Jump to content

R179 Discussion Thread


East New York

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, happy283 said:

Hopefully they never come back. They should order 318 more R211s as part of the option to take their place.

Did they throw away the R44s and R46s? No matter how many issues they had they were still kept.

I notice some of you people are talking Sh!t about the R179s because everyone else is. It's fine to point out the issues but it's already pointed out this issue was not Bombardier's fault and this is just something done as a precaution due to past issues.

3 minutes ago, Dj Hammers said:

Word is that while the problem that caused the train separation was quickly identified and fixed, they’re doing a more comprehensive analysis to square away any other potential issues so they don’t have to keep pulling them.

Beat me to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 10.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 minutes ago, Dj Hammers said:

Word is that while the problem that caused the train separation was quickly identified and fixed, they’re doing a more comprehensive analysis to square away any other potential issues so they don’t have to keep pulling them.

They need to be pernamently removed from service and replaced with the R211. These cars are pieces of junk and I hope Bombardier is permanently banned from manufactuaring NYCT subway cars going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Did they throw away the R44s and R46s? No matter how many issues they had they were still kept.

I notice some of you people are talking Sh!t about the R179s because everyone else is. It's fine to point out the issues but it's already pointed out this issue was not Bombardier's fault and this is just something done as a precaution due to past issues.

While this wasnt Bombardiers fault the other 5+ issues were including the 2 year delivery delay were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, happy283 said:

While this wasnt Bombardiers fault the other 5+ issues were including the 2 year delivery delay were.

My point is that because the R179s are "sidelined" it's automatically "Bombardier should give a refund" "The R179s are complete junk" "Send the R179s to scrap" 

It's old seeing the same comments. What's done is done. The MTA did what they could by banning Bombardier from NYCT and I'm 95% sure more compensations are on the way. Not too much can be done rn. It's basically a waiting game until further notice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the bodies of the cars are in good shape, they'll be here. (MTA) will give them a heavy SMS by replacing the parts that causes the most problems and will make these reliable. they did the same with the R142's and now they're one of the most dependable Cars in the fleet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

My point is that because the R179s are "sidelined" it's automatically "Bombardier should give a refund" "The R179s are complete junk" "Send the R179s to scrap"

They are junk and have no business running in our system. I say that because of the constant problems not because they are sidelined. I am not trying to draw a conclusion but those are the next steps I would take. I personally think we should get a refund to buy quality cars with (possibly extra R211s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, happy283 said:

They are junk and have no business running in our system. I say that because of the constant problems not because they are sidelined. I am not trying to draw a conclusion but those are the next steps I would take. I personally think we should get a refund to buy quality cars with (possibly extra R211s).

 

I'm starting to think I know who you are, I wouldn't be surprised because you keep asking the same questions and now you are saying they're junk while asking about R160 8888. lots of red flags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lex said:

They need to throw the book at Bombardier.

Bombardier is exiting the rail business. That division is pending sale to Alstom. (If the deal doesn't close, I would expect Bombardier Transportation's contracts to be sold piecemeal and the business closed.)

The R46 early problems were mostly related to unfit trucks. Once the MTA got replacement trucks that could handle the R46 weight, they back...and that's why the R62 order was a "back to basics" order.

The R44 end-of-life problems were mostly because of MTA specs of carbon steel, originally believed to be isolated to one car (5248)...but the fact is that a salt water environment and carbon steel just do not mix.

By contrast, the R179 problems are also related to problems with the Toronto Flexity Outlook---which had the work done elsewhere for what was believed to be lower cost, but which would lead to problems elsewhere down the line on both contracts. (Like the R179 contract, the TTC Flexity Outlook contract was only fulfilled with final deliveries this year.) Quality control issues beset both contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

 

I'm starting to think I know who you are, I wouldn't be surprised because you keep asking the same questions and now you are saying they're junk while asking about R160 8888. lots of red flags

Who am I then? How is asking questions and expressing opinions red flags?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, happy283 said:

They are junk and have no business running in our system. I say that because of the constant problems not because they are sidelined. I am not trying to draw a conclusion but those are the next steps I would take. I personally think we should get a refund to buy quality cars with (possibly extra R211s).

