R179 Discussion Thread

[trainfan22]

28 minutes ago, RR503 said:

You know, I think it says a lot about this forum that car assignments — one of the less important issues regarding the subway — is the one discussed the most. Classic missing the forest for the trees. 

One of us could write a long, well informed post on agency structure or signals or crowd control or system expansion or funding or anything, really, but a comment on how someone’s best friends uncles doctors cousin said R32s would be on the  would generate exponentially more discussion. 

Its a railfan message board, so of course the assignments of where the trains will run will get a lot of discussion, the trains themselves provide the most entertainment to railfans so I can see why discussion of the car assignments of trains really gets fanners yapping'.  

[LGA Link N Train]

17 minutes ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

Off topic, but why?

I keep getting this occasional notification that says  (after a certain point of reacting) "Sorry,  cannot add anymore reactions today"

[RR503]

26 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

Its a railfan message board, so of course the assignments of where the trains will run will get a lot of discussion, the trains themselves provide the most entertainment to railfans so I can see why discussion of the car assignments of trains really gets fanners yapping'.  

Oh I know — doesn’t mean I can’t complain about it...;) 

I came to transitforums looking a community that’d engage me on service (as in train routings/frequency, not car type)/capital planning. I found that, but it bothers me when I see so much energy being expended, and so much vitriol hurled around on what I see as minutiae... I do a whole lotta foaming, but this is too much imo — especially given that this issue is really something at the MTA’s discretion.

Just be thankful the insiders tell us anything after we pulverize their info like this. 

Edited January 24, 2018 by RR503

[U-BahnNYC]

28 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Anyways. Conclusion. 

6-8 R179's should go on the

4-6 R179's should go on the

This would be lit 🙂

[Fan Railer]

If the  is going full length, then the fact that it shares yards with the  should be an obvious indicator that the TA may just pool the fleet assignments for those two lines like they do the  and . So all of this "which line should get the 10-car sets" banter with respect to the A/C is completely pointless.

[U-BahnNYC]

1 minute ago, Fan Railer said:

then the fact that it shares yards with the  should be an obvious indicator that the TA may just pool the fleet assignments for those two lines like they do the  and .

Exactly what I've been implying. Full length means fleets can be shared.

[subwaycommuter1983]

34 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said:

Exactly what I've been implying. Full length means fleets can be shared.

Both the A and C can share cars, whether it's the r179's, or the r46s. I don't think anyone is questioning

The important thing is, like I mentioned before, that the 12 10 car r179's go to the A/C, the 8 car NTT'S as well as the r32s go to the G, while the displaced r68s go to the B.

I know a lot of commuters in the Bronx, Manhattan and Brooklyn will be very happy if this scenario happens. 

Edited January 24, 2018 by subwaycommuter1983

[Trainmaster5]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

You know, I think it says a lot about this forum that car assignments — one of the less important issues regarding the subway — is the one discussed the most. Classic missing the forest for the trees. 

One of us could write a long, well informed post on agency structure or signals or crowd control or system expansion or funding or anything, really, but a comment on how someone’s best friends uncles doctors cousin said R32s would be on the  would generate exponentially more discussion. 

Thank you. If some posters would take a step back and look at the problems affecting the railroads using Pennsylvania Station for the last few years they'd see where the future of the subway system is heading. Signal, switch, infrastructure problems popping up all over but rail fans are obsessed with new subway cars. Over 30 years ago my classmates were addressed by an RTO supervisor who we thought was just being a cynic. This was before the advent of the R62 and R62A cars in the IRT. Before the SMEE fleet was modified and became Redbirds. He said that the bright, shiny cars coming to the IRT would have us and the riders jumping for joy. We , new jacks and the public, would be so blinded that we'd overlook the other flaws in the system. Infrastructure first and foremost. Most are too young to remember the plan for action and the giddiness everyone had back then. 50 years later and, once again, we're blinded by the bright and shiny. Back in the early '80s the man said that the "game" the was running was "blind 'em with BS". Here we are in 2018 and we appear to be falling into the same trance we did way back then. In many threads I've seen arguments about car assignments, maintenance facility reliability, hours of service and headways but only one thread on unplanned service adjustments. Look at the reasons for the re-routes or service suspensions. As a former insider it's the most depressing thing I see yet on here in some alternate universe most arguments focus on the unimportant IMO. When the ceiling crumbles to the trackway at DeKalb, West 4th, or Grand Central fleet assignments will be the least of the s worries and yours too. Carry on.

[U-BahnNYC]

26 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Both the A and C can share cars, whether it's the r179's, or the r46s. I don't think anyone is questioning

The important thing is, like I mentioned before, that the 12 10 car r179's go to the A/C, the 8 car NTT'S as well as the r32s go to the G, while the displaced r68s go to the B.

I know a lot of commuters in the Bronx, Manhattan and Brooklyn will be very happy if this scenario happens. 

Very true. That would be a good outcome, and is likely.

