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

Speaking of the R179s, the assignments for where they're going are very controversial. And I'm reluctant to say what I'm about to say. I owe all of you an explanation as to why I'm doing this. 

I've had good forum etiquette up until January 2018. By November 2017, I got dragged into the R32/R179 debate, and at first it started out good, but things went haywire shortly afterward. I pissed off a majority of the forum's members at this point, and because of all this, I'm not going to post in the R179 discussion. I'll only come out of the background if I have/want to, but I'll be a bit nonexistent in this thread. 

Posting on this thread only ruins my reputation as a member on here and flames others. Many also say assignments are already set in place, only having to do with XYZ lines, but if they're already confirmed, then what's the point of speculating? That's only creating unnecessary garbage. Finally, no matter how much I try to change the way I post in this thread, it just never works despite the fact I'm saying things will change and aren't finalized. 

Until I get information about testing of the 5-car sets, or any upcoming deliveries, I'll be sipping tea like Kermit in the background while I watch you all speculate about the R32/R179 nonsense. Please don't make me regret posting this if you're annoyed. 

- (C)(JFK)(A) 

Share this post


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

Speaking of the R179s, the assignments for where they're going are very controversial. And I'm reluctant to say what I'm about to say. I owe all of you an explanation as to why I'm doing this. 

I've had good forum etiquette up until January 2018. By November 2017, I got dragged into the R32/R179 debate, and at first it started out good, but things went haywire shortly afterward. I pissed off a majority of the forum's members at this point, and because of all this, I'm not going to post in the R179 discussion. I'll only come out of the background if I have/want to, but I'll be a bit nonexistent in this thread. 

Posting on this thread only ruins my reputation as a member on here and flames others. Many also say assignments are already set in place, only having to do with XYZ lines, but if they're already confirmed, then what's the point of speculating? That's only creating unnecessary garbage. Finally, no matter how much I try to change the way I post in this thread, it just never works despite the fact I'm saying things will change and aren't finalized. 

Until I get information about testing of the 5-car sets, or any upcoming deliveries, I'll be sipping tea like Kermit in the background while I watch you all speculate about the R32/R179 nonsense. Please don't make me regret posting this if you're annoyed. 

- (C)(JFK)(A) 

I'm sorry that you feel this way. Unfortunately, there are people in this forum that don't know the difference between disagreeing with someone and disrespecting someone.

As a forum member you have the same right as everybody else to post whatever you want. Some people will agree, some people will disagree and that's OK.

And yes, we have been speculating a lot in regards to the r179's and where should they go and that's OK. A lot of the ideas are good. Also, they may be people who work for the MTA and are reading this forum. Therefore, some of these speculations may become suggestions and may be materialized.

I think you should reconsider because you have given some good ideas in this post.

Edited by subwaycommuter1983
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2018 at 7:58 PM, subwaycommuter1983 said:
On 4/5/2018 at 12:11 PM, S78 via Hylan said:

They’re back. Spotted 3061 in service on the (J) about five minutes ago.

That's awesome!! Thank you for sharing the information.

All three accepted R-179 trains were visibly lounging at ENY yard when I rode past on Wed afternoon.

Those 3000-series numbers make them stick out among the R-143 and R-160 layups and shop sets.

The R-42 trains on the M-Myrtle shuttle seem none the worse for wear, given almost a year of isolation.

Myrtle Viaduct structural work seems complete.  Amazing progress since March 1.  Preliminary track paneling underway.  Looked like it should be complete by some time in May.

Then we'll get the 50 MK's back together at last.

Share this post


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

Speaking of the R179s, the assignments for where they're going are very controversial. And I'm reluctant to say what I'm about to say. I owe all of you an explanation as to why I'm doing this. 

I've had good forum etiquette up until January 2018. By November 2017, I got dragged into the R32/R179 debate, and at first it started out good, but things went haywire shortly afterward. I pissed off a majority of the forum's members at this point, and because of all this, I'm not going to post in the R179 discussion. I'll only come out of the background if I have/want to, but I'll be a bit nonexistent in this thread. 

