Jump to content

R179 Discussion Thread


East New York

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

Older fleets are more understandable for the (A), the (A) has the oldest fleet's since it's ridership (especially in the Rockaway's) and station dwell times are very low and also since the Queens segment is above ground. The (C) on the other hand totally does need NTT, it's ridership is increasing, and it's working with the R160's, but due to failed proposals to extend it's trains and potential NTT requirements for the (J), the R46's (and maybe R68's?) are likely to become more prevalent on the (C)

The (A) is super busy between Broadway Junction and Wash Heights during rush hour, IMO there's more of a demand for 60 foot cars on the (A) than the (C) those (A) trains be crushloaded during rush hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 10.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Did anyone forget the R211’s?? Let the (A) and (C) have those while the (G) gets the “hand me down” R160A-1’s from East New York and the (J) becomes fully R179. The (G) was supposed to get the “86xx” A-1’s originally. The (A) and (C) will be just fine with R-46’s during the shutdown. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

My guess would be:

(J)(Z) 3050-3113 (64 cars-8 trains) 

(G) 3114-3259 (136 cars-17 trains) 

(A)(C) 3010-3049, 3260-3309 (reconfigured ten car sets) (100 cars-10 trains)  

The R-179 fleet numbers are still not set in stone, AFAIK.

If I had to guess, I think they will be more like 2940-3049 for the 5's and 3050-3254 for the 4's.

It APPEARS were witnessing the gradual arrival of 3050-3105 right now.  Obviously they are bound for (J) and (Z).  Any opinions on (M)?

Another GUESS is they will be followed by 2940-3049, if that's the scheme.  Those would be for the (A).

Lastly we'd see 3106-3254, from what I'm seeing here and elsewhere, for the (G)?

Hate to say I told you so, but I got a lot of push back for postulating their eventual placement on the Crosstown two years ago...
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, m2fwannabe said:

The R-179 fleet numbers are still not set in stone, AFAIK.

If I had to guess, I think they will be more like 2940-3049 for the 5's and 3050-3254 for the 4's.

It APPEARS were witnessing the gradual arrival of 3050-3105 right now.  Obviously they are bound for (J) and (Z).  Any opinions on (M)?

Another GUESS is they will be followed by 2940-3049, if that's the scheme.  Those would be for the (A).

Lastly we'd see 3106-3254, from what I'm seeing here and elsewhere, for the (G)?

Hate to say I told you so, but I got a lot of push back for postulating their eventual placement on the Crosstown two years ago...
 

 

 

Begging your pardon, that SHOULD be 3253, not 54.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, m2fwannabe said:

The R-179 fleet numbers are still not set in stone, AFAIK.

If I had to guess, I think they will be more like 2940-3049 for the 5's and 3050-3254 for the 4's.

It APPEARS were witnessing the gradual arrival of 3050-3105 right now.  Obviously they are bound for (J) and (Z).  Any opinions on (M)?

Another GUESS is they will be followed by 2940-3049, if that's the scheme.  Those would be for the (A).

Lastly we'd see 3106-3254, from what I'm seeing here and elsewhere, for the (G)?

Hate to say I told you so, but I got a lot of push back for postulating their eventual placement on the Crosstown two years ago...
 

 

 

If the car configurations are not changing, (260 in 4-car sets and 40 in 5 car sets), then yes, the 4-car sets will be split between the (G) and the (J)(Z). With about 140 cars to the (G) and the last 120 cars to the (J)(Z). If the configuration has been altered to include more 5-car sets and less 4-car sets, then all 4-car sets to the (J)(Z). Remember that Queens Blvd CBTC will mean that a total of 304 of the 372 4-car R160As will be assigned to CBTC routes (L) and the (M), leaving only 68 cars not converted and free for the (J)(Z). This means only 8 trains are available for the route and at least 17-18 additional trains need to be assigned to the (J) to ensure an appropriate spare factor for the route. The R179 order is going to mainly increase the spare car factor for the B division because of the new additions last year ( (W) to Astoria and the (Q) to 2 Av ). 

 

Edited by darkstar8983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, m2fwannabe said:

The R-179 fleet numbers are still not set in stone, AFAIK.

If I had to guess, I think they will be more like 2940-3049 for the 5's and 3050-3254 for the 4's.
 

 

 

There's no reason to change the numbering either. The 160s have 4-car sets bracketing the 5-car sets number-wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fan Railer said:

There's no reason to change the numbering either. The 160s have 4-car sets bracketing the 5-car sets number-wise.

Yes, but that was not deliberate from the time the order was originally configured.  9943-74 were added under Option II at the end.

There are no options to be exercised on the R-179 acquisition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The capital program oversight committee meeting is next week and there will be an update on the R179, so we'll find out then. But you don't really have to keep asking for news. The second news breaks (on any topic really) it'll be posted here.

Edited by Mysterious2train
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Has the R179 order been truly modified and if so can someone give me a document proving this

There will be no documentation to give until any decision has been made public by the MTA and/or Bombardier. If nothing changes with the order there will be no documentation. You just have to wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, VIP said:

Did anyone forget the R211’s?? Let the (A) and (C) have those while the (G) gets the “hand me down” R160A-1’s from East New York and the (J) becomes fully R179. The (G) was supposed to get the “86xx” A-1’s originally. The (A) and (C) will be just fine with R-46’s during the shutdown. 

