Jump to content

R179 Discussion Thread


East New York

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 10.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
20 minutes ago, mine248 said:

Yes (R143s, R160s) and yes. (Ironically, the old tech cars had the same issue.)

Ironically, the only train that was signed up correctly was the R32 set I rode. Rollsigns allowed them to do (J) Broad-Metropolitan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Ironically, the only train that was signed up correctly was the R32 set I rode. Rollsigns allowed them to do (J) Broad-Metropolitan. 

Aka the first R32 to travel there in a century...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

Heh at putting exclusive in your video title, I'm sure every railfan and their mother got video of that R179 (M) train.. nice video though.

Lmao grill me boi. I may have just underestimated the on board posts on these stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some more R179 (M) footage! Enjoy :)

2 hours ago, Vtrain said:

Well RR503, you were right a few months ago, I just read the Supplemental Envirormental Assessment for the Canarsie Tube Shutdown & it does mention that the G train will get additional trains during peak hours with 3tph operating between Bedford/Nostrand & Court Sq & the remaining 12tph would operate to Chutrch Av/18 Av.

I know you mention a few months ago that 18 Av was in the cards, now I wonder if the restoration of the Brooklyn F train express is still in the cards with 3tph with additional G trains operating on the local tracks during peak periods.

Another note, it mentions in the report that the J/Z trains will be reduced from 12tph to 10tph which will allow the M train to increase from 9tph to 14tph & during off peak, service would increase on the A,E,F,G,J,M & 7 trains.

So wait...no timer recalibration???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vtrain said:

Another note, it mentiones in the report thyat the J/Z trains will be reduced from 12tph to 10tph which will allow the M ttrain to increase from 9tph to 14tph & during off peak, service would incease on the A,E,F,G,J,M & 7 trains.

Yes. It seems timer recal. couldn't yield more than a more reliable 24, so we now have the delightful pleasure of screwing over New York's favorite elevated bus even more so than we already have. 

4 hours ago, Vtrain said:

I know you mention a few months ago that 18 Av was in the cards, now I wonder if the restoration of the Brooklyn F train express is still in the cards with 3tph with additional G trains operating on the local tracks during peak periods.

I'm unsure about F exp now. As you all know, Church turns 8ish tph today with little issue. (L) shutdown is increasing that necessary throughput to 12, a higher number, sure, but one that should be handleable for any well operated relay. What I've gathered is the reasoning behind sending 6tph (G) to 18th is that just beyond the 300' mark in the Church Yard, there are AK signals which severely constrict terminal capacity when dealing long(er) trains, thus disallowing the use of Church for intensive 480' operation.

Connecting this back to F express, this extension of (G) to 18th (a non-relay terminal), reduces the fumigation load at Church, which I'd *imagine* may weaken -- though not kill -- the case for a limited F express. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Yes. It seems timer recal. couldn't yield more than a more reliable 24, so we now have the delightful pleasure of screwing over New York's favorite elevated bus even more so than we already have. 

I'm unsure about F exp now. As you all know, Church turns 8ish tph today with little issue. (L) shutdown is increasing that necessary throughput to 12, a higher number, sure, but one that should be handleable for any well operated relay. What I've gathered is the reasoning behind sending 6tph (G) to 18th is that just beyond the 300' mark in the Church Yard, there are AK signals which severely constrict terminal capacity when dealing long(er) trains, thus disallowing the use of Church for intensive 480' operation.

Connecting this back to F express, this extension of (G) to 18th (a non-relay terminal), reduces the fumigation load at Church, which I'd *imagine* may weaken -- though not kill -- the case for a limited F express. 

They screwed up when the signaling was redone a few years back. This is a guess, but I don't think that the use of longer trains was anticipated when it was redone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2018 at 9:56 PM, mine248 said:

Saw more railfanners in this part of my ride! Enjoy!

Those railfans in the beginning of your video were my friends and I though I stood at a certain distance away from them so that I could get a good shot of the train. I was the one wearing the red shirt in that split second

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vtrain said:

Does this mean that there will be more 5 car sets of R179 subway cars?

Besides the 120 cars that are planned to be built, no. Unless something was extremely wrong with 3015-3019 that couldn't be solved, then it would be rebuilt. I wouldn't be surprised if the 10-car 179s would have 3020-3029 be the one to do the 30 day revenue testing while the issues are solved on 3010-3019, the same way 3058-3065 did 30 day testing on the J while the issues were solved on 3050-3057. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Rumor has is another 5 car set is being built to replace 3015-3019.

Until I can verify this info from either @Dj Hammers or @RR503, I'm gonna take this with a huge grain of salt. I simply cannot believe this information because AFAIK, they're only at Bombardier for modifications, and not to be replaced. 

29 minutes ago, Railfan 007 said:

Besides the 120 cars that are planned to be built, no. Unless something was extremely wrong with 3015-3019 that couldn't be solved, then it would be rebuilt. I wouldn't be surprised if the 10-car 179s would have 3020-3029 be the one to do the 30 day revenue testing while the issues are solved on 3010-3019, the same way 3058-3065 did 30 day testing on the J while the issues were solved on 3050-3057. 

3020-3029 won't arrive until 3010-3019 conclude testing and all four-car sets are on property. The latter is a test train, while the former is a production car set. And in order for the production cars to be delivered, the test train has to pass 30-day testing. 

However, in the case of 3050-3057 and 3058-3065, both were considered test trains. If 3020-3029 was really considered a test train, it would've been on property by now. 

Anyways, in other R179-related news:

-3074-3077 and 3126-3129 are now in regular (J) service, which means 10 R179s in (J)(Z) service. 

-3130-3133 are gonna head to the Rockaways for testing soon.

-The R32s/R42s on the (J)(Z) will leave by September due to the fact that there are very few of them in service, and the R179s are coming in fast. 

P.S. The R46s on the (F)(R) will leave for the (N)(W) by the end of the year because the Jamaica-Coney Island swap will be happening soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Vtrain said:

That's geat news that the R46 will be going to the N/W lines by the end of the end, however, are any R46 going to the B train & will the remaining  50 R42 finally be retiring? 

No R46s will go to the (B) (as far as I know), and the R42s will kept as a reserve fleet until the (L) shutdown ends.

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.