Posting on this thread only ruins my reputation as a member on here and flames others. Many also say assignments are already set in place, only having to do with XYZ lines, but if they're already confirmed, then what's the point of speculating? That's only creating unnecessary garbage. Finally, no matter how much I try to change the way I post in this thread, it just never works despite the fact I'm saying things will change and aren't finalized. 

Until I get information about testing of the 5-car sets, or any upcoming deliveries, I'll be sipping tea like Kermit in the background while I watch you all speculate about the R32/R179 nonsense. Please don't make me regret posting this if you're annoyed. 

- (C)(JFK)(A) 

I'm trying to be helpful here, so don't take this the wrong way.

The reason we get pissed off at you is precisely because of these unwarranted philosophical justifications for something you're doing. As far as I can tell, you haven't been called out recently for speculating or anything in this thread, so why write these long soliloquies posing yourself as some sort of reformed victim? No one has been discussing this for a while, making these thoughts wholly unwarranted. 

Speculating is natural, and sure, it can be repetitive, but you know, whatever floats your boat. I don't think participating in speculation will affect your reputation in any way. What will though is posting stuff like this. It's just uncalled for, and comes across as a bit pretentious. 

What I would do is just move on. This is a forum; people forget. Just get on with your life, and keep these thoughts to yourself. As I said before, this isn't Downton Abbey. 

  • Upvote 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I'm trying to be helpful here, so don't take this the wrong way.

The reason we get pissed off at you is precisely because of these unwarranted philosophical justifications for something you're doing. As far as I can tell, you haven't been called out recently for speculating or anything in this thread, so why write these long soliloquies posing yourself as some sort of reformed victim? No one has been discussing this for a while, making these thoughts wholly unwarranted. 

Speculating is natural, and sure, it can be repetitive, but you know, whatever floats your boat. I don't think participating in speculation will affect your reputation in any way. What will though is posting stuff like this. It's just uncalled for, and comes across as a bit pretentious. 

What I would do is just move on. This is a forum; people forget. Just get on with your life, and keep these thoughts to yourself. As I said before, this isn't Downton Abbey. 

I think he’s still mad to no end at those including me who don’t agree with him about all the stuff DJ Hammers and Union Tpke have been saying that the R32s going to the (B) and (G) lines. Hence all his unnecessary philosophical justification long winded posts. The fact that he’s so heavily dependent on DJ Hammers is why I myself personally get really annoyed with him. 

He just doesn’t know when to be quiet most of the time, even when Lance, Cait Sith, and Harry tell him along with everyone else including myself to chill. He’s a 13 year old little boy anyway, so he shouldn’t even be talking like that.

Let him be the way he is all he wants. Doesn’t stop everyone from posting in this thread and sharing their thoughts and speculations. Like I always say, I think the R32s are or were better off staying on the (A) and he can’t force me to change my thoughts. In general, most times you just gotta let stuff go and they’ll eventually go away. Simple.

Edited by Jemorie
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2011 at 1:12 PM, Guest lance25 said:

Once the R179s are in, the R32s and R42s are out. Simple as that. The older cars can't stay around for much longer; that's why the R179 order has to take place.

I remember when everyone thought the 179's were the end of SMEE, turns out it's just gonna push the 32's and 46's to the (G) for the (L) train shutdown. They may return to their old lines after it, but that will just displace the 179's to the (G) or something.

 

On 4/4/2018 at 5:52 PM, LGA Link N train said:

There was some earlier speculation so I'll jump in the pool this time. Note: I will only be covering revenue trains and not spares. And the (D) train is not being affected by any of this so it's out of the list. 

Jamaica needs to be 100% R160 for CBTC and it has about 37-40 R46's sitting there. So there's two swap possibilities  you can knock right off the bat. 

(E)(F)(R) All R160's. Assuming that the (E) and (F) share trains (which in total would be 63 revenue trains). There would be about 30 additional revenue trains. So in total. Jamaica needs at least 130 revenue trains consisted of 10 car R160's for CBTC. That's revenue trains total. This is under the assumption that the (R) swaps with the (N) and (W) so.........

(N)(W) 30 trains consists of R46's

An alternate option would be to swap trains with the (Q) but that won't be enough trains to suffice for CBTC. But hang on. There's still 7 revenue R46's lying around. 