There are not enough  r46s to run on both the A and C trains. That's why we've been seeing r32s and r68s running on the A even before the fleet swap last month. 

Also,  keep in mind that the ridership will increase on both lines during the Canarsie tunnel shut down.

The best and most logical thing to happen is for some of the 4 car configurations to be modified into 5 car sets.  If that actually happens, then most of the 5 cars sets should run on the C train, some of the 5 cars sets should  run on the A and the A keeps the r46s and maybe some r32s . The J and Z trains keep the 4 sets of r179's well as the r160s from both the C, J, and Z and the r32s can go to the G as well as the r68s from the A in addition to the r68s that are currently on the G.

Edited by subwaycommuter1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, m2fwannabe said:

The R-179 fleet numbers are still not set in stone, AFAIK.

If I had to guess, I think they will be more like 2940-3049 for the 5's and 3050-3254 for the 4's.

It APPEARS were witnessing the gradual arrival of 3050-3105 right now.  Obviously they are bound for (J) and (Z).  Any opinions on (M)?

Another GUESS is they will be followed by 2940-3049, if that's the scheme.  Those would be for the (A).

Lastly we'd see 3106-3254, from what I'm seeing here and elsewhere, for the (G)?

Hate to say I told you so, but I got a lot of push back for postulating their eventual placement on the Crosstown two years ago...
 

 

 

You are wrong.  The R179 fleet will be numbered from 3010-3309.  3010-3049 will be in 5 car configuration and 3050-3309 will be in 4 car configuration.  No official word yet if the order will be modified to provide more 5 car sets.

https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Current_Fleet

Edited by Bill from Maspeth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 11:00 PM, VIP said:

Did anyone forget the R211’s?? Let the (A) and (C) have those while the (G) gets the “hand me down” R160A-1’s from East New York and the (J) becomes fully R179. The (G) was supposed to get the “86xx” A-1’s originally. The (A) and (C) will be just fine with R-46’s during the shutdown. 

Forget about the 8600's for the G.  The idea was for a small group of cars for the G thought up when it was assigned to JYD and operated between CSq and Smith/9th.   With the line being extended to Church and longer trains coming eventually for when the L tube closes, that idea of a particular dedicated fleet no longer applies.  As soon as it was extended to Church, there would not have been enough cars + spares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

You are wrong.  The R179 fleet will be numbered from 3010-3309.  3010-3049 will be in 5 car configuration and 3050-3309 will be in 4 car configuration.  No official word yet if the order will be modified to provide more 5 car sets.

https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Current_Fleet

The information on this website is not  necessarily up to date. As for the modifications it's just a matter of time whether or not it happens.

Edited by subwaycommuter1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

The information on this website is not  necessarily up to date. As for the modifications it's just a matter of time whether or not it happens.

I stand on my statement that the R179's will be numbered 3010-3309.  Ask DJ Hammers what the numbers will be!

It is also here.  Both webmasters are very reliable and have extensive, up to date sites.  You guys ought to study them.

All information at the 2 sites I've quoted are much more reliable than the stuff posted on this site.

http://www.thejoekorner.com/cars/index.html

Edited by Bill from Maspeth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2018 at 4:40 PM, subwaycommuter1983 said:

It may work.  The A, C needs NTT and  that  is the reason why a lot of these sets have been possibly modified into 5 car sets.  Yes, the C needs longer trains, but it also needs NTT.  It's pretty unfair that the A and C trains always have to stick with the oldest fleet in the system.

As a regular (A) rider, I can attest to this. Crowds get unbearable mornings starting at Utica already with the new hipster flood there. Fulton is hell in the evening. It's THE longest line in the system and goes to many important places in NYC (Penn station, FiDi, the Village, Downtown Bklyn, etc). The (A) desperately needs any NTT it can get and I think it would be foolish of the MTA to NOT assign 5-car R179s to it.

IMO, the R32s would do well on the (G) during the shutdown, since it is a relatively short line and is largely underground, and only shares track with the (F) briefly. Plus they'd be based at CIY, which seems to keep trains in good condition. 

So I guess what my two cents is... Any 5-car 179s go to (A) / Pitkin, displacing some R46s (at minimum 4, perhaps as many as 10) for the (C). Then, the R32s from the (J)(Z) go to CIY into (G) service. This displaces the R68s from that line, and they are recoupled into 600ft long trains. These 6-7 R68s displace 6-7 R160s from the (N)(Q)(W), which go to the (F) / Jamaica Yard. Finally, Jamaica gives the 7 R46s to the (C). This should give the (C) around 15 R46s total, the remaining fleet can be 10-car R32s only used during rush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

I stand on my statement that the R179's will be numbered 3010-3309.  Ask DJ Hammers what the numbers will be!

It is also here.  Both webmasters are very reliable and have extensive, up to date sites.  You guys ought to study them.

