R179 Discussion Thread

[R68OnBroadway]

45 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Running r42s on the  is a big mistake due to the fact that both lines are very long, have little outdoor space, and will have more ridership once the Canarsie tunnel shuts down . The r42s are very unreliable and prone to breakdown potentially causing more delays if they run on the . 

If they can run 32s on the  , they can run 42s on the  too. 32s have worse AC and break down more.

[Jemorie]

1 hour ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Running r42s on the  is a big mistake due to the fact that both lines are very long, have little outdoor space, and will have more ridership once the Canarsie tunnel shuts down . The r42s are very unreliable and prone to breakdown potentially causing more delays if they run on the .

Ugh, you act like train breakdowns are the biggest reason for subway delays when it's really the aging signals and tracks that need replacement are the number one reason for subway delays in addition to growing ridership. That 2015  and  review proved that MDBF only caused 6% of the delays.

And the  is not mostly outdoor for the second time.

The R46s are very old too approaching their mid-late 40s and supposedly going to the  will increase the breakdown rates on those three lines. But nobody ever complains or worries about them going over there, yet when it comes to the R32s and R42s going to the , it's a problem... 

Edited April 14, 2018 by Jemorie

[subwaycommuter1983]

54 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

If they can run 32s on the  , they can run 42s on the  too. 32s have worse AC and break down more.

It would be preferable not to have the r32's on the  either and instead keep some r46s on the   in addition to the 10 car r179s. And if the MTA decides to add 10 car r160's trains to the  it would be even better.

Remember the  will get more ridership during the Canarsie shutdown as well as the .

 

Edited April 14, 2018 by subwaycommuter1983

[subwaycommuter1983]

39 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Ugh, you act like train breakdowns are the biggest reason for subway delays when it's really the aging signals and tracks that need replacement are the number one reason for subway delays in addition to growing ridership. That 2015  and  review proved that MDBF only caused 6% of the delays.

And the  is not mostly outdoor for the second time.

The R46s are very old too approaching their mid-late 40s and supposedly going to the  will increase the breakdown rates on those three lines. But nobody ever complains or worries about them going over there, yet when it comes to the R32s and R42s going to the , it's a problem... 

That's because the MTA has a history of dumping the oldest and most unreliable car fleet on the . I hope that changes with the 10 car r179's. 

MDBF 6%??? The  does suffer a lot of delays due to mechanical problems and I personally have experience this. And yes, they do suffer from signal and track issues as well.

Edited April 14, 2018 by subwaycommuter1983

[Jemorie]

28 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

MDBF 6%??? The  does suffer a lot of delays due to mechanical problems and I personally have experience this.

That's a pretty false ass statement. Aging signals and tracks in addition to growing ridership causes the most delays in the overall subway system. Another large issue for the  is the many timers installed throughout the line. The rolling stock is not the entire cause.

You don't have any problem with the R46s going to the three Broadway Lines and yet you're getting all uptight about the R32s and R42s going or staying on the ? That honestly makes no sense to me.

EDIT: The R32s and R42s are not going to go on the  either and it's pretty obvious why. It might use R46s from Pitkin or Jamaica instead if that R46/R160 swap thing happens (which I honestly don't agree with, but hey, if it happens, it happens). There will be enough R46s from both Pitkin and Jamaica to cover most or the entire fleets of the Coney Island lines in addition to the R68/As, meaning that some R160s might still head for the  anyway.

Nothing to worry about really.

The  will either be a mixed fleet of R32s, R46s, and R179s or a mixed fleet of R32s, R160s, and R179s. Again, nothing to worry about. The  will surely be mostly or completely 60 footers for the  shutdown. As far as the R42s, I personally don't think they're needed at all whatsoever for the aforementioned shutdown.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Jemorie

[subwaycommuter1983]

25 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

That's a pretty false ass statement. Aging signals and tracks in addition to growing ridership causes the most delays in the overall subway system. Another large issue for the  is the many timers installed throughout the line. The rolling stock is not the entire cause.

You don't have any problem with the R46s going to the three Broadway Lines and yet you're getting all uptight about the R32s and R42s going or staying on the ? That honestly makes no sense to me.

