R179 Discussion Thread

[Lawrence St]

But the new new cocks on the B divison aren't as accurate as the A divison. They will at times say that a train is arriving on a platform when it's actually another train.

[VIP]

51 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

But the new new cocks on the B divison aren't as accurate as the A divison. They will at times say that a train is arriving on a platform when it's actually another train.

I wasn’t referring to the Time....

[LGA Link N Train]

54 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

But the new new cocks on the B divison aren't as accurate as the A divison. They will at times say that a train is arriving on a platform when it's actually another train.

not all the time. The clocks at certain stations at 63 Drive - Rego Park and Hoyt-Schermehron. Even Jay Street - Metro Tech. the clocks are accurate.

[Around the Horn]

Well you won't be seeing the ten car set for a while...

[Calvin]

A word has been told that an R179 is sent back to Bombardier

[MysteriousBtrain]

3 minutes ago, Calvin said:

A word has been told that an R179 is sent back to Bombardier

3015-3019.

[R32 3838]

Sips tea

By the time the finally gets the R179's the first R211's gonna start coming in.

 

 

[Dj Hammers]

Before the unsubstantiated rumors start flying:

 

Yes, some cars are being sent back to Bombardier. Given current shop space constraints, it was decided to send the first few R179s back to Bombardier's facility in Kanona to have all necessary modifications done to bring them up to the current R179 spec. It was seen as being more cost/time/logistically effective to do this than to do the work at NYCT's shops, which are currently very busy.

Nothing is being scrapped, and nothing is being canceled. 

 

On another note, another consist of R179s re-entered service on the J today. 3066-3069+3091-3093

[Lawrence St]

Yep 3015-3019 is getting prepped to return back to Bombardier so they can give those cars the current-R179 spec modifications instead of doing them in the NYCT shops, which are busy atm.

[U-BahnNYC]

On 4/9/2018 at 4:19 PM, VIP said:

Just because it’s an idea, doesn’t make it feasible or plausible... 

How is it not plausible? Of all the lines in the system, the are no where near the 's riders and as such completely unaffected.

As for the , it meets the twice, and the are almost parallel to the in many Brooklyn neighborhoods.

I really am not following your (not that implied) aversion to having the appropriate fleet run on affected lines. I know it's "just an idea" floating around on a railfan forum, but you can't dismiss it as being flawed because it's NOT.

[VIP]

47 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said:

How is it not plausible? Of all the lines in the system, the are no where near the 's riders and as such completely unaffected.

As for the , it meets the twice, and the are almost parallel to the in many Brooklyn neighborhoods.

I really am not following your (not that implied) aversion to having the appropriate fleet run on affected lines. I know it's "just an idea" floating around on a railfan forum, but you can't dismiss it as being flawed because it's NOT.

Because a fan wants to see NTT’s on a line doesn’t justify unnecessary temporary swaps. It’s cost ineffective. An Increase in service with the surplus of 60 footers that we have now should suffice. Some of y’all are so hell bent into believing if a line was 100% NTT that it’s going to be the most reliable mode of transportation. The  is fully NTT and its a shit show. The  is fully NTT and it’s still plagued with unnecessary delays. So again massive fleet swap for 2-4 added trainsets in service IS NOT FEASIBLE. I rest my case. Them R46’s are Going NOWHERE from where they are now (in terms of lines they currently serve) and Coney Island’s R160’s ain’t getting transferred anywhere but to Jamaica in maybe the years of 2021-2024. 

Edited April 11, 2018 by VIP

[trainfan22]

Damn one of the 5 cars sets are being sent back now I gotta wait EVEN LONGER to ride 179s on the

 

[subwaycommuter1983]

30 minutes ago, Dj Hammers said:

Before the unsubstantiated rumors start flying:

 

Yes, some cars are being sent back to Bombardier. Given current shop space constraints, it was decided to send the first few R179s back to Bombardier's facility in Kanona to have all necessary modifications done to bring them up to the current R179 spec. It was seen as being more cost/time/logistically effective to do this than to do the work at NYCT's shops, which are currently very busy.

Nothing is being scrapped, and nothing is being canceled. 

 

On another note, another consist of R179s re-entered service on the J today. 3066-3069+3091-3093

This is really bad news. I don't feel that progress is being made. A huge setback. This means more delays in delivery and a potential subway car shortage.