[subwaycommuter1983]

14 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Thank you. If some posters would take a step back and look at the problems affecting the railroads using Pennsylvania Station for the last few years they'd see where the future of the subway system is heading. Signal, switch, infrastructure problems popping up all over but rail fans are obsessed with new subway cars. Over 30 years ago my classmates were addressed by an RTO supervisor who we thought was just being a cynic. This was before the advent of the R62 and R62A cars in the IRT. Before the SMEE fleet was modified and became Redbirds. He said that the bright, shiny cars coming to the IRT would have us and the riders jumping for joy. We , new jacks and the public, would be so blinded that we'd overlook the other flaws in the system. Infrastructure first and foremost. Most are too young to remember the plan for action and the giddiness everyone had back then. 50 years later and, once again, we're blinded by the bright and shiny. Back in the early '80s the man said that the "game" the was running was "blind 'em with BS". Here we are in 2018 and we appear to be falling into the same trance we did way back then. In many threads I've seen arguments about car assignments, maintenance facility reliability, hours of service and headways but only one thread on unplanned service adjustments. Look at the reasons for the re-routes or service suspensions. As a former insider it's the most depressing thing I see yet on here in some alternate universe most arguments focus on the unimportant IMO. When the ceiling crumbles to the trackway at DeKalb, West 4th, or Grand Central fleet assignments will be the least of the s worries and yours too. Carry on.

I don't think people are being blinded with BS.

Yes stations, tracks, signals, etc need to be repaired. 

Yes the oldest fleet in the system need to be retired already.

Yes more trains need to be added on subway lines that don't have enough trains.

The surplus of trains can alleviate some of these problems, if the MTA makes the right decisions.

[Jemorie]

8 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

I beat you to it @Jemorie. 

 

Ain't like you gonna get a reward anyway. Grow up.

[Lance]

Honestly guys, this is getting ridiculous. I'd like to believe everyone here is at least a young adult (you needn't confirm your age as I don't really care) and therefore should be able to respect each other's opinions, despite not always agreeing with them. It appears that everyone has an opinion on where the cars should run and I can respect that, even if I feel this is bordering on an obsession at times. Maybe I just don't understand, but I don't get everyone here feels they must be right on where X car runs or else. It really is not that serious.

To address a common theme here, I would like everyone to remember that, despite what's reported by DJ Hammers, Union Tpke or your friend's brother's third cousin twice removed, at the end of the day, the MTA can and likely will change its mind on where these cars will run. Up until last Summer, it was practically guaranteed that the 179s would run on the and lines as four-car sets, likely making up the majority of the former line. However, with the push for full-length trains on the  line, that is an impossibility and there is nothing that can be done about it. Yes, the MTA promised line riders that they would be first in line for the 179s, but it's either one or the other. Either they keep the line at 480 feet and get the four-car sets or they let the line expand to 600 feet and run a likely mix of 46s and 179s. Riders generally don't care as long as the trains run smoothly and the passengers don't have to run from the entrance at the far side of the platform to where the train has stopped. As for where the four-car sets will go, remember that as part of the Subway Action Plan enacted by Cuomo and Lhota last year, the is also slated to see a length expansion. Since that line's present train length is 300 feet, an expansion to 480 feet using either the remaining SMEEs and/or the four-car 160s/179s would be sufficient enough for the line.

Beyond that, we really don't know what will run on these lines as the original preliminary plans for the cars have since changed and we likely won't know with any certainty until those plans are finalized. Again, I'm not against speculation. Whatever gets your rocks off, I don't judge. I just think it's a bit excessive to constantly spend page after page debating the same merits on why you feel X car absolutely needs to run on Y line. Accept that other people have a different opinion than you and move on.

Finally, to answer an off-topic question, the HOT tag on posts means a thread has seen a lot of activity in a short amount of time.

[subwaycommuter1983]

43 minutes ago, Lance said:

Honestly guys, this is getting ridiculous. I'd like to believe everyone here is at least a young adult (you needn't confirm your age as I don't really care) and therefore should be able to respect each other's opinions, despite not always agreeing with them. It appears that everyone has an opinion on where the cars should run and I can respect that, even if I feel this is bordering on an obsession at times. Maybe I just don't understand, but I don't get everyone here feels they must be right on where X car runs or else. It really is not that serious.

To address a common theme here, I would like everyone to remember that, despite what's reported by DJ Hammers, Union Tpke or your friend's brother's third cousin twice removed, at the end of the day, the MTA can and likely will change its mind on where these cars will run. Up until last Summer, it was practically guaranteed that the 179s would run on the and lines as four-car sets, likely making up the majority of the former line. However, with the push for full-length trains on the  line, that is an impossibility and there is nothing that can be done about it. Yes, the MTA promised line riders that they would be first in line for the 179s, but it's either one or the other. Either they keep the line at 480 feet and get the four-car sets or they let the line expand to 600 feet and run a likely mix of 46s and 179s. Riders generally don't care as long as the trains run smoothly and the passengers don't have to run from the entrance at the far side of the platform to where the train has stopped. As for where the four-car sets will go, remember that as part of the Subway Action Plan enacted by Cuomo and Lhota last year, the is also slated to see a length expansion. Since that line's present train length is 300 feet, an expansion to 480 feet using either the remaining SMEEs and/or the four-car 160s/179s would be sufficient enough for the line.