EDIT: The R32s and R42s are not going to go on the  either and it's pretty obvious why. It might use R46s from Pitkin or Jamaica instead if that R46/R160 swap thing happens (which I honestly don't agree with, but hey, if it happens, it happens). There will be enough R46s from both Pitkin and Jamaica to cover the entire fleets of the Coney Island lines, meaning that R160s might still head for the  anyway.

Nothing to worry about really.

The  will either be a mixed fleet of R32s, R46s, and R179s or a mixed fleet of R32s, R160s, and R179s. Again, nothing to worry about. The  will surely be mostly or completely 60 footers for the  shutdown. As far as the R42s, I personally don't think they're needed at all whatsoever for the aforementioned shutdown.

I never disagreed in regards to the signal and track issues. Is a big issue systemwide!!!

And I do agree 100% in regards to the r42's and in regards to the  having a mixed fleet. If all r179 are delivered in time, the r42's won't be needed for service. 

[R32 3838]

If any R32s go to CI its for the

I explained this alot of times

 

If they wanted R32s on the they would be running on it right now instead of the (A).

Its obvious the is getting most of the R32s, not all.

 

If the R160/46 swap happens there would be a chunk of R46's left to run on the . The R68's that are on the will go to the or lines while the receives 8 car tech trains with a small group of R32s. 

 

The only tech trains the and will get before the R211 order will be those 120 10 car R179's.  

The CI R160's are going to jamaica (Not all of them), they have cbtc equipment on them and QB cbtc contract states it'll use R160's. Jamaica will still get R211's but it'll probably be the option order R211T's. 

The is not getting R160's. 

12 sets of 60 foot tech trains isn't enough. To balance out the fleet the R32s would do that job alongside the R46's. 

 

Making the mostly 60 foot smees would create a big problem and those riders along the brighton are very vocal so good luck with that. Last time an R32 ran on the was in 2010. Politics are strong in south Brooklyn.

 

This is why i feel its dumb to take em off the (J). No one complains vs. The and sometimes the (A).

Hence the getting R160's. 

[Jemorie]

12 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

The is not getting R160's.

Everytime someone suggests or makes a plain fact that the R32s and R42s are going onto or staying on the , subwaycommuter1983 and Coney Island Av are usually always the first ones to go on and on and on about "aww man! Buhh the  and  use the oldest cars for decades y can't they get de new cause duhhhhhh" so that's why I suggested that the remaining five-car R160s from CI go onto the .

There isn't anything wrong with making the Coney Island lines just R46s and R68s with the exception of the  being four-car R160s with a few R32s btw.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Jemorie

[FlushingExpress]

1 hour ago, Jemorie said:

There isn't anything wrong with making the Coney Island lines just R46s and R68s with the exception of the  being four-car R160s with a few R32s btw.

Actually there would, have way more ridership than the  so putting 75 footers on them would cause massive delays. People who disagree with me need to get their butts off the computer and ride the  five days a week nearly from end-to-end like I do.

1 hour ago, R32 3838 said:

If the R160/46 swap happens there would be a chunk of R46's left to run on the . The R68's that are on the will go to the or lines while the receives 8 car tech trains with a small group of R32s. 

 

Making the mostly 60 foot smees would create a big problem and those riders along the brighton are very vocal so good luck with that. Last time an R32 ran on the was in 2010. Politics are strong in south Brooklyn.

 

Yes politics is strong in Brooklyn, which is exactly why that dumb Jamaica-Coney Island swap will not happen as  riders all love the R160s and do not want them replaced with fat old junks like I said many times, plus realistically, QBL CBTC is at least 5-6 years away. Great job being a hypocrite on this and many other topics (e.g. 75 footers being horrible on the  yet would do well on the more heavily used Broadway Lines, the NTTs not needed to be on the  as it has the same service 24/7, but needed for the  even though it also has the same service 24/7, ). 

2 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Remember the  will get more ridership during the Canarsie shutdown as well as the .

