this, it would result in further delays so bad it would make more sense just to cancel the order (which we can't afford either).

 

13 minutes ago, R42N said:

I wish the  never went in on this R179 order. So many headaches and problems, it fails in mere hours after entering a 30 day test, and is getting critics from every angle including inside the . I’m biting back saying “just cancel the damn order” because obviously that’ll never happen at this stage. But this is like a company that is so defective, that you just want to take it behind the bar and shoot it until you can’t see it anymore. 

What a horrible train. 

The MTA has their lion's share of the blame in this contract.  Going with Bombardier in the first place even after Alskaw had the better proposal, having a reactionary approach to the problems with the R179s, pushing off the award for the R211, etc etc.


Edit: Is the clearance problem only an issue with the bonnets between A cars, or B cars as well?  The blind-end bonnets look a lot like their cab-end counterparts, so I would imagine that the clearance between the two is the same.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Bosco

[Bill from Maspeth]

1 hour ago, R42N said:

First off, this is just a tweet from a few days ago that never caught on, that being said I believe this is exactly what rbrome is suggesting. 

I have absolutely no idea why the MTA Employees would want to nefariously block new cars, but if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it’s a duck, and this right here is a duck. 

The issue is if a train goes BIE in an area where the t/o cannot walk around the train, he must get down in between cars to check the area with his flashlight.  But the gap between the car bodies (between cars before he is able to climb down) is so narrow only a person skinny as a toothpick can get thru.  And when adds and cuts are made in the yard the t/o has to get thru there to take down or put up the springs.  Why the union didn't complain about the problem in the past only the union can answer.

 

[rbrome]

50 minutes ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

The issue is if a train goes BIE in an area where the t/o cannot walk around the train, he must get down in between cars to check the area with his flashlight.  But the gap between the car bodies (between cars before he is able to climb down) is so narrow only a person skinny as a toothpick can get thru. 

Right, but isn't that an OK trade-off, if it also makes it more difficult for people to fall under accidentally? 

Even if I were to accept that this is a safety issue that needs to be addressed, it looks like it would be very simple to fix. Just redesign the brackets and handrails. They stick out way more than they need to. It should be relatively trivial to design shorter hardware, and retrofit that hardware on existing trainsets. 

[Lance]

A reminder: the 142s had similar teething issues when they first arrived back in 2000. If I recall correctly, they couldn't make it a couple of days before being taken out of service during their initial testing phase. Of course, these cars have since proven their worth time and again by being one of the most reliable car fleets of the past decade. I wouldn't be so quick to throw in the towel just yet on these cars.

As for the "memo", it smells very fishy. Perhaps the union does not feel comfortable having its members operate this train given all of the production issues surrounding the order, but this is something that should've been brought up a long time ago, not the day prior to the 30-day acceptance testing period. We have what, three separate full-length trains sitting around across various yards and they've been doing so since last year. This seems like something that would've been noticed right off the bat, not at the onset of passenger service testing.

 

[R42N]

2 hours ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

The issue is if a train goes BIE in an area where the t/o cannot walk around the train, he must get down in between cars to check the area with his flashlight.  But the gap between the car bodies (between cars before he is able to climb down) is so narrow only a person skinny as a toothpick can get thru.  And when adds and cuts are made in the yard the t/o has to get thru there to take down or put up the springs.  Why the union didn't complain about the problem in the past only the union can answer.

 

That's too bad and all, but it's (way past) go time. 

If it's so critical that trains can not safely operate, then waste the year trying to fix them, but if it's not, then it's too late. 

[LGA Link N Train]

3 hours ago, R42N said:

That's too bad and all, but it's (way past) go time. 

If it's so critical that trains can not safely operate, then waste the year trying to fix them, but if it's not, then it's too late. 

Did the MTA complain to Bombardier about this??

[Lawrence St]

An update on the programming issues for the R179:

 

One of my T/O friends tested the program on 3010 this week and it did not have the 's next stop announcement and instead used the default one found on the .

I have no clue what if this is intentional or not but I'm guessing it's a program glitch because the TOD software lags like crazy when the Next Stop cycle is requested, hence that long pause between announcements.

[BVERailer]

What lines are the R179's running on again? I know they are running on the and , but are there any others?

[bstar1]

When they going to start testing them on  line?