Jump to content

R179 Discussion Thread


East New York

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

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. 

 

There's no favoritism. You can blame the hipsters and yuppies packing up the (A) train because they have to live in Manhattan, so they all run to Inwood, Washington Heights and so on. I hate that line.  It's especially horrible in the morning. I did it once coming from Riverdale... Never again. The train was slammed by the time we got to 181st.  I don't know what I did. May have even gotten off at 168th and transferred to the (1). The real problem is there is nothing else.... Just the (A) and the (1) and the (C) from 168th down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 10.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

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. 

 

I don't know if I'm correct on this, but I think the MTA wants 480ft (G) trains, which isn't possible with 75 footers.

But yes, I agree it's high time the (A) stops getting hand me downs and is given R179s, the argument is especially strong now with the increased ridership. And for all those saying "oh the (A) will get R211s", a) who knows when they'll arrive, it's a new technology and the contract hasn't even been awarded yet and b) who's going to stop the MTA from just putting them on the (Q) first to compliment the SAS or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

There's no favoritism. You can blame the hipsters and yuppies packing up the (A) train because they have to live in Manhattan, so they all run to Inwood, Washington Heights and so on. I hate that line.  It's especially horrible in the morning. I did it once coming from Riverdale... Never again. The train was slammed by the time we got to 181st.  I don't know what I did. May have even gotten off at 168th and transferred to the (1). The real problem is there is nothing else.... Just the (A) and the (1) and the (C) from 168th down.

What I mean with the favoritism is that everytime new subway cars come to the B division, they get placed in other subway lines, while all the old and unreliable cars are always dumped on the A and C trains. At least the C has some r160s, but who knows for how long. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

What I mean with the favoritism is that everytime new subway cars come to the B division, they get placed in other subway lines, while all the old and unreliable cars are always dumped on the A and C trains. At least the C has some r160s, but who knows for how long. 

Well I do agree that the (A) needs new cars.  The current ones are just disgusting... Bubbling floors... Aside from that the stations are disgusting too.  They could rehab all of the (A) stations, even the one at 207th street, all the way down to 59th street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Well I do agree that the (A) needs new cars.  The current ones are just disgusting... Bubbling floors... Aside from that the stations are disgusting too.  They could rehab all of the (A) stations, even the one at 207th street, all the way down to 59th street.

Bubbling floors is a problem fleetwide. It is a design and specification flaw which won't go away until they replace floors with those of a different design. I have recently seen R46s and R62As with what appears to be the flooring material used in Montreal. If they decide to go with that, we might see the bubbling issue eliminated. The 52 year old MR63s have their original floors, and they still look new.  I hope we make the switch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Art Vandelay said:

Bubbling floors is a problem fleetwide. It is a design and specification flaw which won't go away until they replace floors with those of a different design. I have recently seen R46s and R62As with what appears to be the flooring material used in Montreal. If they decide to go with that, we might see the bubbling issue eliminated. The 52 year old MR63s have their original floors, and they still look new.  I hope we make the switch. 

Yes, but the (A) fleet seems to be by far the worse.  I suspect that the cars themselves were made with cheap materials.  Certainly feels like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yes, but the (A) fleet seems to be by far the worse.  I suspect that the cars themselves were made with cheap materials.  Certainly feels like it.

Gotta blame the R44's/46's, they've been on the (A) for gosh knows how long and I've seen it for years

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

Bubbling floors is a problem fleetwide. It is a design and specification flaw which won't go away until they replace floors with those of a different design. I have recently seen R46s and R62As with what appears to be the flooring material used in Montreal. If they decide to go with that, we might see the bubbling issue eliminated. The 52 year old MR63s have their original floors, and they still look new.  I hope we make the switch. 

Well, one could argue Montreal takes very good care of it's fleet, much more so than NYC. But I guess the flooring type has something to do with it, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Floors are essentially the same fleet-wide. Very few cars older than the R142s still have their original floors. (It is harder to tell with the newer cars as their floors look identical to replacement floors. )

Why NYCT has standardized on using plywood wrapped in stainless steel, I'll never understand... Plywood rots very quickly when it gets wet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

Floors are essentially the same fleet-wide. Very few cars older than the R142s still have their original floors. (It is harder to tell with the newer cars as their floors look identical to replacement floors. )

Why NYCT has standardized on using plywood wrapped in stainless steel, I'll never understand... Plywood rots very quickly when it gets wet. 