Imagine if on top of that the r42s and even some r32s end up all of the sudden like the r44s (which I'm still not clear what were the structural issues that led to their premature retirement). 

Things are not looking good for the Canarsie tunnel shutdown.

[trainfan22]

3 minutes ago, VIP said:

Because a fan wants to see NTT’s on a line doesn’t justify unnecessary temporary swaps. It’s cost ineffective. Increase in service with the surplus of 60 footers have now should suffice. Some of y’all are so hell bent into believing if a line was 100 NTT that it’s going to be the most reliable mode of transportation. The  is fully NTT and its a shit show. The  is fully NTT and it’s still plagued with unnecessary delays. So again massive fleet swap for 2-4 added trainsets in service IS NOT FEASIBLE. I rest my case. Them R46’s are Going NOWHERE from where they are now (in terms of lines they currently serve) and Coney Island’s R160’s ain’t getting transferred anywhere but to Jamaica in maybe the years of 2021-2024. 

I'm a regular rider of the  and the service is excellent, if you wanna talk about a line that has poor service that is 100% NTT, the  or the  are good examples. Seems like those two routes are always the worst in OTP. 

[VIP]

9 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

I'm a regular rider of the  and the service is excellent, if you wanna talk about a line that has poor service that is 100% NTT, the  or the  are good examples. Seems like those two routes are always the worst in OTP. 

I didn’t say poor service, I said shit show. So if you call  trains by passing stops randomly because of lateness or CBTC failures excellent service, then maybe ride the  at different times than you regularly ride. The  and  especially the  is a good example of poor management. 

[Dj Hammers]

9 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

This is really bad news. I don't feel that progress is being made. A huge setback. This means more delays in delivery and a potential subway car shortage.

Imagine if on top of that the r42s and even some r32s end up all of the sudden like the r44s (which I'm still not clear what were the structural issues that led to their premature retirement). 

Things are not looking good for the Canarsie tunnel shutdown.

I'm not sure why this would be considered a "huge setback". It's just a few cars that were already not expected to be in service for a while. The cars being built now are already up to spec.

 

The R32s and R42s were looked at closely recently - there are no significant structural issues with those cars.

[Bosco]

As DJ Hammers said, this really isn't a setback.  It would still be awhile before they enter service on the anyway.  Remember, 3010-3019 and 3050-3057 have numerous differences from the rest of the fleet.  They just decided to do it on Bombardier's facility instead because we don't have the resources currently to bring them up to spec.  This would be like saying the R188s being converted in Yonkers instead of 207 St caused delays there.  If anything, this move could actually speed things up a little (which is why they did it this way).

13 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

I'm a regular rider of the  and the service is excellent, if you wanna talk about a line that has poor service that is 100% NTT, the  or the  are good examples. Seems like those two routes are always the worst in OTP. 

They're long lines with numerous switches and chokepoints.  The  isn't much better either.  Most lines that run in more than 2 boroughs are usually pretty bad by rule of thumb, regardless of fleet.

18 minutes ago, VIP said:

Because a fan wants to see NTT’s on a line doesn’t justify unnecessary temporary swaps. It’s cost ineffective. Increase in service with the surplus of 60 footers have now should suffice. Some of y’all are so hell bent into believing if a line was 100 NTT that it’s going to be the most reliable mode of transportation. The  is fully NTT and its a shit show. The  is fully NTT and it’s still plagued with unnecessary delays. So again massive fleet swap for 2-4 added trainsets in service IS NOT FEASIBLE. I rest my case. Them R46’s are Going NOWHERE from where they are now (in terms of lines they currently serve) and Coney Island’s R160’s ain’t getting transferred anywhere but to Jamaica in maybe the years of 2021-2024. 

It's not about people wanting NTTs one place or another.  We saw this with the R188 contract.  The MTA couldn't care less about what foamers think.  CBTC is being installed on Queens Blvd (even if very glacially) as we speak.  The , frankly, is just overloaded.  (Side note: even with CBTC, it isn't running at true capacity because there isn't enough juice to power the line at capacity.  This is why the Canarsie work includes adding another substation.)  The is overcrowded, has terminal constraints on both ends, and runs on fixed-block signaling and has to merge 3 times along its route (which is a lot considering its length).  Installing CBTC will alleviate some of those delays, which is why there is a good chance the R160s will go to Jamaica.  The only question that's up for debate (that I understand) is if it's too early to do a swap, considering it's only the first phase that will be online in a few years and the R211s will be here long before the rest of the line is done.  But they are preparing the R160s for CBTC on Queens Blvd either way, and a swap could still happen.

