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

Transit doesn't have much of a choice at this point. Not unless they seriously accelerate the R211 order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lance said:

Transit doesn't have much of a choice at this point. Not unless they seriously accelerate the R211 order.

Good luck with that happening, the 211's are entirely different designs with so much to test out :mellow:, the (MTA) is also less likely to rush out new trains these days to begin with!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, P3F said:

I wonder if the expanded service will entice more Culver Line riders to use the service, or if (G) ridership below Bergen Street is going to remain abysmal.

Also, with the longer trains and expanded service, the (G) is going to delay the (F) due to fumigation. Maybe it would make sense for the southbound (G) to run express from Smith 9th Street to Church Avenue? It's the same rationale that results in the current Church Avenue-bound (F) express service.

How would the (G) hold up the (F)?  It already runs to Church Av at all times for that reason.

As for the discussion on the full-length (C) and (G), with the current R179 configuration, the MTA could really only do one or the other.  Even if the (G) is extended to just 480' (which will likely be the case), you still have to account for the extra cars going to the (C)--whether they be R46s or R32s.  The (A) currently will only get 4 R179 trains, which won't be enough as many R46s would have to go to the (C).

Share this post


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

How would the (G) hold up the (F)?  It already runs to Church Av at all times for that reason.

As for the discussion on the full-length (C) and (G), with the current R179 configuration, the MTA could really only do one or the other.  Even if the (G) is extended to just 480' (which will likely be the case), you still have to account for the extra cars going to the (C)--whether they be R46s or R32s.  The (A) currently will only get 4 R179 trains, which won't be enough as many R46s would have to go to the (C).

Apparently the (MTA) wants yards uniformed and the (C) isn’t getting the R179’s anymore so I see them assigning both 4 and 5-car sets to Coney Island. 

Share this post


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

How would the (G) hold up the (F)?  It already runs to Church Av at all times for that reason.

The (G) currently terminates on the same track on the (F), meaning its fumigation has potential to delay an (F) behind it.

However, there's a comparison to make.

Currently, the (G) runs short trains at infrequent headways.

During the (L) shutdown, it will run longer trains at frequent headways.

So simply put, there will be more trains needing fumigation, and the trains will be longer than they currently are. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that delays due to fumigation will be more frequent and more pronounced, if southbound (G) trains are terminated on the southbound local track at Church Avenue during the (L) shutdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, P3F said:

I wonder if the expanded service will entice more Culver Line riders to use the service, or if (G) ridership below Bergen Street is going to remain abysmal.

Also, with the longer trains and expanded service, the (G) is going to delay the (F) due to fumigation. Maybe it would make sense for the southbound (G) to run express from Smith 9th Street to Church Avenue? It's the same rationale that results in the current Church Avenue-bound (F) express service.

The rationale with the G terminating at Church Ave. is to give the transfer at 4th Ave./9th St. with the R (and whatever else may stop there).  NYCT will not take that away.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if the ENY set runs in service regularly? I thought about riding it again this week but I have no idea if the train is running in service or has been sidelined for quite some time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, trainfan22 said:

Does anyone know if the ENY set runs in service regularly? I thought about riding it again this week but I have no idea if the train is running in service or has been sidelined for quite some time...

It runs regularly in (J) service. It hasn’t failed again, so it’s running. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, OIG119 said:

When was the last time the R179s had a failure?

Don't want to jinx it, but ever since that software issue was resolved, it's been doing fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

According to a train operator on the line, it's reached day 20... Just over a week to go.

*knocks on wood*

Not bad. All of a sudden it makes sense for some leftover R179s from upstate made it down here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was on the 179 at Broad Street, an 160 came in right next to it and the 160 lights were dull compared to the 179 lights, its funny when I ride a 143 on the (L) and a 160 passes in the other direction the 143 lights are dull compared to the 160s lights :lol: 

 

 

I think the lights on NTT get dimmer as they age, you can tell when the maintenance people put a new bulb in as its brighter and gives off a different color than the older lights in the car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

When I was on the 179 at Broad Street, an 160 came in right next to it and the 160 lights were dull compared to the 179 lights, its funny when I ride a 143 on the (L) and a 160 passes in the other direction the 143 lights are dull compared to the 160s lights :lol: 

I think the lights on NTT get dimmer as they age, you can tell when the maintenance people put a new bulb in as its brighter and gives off a different color than the older lights in the car.

Have you seen the R142 or R142A lights lately?  Those look damn near how the older trains look.  The wall panels and colors though help in making the car seem brighter than it actually is.

 

19 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Not bad. All of a sudden it makes sense for some leftover R179s from upstate made it down here.

This was the plan all along: Bombardier would have some of the production cars ready to go while the pilot trains were testing.  And according to Dan Rivoli, there are still 8 more that can be delivered at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 1:39 PM, Around the Horn said:

According to a train operator on the line, it's reached day 20... Just over a week to go.

*knocks on wood*

 

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 1:54 PM, LGA Link N train said:

Heh, LMAO, I'm pretty sure we're at day 15 or something like that 

 

Either way, this is good news. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just missed the 179 today, if I didn't stop to get a slice I would caught the 179 without trying on back to back days, I heard the population while I was walking on Broadway. 

 

I hope I'm this lucky finding 32 (A) trains to Far Rock!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 car set 3010 - 3014 was spotted testing on the Brighton line as recently as Dec 16th..

 

 

 

 

Even though one of the 8 car sets is in revenue service their still using one of the 5 car sets for some kind of testing, their still using a protection set which is odd.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I flew back home to London for Christmas yesterday and a work colleague had texted me that he’d seen the R179 heading into Manhattan yesterday, and I worked out that if I went to JFK via the (J) to Sutphin and the Airtrain the timing would be about right for me to get it. Sure enough, as I entered the platform at Canal, in it came. It’s pretty similar to a 160 to be fair, but it’s still a nice new train and it was good to ride on it for my last Subway ride of 2017. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

5 car set 3010 - 3014 was spotted testing on the Brighton line as recently as Dec 16th..

 

 

 

 

Even though one of the 8 car sets is in revenue service their still using one of the 5 car sets for some kind of testing, their still using a protection set which is odd.

Because the 5 car set is the train that has failed the most, ranging from power seizures to door problems to TOD Malfunctions to blowing up transformers along the Brighton line.

Share this post


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

Because the 5 car set is the train that has failed the most, ranging from power seizures to door problems to TOD Malfunctions to blowing up transformers along the Brighton line.

well then, ought bombardier to take care of that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, B22viaAtlanticAv said:

It almost seems like they were trying to couple the two together... it's just odd they can't couple all the NTTs together like they could with R32/R42..

They will never be able to couple two different classes of NTTs together, primarily because of electrical incompatibilities and secondarily because of propulsion differences.  The only time that two distinctly different NTT car classes was a test run of R142s and R142As, which didn't go very well.

 

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

well then, ought bombardier to take care of that

They are responsible, so yeah.  I wonder why 3010-3014 is having so many problems compared to the other test trains.  And what happened to 3015-3019?  Has it been seen anywhere as of late?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2017 at 11:08 PM, Bosco said:

They will never be able to couple two different classes of NTTs together, primarily because of electrical incompatibilities and secondarily because of propulsion differences.  The only time that two distinctly different NTT car classes was a test run of R142s and R142As, which didn't go very well.
 

Not true, its possible just rare or uncommon. There have been R-160A-2's and R-160B Siemens coupled inservice recently(meaning aside from testing years back). I mean yes it is the same class but different builders as you stated the 142/A.

Actually the R142A and 188 are completely different classes albeit being very similar.

  • Upvote 3

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.