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

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Bosco said:

And also shame on the MTA for letting it get to this point, and still rushing things (as we saw with the 30-day test)...

Hindsight is 20/20.

As much as I don't like defending the (MTA), there was no way they could have known that it was going to be this bad. What other options are there besides rush them into service? They absolutely need operating in a significant capacity on the Eastern Division by the time the Canarsie shutdown happens, and IIRC the shutdown really can't be pushed back any further than it already has.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just awful. The R179s were supposed to be acclaimed for finally finishing the job of the R160s by retiring the last of the SMEEs by 2017, but these lemons are just too sour. 

What we have now is what the R179s have gained notoriety for. This is mainly a half-assed interpretation of what they were supposed to be acclaimed for:

-Delays in the manufacturing of the fleet

-A rushed, sloppy delivery 

-Clock reset FOUR TIMES only two weeks into the 30-day test

-Three sets operating, or were operating on the (J)

-All sets out of service due to mechanical issues

-Not a single R32/R42 off the property and scrapped

-Issues with the test trains

-Inability to push the remaining R32s from ENY to the (A) 

-Making us continue to speculate about the R32 fleet assignments, which results in mocking/bullying from every perspective

-Failing to replace the remaining SMEEs 

-Making the (A)(C) lack new technology trains

-A five-year delay in the retirement of the R32s

-Just plain Bombardier

Do I need to go on anymore...

P.S. Freddy Fazbear told me that they were gonna put the R179's on the (S)...

latest?cb=20150928231525

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Coney Island Av
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(G) 19 R32s, 2 R160 (all 8 car)

(J)(Z) 21 R179s, 3 R160s, 5 R143s

(M) 32 R160s

(L) 16 R143s

(N)(W) 33 R46s

(Q) 21 R68s

(B) 13 R68s, 8 R46s, 4 R42s

(A) 38 R160s

(C) 8 R160s, 11 R179s (all 10 car)

(F) 40 R160s, 4 R46s

(E)(R)(D) unchanged

Uses all currently assigned full trains except for four additional 8-car R160 trains, which could either be idle or assigned to add even more service to any of the 8-car lines.

Aside from standard planned (G)(J) and (M) increases, this also adds 1 TPH to the (C).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also as an addendum:

You could also squeeze two more 10-car R160s out of there to give to the (A) or (C).  Because of the way fleets are currently assigned, compared to current numbers, there are a few 'half-trains' laying around which obviously can't be assigned. Under the above scenario they're just added to the spares, thus increasing the spare ratio by a little bit, but you could also assign them to the (S) , since it does use half-trains. Going off of the above, if you gave it a 4-car R32, a 4-car R46, and a 4-car R68 (all three half-trains left over in the above plans), you could get rid of the 1.5 R160s currently assigned to the line, which would end up giving you two additional trains. However, for a variety of reasons (making Pitkin have three extra fleets for a shuttle, the OPTO issue, etc) it's not very likely to happen in practice so I didn't include it above. Thought it was a neat thing worth sharing though. 

Share this post


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

 

  Hide contents

 

(G) 19 R32s, 2 R160 (all 8 car)

(J)(Z) 21 R179s, 3 R160s, 5 R143s

(M) 32 R160s

(L) 16 R143s

(N)(W) 33 R46s

(Q) 21 R68s

(B) 13 R68s, 8 R46s, 4 R42s

(A) 38 R160s

(C) 8 R160s, 11 R179s (all 10 car)

(F) 40 R160s, 4 R46s

(E)(R)(D) unchanged

Uses all currently assigned full trains except for four additional 8-car R160 trains, which could either be idle or assigned to add even more service to any of the 8-car lines.

Aside from standard planned (G)(J) and (M) increases, this also adds 1 TPH to the (C).

 

 

I like this idea. Will it materialized?? That depends on the MTA and how quickly the r179's are delivered before the shutdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

It's just awful. The R179s were supposed to be acclaimed for finally finishing the job of the R160s by retiring the last of the SMEEs by 2017, but these lemons are just too sour. 

