T to Dyre Avenue Posted February 28, 2020 Share #9026 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) I’m fine with them running R46 trains on the . What I don’t like is the operation of trains of varying length on the same route, due to the inflexibility of the car sets. R46 cars cannot be operated in trains of 480 feet long like the R32s and R179s can. They can operate six-car trains of R46s on the , but that’s 450 feet long, not 480. I just don’t like the idea of them running both 480 and 600-foot trains on the because how are the riders supposed to know if the next train coming will be much shorter length than the last one? You don’t want a bunch of riders stampeding down the platform in order to be able to board the train. Edited February 28, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwaycommuter1983 Posted February 29, 2020 Share #9027 Posted February 29, 2020 On 2/28/2020 at 2:22 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said: I’m fine with them running R46 trains on the . What I don’t like is the operation of trains of varying length on the same route, due to the inflexibility of the car sets. R46 cars cannot be operated in trains of 480 feet long like the R32s and R179s can. They can operate six-car trains of R46s on the , but that’s 450 feet long, not 480. I just don’t like the idea of them running both 480 and 600-foot trains on the because how are the riders supposed to know if the next train coming will be much shorter length than the last one? You don’t want a bunch of riders stampeding down the platform in order to be able to board the train. I am wondering why the MTA decided to put r46's on the C with all the issues happening in 168th. If the MTA wanted to gradually make the C full length (although the C won't become 100% full length until the r211's), they could've just lengthen the r32's to 10 car trains. The only thing is that the MTA would have to keep more than 110 r32's cars until the r211's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIP Posted February 29, 2020 Share #9028 Posted February 29, 2020 49 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said: I am wondering why the MTA decided to put r46's on the C with all the issues happening in 168th. If the MTA wanted to gradually make the C full length (although the C won't become 100% full length until the r211's), they could've just lengthen the r32's to 10 car trains. The only thing is that the MTA would have to keep more than 110 r32's cars until the r211's. Then what will they do with the R179 8 car units?! They resolved the “issue” at 168th with the switching jobs being added. They are keeping a handful of R32’s they’re being stored for the time being while poor performance cars are getting stripped for parts and labor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted February 29, 2020 Share #9029 Posted February 29, 2020 1 hour ago, subwaycommuter1983 said: I am wondering why the MTA decided to put r46's on the C with all the issues happening in 168th. If the MTA wanted to gradually make the C full length (although the C won't become 100% full length until the r211's), they could've just lengthen the r32's to 10 car trains. The only thing is that the MTA would have to keep more than 110 r32's cars until the r211's. They should have never ordered as many 8 car R179’s. All the cars that touched 8th Ave/ Fulton Street should have been 10 car sets. They certainly were not thinking about the future with this one. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwaycommuter1983 Posted February 29, 2020 Share #9030 Posted February 29, 2020 1 hour ago, VIP said: Then what will they do with the R179 8 car units?! They resolved the “issue” at 168th with the switching jobs being added. They are keeping a handful of R32’s they’re being stored for the time being while poor performance cars are getting stripped for parts and labor. Stay on the C until the r211's and then to go the G. Right now there aren't enough 10 car or 600ft trains to make the C 100% full length. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwaycommuter1983 Posted February 29, 2020 Share #9031 Posted February 29, 2020 50 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said: They should have never ordered as many 8 car R179’s. All the cars that touched 8th Ave/ Fulton Street should have been 10 car sets. They certainly were not thinking about the future with this one. I agree 100% and they should have ordered more than 300 cars to eliminate the car shortage in the B division and to prepare for increase ridership. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkstar8983 Posted March 1, 2020 Share #9032 Posted March 1, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, subwaycommuter1983 said: I agree 100% and they should have ordered more than 300 cars to eliminate the car shortage in the B division and to prepare for increase ridership. definitely. right now, there are JUST enough 8-car units to fully deal with ENY's 480' train restrictions for the (that is INCLUDING if the 8-car units are transferred off of the ). If the is planned to be 480' trains, then MORE 8-car trains will be needed (might be dealt with during the R211 order). The via 6 Av was never planned when the R160s were coming in (nor was it expected to be so popular, starting with 6TPH during rush hours and now at 10TPH during rush hours), hence why the R42s still would have been around if the R44s would not have had structural problems and prematurely retired. Now that CBTC is coming online, the spare factor has to be increased on all CBTC lines, leaving few spare cars for the non-CBTC lines (in this case, the ). Edited March 1, 2020 by darkstar8983 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coney Island Av Posted March 1, 2020 Share #9033 Posted March 1, 2020 4 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said: I agree 100% and they should have ordered more than 300 cars to eliminate the car shortage in the B division and to prepare for increase ridership. yes they should have but if they did they would have had the same type of bugs as the rest of the 179 fleet. not to mention the fact that bombardier was already years late with getting the order delivered. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwaycommuter1983 Posted March 1, 2020 Share #9034 Posted March 1, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Coney Island Av said: yes they should have but if they did they would have had the same type of bugs as the rest of the 179 fleet. not to mention the fact that bombardier was already years late with getting the order delivered. That was another big mistake from the MTA. They should have chosen either Kawasaki or Alstom for the r179's in addition to ordering way more than 300 cars. Both companies did a better job with the r160's than Bombardier did with the r142's. A lot of the r179 related issues would have been averted, if the MTA had made the right decisions. Edited March 1, 2020 by subwaycommuter1983 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted March 1, 2020 Share #9035 Posted March 1, 2020 On 2/25/2020 at 8:41 PM, RR503 said: [citation needed] on them dialing performance back. We've had the same signal design standards (=same max acceleration profile) since the mid 1990s. I suspect this was either a really good TO who knew how to play with 2 shots to make them work just right, or a broken speedo You're not going to get one considering that this an internal software adjustment on performance in the upper limits of the speed range. Having observed NTT train performance over the years, I can say that each NTT when new were hitting higher top speeds over the same sections of track, consistently 5-8 mph higher. The new tech stuff all came out of factory with 55 mph as the balancing speed on level track. Nothing does much better than 45-50 after a while. Same concept as removing field shunts from the DC equipment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted March 10, 2020 Share #9036 Posted March 10, 2020 3040-3049 is doing passenger testing atm. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m2fwannabe Posted March 10, 2020 Share #9037 Posted March 10, 2020 8 minutes ago, Calvin said: 3040-3049 is doing passenger testing atm. At last! Maybe later this week?!? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted March 10, 2020 Share #9038 Posted March 10, 2020 53 minutes ago, Calvin said: 3040-3049 is doing passenger testing atm. I actually didn’t know we were missing a set. I thought they were all in service at this point. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted March 10, 2020 Share #9039 Posted March 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Calvin said: 3040-3049 is doing passenger testing atm. Burn-in testing, not passenger testing. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewis Richards Posted March 10, 2020 Share #9040 Posted March 10, 2020 10 hours ago, Cait Sith said: Burn-in testing, not passenger testing. On which Line 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XcelsiorBoii4888 Posted March 10, 2020 Share #9041 Posted March 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Lewis Richards said: On which Line The same line they all tested on...the ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted March 11, 2020 Share #9042 Posted March 11, 2020 (edited) To point out: All 179s are in-service except for 3040-9: 12/13 10-car trains Edited March 11, 2020 by Calvin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Sith Posted March 11, 2020 Share #9043 Posted March 11, 2020 3040-3049 from last night. Gotta say, I dig the no-decal front lol. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted March 11, 2020 Share #9044 Posted March 11, 2020 (edited) Lol, it does look much better. The American flag has always looked completely stupid on there. The MTA logo, fine, but why we needed to continue the post-9/11 obsession with flags on every possible surface is beyond me. For context, remember that this is how the R143s were specced and initially delivered. It's also why the flags are below the logo on these cars, since they were haphazardly added later. Looks a lot better this way. Edited March 11, 2020 by MHV9218 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted March 12, 2020 Share #9045 Posted March 12, 2020 6 hours ago, MHV9218 said: Lol, it does look much better. The American flag has always looked completely stupid on there. The MTA logo, fine, but why we needed to continue the post-9/11 obsession with flags on every possible surface is beyond me. For context, remember that this is how the R143s were specced and initially delivered. It's also why the flags are below the logo on these cars, since they were haphazardly added later. Looks a lot better this way. Besides, if we have to have the flag on the front, I prefer the R143 layout more than the R160/179. Thank god the R211s will look different. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCTransitFilms Posted March 13, 2020 Share #9046 Posted March 13, 2020 My friend told me some R179s were pulled again and some R42s back in service again. Any conformation this is true? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreww Posted March 13, 2020 Share #9047 Posted March 13, 2020 1 hour ago, DCTransitFilms said: My friend told me some R179s were pulled again and some R42s back in service again. Any conformation this is true? No tweets about this - no service disruptions - no news. I'm inclined to say "your friend" is making this up. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCTransitFilms Posted March 13, 2020 Share #9048 Posted March 13, 2020 8 hours ago, andreww said: No tweets about this - no service disruptions - no news. I'm inclined to say "your friend" is making this up. He saw on an instagram post but idk how true it is. I'll post it later though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimplyMyself Posted March 14, 2020 Share #9049 Posted March 14, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, DCTransitFilms said: He saw on an instagram post but idk how true it is. I'll post it later though. Just because someone posted a picture of a R42 on Instagram, doesn’t mean it was taken recently. Anyways, I’m sure if they actually re-entered service, you would’ve heard about it on one of the threads by now, but obviously no one said anything. Carry on. Edited March 14, 2020 by SimplyMyself 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrionVIIonM79 Posted March 14, 2020 Share #9050 Posted March 14, 2020 Why choose Bombardier to make the R179s? Choose Kawasaki or Alstom instead. Bombardier f**ked up all the cars that they made. R68A is getting retired 10 years early, R110B cars burned up and got retired after only 7 years of service, R142s had issues while testing, and now the R179s... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.