The (C) currently uses 2 8car R32's, 4/5 R46 trains and 11 8 car R160's. Since we have 7 R46's lying around, we can Kick the 2 R32 trains and 5 R160's off, and the R160's head to ENY yard. So now the (C) would loom lime this. 

(C) 11/12 R46 trains and 6 8 car R160's. 

Now let's talk about the (A) ,shall we?

The 2 R32's can be recouped. So now you have 1 and .6 trains but let's move one to the (A) and put an R46 on the (C)

Now another 160 cam leave and head bound for ENY. 

The (C) would look like this:

12/13 R46's and 5 8 car R160's. 

The (J) and (Z) have Just earned 6 8 car R160's. So now they can send 48 R32 cars to Pitkin. So now you can make 

4 10 car trains but bow we have a 9 car train. So swap the 5 8 car trains between R32's and R160's and now we have

8 10 car trains with an oddball. So let's take the oddball out. So someone has to give one R32 to the oddball. 

From there this speculation goes on and on. Showing how mathematically complicated it truly is

Sorry for the long post.

 

Due to the (L) train shutdown the (G) has to be full of cars. The oddball that gets those remaining 32's will probs be the (G) in that case.

 

On 4/2/2018 at 10:28 PM, subwaycommuter1983 said:

I agree 100%. At least the MTA will most likely have better luck with the r211's.

Also, although I agree with @Coney Island Av in regards to car fleet assignments, I have to admit that @CDTA 's idea of putting, most if not all NTT to all the lines affected by the Canarsie tunnel work ((A), (C), (G), (J), (M), (Z)), while putting the r46's on the (N)(Q)(R), and (W), is really great too.

But again we have to wait and see and hope for the best.

Nono, that almost certainly what happens. Only thing in the way is that (E)(F)(M)(R) are getting CBTC in Queens, consequently (N)(Q) are as well. 46s on the (W) since (W) train CBTC was not on the contract, (dunno why), could happen. 

Once again, 

I don't know.

 

On 3/30/2018 at 1:24 PM, MysteriousBtrain said:

So how did the R179s pass the 30 day test then? I have a feeling the MTA said f*ck it because of the rushed and sloppy lemon delivery.

ya think?

 

On 3/31/2018 at 11:46 AM, 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wasn't Bombardier banned from making the R211s because of this? <.< 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

@thicctrain Use the multi-quote feature, and tone down the sarcastic responses.

Also maybe size down? It’d be much appreciated. The large font does nothing for your point. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RR503 said:

Also maybe size down? It’d be much appreciated. The large font does nothing for your point. 

Yes, that too.

Sorry, I was on my phone and was making that post quickly.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Due to the (L) train shutdown the (G) has to be full of cars. The oddball that gets those remaining 32's will probs be the (G) in that case.

Well, I tried to break the whole speculation into a sequence of events. But not including Non-Revenue trains, made this More difficult than expected 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of car assignments related to the r179's: 

The Canarsie shutdown has more priority than the Queens Blvd CTBC since the tunnel construction will begin and end way before QBL CTBC construction is complete (some r211's may be delivered by that time). Therefore, the MTA shoudn't rush to make all QBL trains all NTT. Instead, I think the bulk of NTT's should run on the lines affected by the Canarsie shutdown ((A), (C),(G), (J), (M), (Z)). The r32's can also supplement the (A) and (G) trains with some trains running on the (B).

The r42's should only be used as a backup plan in the event that the delivery of all r179's is not complete by April 2019.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RR503 fine. I guess I should just continue to speculate but not go overboard when anything relating to R32s are brought up. 

*Excludes test trains

I'm going to see for myself if all 316 cars will be on property by next year....

