R179 Discussion Thread

[Union Tpke]

4 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

The mta only mentioned the

 

Not the (C), if the MTA annouces the isnt going full length then yea but it wasn't mentioned so the plan still stands unless changed.

 

 

I have heard that the full-length  likely won't happen.

[subwaycommuter1983]

8 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

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

I feel like that is a huge stab in the back to the people who ride the  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.

However, I have a feeling that the C and G trains will become 100% with the r211's.

[Union Tpke]

1 hour ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

I agree.

However, I have a feeling that the C and G trains will become 100% with the r211's.

I can see that happening.

[Jemorie]

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

I have heard that the full-length  likely won't happen.

Ugh.

[Enjineer]

4 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

I have heard that the full-length  likely won't happen.

Why wouldn't it is my question. With the 10-car R179s in service on the , it'd free up a lot of R46 trainsets for use on the  (13 assuming every 46 that could be moved out by a 179 is moved), which is just about 2/3 of the  fleet. I'd think a surplus of 32s could also allow for 10-car sets to then run, right? 

[subwaycommuter1983]

1 hour ago, Enjineer said:

Why wouldn't it is my question. With the 10-car R179s in service on the , it'd free up a lot of R46 train sets for use on the  (13 assuming every 46 that could be moved out by a 179 is moved), which is just about 2/3 of the  fleet. I'd think a surplus of 32s could also allow for 10-car sets to then run, right? 

There is a strong possibility that the C will get the 13 r46's from the A plus the 8 car r179's until the r211's.

Why?? Because of the surplus of 8 car trains and the MTA's decision of not making (delaying) the G full length.  I sound like a broken record with the 8 car surplus, but it seems that some railfans prefer to have those extra 8 car r179's laying inactive in a yard, so that the r32's and r42's can stay in service forever and ever. But keep in mind that ENY doesn't need all those extra trains and the C is the only line besides the G that can accommodate 8 car trains.

The r211's are going to be 10 car trains so they can displace the 8 car r179's from the C either to CI for the G or to ENY to displace r160's to the G. Let's see what happens.

Edited March 3, 2019 by subwaycommuter1983

[Jemorie]

3 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

 I sound like a broken record with the 8 car surplus, but it seems that some railfans prefer to have those extra 8 car r179's laying inactive in a yard, so that the r32's and r42's can stay in service forever and ever.

You always do, what else is new with you. I’m tired of you saying that offensive nonsense over and over again. You need to stop. It’s not true. Either you’re just pulling that out of your ass or you heard that from your “friends” or something. Whatever the case may be. Because even I said earlier in this thread that it’s pretty pointless to keep the 222 R32s and 50 R42s when they are not really in service as much besides the R32s on the . Especially since they’re choosing not to make the line full length and the east already has more than enough NTT four-car sets to make service.

[R32 3838]

6 hours ago, Jemorie said:

You always do, what else is new with you. I’m tired of you saying that offensive nonsense over and over again. You need to stop. It’s not true. Either you’re just pulling that out of your ass or you heard that from your “friends” or something. Whatever the case may be. Because even I said earlier in this thread that it’s pretty pointless to keep the 222 R32s and 50 R42s when they are not really in service as much besides the R32s on the . Especially since they’re choosing not to make the line full length and the east already has more than enough NTT four-car sets to make service.

They only have the large surplus because of R179 issues, R143's always being in the shop and prepping the R160A-1's 8377 and up for Queens CBTC. That's why the they need all the R32's and R42's. This is probably the reason the won't see an increase in car length yet. The however still has a chance. MTA did not mention nothing about the not being full length. Plus you have the 10 car R179's coming in, those alone would cause the to go full length. They're not getting rid of anything yet.

 

 

[whz1995]

According to the FastForward Plan, I would assume that there is a chance  will run fully with 8car R179 and  will get 10car R179 + R211 because of the CBTC implementation in the first five year. Then  will have R32 back plus some R160+R143. I am just not sure about , because MTA could have 4 car R160 for the  or make it full length.

[Bill from Maspeth]

1 hour ago, whz1995 said:

According to the FastForward Plan, I would assume that there is a chance  will run fully with 8car R179 and  will get 10car R179 + R211 because of the CBTC implementation in the first five year. Then  will have R32 back plus some R160+R143. I am just not sure about , because MTA could have 4 car R160 for the  or make it full length.

4 car R160 would be a no go for the G because that would be a shorter train than a 4 car R68/68A. 240' vs. 300'.

The fiscal advantage of keeping the G short is for weekend OPTO.  Even new tech OPTO, as stated above, would make an even shorter train than as present.

Cutting/adding to achieve OPTO would cause the need for additional personnel, again fiscal issues. 