What we have now is what the R179s have gained notoriety for. This is mainly a half-assed interpretation of what they were supposed to be acclaimed for:

-Delays in the manufacturing of the fleet

-A rushed, sloppy delivery 

-Clock reset FOUR TIMES only two weeks into the 30-day test

-Three sets operating, or were operating on the (J)

-All sets out of service due to mechanical issues

-Not a single R32/R42 off the property and scrapped

-Issues with the test trains

-Inability to push the remaining R32s from ENY to the (A) 

-Making us continue to speculate about the R32 fleet assignments, which results in mocking/bullying from every perspective

-Failing to replace the remaining SMEEs 

-Making the (A)(C) lack new technology trains

-A five-year delay in the retirement of the R32s

-Just plain Bombardier

Do I need to go on anymore...

P.S. Freddy Fazbear told me that they were gonna put the R179's on the (S)...

latest?cb=20150928231525

 

I agree. It is a frustrating situation. And it is an embarrassment for one of the largest cities in the world to have crippling subway stations and have subway cars that should've been retired years ago. 

Even some third world cities have a more efficient subway system than NYC.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by subwaycommuter1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

It's just awful. The R179s were supposed to be acclaimed for finally finishing the job of the R160s by retiring the last of the SMEEs by 2017, but these lemons are just too sour. 

What we have now is what the R179s have gained notoriety for. This is mainly a half-assed interpretation of what they were supposed to be acclaimed for:

-Delays in the manufacturing of the fleet

-A rushed, sloppy delivery 

-Clock reset FOUR TIMES only two weeks into the 30-day test

-Three sets operating, or were operating on the (J)

-All sets out of service due to mechanical issues

-Not a single R32/R42 off the property and scrapped

-Issues with the test trains

-Inability to push the remaining R32s from ENY to the (A) 

-Making us continue to speculate about the R32 fleet assignments, which results in mocking/bullying from every perspective

-Failing to replace the remaining SMEEs 

-Making the (A)(C) lack new technology trains

-A five-year delay in the retirement of the R32s

-Just plain Bombardier

Do I need to go on anymore...

P.S. Freddy Fazbear told me that they were gonna put the R179's on the (S)...

latest?cb=20150928231525

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great, now I'm going to have nightmares again...

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

It's just awful. The R179s were supposed to be acclaimed for finally finishing the job of the R160s by retiring the last of the SMEEs by 2017, but these lemons are just too sour. 

What we have now is what the R179s have gained notoriety for. This is mainly a half-assed interpretation of what they were supposed to be acclaimed for:

[I'm not quoting each of the items to save space, see OP]

Except even if Bombardier finished the order on time, we'd still have those extra cars because the contract did not factor in the growth of ridership (and was signed before Hurricane Sandy, so there was no way of knowing at the time we'd be in the situation we're in).  If anything, it worked out that Bombardier dropped the ball because we got more 5-car sets out of the deal.  So half of your complaints are automatically invalid.  Also, people on here were speculating over the car assignments ad nauseam long before the shit hit the fan.

18 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Hindsight is 20/20.

As much as I don't like defending the (MTA), there was no way they could have known that it was going to be this bad. What other options are there besides rush them into service? They absolutely need operating in a significant capacity on the Eastern Division by the time the Canarsie shutdown happens, and IIRC the shutdown really can't be pushed back any further than it already has.

Agreed, but another issue with the issues of these cars is that even if all of them are placed in service before Canarsie shuts down, what happens if another issue comes up during the shutdown that renders the cars useless for awhile?  Then we're back where we started.  There's no winning here.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Except even if Bombardier finished the order on time, we'd still have those extra cars because the contract did not factor in the growth of ridership (and was signed before Hurricane Sandy, so there was no way of knowing at the time we'd be in the situation we're in).  If anything, it worked out that Bombardier dropped the ball because we got more 5-car sets out of the deal.  So half of your complaints are automatically invalid.  Also, people on here were speculating over the car assignments ad nauseam long before the shit hit the fan.

