Jump to content

R179 Discussion Thread


East New York

Recommended Posts

I don't know why people are saying "the R179s are going downhill." Just because 3015-3019 were sent back is not indicative that not all cars will be on property. 

The 5-car and 4-car sets are completely separate entities from one another. The reason why the four-car sets entered service first was because they had the least amount of issues. 3058-3065 did have issues, but was in best status, hence being the first R179 to enter service. 3050-3057 on the other hand, had noticeable issues and probably haven't entered service because the issues were more major than the ones found in 3058-3065. 

3010-3019 failed the most in OOS testing, so if you're saying that 207 St could iron out the issues in time to put all the 5-car sets in service, think again. 207 St isn't top notch as Bombardier in fixing the R179s, since that's not where they were originally manufactured. If they failed the most, only the professionals/designers have a fit for the job, and that's Bombardier. I'm sure they'll iron out all the issues more quicker than MTA could, and would probably only take about a month. Afterward, they'll resume testing, and I can say that the cars will wrap up burn-in testing in the Rockaways/Brighton much more quicker and faster than we saw previously. 

The cars were sent back to Bombardier for a good reason. Even though testing has currently halted for the 5-car sets, I guarantee that the time lost will be compensated with less issues and the extensive work currently being preformed.  But for now, let's see what happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 10.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
22 hours ago, VIP said:

The (L) is fully NTT and its a shit show.

I don't know what line you ride but the (L) is consistently better than any other line. The only line I don't have to check mta.info before I step on. The only line that moves ever so smoothly between the stops like a REAL subway should. Yeah, I know, it's CBTC at work, but you cannot call the (L) a shit show. At least by NYC standards, which, of course, are abysmally low.

 

22 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

FACT that the (L) is one of the most reliable lines in the system. It has the most reliable signal system.

Correct. While the (L) is not immune to sick passengers and investigations, having "signal problems" there is a VERY rare event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said:

I don't know what line you ride but the (L) is consistently better than any other line. The only line I don't have to check mta.info before I step on. The only line that moves ever so smoothly between the stops like a REAL subway should. Yeah, I know, it's CBTC at work, but you cannot call the (L) a shit show. At least by NYC standards, which, of course, are abysmally low.

 

Correct. While the (L) is not immune to sick passengers and investigations, having "signal problems" there is a VERY rare event.

If only that was the case on all the non-isolated lines with a brand new signaling system.

Edited by Jemorie
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, VIP said:

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

When did I ever say I want to see NTTs on a line just because? I'm stating as a regular 8th Ave/Fulton rider that the (A) gets crushload in the AM hours, something that will only get worse during the Canarsie shutdown seeing as it meets the (L) twice. 75 footers are very poorly built to handle crowds and it shows. Therefore, I'm suggesting, if more 60 footers (yes, even R32s, although their short grab bars and tiny doors aren't ideal) were to run on that line, crowding would at least be a bit more manageable. If you have a rebuttal for that, by all means, explain. I'd love to hear your logic for keeping 75 footers on a line that will be heavily impacted by the shutdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said:

When did I ever say I want to see NTTs on a line just because? I'm stating as a regular 8th Ave/Fulton rider that the (A) gets crushload in the AM hours, something that will only get worse during the Canarsie shutdown seeing as it meets the (L) twice. 75 footers are very poorly built to handle crowds and it shows. Therefore, I'm suggesting, if more 60 footers (yes, even R32s, although their short grab bars and tiny doors aren't ideal) were to run on that line, crowding would at least be a bit more manageable. If you have a rebuttal for that, by all means, explain. I'd love to hear your logic for keeping 75 footers on a line that will be heavily impacted by the shutdown.

75-footers have more room. More room equals more people can fit in. That could equal to less crowding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EphraimB said:

75-footers have more room. More room equals more people can fit in. That could equal to less crowding.

They have fewer doors, which is what matters in terms of keeping dwells in the reasonable range. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, EphraimB said:

75-footers have more room. More room equals more people can fit in. That could equal to less crowding.

The doors are too far apart for commuters, so they usually end up localizing in two door areas which will lead to increased dwell times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said:

 (yes, even R32s, although their short grab bars and tiny doors aren't ideal)

You're right that the SMEEs' doors are a bit narrower than those on the NTTs. But 12 sets of R179s aren't really enough for the (A), so therefore some R32s need to continue to run on it. Like say 100/130 R32s and 90/120 R179s on the (A) with the rest all R46s.

3 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

75-footers have more room. More room equals more people can fit in. That could equal to less crowding.

Yet they only have 64 doors on one side compared to the 80 doors on the R32s and the NTTs. Less doors=more station dwelling time.