You seem to be very opinionated about Car Equipment. Do you work for the CED ? Are you a C/R or a T/O in RTO ? Finally can you guarantee that the R211 fleet will be better than the R179 fleet ? Can you answer “ yes “ to any of my questions ?  If you can’t your opinion has been noted and filed away. Meanwhile please stop with the excessive questions and whining. It gets rather annoying and accomplishes nothing.Thank you. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, happy283 said:

Hopefully they never come back. They should order 318 more R211s as part of the option to take their place.

Who’s to say the R211’s won’t have their problems too, should we scrap those when they start to have their issues? Bro if the MTA had your mindset we wouldn’t have any cars in the system. 

Don’t worry the (MTA)’s got this, they will fix the R179s and have them running eventually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

Who’s to say the R211’s won’t have their problems too, should we scrap those when they start to have their issues? Bro if the MTA had your mindset we wouldn’t have any cars in the system. 

Don’t worry the (MTA)’s got this, they will fix the R179s and have them running eventually. 

Manufacturing issues stem from a root problem which is the bidding proccess. The MTA should have signed a contract with one manufacturer (in my opinion it should be Kawasaki) and have that company make all NYCT cars going forward. When you have the bidding which is the MTA trying to get the cheapest thing out there, things are bound to go wrong. You know what they say, you get what you pay for. This is a perfect example of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, happy283 said:

Manufacturing issues stem from a root problem which is the bidding proccess. The MTA should have signed a contract with one manufacturer (in my opinion it should be Kawasaki) and have that company make all NYCT cars going forward. When you have the bidding which is the MTA trying to get the cheapest thing out there, things are bound to go wrong. You know what they say, you get what you pay for. This is a perfect example of that.

On that same note, if Kawasaki knows that they're the sole business, prices go up and they may become negligent in their build quality knowing that we have to constantly rely on them for a certain product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, happy283 said:

They need to be pernamently removed from service and replaced with the R211. These cars are pieces of junk and I hope Bombardier is permanently banned from manufactuaring NYCT subway cars going forward.

Removing them from service permanently is not happening and would not be a good thing. They are out of service indefinitely as Sarah Feinberg said. And hopefully as @Dj Hammers posted further up, the comprehensive analysis the MTA  are doing will identify other issues - existing and potential - that can be worked out before the cars are put back in service. Like I said further back in this thread, we need these cars to make full service. We can’t just throw them away and get a refund, like they’re snack foods. And even if we could, we’d still have to wait years for replacement cars, leaving the B Division with a car shortage once again (the very reason these cars were ordered in the first place). 

And with Alstom taking over Bombardier’s rail division, we won’t need to ban Bombardier from bidding on subway contracts permanently. They’ll be out of the rail business entirely.  

13 hours ago, aemoreira81 said:

Bombardier is exiting the rail business. That division is pending sale to Alstom. (If the deal doesn't close, I would expect Bombardier Transportation's contracts to be sold piecemeal and the business closed.)

The R46 early problems were mostly related to unfit trucks. Once the MTA got replacement trucks that could handle the R46 weight, they back...and that's why the R62 order was a "back to basics" order.

The R44 end-of-life problems were mostly because of MTA specs of carbon steel, originally believed to be isolated to one car (5248)...but the fact is that a salt water environment and carbon steel just do not mix.

By contrast, the R179 problems are also related to problems with the Toronto Flexity Outlook---which had the work done elsewhere for what was believed to be lower cost, but which would lead to problems elsewhere down the line on both contracts. (Like the R179 contract, the TTC Flexity Outlook contract was only fulfilled with final deliveries this year.) Quality control issues beset both contracts.