 

Honestly, that is very overhyped and the 's ridership may not rise as much as you think. The only  riders who would use the  would be those in the Broadway Junction area and south. Those to the north would use the    as they are closer and have faster access to Lower and Midtown Manhattan. ridership may not rise as much as you think as it does not go to Manhattan. It will probably only be high between Broadway and Court Square for transferring.

9 hours ago, thicctrain said:

Alright, here's a new roster if I understand all the new things:

R179-  

R160-  

R143-  

R68-  

R42-

R32-  

Not sure though.

 

9 hours ago, thicctrain said:

Oh yeah, the  will still have a few R68s.

Also I forgot the R46s- they'll be on the .

Not a very accurate car assignment roster. There will not be any R160s or R42s on the , R68s on the  , R46s on the  or R32s on the but i guess everyone can live in their own dumb fantasy. R42s are being retired by the end of this year or early next, the R68s have proven to be unable to handing the heavy loads along Brighton and 2nd Avenue, and the will still use R68/68As during the shutdown as full length trains. 

Though if R46s do run on the (W), I would call it "Wario" because his main colors are black and yellow like the W logo and he is incredibly fat like an R46

24 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

As for the / swap, it is just an idea to ensure that all trains that connect to the  in Brooklyn have the most reliable car fleet.

That won't really make a difference. All cars will break down eventually and the  will also connect to the during the shutdown, yet I have not heard you say it should use R142/142As.

Edited April 14, 2018 by FlushingExpress

[subwaycommuter1983]

4 minutes ago, FlushingExpress said:

 R42s are being retired by the end of this year or early next, the R68s have proven to be unable to handing the heavy loads along Brighton and 2nd Avenue, and the will still use R68/68As during the shutdown as full length trains. 

Thank you for clarifying the situation with the r42's. Once all r179's are delivered, there is going to be a surplus of subway cars. Therefore, the r42's won't be needed.

Yes, ridership will increase on all lines that transfer to the  in Brooklyn, but I don't think it's going to be a huge increase. I wouldn't be surprised if some r32's are either retired or run on a very limited basis (ex: rush hour only).

As for the / swap, it is just an idea to ensure that all trains that connect to the  in Brooklyn have the most reliable car fleet, but of course the MTA also needs to ensure that any signal and track issues on all lines affected by the Canarsie shutdown are kept to the minimum.

As for car assignments nothing has been confirmed yet. The most important thing right now is the delivery of the r179s.

[Jemorie]

13 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

I wouldn't be surprised if some r32's are either retired or run on a very limited basis (ex: rush hour only).

The R32s at times run all day and evening on the and yesterday almost all of them were Far Rockaway runs, so your point is kinda moot at best.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Jemorie

[Coney Island Av]

1 hour ago, FlushingExpress said:

Actually there would, have way more ridership than the  so putting 75 footers on them would cause massive delays. People who disagree with me need to get their butts off the computer and ride the  five days a week nearly from end-to-end like I do.

Yes politics is strong in Brooklyn, which is exactly why that dumb Jamaica-Coney Island swap will not happen as  riders all love the R160s and do not want them replaced with fat old junks like I said many times, plus realistically, QBL CBTC is at least 5-6 years away. Great job being a hypocrite on this and many other topics (e.g. 75 footers being horrible on the  yet would do well on the more heavily used Broadway Lines, the NTTs not needed to be on the  as it has the same service 24/7, but needed for the  even though it also has the same service 24/7, ). 

Honestly, that is very overhyped and the 's ridership may not rise as much as you think. The only  riders who would use the  would be those in the Broadway Junction area and south. Those to the north would use the    as they are closer and have faster access to Lower and Midtown Manhattan. ridership may not as you think as it does not go to Manhattan. It will probably only be high between Broadway and Court Square for transferring.

 

Not a very accurate car assignment roster. There will not be any R160s or R42s on the , R68s on the  , R46s on the  or R32s on the but i guess everyone can live in their own dumb fantasy. R42s are being retired by the end of this year or early next, the R68s have proven to be unable to handing the heavy loads along Brighton and 2nd Avenue, and the will still use R68/68As during the shutdown as full length trains. 