Maybe for short term cost reasons? Maybe they're too tired to fix it? Eh, im not sure

 

38 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Well I do agree that the (A) needs new cars.  The current ones are just disgusting... Bubbling floors... Aside from that the stations are disgusting too.  They could rehab all of the (A) stations, even the one at 207th street, all the way down to 59th street.

Agreed, the (A) needs better cars. Sadly, it's not likely many R179's are going to the (A) as it'll come down to the (MTA)'s needs first and foremost (and that's putting them on other lines), but I do hope at least more newer trains show up on the (A) (especially with the Canarsie shutdown and increased ridership).

 

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

Agreed, the (A) needs better cars. Sadly, it's not likely many R179's are going to the (A) as it'll come down to the (MTA)'s needs first and foremost (and that's putting them on other lines), but I do hope at least more newer trains show up on the (A) (especially with the Canarsie shutdown).

 

Which line(s), if I may ask, have an actual greater need for 10-car R179s than the (A)? I'm no expert, but I can't think of any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said:

Which line(s), if I may ask, have an actual greater need for 10-car R179s than the (A)? I'm no expert, but I can't think of any.

Only one I can think of is the (J)(Z), but it's for 8-car R179s. 

The only one I can think of for 10 cars is the (G)??

@NoHacksJustKhaks I think that the (A) is supposed to mainly be R46's with the 5-car R179's. 

Edited by D to 96 St
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said:

Which line(s), if I may ask, have an actual greater need for 10-car R179s than the (A)? I'm no expert, but I can't think of any.

I agree. The original plan for the r179's is to have the 5 cars sets on the A train. 

It would be really unfair that those cars end on other lines that isn't the A or at least the C. This goes back to my previous post on favoritism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

Floors are essentially the same fleet-wide. Very few cars older than the R142s still have their original floors. (It is harder to tell with the newer cars as their floors look identical to replacement floors. )

Why NYCT has standardized on using plywood wrapped in stainless steel, I'll never understand... Plywood rots very quickly when it gets wet. 

MTA logic.  Although VG8 is right, it seems to be the worst on the R46s.  I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but structurally those cars aren't doing too great.  As for the different flooring that Art mentioned, it has more of a matte look to it.  Not sure if the material itself is any different.

 

15 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said:

Which line(s), if I may ask, have an actual greater need for 10-car R179s than the (A)? I'm no expert, but I can't think of any.

A proposal on this thread is to put them on the (Q) since it could use an extra train or two and Coney Island might be operating R179s anyway assuming the (G) gets the 4-car sets.  This would bump some R160s back to Jamaica and then some R46s to the (A) or (C).  

IMHO, it seems the assignments are still up in the air as major service changes are imminent.  Plus, the reconfiguration of the contract is still a rumor.  And even if it is true, there's still at least a year to go for the bulk of the R179s to be in service (assuming no further issues).  A year's plenty of time for the MTA to change their minds, which they've been doing a lot of especially ever since Cuomo stepped in.  The R179s were booted from the (C) right before they would've started revenue testing--the same line that's been promised those trains since the contract was awarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bosco said:

MTA logic.  Although VG8 is right, it seems to be the worst on the R46s.  I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but structurally those cars aren't doing too great.  As for the different flooring that Art mentioned, it has more of a matte look to it.  Not sure if the material itself is any different.

 

A proposal on this thread is to put them on the (Q) since it could use an extra train or two and Coney Island might be operating R179s anyway assuming the (G) gets the 4-car sets.  This would bump some R160s back to Jamaica and then some R46s to the (A) or (C).  

IMHO, it seems the assignments are still up in the air as major service changes are imminent.  Plus, the reconfiguration of the contract is still a rumor.  And even if it is true, there's still at least a year to go for the bulk of the R179s to be in service (assuming no further issues).  A year's plenty of time for the MTA to change their minds, which they've been doing a lot of especially ever since Cuomo stepped in.  The R179s were booted from the (C) right before they would've started revenue testing--the same line that's been promised those trains since the contract was awarded.

If those reconfigurations don't happen, it will mean more bad news for A and C train riders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

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. 