Hopefully the deal does close because Alstom also builds rail car and signal equipment in New York State, so that would work out well for any “Made in New York” requirements on future MTA contracts. It’s really a shame Bombardier let it come to this. Globally, they had some interesting products, some of which could have been a good fit for the U.S. market, such as the VLocity 160, a DMU that operates on diesel rail lines in and around Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 

As for the R44s, I seem to recall a lengthy Subchat discussion that it was about one-third to half the fleet that had corrosion issues. This is the first that I’ve heard it was isolated to just one car. I also recall reading that the graffiti-removal substances were hell on the R44 carbon steel belt lines. Why they cheaped out and didn’t make the belt lines stainless steel like the rest of the car bodies is beyond me, but it’s too late now. And that’s why we need to get the R179s to work, just like with the R142s, R68s, R62As and R46s. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, danielhg121 said:

On that same note, if Kawasaki knows that they're the sole business, prices go up and they may become negligent in their build quality knowing that we have to constantly rely on them for a certain product.

Prices would go up but in theory the contract could include a set price and protection for the MTA to prevent negligence. They have proven they can manufacture quality cars so they would be expected to do so as part of the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, VIP said:

More like a 70-80% chance. There’s 17 sets of them in service with 190 cars If I remember correctly. 

No its 50%. There are 200 cars which makes 20 trains out of 40 trains on the (A) at peak hour. From what I have seen its about half of whats on the (A) at any given time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Dj Hammers said:

Word is that while the problem that caused the train separation was quickly identified and fixed, they’re doing a more comprehensive analysis to square away any other potential issues so they don’t have to keep pulling them.

I guess we should now start seeing the r179's as the "phoenix bird" of the subway system instead of "lemons" like the media has been labeling.

Most likely the r179's will follow the same fate as the r46's, r68's and r142's, former "lemons" that turned out to be some of the most reliable cars in the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, happy283 said:

They need to be pernamently removed from service and replaced with the R211. These cars are pieces of junk and I hope Bombardier is permanently banned from manufactuaring NYCT subway cars going forward.

Just hold on here.  MTA is not going to throw away $300 million dollars, or whatever they cost, just like that and spend just as much more on replacement cars when there is a great possibility where their issues can be fixed?  And don't tell me "Sue Bombardier".  First Bombardier will declare bankruptcy and transit won't get their money back and secondly Bombardier will have litigation tied up in court for years since they'll blame the subcontractors for the problems.  To my knowledge, Bombardier crafts the car body, does wiring and installs everything else from the sub-contractors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, happy283 said:

They are junk and have no business running in our system. I say that because of the constant problems not because they are sidelined. I am not trying to draw a conclusion but those are the next steps I would take. I personally think we should get a refund to buy quality cars with (possibly extra R211s).

You are contradicting yourself.  You say "I am not trying to draw a conclusion", but in the same breath you are saying "they.....have no business running in our system".  That sounds like a conclusion to me!

Then you say "....we should get a refund to buy quality cars with (possibly extra R211's)." That sounds like another conclusion.

 Your opinions are conclusions. 

One question: While we all hope that the R211 will be a "quality car" how do we know?  How do we know how the quality of any new car is till we run it?   Our operating conditions are very extreme.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

Just hold on here.  MTA is not going to throw away $300 million dollars, or whatever they cost, just like that and spend just as much more on replacement cars when there is a great possibility where their issues can be fixed?  And don't tell me "Sue Bombardier".  First Bombardier will declare bankruptcy and transit won't get their money back and secondly Bombardier will have litigation tied up in court for years since they'll blame the subcontractors for the problems.  To my knowledge, Bombardier crafts the car body, does wiring and installs everything else from the sub-contractors.

Exactly, it makes much more sense for the MTA to take advantage of the low ridership and meticulously inspect every single r179 to ensure their reliability once they reenter service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

Just hold on here.  MTA is not going to throw away $300 million dollars, or whatever they cost, just like that and spend just as much more on replacement cars when there is a great possibility where their issues can be fixed?  And don't tell me "Sue Bombardier".  First Bombardier will declare bankruptcy and transit won't get their money back and secondly Bombardier will have litigation tied up in court for years since they'll blame the subcontractors for the problems.  To my knowledge, Bombardier crafts the car body, does wiring and installs everything else from the sub-contractors.

Exactly - also, if the MTA tries to screw over Bombardier and pull some nonsense, they will very likely have some other carbuilders refuse to bid on their contracts. 

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.