1 minute ago, Dj Hammers said:

The R32s and R42s were looked at closely recently - there are no significant structural issues with those cars.

If anything, it's the R46s that could potentially show structural issues...

Edited April 11, 2018 by Bosco

[trainfan22]

9 minutes ago, VIP said:

I didn’t say poor service, I said shit show. So if you call  trains by passing stops randomly because of lateness or CBTC failures excellent service, then maybe ride the  at different times than you regularly ride. The  and  especially the  is a good example of poor management. 

Man skips happen on every line and CBTC failures rarely happens from what I can tell, IIRC its a FACT that the  is one of the most reliable lines in the system. It has the most reliable signal system.

 

 

As for your first sentence, when you say shit show I think you're implying that the line that poor service like long headways constant breakdowns, etc.

Edited April 11, 2018 by trainfan22

[subwaycommuter1983]

16 minutes ago, Dj Hammers said:

I'm not sure why this would be considered a "huge setback". It's just a few cars that were already not expected to be in service for a while. The cars being built now are already up to spec.

 

The R32s and R42s were looked at closely recently - there are no significant structural issues with those cars.

That's good to know. Hopefully,  everything works out well and all r179's are delivered before construction begins on the Canarsie tunnel and hopefully the r32s survives past the shutdown. Fingers crossed. 

Thanks for sharing the information and keeping us up to date with the r179's. 

[VIP]

25 minutes ago, Dj Hammers said:

 

The R32s and R42s were looked at closely recently - there are no significant structural issues with those cars.

Who’s been saying that the R32/42’s have been having structural integrity issues? Those cars have been fine, last time I checked and rode in them. Cosmetically the R32’s look better...

[subwaycommuter1983]

21 minutes ago, VIP said:

Who’s been saying that the R32/42’s have been having structural integrity issues? Those cars have been fine, last time I checked and rode in them. Cosmetically the R32’s look better...

Nobody says that they're currently are having structural issues.  But it may happen later on. 

Let just hope it doesn't and they'll make it by 2020.

Also, just for curiosity does anyone have an idea what were the structural issues that led to the premature retirement of the r44s???

Edited April 11, 2018 by subwaycommuter1983

[MysteriousBtrain]

19 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Nobody says that they're currently are having structural issues.  But it may happen later on. 

Let just hope it doesn't and they'll make it by 2020.

Also, just for curiosity does anyone have an idea what were the structural issues that led to the premature retirement of the r44s???

One of the reasons was carbon steel, which was what the R44's main material, and acid baths were not a good match.

Edited April 11, 2018 by MysteriousBtrain
I think there are a few more stories.

[Bosco]

9 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

One of the reasons was carbon steel, which was what the R44's main material, and acid baths were not a good match.

Particularly, it was used at the joints.  There are a few pictures floating around showing the steel rotting between the lower side panel and the floor panel.  The R46s used stainless steel there, but even those aren't aging too well.

No one is questioning the structural integrity of the R32s.  Hell, with a good enough overhaul, the MTA could probably get another 20 years out of them if they wanted to (which obviously won't happen for reasons).  The R42s, on the other hand, have shown rust on the roof and near the bonnet similar to the R38s/R40s.  Not nearly as dire as the R44 situation, but enough that the R42s required a much more extensive SMS than the R32s the last time around.  Fortunately, CI did a great job repairing them.

[EphraimB]

11 hours ago, Dj Hammers said:

Before the unsubstantiated rumors start flying:

 

Yes, some cars are being sent back to Bombardier. Given current shop space constraints, it was decided to send the first few R179s back to Bombardier's facility in Kanona to have all necessary modifications done to bring them up to the current R179 spec. It was seen as being more cost/time/logistically effective to do this than to do the work at NYCT's shops, which are currently very busy.

Nothing is being scrapped, and nothing is being canceled. 

 

On another note, another consist of R179s re-entered service on the J today. 3066-3069+3091-3093

What differences do the cars being sent back to bombardier have that the ones on the  don't?

[LGA Link N Train]

I rode the R179 train yesterday and this morning. Yesterday my zipper got stuck on the doors on the first car cause EVERYONE likes to squeeze in there at Norwood Avenue in the evening rush. I posted a video on Instagram about it. It was an awkward experience