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

That would delay the order even further. Adding a couple of cars to the order and converting some A cars to B cars are a much easier process than changing the order to make them into the 211-lites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lance said:

That would delay the order even further. Adding a couple of cars to the order and converting some A cars to B cars are a much easier process than changing the order to make them into the 211-lites.

Gotcha, it's just so stupid how the base order of R211s are gonna be standard, and then options would have the open gangway. They should've down the real testing with this small order. 

I wish I followed up on trains more often. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a shame that R179s are crapping out so early out of the gate, hopefully things can improve sooner than later. I've actually come to enjoy the R179s over the R143/R160s. I can't really put my finger on it, but the interior of the R179 feels more spacious compared to the R160s, which I enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks.....ya'll gotta realize that the R179s aren't the ONLY TRAINS that have had issues when they were brand new.....

R142s had similar problems when they were being delivered...it took them years(almost 10 years to be precise) to work out the problems, and now they are the most reliable NTTs in the IRT. R62As(or R62s, I forgot which ones) also had problems when they were brand new. Same for the R46s and some of the other subway cars in the fleet.

Everything has their own issues when they are brand new out of the game......the R142s did, the R143s did, and the R160s did, and a bunch of other subway car fleets did. The R179s are not exempt from that.


 

  • Thanks 4
  • Thumbs Up 4
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

Folks.....ya'll gotta realize that the R179s aren't the ONLY TRAINS that have had issues when they were brand new.....

R142s had similar problems when they were being delivered...it took them years(almost 10 years to be precise) to work out the problems, and now they are the most reliable NTTs in the IRT. R62As(or R62s, I forgot which ones) also had problems when they were brand new. Same for the R46s and some of the other subway cars in the fleet.

Everything has their own issues when they are brand new out of the game......the R142s did, the R143s did, and the R160s did, and a bunch of other subway car fleets did. The R179s are not exempt from that.


 

I think people are just “zeroing” in at the fact that these cars were delivered extremely late. They’re using the delayed order as Ammo to point out flaws in the cars. I’m sure in time, they’ll be fine, and reliable. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Folks.....ya'll gotta realize that the R179s aren't the ONLY TRAINS that have had issues when they were brand new.....

R142s had similar problems when they were being delivered...it took them years(almost 10 years to be precise) to work out the problems, and now they are the most reliable NTTs in the IRT. R62As(or R62s, I forgot which ones) also had problems when they were brand new. Same for the R46s and some of the other subway cars in the fleet.

Everything has their own issues when they are brand new out of the game......the R142s did, the R143s did, and the R160s did, and a bunch of other subway car fleets did. The R179s are not exempt from that.


  

The R68s as well. The R32s, because they were so much lighter, initially didn't have enough clearance in the tunnels.

Edited by Union Tpke
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I think people are just “zeroing” in at the fact that these cars were delivered extremely late.

I would know that because I pick on the cars for that reason. Bombardier almost always has delays with orders, specifically NYC.

 

But I admit the cars are fine, but definitely not my favorite.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a pic of 3010-19 doing some testing on the Apple today in one of the RTO groups I’m in.

Happy hunting...

Share this post


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

I would know that because I pick on the cars for that reason. Bombardier almost always has delays with orders, specifically NYC.

 

But I admit the cars are fine, but definitely not my favorite.

That's not true. This is the only delivery that they've actually been late with.....the only mishap was with the R62As, as there were damaged cars that were delivered a year or two later. They were also on-time with the M-7 deliveries.

But, if we're gonna go that route....

Alstom was late with the R160 order by almost a year.
Westinghouse was late with the R68s by a little over a year after failing tests numerous times.
Pullman Standard was late with the full delivery of the R46s by 2-3 years.(when you think about it, the R179s are almost like that, just not with the same problems).

 

Edited by Cait Sith
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VIP said:

I think people are just “zeroing” in at the fact that these cars were delivered extremely late. They’re using the delayed order as Ammo to point out flaws in the cars. I’m sure in time, they’ll be fine, and reliable. 

In a way, yes. These are two different issues entirely, the fact that their late isn’t obviously good in any way and I don’t respect Bombardier for these mistakes they’ve failed to adapt upon lately (not just in NY). But honestly, all trains have kinks that need to be worked with time, being perfect out of the gate can almost be classified as luck . So with that, it isn’t exactly the end of the world at all.

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2019 at 2:49 PM, Cait Sith said:

Folks.....ya'll gotta realize that the R179s aren't the ONLY TRAINS that have had issues when they were brand new.....

R142s had similar problems when they were being delivered...it took them years(almost 10 years to be precise) to work out the problems, and now they are the most reliable NTTs in the IRT. R62As(or R62s, I forgot which ones) also had problems when they were brand new. Same for the R46s and some of the other subway cars in the fleet.

Everything has their own issues when they are brand new out of the game......the R142s did, the R143s did, and the R160s did, and a bunch of other subway car fleets did. The R179s are not exempt from that.


 

The thing is the manufactures hasn't gain any experiences from the past especially R179 is only a newer version of R160. If you take closer look of the interior of R179, there are lots of things that they should have them done better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, whz1995 said:

The thing is the manufactures hasn't gain any experiences from the past especially R179 is only a newer version of R160. If you take closer look of the interior of R179, there are lots of things that they should have them done better.

That's not the issue here.  Every class has a slightly different interior. The point with the 179s has been mechanical,  electrical and the Construction of them. 

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following the issues with the R179s, and someone said they waited along the C for an hour during the Friday rush and saw no 179s. Have they all been pulled from the C due to the intercar spring issues? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Enjineer said:

I've been following the issues with the R179s, and someone said they waited along the C for an hour during the Friday rush and saw no 179s. Have they all been pulled from the C due to the intercar spring issues? 

Their was one set in service on the (C) line today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

Their was one set in service on the (C) line today.

Ah, thanks for the info. Any idea if the 179s will be assigned permanently to the C, or if they'll move back to ENY once these kinks are worked out. Additionally, any timeframe for when the pulled cars will go back into service? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2019 at 11:23 PM, Enjineer said:

Ah, thanks for the info. Any idea if the 179s will be assigned permanently to the C, or if they'll move back to ENY once these kinks are worked out.

Just amateur speculation on my end, but I wouldn't be surprised if the (C) is staying at 480' after all, with the 4-car R179s. But, wouldn't the only other places they could theoretically go be ENY or the (G), where the former already has an abundance of 4-car sets? Again, I could be wrong, but it seems that the Eastern Division will soon have more than enough cars on its hands--and it wouldn't be a shock for the (MTA) to scrap their 600' (C) plans without fair warning.

It will also be interesting to see the 5-car sets running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, V886132 said:

Just amateur speculation on my end, but I wouldn't be surprised if the (C) is staying at 480' after all, with the 4-car R179s.

My understanding was that the R32s being moved to the (A), as well as the incoming 5-car R179 sets (to make 10-car trains on the (A)) would push R46s to the (C) for supplemental 600' service, but that the (C) would still have a mix of both 480' and 600' trains. If the R32s and the 10-car R179s can push enough R46s to the (C) from the (A), that would make sense, but I'm not sure whether or not the numbers would work out in that case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (C) is still going full length. Any leftover 480 foot train would be moved to the (G). 

The (C) is supposed to be 10 car R32,R46 and R179's, basically sharing with the (A).

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.