Agreed, but another issue with the issues of these cars is that even if all of them are placed in service before Canarsie shuts down, what happens if another issue comes up during the shutdown that renders the cars useless for awhile?  Then we're back where we started.  There's no winning here.

I see another R44/46 type of run happening where these cars see minimal service before becoming overhauled again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

I see another R44/46 type of run happening where these cars see minimal service before becoming overhauled again.

Well, didn’t something similar happen with the R142s back in 2007?  I don’t remember exactly what was fixed, just that the R142s were taken OOS for repairs and there were some R142As on the (2) and (5).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I'm not mistaken. R179's are experiencing an R44/R46/R142 fiasco. Welp, that sucks. 

Well, in that case. I got another speculation (disregarding R179's) 

All 4 car R160's head to ENY. 

All remaining R32's/R42's head to 207/Pitkin/or Coney island

37 consists of R160's and R46's swap from CIY/Jamaica 

The (G) gets leftovers while keeping it's R68's 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an issue found with the B3C valve (conductor’s emergency valve). It was fixed and the cars will be returning to service shortly. Not really that big of a deal honestly.

 

And it wasn’t even Bombardier’s fault, just to make that clear. 

  • Thanks 6
  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dj Hammers said:

There was an issue found with the B3C valve (conductor’s emergency valve). It was fixed and the cars will be returning to service shortly. Not really that big of a deal honestly.

 

And it wasn’t even Bombardier’s fault, just to make that clear. 

@Dj Hammers is at it once again, with his accurate explanations of the R179s.

But when precisely will the R179s go back into service? Do you have a confirmed date?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

@Dj Hammers is at it once again, with his accurate explanations of the R179s.

But when precisely will the R179s go back into service? Do you have a confirmed date?

Just wait, sheesh.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
  • LMAO! 5
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coney Island Av said:

@Dj Hammers is at it once again, with his accurate explanations of the R179s.

But when precisely will the R179s go back into service? Do you have a confirmed date?

No confirmed date but you'll be seeing them burn testing as a prelude to re-entering service very soon.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

There was an issue found with the B3C valve (conductor’s emergency valve). It was fixed and the cars will be returning to service shortly. Not really that big of a deal honestly.

 

And it wasn’t even Bombardier’s fault, just to make that clear. 

It's not directly their fault, per se, but they are still responsible for making sure all parts coming from the vendor are functional.  That's how system integration is for Bombardier or Kawasaki.  The builder serves as the liaison between the customer ((MTA)) and the vendor.  When I worked at Kawasaki, any issue that came about, even a vendor part, always went to our desk first.  Bombardier may not have made the faulty part, but they still are in charge for signing off on everything, and something like that should've been caught a while ago considering the first trains are almost two years old now.

Just putting that out there for those who are curious how these things work.  ;)

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

No confirmed date but you'll be seeing them burn testing as a prelude to re-entering service very soon.

Thanks for the update. I'm still crossing my fingers so that all r179's are delivered before the shutdown. The speed will make the difference between a shortage and a surplus.

16 hours ago, Bosco said:

Well, didn’t something similar happen with the R142s back in 2007?  I don’t remember exactly what was fixed, just that the R142s were taken OOS for repairs and there were some R142As on the (2) and (5).

I didn't know that the r142's had issues as well. 

Why didn't the MTA see these issues as a red flag against Bombardier?

Kawasaki should've built the r179's. In my opinion, they're one of the most reliable subway car company.

Share this post


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

It's not directly their fault, per se, but they are still responsible for making sure all parts coming from the vendor are functional.  That's how system integration is for Bombardier or Kawasaki.  The builder serves as the liaison between the customer ((MTA)) and the vendor.  When I worked at Kawasaki, any issue that came about, even a vendor part, always went to our desk first.  Bombardier may not have made the faulty part, but they still are in charge for signing off on everything, and something like that should've been caught a while ago considering the first trains are almost two years old now.

Just putting that out there for those who are curious how these things work.  ;)

The thing is, the valve in question was fine up until recently. Something must've happened to one of the sets that prompted them to pull all the sets OOS and to have them checked out.