Edited by Jemorie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

You're right that the SMEEs' doors are a bit narrower than those on the NTTs. But 12 sets of R179s aren't really enough for the (A), so therefore some R32s need to continue to run on it. Like say 100/130 R32s and 90/120 R179s on the (A) with the rest all R46s.

Yet they only have 64 doors on one side compared to the 80 doors on the R32s and the NTTs. Less doors=more station dwelling time.

People trying to fit in a very crowded train but can't also leads to more dwelling times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

75-footers have more room. More room equals more people can fit in

Yes, but one 75-ft car has 4 doors and one 60-ft car also has 4 doors. 75/4 > 60/4, which means 60-ft cars have a shorter distance between doors. Shorter distance means easier exit and entry since people are more likely to be close to a door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

People trying to fit in a very crowded train but can't also leads to more dwelling times.

But it's not like 100% of the displaced Chelsea-bound (L) train riders will pile onto the (A). so there you go. It's only those who need 8th Avenue-14th Street that will switch over from an (L) to an (A) or a (C) at Broadway Junction coming northbound from Rockaway Parkway. 

Edited by Jemorie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

You're right that the SMEEs' doors are a bit narrower than those on the NTTs. But 12 sets of R179s aren't really enough for the (A), so therefore some R32s need to continue to run on it. Like say 100/130 R32s and 90/120 R179s on the (A) with the rest all R46s.

Yet they only have 64 doors on one side compared to the 80 doors on the R32s and the NTTs. Less doors=more station dwelling time.

I agree 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jemorie said:

It's only those who need 8th Avenue-14th Street that will switch over from an (L) to an (A) or a (C) at Broadway Junction

8th Ave/14th St is the 19th busiest station in the system. Assuming half of its annual 14.5M riders come to/from the (L) that's a LOT of riders.

And small correction - they won't be taking a (C). People instinctively take the express, and in this case, the (A) skips over 7 stops versus the local going from BJct to 14th, and in effect IS faster.

Edited by U-BahnNYC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said:

8th Ave/14th St is the 19th busiest station in the system. Assuming half of its annual 14.5M riders come to/from the (L) that's a LOT of riders.

People traveling from Rockaway Parkway already do that - changing from an (L) to an (A) at Broadway Junction for 8th Avenue-14th Street - even before the tunnel shutdown begins. I could be wrong though.

But of course, there could also be Rockaway Parkaway-bound (L) trains switching over for a Manhattan-bound (A) when the tunnel shutdown begins.

Edited by Jemorie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jemorie said:

But of course, there could also be Rockaway Parkaway-bound (L) trains switching over for a Manhattan-bound (A) when the tunnel shutdown begins.

Yes, that's what I meant. All those hipsters past Bway-Jct going to 8th Ave now currently take the (L) but will find the (A) their best alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The R179 i was on earlier got taken oos as soon as i sat down due to some unknown issue at parsons. The (J) was already late as it was. 

 

As soon as the R32 came in That's when the announcement was made that the next arriving train is the next to leave.

 

Then on the intercom it said there were delays in (J) service due to a train with mechanical issues at parsons (R179). And as soon as i got off a bway junction the train was right behind mine going to eny yard.

 

So another unknown issue with one of the R179 sets.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, U-BahnNYC said:

When did I ever say I want to see NTTs on a line just because? I'm stating as a regular 8th Ave/Fulton rider that the (A) gets crushload in the AM hours, something that will only get worse during the Canarsie shutdown seeing as it meets the (L) twice. 75 footers are very poorly built to handle crowds and it shows. Therefore, I'm suggesting, if more 60 footers (yes, even R32s, although their short grab bars and tiny doors aren't ideal) were to run on that line, crowding would at least be a bit more manageable. If you have a rebuttal for that, by all means, explain. I'd love to hear your logic for keeping 75 footers on a line that will be heavily impacted by the shutdown.

You really coming for me... the (L) to hipster standards is below acceptable. Like you said, it’s an isolated line... the line should be at least 95% perfect in on-time performance! And my logic for keeping the (A) with 75 footers is the same EXACT logic the MTA had/has for keeping those R46’s on the line. It’s about frequency not car class! Anything else?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VIP said:

You really coming for me...

LOL, not for you, for your ideas... because that's what matters.

And yes, I have more arguments to make, namely, how has the MTA's "logic" worked out so far? You've got to remember, it's only recently that the (A) began seeing such growth along Fulton and Upper Manhattan. The "logic" from the past for using R46s was good in the 2000s, but realize that doesn't hold true today and certainly won't in the era of the Canarsie shut down. Also, do you know for sure the plans are to keep R46s? Everything we say here is speculation until it gets confirmed/denied.