 

There is no "favoritism". It's called "needs of service" When the R160's were coming in the A had those power issues in the Rockaways that prevented the trains from running over that stretch. With the R179's, the needs of service have changed regarding the C line. At the time the order was placed there was no intentions of lengthening the C from 480-600 feet. With the upcoming L shutdown that has sinfe changed. You can check this out on the A/C study they did about a year or two "Upon delivery of R179 cars, currently on order, replace the entire C fleet and a small 
portion of the A fleet with the new cars"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/AC_LineReview.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiFpNKoztvYAhXCTN8KHbDnA-kQFjAAegQIFRAB&usg=AOvVaw2tXDI3vfrKpEplJUoIsOfK

Edited by Jchambers2120
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bosco said:

A proposal on this thread is to put them on the (Q) since it could use an extra train or two and Coney Island might be operating R179s anyway assuming the (G) gets the 4-car sets.  This would bump some R160s back to Jamaica and then some R46s to the (A) or (C).  

IMHO, it seems the assignments are still up in the air as major service changes are imminent.  Plus, the reconfiguration of the contract is still a rumor.  And even if it is true, there's still at least a year to go for the bulk of the R179s to be in service (assuming no further issues).  A year's plenty of time for the MTA to change their minds, which they've been doing a lot of especially ever since Cuomo stepped in.  The R179s were booted from the (C) right before they would've started revenue testing--the same line that's been promised those trains since the contract was awarded.

The (Q) can get an extra R68 from when the (G) becomes 480-foot. Don't forget 75-footers can't be used to make 480 foot trains and thus the R68s are almost certain to leave the (G), unless the MTA goes bats**t insane and makes it 600ft to please dictator cuomo. Where can these displaced (G) R68s go? Only logical choice is Broadway, since it already uses R68s and is based at CIY. 

Meanwhile (G) will do fine with R32s and perhaps a small mix of R160s (if the (J) becomes all R179, because where else can those 40-car sets go at this point?).

Speaking of R32s, putting them on the (A), the longest line, is a very big mistake because of their high MDBF. The (G), like I said, is short and lacks any significant stretch of shared track (besides the (F), and even there it's only a few stations with an express track) to have much of a cascading effect. Besides, having the old clankers based at the robust CIY should prove to be helpful in maintaining them.  

As usual, the MTA yet again has a brewing mess in its hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

If those reconfigurations don't happen, it will mean more bad news for A and C train riders. 

Who knows. I'm just cautiously optimistic that maybe this new Andy Byford guy can force some better decisions regarding this fleet fiasco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 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.

Are those trains from Far Rockaway or Lefferts?

2 hours ago, Jchambers2120 said:

There is no "favoritism". It's called "needs of service" When the R160's were coming in the A had those power issues in the Rockaways that prevented the trains from running over that stretch. With the R179's, the needs of service have changed regarding the C line. At the time the order was placed there was no intentions of lengthening the C from 480-600 feet. With the upcoming L shutdown that has sinfe changed. You can check this out on the A/C study they did about a year or two "Upon delivery of R179 cars, currently on order, replace the entire C fleet and a small 
portion of the A fleet with the new cars"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/AC_LineReview.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiFpNKoztvYAhXCTN8KHbDnA-kQFjAAegQIFRAB&usg=AOvVaw2tXDI3vfrKpEplJUoIsOfK

Thanks for the link

"Under recent Federal Transit Administration interpretation of the ADA, the opening of a decommissioned station stairway at a station or platform that is not ADA accessible would require that MTA NYC Transit also provide ADA-compliant elevators or ramps to allow for use of the same part of the station by customers who use wheelchairs. This requirement increases the threshold at which the benefits of re-opening stairs at non-ADA-compliant stations outweigh the cost of upgrading the station. At an average cost of $17 million to bring a station into compliance, on top of any other improvement costs, reopening stairways at non-ADA-compliant stations requires significantly more potential benefit to justify the expense, and no such stairway openings are planned at this time."

That explains a lot.

The report also lisyts some closed entrances along the line, interesting to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, U-BahnNYC said:

Speaking of R32s, putting them on the (A), the longest line, is a very big mistake because of their low MDBF. The (G), like I said, is short and lacks any significant stretch of shared track (besides the (F), and even there it's only a few stations with an express track) to have much of a cascading effect. Besides, having the old clankers based at the robust CIY should prove to be helpful in maintaining them.  

As usual, the MTA yet again has a brewing mess in its hands.

It’s not a big deal. The R32s are just trains and that’s that. A train is a train. The amount of breakdown rates is minimum compared to the amount of track and signal issues plaguing the subway due to their age.

And no, they won’t do “fine” on the (G) either because the line is almost entirely underground. The R32s will have problems no matter where they put them.

9 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Are those trains from Far Rockaway or Lefferts?

All.

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.