Though if R46s do run on the (W), I would call it "Wario" because his main colors are black and yellow like the W logo and he is incredibly fat like an R46

*sigh* There are so many problems with this repetitive response of yours, so I'll just share my overall thoughts.

You explicitly stating that "  ridership aren't as big as the !!!!" just proves you don't use the  on a daily basis. Why don't you bring up actual ridership stats instead of your preferences or personal experience? Just because lines lose their NTTs is not a reason to bicker about old rolling stock running on a certain line. We should only be concerned with old rolling stock if they have mechanical issues, breakdowns, etc. It's not a matter over whether a certain car type (NTTs) look prettier than the R46s. I don't remember any opposition to the R62A  swap, so your point about people whining over losing their R160s is moot. In that scenario, the R62As could actually last longer until the 2020s, and they currently do fine, as opposed to the R32/R42, where they look worn out. That's why many riders don't mind riding the R62As compared to the R32s/R42s. And the reason with the R46/R160 Jamaica swaps is because MTA wants to prep in advance before CBTC goes into effect. Plus, the  are much shorter than the , and have outdoor terminals at both ends. 

Don't jump to immediate conclusions with how the  will be affected during the shutdown. The  to Fulton is way faster than the , plus the  is local to Manhattan. The  only go to Lower Manhattan, so what's the only express train to Midtown? The . People will actually use the  if they don't want to hissle-hassle with transferring, and just want to get to Manhattan fast. Also, why don't you go to every  line station in the AM rush during the shutdown? Maybe THAT will make you reconsider your thinking that the  will be underutilized. The MTA expanded the  to full length for a reason. The 's ridership will explode because of the displaced  train riders, and the fact that current  train lengths and frequencies aren't enough to handle the crowds. Yet you claim that "R68s are supposedly unable to handle ridership on the ," but claim that "ridership will be fine with full-length R68s" despite the increased ridership. You're only claiming  ridership won't be high solely due to the fact that it doesn't touch the metropolis. 

And no, this isn't "a dumb fantasy." What we're speculating about for the future assignments are based on FACTS, not our preferences or rumors. Some would actually prefer otherwise instead of agreeing with subject-to-change info. We actually consider increased services, line lengths, ridership, and spare cars, as opposed to your decision to put things wherever without actually considering any of the factors I mentioned earlier. 

P.S. No offense, but your obsession with fat people is getting pretty overkill. 

 

Edited April 14, 2018 by Coney Island Av

[Around the Horn]

1 hour ago, FlushingExpress said:

Actually there would, have way more ridership than the  so putting 75 footers on them would cause massive delays. People who disagree with me need to get their butts off the computer and ride the  five days a week nearly from end-to-end like I do.

Have you taken an  in rush hour recently? This is demonstrably false.

1 hour ago, FlushingExpress said:

Yes politics is strong in Brooklyn, which is exactly why that dumb Jamaica-Coney Island swap will not happen as  riders all love the R160s and do not want them replaced with fat old junks like I said many times, plus realistically, QBL CBTC is at least 5-6 years away. 

If politics in Southern Brooklyn was strong, R46s would have been off the  years ago, and yet they are still here.

[Jemorie]

36 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

P.S. No offense, but your obsession with fat people is getting pretty overkill. 

He's not obsessed with fat people per say. He's just mocking the 75 footers and the way they look overall. I do agree that his constant bashing of the 75 footers and fat people is indeed flat out childish though.

And a handful of Manhattan-bound  train riders above Broadway Junction are bound for Chelsea, not just Midtown Manhattan. It's only those between Rockaway Parkway and Broadway Junction on the line that switch over to the  at Broadway Junction if they're going to Midtown Manhattan or just destinations on the  itself in general. Understood?

Edited April 14, 2018 by Jemorie

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

1 hour ago, FlushingExpress said:

Actually there would, have way more ridership than the  so putting 75 footers on them would cause massive delays. People who disagree with me need to get their butts off the computer and ride the  five days a week nearly from end-to-end like I do.

