Jump to content

R179 Discussion Thread


East New York

Recommended Posts

So some observations:

It seems like the 4 car R179's have a "glitch" where the "The Next Stop Is" and "This is" announcement from the (A) has over ridden the rest of the announcements from the other train lines. I'm not sure if this issue is present on the 5 car set tho. The announcements also cycle very slowly, likely due to the coding.

However for the 5 car set, it seems like the announcements are faster. If 3010-3019 received a coding update, how come the new 4 car sets dont have it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 10.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 2/27/2019 at 8:28 AM, Enjineer said:

Well the 42s have yet to be reassigned somewhere outside of ENY, but the 32s are still definitely good to help bolster service. The R179s are just eliminating the fleet shortage; scrapping those cars now and possibly recreating that problem isn't a great idea – considering the pilot 211 is slated to arrive next year it's not like the R32s would be running for another decade, anyways. 

True, but there will still a surplus of 8 car trains and ENY doesn't need all those extra trains unless the MTA decides to extend the J, which I doubt it would happen.

Canarsie shutdown isn't happening and the MTA confirmed that the G won't be full length, so I wouldn't be surprised if ENY sends a few 8 car trains to the C.

I think the r42's will retire once all r179's are in service, but I don't think that they'll be scrapped right away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JFK Depot said:

From what I was told they are in Pitkin... not to be used unless extremely necessary.... not retired or active at this time 

That may happen with some r32's once all r179's are in service. All 222 r32's will stay until the r211's, but some of the r32's may see little passenger service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

I think the r42's will retire once all r179's are in service, but I don't think that they'll be scrapped right away.

IIRC there are no plans to scrap them, as you said, just in case they are needed. I'm pretty sure nothing will be getting scrapped until the 211s show up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Enjineer said:

IIRC there are no plans to scrap them, as you said, just in case they are needed. I'm pretty sure nothing will be getting scrapped until the 211s show up. 

That’s correct. MTA have learned from their mistake with the R40M’s and R32’s 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, JFK Depot said:

This restarts the clock smh... halfway thru the 30 days too 

False alarm...... train is still in service. Confirmed through someone who is currently riding it. Plus, its not halfway through, today is Day 27 for 3010-3019. Once nothing happens over the weekend, and it completes its run on Monday, it has passed. Time flies once the foamers disappear lmaoooo

Edited by Railfan 007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JFK Depot said:

This restarts the clock smh... halfway thru the 30 days too 

 

2 hours ago, Railfan 007 said:

False alarm...... train is still in service. Confirmed through someone who is currently riding it. Plus, its not halfway through, today is Day 27 for 3010-3019. Once nothing happens over the weekend, and it completes its run on Monday, it has passed. Time flies once the foamers disappear lmaoooo

Minor issues so this does not reset the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I see happening if CI does get R46's, pitkin would loose some sets as well and it would make sense. The G isn't going 480 feet so there's no need for R32's and 8 car tech trains. However there would be a need for more R46's. Jamaica R46's wouldn't be enough since the R160's require less spares than R46's. Plus concourse has a low spare factor since 2nd ave opened so 2770-2791 would have to go back.

It's possible the 13 trainsets of R179's is pushing out 13 R46's instead of R32's. 

 

Meaning the R42's would be needed for (A) or (C) service If it's 10 cars to have increased spare factor for the 60 foot smees at 207th.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

The only thing I see happening if CI does get R46's, pitkin would loose some sets as well and it would make sense. The G isn't going 480 feet so there's no need for R32's and 8 car tech trains. However there would be a need for more R46's. Jamaica R46's wouldn't be enough since the R160's require less spares than R46's. Plus concourse has a low spare factor since 2nd ave opened so 2770-2791 would have to go back.

It's possible the 13 trainsets of R179's is pushing out 13 R46's instead of R32's. 

 

Meaning the R42's would be needed for (A) or (C) service If it's 10 cars to have increased spare factor for the 60 foot smees at 207th.

 

 

Why would CI get more r46's?? To go where?? Did the MTA confirm this info??

Edited by subwaycommuter1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

The only thing I see happening if CI does get R46's, pitkin would loose some sets as well and it would make sense. The G isn't going 480 feet so there's no need for R32's and 8 car tech trains. However there would be a need for more R46's. Jamaica R46's wouldn't be enough since the R160's require less spares than R46's. Plus concourse has a low spare factor since 2nd ave opened so 2770-2791 would have to go back.

It's possible the 13 trainsets of R179's is pushing out 13 R46's instead of R32's. 

 

Meaning the R42's would be needed for (A) or (C) service If it's 10 cars to have increased spare factor for the 60 foot smees at 207th.

 

 

I haven’t been keeping up with this thread, but when did the MTA decide not to make the (G) full length? 

I feel like that is a huge stab in the back to the people who ride the (G) and were promised longer cars. I thought the goal was to make transit better, not keeping it the same with the same old problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Why would CI get more r46's?? To go where?? Did the MTA confirm this info??

 

 

Spare factor, bumping out R68's that concourse lost back to concourse. Plus CI is already getting the R46's from Jamaica.

 

The R160's require a lower spare factor than the R46's due to age. 

It wouldn't make sense to give CI the R32's if the (G) isn't going 480 feet. That was the whole point of the R32's going to CI to supplement the 8 car R160's. 

 

It's better to keep the 60 foot smees at 207th for easy retirement once that time comes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I haven’t been keeping up with this thread, but when did the MTA decide not to make the (G) full length? 

I feel like that is a huge stab in the back to the people who ride the (G) and were promised longer cars. I thought the goal was to make transit better, not keeping it the same with the same old problems.

I agree 100%, I was looking forward to that regardless of what equipment run on it. R160's would have been nice for the (G).

 

Also back to the R179's 

It seems like the run a lot better on the (A) vs the (C)(J) and (Z)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

 

 

Spare factor, bumping out R68's that concourse lost back to concourse. Plus CI is already getting the R46's from Jamaica.

 

The R160's require a lower spare factor than the R46's due to age. 

It wouldn't make sense to give CI the R32's if the (G) isn't going 480 feet. That was the whole point of the R32's going to CI to supplement the 8 car R160's. 

 

It's better to keep the 60 foot smees at 207th for easy retirement once that time comes.

 

(G) not going full length had pretty much zero to do with car availability and pretty much everything to do with the sorry state of the MTA budget. Same goes for the delay on the (C)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, S78 via Hylan said:

That and the full shutdown being halted.

That basically is the budgetary issue. Those service increases/train lengthenings were being paid for with capital money, somewhat insulating them from the chaos that is the operating budget. Now, with weekday changes gone, they’d have to be paid for with ops cash, of which there is exceedingly little these days. 

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.