All information at the 2 sites I've quoted are much more reliable than the stuff posted on this site.

http://www.thejoekorner.com/cars/index.html

Well put. Though this information is not necessarily up to date, anyone who claims it is inaccurate had better bring a source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said:

As a regular (A) rider, I can attest to this. Crowds get unbearable mornings starting at Utica already with the new hipster flood there. Fulton is hell in the evening. It's THE longest line in the system and goes to many important places in NYC (Penn station, FiDi, the Village, Downtown Bklyn, etc). The (A) desperately needs any NTT it can get and I think it would be foolish of the MTA to NOT assign 5-car R179s to it.

IMO, the R32s would do well on the (G) during the shutdown, since it is a relatively short line and is largely underground, and only shares track with the (F) briefly. Plus they'd be based at CIY, which seems to keep trains in good condition. 

So I guess what my two cents is... Any 5-car 179s go to (A) / Pitkin, displacing some R46s (at minimum 4, perhaps as many as 10) for the (C). Then, the R32s from the (J)(Z) go to CIY into (G) service. This displaces the R68s from that line, and they are recoupled into 600ft long trains. These 6-7 R68s displace 6-7 R160s from the (N)(Q)(W), which go to the (F) / Jamaica Yard. Finally, Jamaica gives the 7 R46s to the (C). This should give the (C) around 15 R46s total, the remaining fleet can be 10-car R32s only used during rush.

That may also work as well, especially during the Canarsie tunnel shutdown. 

Plus,  the A is a one seat ride to Manhattan whereas the G doesn't go to Manhattan and you need to transfer from the G to other trains to go to Manhattan, including the A and C trains.

In terms of NTT, the A and C needs to have more priority than the G.

Edited by subwaycommuter1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2018 at 9:50 PM, Jemorie said:

Except more and more (L) riders will pass the (C) local up for the (A) express lol.

At every express stop a crowd of (C) passengers inevitably rush to swarm the (A). That's why I honestly think the (A) should be given any NTT before the (C), notwithstanding its length and full-time operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, U-BahnNYC said:

At every express stop a crowd of (C) passengers inevitably rush to swarm the (A). That's why I honestly think the (A) should be given any NTT before the (C), notwithstanding its length and full-time operation.

Speaking of NTT's. You know how a few R68's on the (G) have NTT-like features? What if these were features installed in a couple more R68 sets? Then (not gonna mention the fleet cause of what happened with the Canarsie fleet swap thread) could be moved out in favor of these retrofitted R68's plus the R179's for the (A) then, your statement would be justified. Sadly, I don't think the (MTA) wants to upgrade any more R68's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, U-BahnNYC said:

As a regular (A) rider, I can attest to this. Crowds get unbearable mornings starting at Utica already with the new hipster flood there. Fulton is hell in the evening. It's THE longest line in the system and goes to many important places in NYC (Penn station, FiDi, the Village, Downtown Bklyn, etc).

The entire train is almost full by time it reaches Grant Avenue (not Utica Avenue) and remains that way till after leaving Columbus Circle on weekday mornings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Speaking of NTT's. You know how a few R68's on the (G) have NTT-like features? What if these were features installed in a couple more R68 sets? Then (not gonna mention the fleet cause of what happened with the Canarsie fleet swap thread) could be moved out in favor of these retrofitted R68's plus the R179's for the (A) then, your statement would be justified. Sadly, I don't think the (MTA) wants to upgrade any more R68's

"The modifications are for various companies to showcase their products to be potentially used on later car orders."  This is the only statement that came from G line management when the first 4 car modified train came out.  Since then a few others have come out.  These trains are not to be coupled to other cars and are to be used in G service only.  I personally saw the notice a year or so ago when the first train came out.  Crews are instructed not to "touch" this equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Speaking of NTT's. You know how a few R68's on the (G) have NTT-like features? What if these were features installed in a couple more R68 sets? Then (not gonna mention the fleet cause of what happened with the Canarsie fleet swap thread) could be moved out in favor of these retrofitted R68's plus the R179's for the (A) then, your statement would be justified. Sadly, I don't think the (MTA) wants to upgrade any more R68's

Yeah, I can't see the MTA upgrading the 68s any time soon, if at all. Even if they did, it would take quite a bit and wouldn't be ready anywhere near the shutdown. Although I personally like seeing the 68s on the (A), it's just not a logical choice given the parameters are exactly like the 46s. Like I said before, I strongly think the 68s from the (G) will simply be recoupled into full length sets and put on the Broadway line. If the MTA wants to have 480ft (G) 's then they have to use 60-footers anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jemorie said:

The entire train is almost full by time it reaches Grant Avenue (not Utica Avenue) and remains that way till after leaving Columbus Circle on weekday mornings.

Yes, and the uptown A trains stay crowded all the way to 181 st during pm rush hour. 

The MTA needs to stop the favoritism with other subway lines and stop neglecting A and C train riders.

Those 5 car sets of r179's must go to the A train (with or without modifications on car configurations).

If the modifications do happen, some of the 5 cars sets of r179's can go to the C or they can all go to the A, while the C just has the r46s.

The r32s can go to the G train and the r68s that are currently on the G can stay on the G and just be recoupled into full length trains. 

 

Link to comment
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.