Yes politics is strong in Brooklyn, which is exactly why that dumb Jamaica-Coney Island swap will not happen as  riders all love the R160s and do not want them replaced with fat old junks like I said many times, plus realistically, QBL CBTC is at least 5-6 years away. Great job being a hypocrite on this and many other topics (e.g. 75 footers being horrible on the  yet would do well on the more heavily used Broadway Lines, the NTTs not needed to be on the  as it has the same service 24/7, but needed for the  even though it also has the same service 24/7, ). 

Honestly, that is very overhyped and the 's ridership may not rise as much as you think. The only  riders who would use the  would be those in the Broadway Junction area and south. Those to the north would use the    as they are closer and have faster access to Lower and Midtown Manhattan. ridership may not rise as much as you think as it does not go to Manhattan. It will probably only be high between Broadway and Court Square for transferring.

 

Not a very accurate car assignment roster. There will not be any R160s or R42s on the , R68s on the  , R46s on the  or R32s on the but i guess everyone can live in their own dumb fantasy. R42s are being retired by the end of this year or early next, the R68s have proven to be unable to handing the heavy loads along Brighton and 2nd Avenue, and the will still use R68/68As during the shutdown as full length trains. 

Though if R46s do run on the (W), I would call it "Wario" because his main colors are black and yellow like the W logo and he is incredibly fat like an R46

That won't really make a difference. All cars will break down eventually and the  will also connect to the during the shutdown, yet I have not heard you say it should use R142/142As.

Were you on cocaine or methamphetamine when you wrote this? Seriously, I can't recall another member on here who has come remotely close to spewing the level of arrogance that you do. As far as you judging whether or not a car assignment roster is accurate, you don't possess the level of credibility as other reliable sources (established members) like others on here and to say the least, your track record isn't too hot.

Edited April 14, 2018 by AlgorithmOfTruth

[Fan Railer]

2 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

He's not obsessed with fat people per say. He's just mocking the 75 footers and the way they look overall.

 

1 minute ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

Were you on cocaine or methamphetamine when you wrote this? Seriously, I can't recall another member on here who has come remotely close to spewing the level of arrogance that you do. As far as you judging whether or not a car assignment roster is accurate, you don't possess the level of credibility as other reliable sources (established members) like others on here and to say the least, you're track record isn't too hot.

Considering I know who Flushing Express is on Facebook and have seen what he posts there, I can say for a fact that he IS obsessed with fat people, holds quite derogatory views about a multitude of social issues, and really doesn't know what he's talking about in terms of transit happenings. Carry on.

[j express]

Lol. We shall see what happens in the future but I know for one thing sure is that the people who dont think the swaps will happen or think something else will happen will be out there fanning whatever moves or swaps happen in reality in the future regardless. Anyway carry on the discussion. 

[subwaycommuter1983]

1 minute ago, j express said:

Lol. We shall see what happens in the future but I know for one thing sure is that the people who dont think the swaps will happen or think something else will happen will be out there fanning whatever moves or swaps happen in reality in the future regardless. Anyway carry on the discussion. 

I agree. We all have expressed our own opinions on how subway cars should be distributed once all r179s are delivered. However, it's the MTA that has the last word. They may be on the same page with us or they may make a decision that we may all disagree.

That's why we all need to be respectful with each other's opinion even if we disagree. We cannot rule out the possibility that people who work for the MTA reads these posts and any of our ideas can become a reality.

In the meantime, let's keep our fingers crossed in regards to the delivery of the r179's.

[subwaycommuter1983]

On 4/13/2018 at 5:28 PM, R32 3838 said:

Btw all 3 R179's are in service on the

And here's the proof. Enjoy!!!

 

[Bosco]

12 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

And here's the proof. Enjoy!!!

A post actually about the R179s on the R179 Discussion Thread!

With things back to where they were a month ago, is there any timeline for when deliveries will resume (next week, first week of May)?  There's over 200 cars to de delivered so even if they resume one car per day next week, it's cutting it very, very close.

[Dj Hammers]

8 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Ugh, you act like train breakdowns are the biggest reason for subway delays when it's really the aging signals and tracks that need replacement are the number one reason for subway delays in addition to growing ridership. That 2015  and  review proved that MDBF only caused 6% of the delays.