Number of 4-car sets: 49

Number of 5-car sets: 24

Number of four-car sets (total) currently on property: 12 out of a possible 49 (6 trains)

(3050-3053, 3054-3057, 3058-3061, 3062-3065, 3066-3069, 3078-3081, 3082-3085, 3086-3089, 3090-3093, 3094-3097, 3098-3101, 3110-3113)

Number of five car sets (total) currently on property: 2 out of a possible 24 (1 train)

(3010-3014, 3015-3019)

Number of production car sets (four-car) delivered: 8 out of a possible 45* (4 trains)

(3066-3069, 3078-3081, 3082-3085, 3086-3089, 3090-3093, 3094-3097, 3098-3101, 3110-3113)

Number of production car sets (five-car) delivered: NONE

Between January-March, eight production car sets were delivered. If deliveries continue to go at this rate, all four-car sets will be on property by February 2019, two months before the (L) shutdown. However, they could change up the pace of deliveries, so it's not definite. But the (J) will definitely be fully NTT at this rate, as it can simply use R143/R160s in addition to the R179s. Any leftover R179s should go to the (G), as the (J) doesn't need them all. The five-car deliveries IDK, but the majority of cars will be on property. However, it also depends on what month 3010-3019 will finish revenue testing, as delivery of the production cars won't start until after testing is done. 

I'm sure all sets will be on property, but it's not definite. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

In terms of car assignments related to the r179's: 

The Canarsie shutdown has more priority than the Queens Blvd CTBC since the tunnel construction will begin and end way before QBL CTBC construction is complete (some r211's may be delivered by that time). Therefore, the MTA shoudn't rush to make all QBL trains all NTT. Instead, I think the bulk of NTT's should run on the lines affected by the Canarsie shutdown ((A), (C),(G), (J), (M), (Z)). The r32's can also supplement the (A) and (G) trains with some trains running on the (B).

The r42's should only be used as a backup plan in the event that the delivery of all r179's is not complete by April 2019.

 

I agree with you, but what lines would give their 160's/179's to the (A)(C)(G)(J)(M)(Z)? And what would the roster be if the R179's were delayed again, and didn't make it in time? I think that the lines with R160s would give most of their cars to the lines affected, which would result in the (E)(F)(N)(Q)(W) being almost all R32 and R46. One more question. Would the roster stay the same when (L) service is back to normal or go back to what it is now? Probably will go back but just in case

The (B) has a pretty filled roster so I still think the 32's will go to the (E)(F)(N)(Q)(W), as well as 42's and 46's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2018 at 10:50 PM, Coney Island Av said:

Keep in mind, that ALL assignments, whether speculated by us or planned by MTA, aren't final and are subject to change. However, they're not impossible to execute. 

We can't verify until, say for example, a set of said R32s pops up on X line, or Y line. 

But the assignment I'm about to post are just MY thoughts on the matter. It's might not be the MTA's, and even if it was, it's still subject to change. 

(A): R46/R179

(B): R32/R42

(C): R46/R68

(D)(E): unchanged

(F)(M)(R): 100% R160

(G): R32/R179

(J)(Z): R143/R160/R179

(N)(W): R46

(Q): R68/R160

The R32s being spilt between the (B), and (G) should happen IMO because the (A) is simply too long of a line and doesn't really spend enough time outdoors, while the others are either fully NTT or run on lines that restrict R32s. Yes, the R32s do a better job at handling crowds, but the R179s will cut it, considering they're NTT. This will be just like the R188s displacing R62A from the (7). Obviously the (B) would be the best choice as it's almost perfect. But again, I don't wanna have this opinion to get flamed over forum users, considering the R32 speculation has had a pretty controversial past. The (G), meanwhile, doesn't spend much time outdoors compared to the (B), but those R32s are just there to make the (G) 480 feet, and because the (G) is a much shorter line. But now I need to explain why this should happen. 

After all four-car sets head to the (J)(Z), that's probably when the five-car sets will start arriving. By then, probably around September-December 2018, 3010-3019 would have finished testing and would've entered service on the (A). The five-car sets could then replace most of the R32s on the (A), displacing them to Coney Island, as Jamaica/ENY will be fully NTT. Now, yes, the (A)(C) won't be fully NTT, but it won't really get affected by the shutdown when compared to the (J)(Z). Besides, the shutdown will happen regardless even if lines aren't fully NTT. The (G) will also get NTTs in this scenario, though part of it will be R32s. 