The (A) as it is already has a relatively high frequency btw (whether they come on time is another issue) so your solution for this line really makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jemorie said:

You're right that the SMEEs' doors are a bit narrower than those on the NTTs. But 12 sets of R179s aren't really enough for the (A), so therefore some R32s need to continue to run on it. Like say 100/130 R32s and 90/120 R179s on the (A) with the rest all R46s.

Yet they only have 64 doors on one side compared to the 80 doors on the R32s and the NTTs. Less doors=more station dwelling time.

The door width on almost all trains is 50 inches.  The only exceptions:

R110A (irrelevant): 63"
R142/R142A/R188: 54"
R211: 58"

The doors only seem wider on the R143/R160/R179 because there is about an inch (two-three inches on the B-cars) between the end of the seat and the doorway that isn't there on the SMEEs.

9 hours ago, VIP said:

You really coming for me... the (L) to hipster standards is below acceptable. Like you said, it’s an isolated line... the line should be at least 95% perfect in on-time performance! And my logic for keeping the (A) with 75 footers is the same EXACT logic the MTA had/has for keeping those R46’s on the line. It’s about frequency not car class! Anything else?? 

Frequency doesn't matter if there's a conga line of trains, which is inevitable for a line like the (A) that is the longest in the system and has numerous switch points.  To use another example, the (B) suffers from bunching in the PM rush, and ever since they got the R68s that situation has only gotten worse.  Frequency is important, but service can recover faster or not deteriorate as rapidly if a route has shorter dwell times made possible by using 60-foot cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bosco said:

The door width on almost all trains is 50 inches.  The only exceptions:

R110A (irrelevant): 63"
R142/R142A/R188: 54"
R211: 58"

The doors only seem wider on the R143/R160/R179 because there is about an inch (two-three inches on the B-cars) between the end of the seat and the doorway that isn't there on the SMEEs.

Frequency doesn't matter if there's a conga line of trains, which is inevitable for a line like the (A) that is the longest in the system and has numerous switch points.  To use another example, the (B) suffers from bunching in the PM rush, and ever since they got the R68s that situation has only gotten worse.  Frequency is important, but service can recover faster or not deteriorate as rapidly if a route has shorter dwell times made possible by using 60-foot cars.

Here's an idea:

The (G) gets some of the 8 car r160's from the (C), while making the 50 r68's into full length trains. Then, the r32's intended for the (G) can go to the (B) displacing more full length r68's to the (G). Would that work?? It may help decrease bunching of the (B)  trains, which causes big delays going to the Bronx and causing overcrowding in the (D) and (4) trains.

Edited by subwaycommuter1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Here's an idea:

The (G) gets some of the 8 car r160's from the (C), while making the 50 r68's into full length trains. Then, the r32's intended for the (G) can go to the (B) displacing more full length r68's to the (G). Would that work?? It may help decrease bunching of the (B)  trains, which causes big delays going to the Bronx and causing overcrowding in the (D) and (4) trains.

The only way the (C) and (G) can be 'full length' (by each of their standards, so 600' and 480' respectively) is if the (G) gets 4-car R160s.  The (B) for right now can't get much help besides the R32s; I was using it as an example comparing it to when the line ran R40s.  The (G) will have to be exclusively 480' cars, so that means no R68s.  Also, the (D) and (4) have nothing to do with each other despite running parallel in the Bronx.  The (4) is crap because it runs on Lexington.

Edited by Bosco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bosco said:

The only way the (C) and (G) can be 'full length' (by each of their standards, so 600' and 480' respectively) is if the (G) gets 4-car R160s.  The (B) for right now can't get much help besides the R32s; I was using it as an example comparing it to when the line ran R40s.  The (G) will have to be exclusively 480' cars, so that means no R68s.  Also, the (D) and (4) have nothing to do with each other despite running parallel in the Bronx.  The (4) is crap because it runs on Lexington.

I’ve been saying this for weeks! Why do you think East New York hasn’t gotten ANY of their R160’s from the (C) ... those are going to the (G)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Bosco said:

Also, the (D) and (4) have nothing to do with each other despite running parallel in the Bronx.  The (4) is crap because it runs on Lexington.

Yes, but since the (B) is so unreliable during pm rush hour, many people who live by Grand Concourse rather jam pack the (2) to 149 then switch to the (4) instead of taking the (B) or they pack the (D) to Tremont or Fordham and walk several blocks  to take the (4) (with unlimited Metrocard) instead of taking the (B).

Edited by subwaycommuter1983
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.