1

 

7 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

MDBF 6%??? The  does suffer a lot of delays due to mechanical problems and I personally have experience this. And yes, they do suffer from signal and track issues as well.

1

 

7 hours ago, Jemorie said:

That's a pretty false ass statement. Aging signals and tracks in addition to growing ridership causes the most delays in the overall subway system.

1

I work with the delay data almost daily and have an intricate understanding of it. Delays caused by car equipment and right of way (track/signal) problems are dwarfed in magnitude by delays whose root cause is poor operating discipline, miscommunication, grade time signals, etc.

It just so happens to be that delays caused by reliability problems are more readily noticed because they're associated with incident notifications and also tend to affect multiple trains in a row.

Furthermore, ridership, especially peak-hour ridership, has been decreasing in the last year or so. At the same time, car equipment and right of way delays have stabilized in the last few months. But overall delays have been increasing. Guess what the biggest contributor to that increase is, and has been, for some time? It sure isn't car equipment and MOW reliability issues!

 

The marginal delay impact of a car class's reliability on a specific line is so small that is doesn't factor into car assignment decisions.

 

 

Edited April 15, 2018 by Dj Hammers

[subwaycommuter1983]

15 minutes ago, Dj Hammers said:

 

 

I work with the delay data almost daily and have an intricate understanding of it. Delays caused by car equipment and right of way (track/signal) problems are dwarfed in magnitude by delays whose root cause is poor operating discipline, miscommunication, grade time signals, etc.

It just so happens to be that delays caused by reliability problems are more readily noticed because they're associated with incident notifications and also tend to affect multiple trains in a row.

Furthermore, ridership, especially peak-hour ridership, has been decreasing in the last year or so. At the same time, car equipment and right of way delays have stabilized in the last few months.

 

The marginal delay impact of a car class's reliability on a specific line is so small that is doesn't factor into car assignment decisions.

 

 

Thanks for the clarification. Does the stabilization in terms of car equipment and track/signal delays have to do with Lhota's Subway Action Plan??

[Jemorie]

43 minutes ago, Dj Hammers said:

I work with the delay data almost daily and have an intricate understanding of it. Delays caused by car equipment and right of way (track/signal) problems are dwarfed in magnitude by delays whose root cause is poor operating discipline, miscommunication, grade time signals, etc.

It just so happens to be that delays caused by reliability problems are more readily noticed because they're associated with incident notifications and also tend to affect multiple trains in a row.

Furthermore, ridership, especially peak-hour ridership, has been decreasing in the last year or so. At the same time, car equipment and right of way delays have stabilized in the last few months. But overall delays have been increasing. Guess what the biggest contributor to that increase is, and has been, for some time? It sure isn't car equipment and MOW reliability issues!

The marginal delay impact of a car class's reliability on a specific line is so small that is doesn't factor into car assignment decisions.

Surprised Coney Island Av and subwaycommuter (especially subwaycommuter) are "thanking" you for this post even though they've been dribbling on about the R32s being on the  is a bad idea because blah blah the usual for months on end now.

But thanks I guess. I honestly didn't think subway ridership would decrease a bit mainly because of all the delays and stuff.

Edited April 15, 2018 by Jemorie

[Jemorie]

6 hours ago, FlushingExpress said:

That won't really make a difference. All cars will break down eventually and the  will also connect to the during the shutdown, yet I have not heard you say it should use R142/142As.

This is actually the one and only thing I agree with from you plus the Queens Blvd thing (but if the R46 and R160 Jamaica swap happens, it happens and there's really not much we can do). The rest of your post on the other hand...well you know the answer. 

[subwaycommuter1983]

1 hour ago, Jemorie said:

Surprised Coney Island Av and subwaycommuter (especially subwaycommuter) are "thanking" you for this post even though they've been dribbling on about the R32s being on the  is a bad idea because blah blah the usual for months on end now.

But thanks I guess. I honestly didn't think subway ridership would decrease a bit mainly because of all the delays and stuff.

That's because I know how to respect other people's opinion.  I don't bully, mock, or insult people like some people do in this forum. 

I'm glad that @Dj Hammers mentioned the decrease in ridership due to subway delays and the possibility that this is being addressed.