Beyond that, we really don't know what will run on these lines as the original preliminary plans for the cars have since changed and we likely won't know with any certainty until those plans are finalized. Again, I'm not against speculation. Whatever gets your rocks off, I don't judge. I just think it's a bit excessive to constantly spend page after page debating the same merits on why you feel X car absolutely needs to run on Y line. Accept that other people have a different opinion than you and move on.

Finally, to answer an off-topic question, the HOT tag on posts means a thread has seen a lot of activity in a short amount of time.

Thank you!!! I agree with you 100%!! Everyone has a right to share an opinion or offer suggestions. I stated my opinion and explained the reasons. Some people agree, some people disagree. Other people have stated their opinion. Some people agree, some people disagree. 

Disagreements are Ok. What is not OK is insulting, name calling, swearing and being disrespecting to each other. Unfortunately, a couple of people in the forum are doing this and that is not right.

Edited January 24, 2018 by subwaycommuter1983

[m2fwannabe]

Now that everything is official, here's my take:

120 in 5-car sets (numbered 2930-3049), for .  The highest numbered R-68 is 2924.

196 in 4-car sets (numbered 3050-3245 for and .  Final distribution to be determined. 

This PROBABLY means that:

The ENY 4-car group will be enough to replace the 50 MK R-42's in the near future.  Eventually a quantity of Phase I R-32's could also be retired.

The Pitkin 5-car group will displace an equal quantity of R-46's to for 600-foot trains.

A long-term base fleet of 17½ 8-car R-179 trains for , starting with the Canarsie Tunnel closure.

[B3 Via Av U]

There's no point in speculating over where all sorts of fancy trains are going to go if the infrastructure crumbles to the point where it can't handle the damn train.

 

In the end, as a Brighton rider, it would be nice to see a little variety in the fleet around here, but I really couldn't give a damn as to what kind of train I board as long as it has wheels and a seat. Hell, you can give me a handcart and I'll be happy as long as it takes me from A to B.

Edited January 24, 2018 by B3 Via Av U

[RailRunRob]

10 minutes ago, m2fwannabe said:

120 in 5-car sets (numbered 2930-3049), for .  The highest numbered R-68 is 2924.

Did they finally release the R110B numbers from the roster?

[RR503]

How many sets are in service now? What happened to the more recent arrivals? 

Edited January 24, 2018 by RR503
Sorry my phone accidentally quoted a bunch of ppl.

[m2fwannabe]

1 hour ago, RailRunRob said:

Did they finally release the R110B numbers from the roster?

Is there any real reason not to?

The class is clearly de-commissioned.

[LGA Link N Train]

4 minutes ago, RR503 said:

How many sets are in service now? What happened to the more recent arrivals? 

Still only 2 from what I remember. I'm not sure what happened to the other production cars. Heck. I don't know if 3050-3057 is, since I don't leave my house often with the exception of school, church, grocery or anything important.

[subwaycommuter1983]

What happened with sets 3010-3019 and 3050-3057??

They were the first sets to be delivered and both sets did most of the rigorous testing, but now they're MIA!!!

[RailRunRob]

15 minutes ago, m2fwannabe said:

Is there any real reason not to?

The class is clearly de-commissioned.

Well didn't they start the roster at 3010 for the R179? 15 Years after the cars traveled the rails? Were they decommissioned in 2012 correct? I'm just asking 

[Lance]

Knowing the MTA, the train is still counted somewhere internally and thus, the car numbers are still considered unavailable even after all these years of disuse.

[RailRunRob]

43 minutes ago, Lance said:

Knowing the MTA, the train is still counted somewhere internally and thus, the car numbers are still considered unavailable even after all these years of disuse.

Why I kinda asked when I saw (120 in 5-car sets (numbered 2930-3049) ) What is that?  Update with the order or Make-believe?

[LGA Link N Train]

14 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Why I kinda asked when I saw (120 in 5-car sets (numbered 2930-3049) ) What is that?  Update with the order or Make-believe?

The order HAS BEEN Updated. Bombardier is giving us 16 free B cars. However, the fleet numbers are to be decided so whoever typed those numbers up, then sorry you're wrong. R68's and the R110B already have those numbers taken

[Art Vandelay]

9 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

The order HAS BEEN Updated. Bombardier is giving us 16 free B cars. However, the fleet numbers are to be decided so whoever typed those numbers up, then sorry you're wrong. R68's and the R110B already have those numbers taken

R110Bs are retired- The 4 remaining on property can be renumbered if needed. R68s do not fall within this number scheme. 

(I am not saying that the post is correct- I am nearly certain it is not, but it would not be impossible. )