 

 

[subwaycommuter1983]

3 hours ago, whz1995 said:

According to the FastForward Plan, I would assume that there is a chance  will run fully with 8car R179 and  will get 10car R179 + R211 because of the CBTC implementation in the first five year. Then  will have R32 back plus some R160+R143. I am just not sure about , because MTA could have 4 car R160 for the  or make it full length.

I think the 8 car r179's will leave the C once the r211's enter service. The MTA made a huge order with the r211's and they're all 10 car trains, which will allow the C and G to become 100% full length. 

BTW Kawasaki is moving fast with the r211's with the test train being delivered in July 2020 instead of December 2020. And the MTA confirm that r62s will be replaced with the r262's with are going to be CTBC and some trains may be open gangway. Hopefully, the MTA learned their lesson with the r179's and choose Kawasaki for the r262's. 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2019 by subwaycommuter1983

[Lawrence St]

Never mind, it was a communication error, it was an R32 that went out of service.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Lawrence St

[subwaycommuter1983]

28 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Never mind, it was a communication error, it was an R32 that went out of service.

Has it been a month since the 10 car train began the passenger testing??

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

4 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Has it been a month since the 10 car train began the passenger testing??

No

[Jemorie]

33 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Never mind, it was a communication error, it was an R32 that went out of service.

I don't even understand how you concluded it was an R179 in the first place anyway lol. You don't even know unless you were there at the said station lol.

It doesn't make sense for that lone 10-car R179 trainset to have a mechanical failure because I'm 100% positive that whenever it goes out of service for the day, it is in the shop being repaired or inspected. The only exception is when a passenger is rowdy enough to cause such a problem.

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

10 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

It doesn't make sense for that lone 10-car R179 trainset to have a mechanical failure because I'm 100% positive that whenever it goes out of service for the day, it is in the shop being repaired or inspected. 

That's exactly what happened when a window was cracked on the 10 car set the first day it was in service. And when a bag hit the 8 car set on it's first few days of service

Edited March 3, 2019 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[whz1995]

25 minutes ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

That's exactly what happened when a window was cracked on the 10 car set the first day it was in service. And when a bag hit the 8 car set on it's first few days of service

I wish MTA can release MDBF of R179 at their performance dashboard.

[Enjineer]

28 minutes ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

That's exactly what happened when a window was cracked on the 10 car set the first day it was in service.

I assume for a minor issue like that caused by a passenger they just keep the train in service until it's scheduled to go back to the yard as to not reset the 30-day clock. 

[Lawrence St]

1 hour ago, Jemorie said:

I don't even understand how you concluded it was an R179 in the first place anyway lol. You don't even know unless you were there at the said station lol.

It doesn't make sense for that lone 10-car R179 trainset to have a mechanical failure because I'm 100% positive that whenever it goes out of service for the day, it is in the shop being repaired or inspected. The only exception is when a passenger is rowdy enough to cause such a problem.

You see its very simple, people said it was an R179, I posted it here. I post what i hear.

[Jemorie]

42 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

You see its very simple, people said it was an R179, I posted it here. I post what i hear.

Understandable, but even they can be wrong. You just never know.

[Enjineer]

Saw the set today at Jay St – caught me by surprise. Hopefully the snow won't affect anything tomorrow and it can finish out the 30 days with no hitches. 

 

[R32 3838]

It would be nice in the summer if 1 set of 10 car R179's run on the rock pk shuttle between rockaway blvd and b116th st. That would be nice.

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

14 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

It would be nice in the summer if 1 set of 10 car R179's run on the rock pk shuttle between rockaway blvd and b116th st. That would be nice.

I'd be more likely running from Rock Bvld. to B116 since that trip has higher ridership to justify using a 10 car set. 

[ibroketheprinter]

I have a somewhat (un)quick question. What would be required to get the  up to 10 car? I know that  is basically a local and shorter version of the  so would it just be a matter of purchasing new 10 car trains or modifying 8 car trains in order, or is it a much larger matter that would require modifications to stations, etc?

[U-BahnNYC]

31 minutes ago, ibroketheprinter said:

I have a somewhat (un)quick question. What would be required to get the  up to 10 car? I know that  is basically a local and shorter version of the  so would it just be a matter of purchasing new 10 car trains or modifying 8 car trains in order, or is it a much larger matter that would require modifications to stations, etc?

No major infrastructure modifications are required. 10-car trains have already served the at various points in time. The only thing that is needed are full length (600-ft, be it 8x75 or 10x60) trains and a will on behalf on the MTA. The former is a non issue now that the won't be shut down, but the latter, for some strange reason, will probably delay implementation of a full length .