As mentioned earlier, Jamaica needs to be fully NTT for QBL CBTC. In preparation for such, the (F)(M)(R) will become fully NTT, while the (E) is unchanged. The R46s on the (F) would head to the (A)(C), while the ones on the (R) head to the (N)(W)

In addition, most R68s on the (B)(G) will head to the (Q) to provide extra service. The remainder of R68s can be used on the (C), or can be used as spare factors for the (D). The 50 remaining R42s won't be scrapped, but they'll all head for the (B). They could be split between the (B)(G), however, someone mentioned earlier that R42s can't align with the car stop boards. 

Again, everything I just rambled on about are only my thoughts. Nothing is, or will ever be final, so don't take this too seriously.

 

 

 

 

 

The (M) is fully NTT. But QBL CBTC is a long way down the road, provisions are barely here. 179's will most likely head to the (A)(J)(Z). So most of the lines affected by (L) shutdown are covered. The (G) is in need of cars (also for (L) shutdown), so the (G) isn't too likely to give to the (Q) fleet shortage, the (G) should actually get 179's.  The (B)(D) are the best candidates. In return, they get R42s and the J/Z's 32s. Yes, the (A)(C) will not be fully NTT, so they can keep some of their 32's and 46's, Then the rest would go to the (B)(D). In addition to your QBL CBTC thought, (100% R160) that can't happen, only 67 R160's are CBTC fitted. QBL lines stay the same.

So here's my final roster:

(A) R32/179

(C) R46/179

(B)(D) R32/42/46

(Q) R68/160

(G) R68/179

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, thicctrain said:

In addition to your QBL CBTC thought, (100% R160) that can't happen, only 67 R160's are CBTC fitted. QBL lines stay the same.

But you missed one tiny detail. ALL R160'S are CBTC provisioned. Even R179'S are CBTC provisioned. And yes it is likely that QBL CBTC won't happen anytime soon. But look at Flushing and Canarsie when they were getting CBTC. Their fleets were full NTT (despite those R62A's lying around.  The (F) and (R) might go through the same case that the (7) went through with the fleet changes. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

But you missed one tiny detail. ALL R160'S are CBTC provisioned. Even R179'S are CBTC provisioned. And yes it is likely that QBL CBTC won't happen anytime soon. But look at Flushing and Canarsie when they were getting CBTC. Their fleets were full NTT (despite those R62A's lying around.  The (F) and (R) might go through the same case that the (7) went through with the fleet changes. 

True. The R179s on the (G) should replace the R46's on the (F)(R) after the shutdown is over, as the (G) won't need them anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2018 at 9:42 PM, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Frequency is a huge issue with the C during the weekends along CPW. There's been instances where selected A or D trains have run local along CPW to compensate service gaps on the C.

Weekend local A and D trains on CPW is not the solution. 

Either the MTA adds more trains on the C or have the B run during the weekends to 145.

As a frequent CPW commuter, you don't even want to know how many times my (A)(D) trains have gone local and my (C)s express.  Really annoying in both scenarios unless I'm going to 42nd on an express (C). But yes, (C) frequency sucks. 

Share this post


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

True. The R179s on the (G) should replace the R46's on the (F)(R) after the shutdown is over, as the (G) won't need them anymore.

What do the R179's being on the (G) have to do with R46's being removed from the (F) and (R)

 

1 hour ago, thicctrain said:

As a frequent CPW commuter, you don't even want to know how many times my (A)(D) trains have gone local and my (C)s express.  Really annoying in both scenarios unless I'm going to 42nd on an express (C). But yes, (C) frequency sucks. 

.........and this is why I support DE interlining 

Share this post


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

True. The R179s on the (G) should replace the R46's on the (F)(R) after the shutdown is over, as the (G) won't need them anymore.

The (G) will probably remain 480' after the shutdown. There's definitely enough ridership for 8 car trains under normal conditions.

22 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

.........and this is why I support DE interlining 

Except you'll always be forced to interline through Cranberry, due to the track layout

Share this post


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

As a frequent CPW commuter, you don't even want to know how many times my (A)(D) trains have gone local and my (C)s express.  Really annoying in both scenarios unless I'm going to 42nd on an express (C). But yes, (C) frequency sucks. 

Ok, here's my possibly stupid plan: run (B) trains on weekends, just terminate them at 2 av or Delancey-Essex or 34 st.

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.