A similar situation is unfolding in Washington D.C. with their CNG buses, all 100+ of their XN40 CNG buses have been pulled from the road because 2-3 of their buses had their engine shut off while in operation, and those buses are already a couple of years old.

But I completely understand what you are saying, though.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How rigorous was the testing that Bombardier subjected the R179s to before they were signed off for delivery? If you ask me, it would've been a good idea to verify that the R179 prototypes could withstand one level of stress exposure higher than they were designed for to prevent the seemingly minor complications that have these trains effectively immobile. This may just be an issue of "working out the bugs" that new technology comes with, but there has to be a point when one asks "Is it worth going further over these seemingly repetitive failures?" People may say that the R142 order was plagued with several deficiencies, never passed testing on transit property and eventually became the most resilient NTT's the MTA has ever owned, but can you really hold the R179s up to the same standard? After all, we're talking about technology that's nearly 20 years in age apart. This may come as trivial, but the more complex the equipment is, the more difficult it is to repair and identify the cause of a malfunction. If this is any indicator of the fate of the system, we're in deep trouble. Hopefully all this implementation of modern technology works out, otherwise we're going to be stuck with trains that are so sensitive they jam up over the drop of a nail, being further delayed because of modern signal infrastructure that was thought to be more resilient than what we have today. I digress...

Edited by AlgorithmOfTruth
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coney Island Av said:

Let's just be grateful that the cars will finally be back in service...

 

 

 

You guys take these things way out of hand. Yes we all love trains and the transit system we use and enjoy. Yes the R179s are a mess , yes another rail at builder shoudve gotten the order . But they’re  here now , and they’re really smoove trains. More of the R179s will come , just not in the time frame we want then to come. For right now let’s just be patient enjoy the 3 sets we have know. Like @Coney Island Av said we all should be glad that they’re going back in service. DJ Hammer and other with great sources with keep us update in due time. There’s is not nothing to get upset over lol 😎😎😎. MTA ain’t really stressing it why should we 😎✊🏾

Edited by R179 8258
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, R179 8258 said:

You guys take these things way out of hand. Yes we all love trains and the transit system we use and enjoy. Yes the R179s are a mess , yes another rail at builder shoudve gotten the order . But they’re  here now , and they’re really smoove trains. More of the R179s will come , just not in the time frame we want then to come. For right now let’s just be patient enjoy the 3 sets we have know. Like @Coney Island Av said we all should be glad that they’re going back in service. DJ Hammer and other with great sources with keep us update in due time. There’s is not nothing to get upset over lol 😎😎😎. MTA ain’t really stressing it why should we 😎✊🏾

That's not true at all but you do you...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R179 8258 said:

You guys take these things way out of hand. Yes we all love trains and the transit system we use and enjoy. Yes the R179s are a mess , yes another rail at builder shoudve gotten the order . But they’re  here now , and they’re really smoove trains. More of the R179s will come , just not in the time frame we want then to come. For right now let’s just be patient enjoy the 3 sets we have know. Like @Coney Island Av said we all should be glad that they’re going back in service. DJ Hammer and other with great sources with keep us update in due time. There’s is not nothing to get upset over lol 😎😎😎. MTA ain’t really stressing it why should we 😎✊🏾

What?! I'll try to be objective...

We should stress it and R179's because of the reasons you just listed, Bombardier was a mess and caused R179's to be delayed by years, they caused money and time to be lost and MTA just wont get it back. "Smoove Trains" is no reason the MTA backs off of an already messed up order, we cant have the MTA sit back and tolerate messes endured, while they are being hurt themselves. If the MTA isn't stressing or at least being concerned of it, then how do we expect all to be in service by the start of the Canarsie shutdown, an event that will also affect strap-hangers, we dont want Bombardier to make any more serious mistakes after what was mentioned. Coney Island Av just stated he's happy to see the R179's going back in service after an error, not a reason why we or the MTA should relieve stresses of waiting for all the trains to go in service. 

 

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the issue resolved (for now), should we expect new deliveries in the near future?  Needless to say, they’ve been on hold since this issue came up.

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.