Jump to content

R179 Discussion Thread


East New York

Recommended Posts

179s are planned to be spread out between ENY and Pitkin. Here's the logic I see: some 143s to be moved to Pitkin giving the C 143s and 179s. Those 143s will be replaced by more 160s which will be available when east ny gets its 179s. This will make the C 100%(guess) NTT, give more 160s cbtc and "break them in" and have east ny's 179s replace the 42s. Remember hat there's always a domino effect. And another thing I'd like to add that can help make sence:

If T/OS are certified for every car, why can't cars go on other lines? "Thou shall keep 143s on Canarsie" and "thou shall keep all 143s together" aren't Commandments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 10.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

T/Os were an example/comparison. I didn't use them as a reason as your post suggests. And if you think about it, it won't be much of a cost difference. ENY already handles 3 fleets. Swap 42s with 179s. Pitkin had 3 in the past. If anything, it's the only one majority affected. They currently have 32s and 46s. Swap the 32s with 179s and add 143s. They are similar in design as NTTs in general. Not a large cost difference as it could've been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T/Os were an example/comparison. I didn't use them as a reason as your post suggests. And if you think about it, it won't be much of a cost difference. ENY already handles 3 fleets. Swap 42s with 179s. Pitkin had 3 in the past. If anything, it's the only one majority affected. They currently have 32s and 46s. Swap the 32s with 179s and add 143s. They are similar in design as NTTs in general. Not a large cost difference as it could've been.

But, if there are no cost savings, why bother to put R143s on the (C) in the first place?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would be no cost savings. However, there would be a number of additional costs, as the L would still require some R143s, resulting in three fleets on the line, and the R179s assigned to the L would have to be outfitted with CBTC, while the CBTC equipment on the C's R143s would be a wasted investment. Such a swap never was, and never will be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not getting any of this talk I'm reading. The (C) line uses 18 trains. If it gets 260 R179's, isn't 40 spare cars (four trains) adequate enough? (I'm talking full length trains.) That leaves 40 cars for the Eastern Division. Isn't 5 trains enough to replace the remaining R42's? (That's 480' trains) It's like I'm the only one that doesn't like the (C) being this unnecessarily short, oddball line that's 480' long. This is an opportunity for the TA to make the (C) full length. I'm pretty sure riders are happy that it's full length right now, because of the summer swap. They're probably wondering why it isn't like that all year-round. The (J)(L)(M)(Z) have to be shorter because of platform limitations. If the (MTA) orders new cars especially short for this one line, the (C) is going to be an oddball line for the next 40 years. Plus, there'll be little to no flexibility with these oddball cars. You certainly won't see them on the (A). I imagine people would be highly upset if they had to start running for the (A), too. They'd say, "Wow, we finally got new cars on the (C), but now the (A) is shorter. What gives?" To me, this is a simple issue. Why all this car swap discussion?

Edited by m7zanr160s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not the only one that wants the (C) to go full length. Ideally the 8 car trains would be just for ENY to retire their R42s and maybe what other extra needs they need. Finally the rest of the order would be 10 car trains for the (A). The (A) would then bump off some R46s to the (C).

Edited by Grand Concourse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

R143 is not R38 . It like R38 had return to service. I know it does not make any sense. Who is start to think R143 is consider as R38 is only for A , C line . It like R38 have been reborn. C line is only part time line & does not run in Late Night. :blink: & B-)

 

 

What? What the hell does the R38 have to do with this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know it was only statement. Only I can say : there were 200 cars of R38 that were into service on A , C line. So why take it big deal of 208 cars of R143 should run C line. It just statement.

 

 

Well make a statement with some proper grammar! The R38's are dead and gone, they have nothing to do with the R179's...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

R143 is not R38 . It like R38 had return to service. I know it does not make any sense. Who is start to think R143 is consider as R38 is only for A , C line . It like R38 have been reborn. C line is only part time line & does not run in Late Night. :blink: & B-)

You know it was only statement. Only I can say : there were 200 cars of R38 that were into service on A , C line. So why take it big deal of 208 cars of R143 should run C line. It just statement.

I literally have no freaking clue what you're trying to say here. I'm sorry, but you seem to be violating an NYCTF posting rule:

 

Languages - All public content, including but not limited to titles, signatures or attachments MUST be in the English language.
:lol:

 

In any case, it's not a question about whether R143s could potentially run on the (C). It's about whether it's specifically a good idea. For example, R68s could theoretically run on the (C), but it's hard to see why it would make sense.

Edited by TheSubwayStation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know it was only statement. Only I can say : there were 200 cars of R38 that were into service on A , C line. So why take it big deal of 208 cars of R143 should run C line. It just statement.

 

R38s have been out of service since 2009, which is about 6-8 years before the R179 is expected to enter service. What exactly do they have to do with it?

 

I literally have no freaking clue what you're trying to say here. I'm sorry, but you seem to be violating an NYCTF posting rule:

 

:lol:

 

LOL :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anything concrete about the 1 taking over 207th Street and the C moving to Pitkin? I know the idea was tossed around, but I haven't read anything about this actually happening any time soon. If any of you have any info on this, please point it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys still haven't answer my question: I need to know how much room Pitkin Avenue Yard can fit all cars assigned to the (A)(C)(S) trains if the (1) takes over 207th yard...

 

 

Pitkin isn't big enough to house all of the cars that run on the (A)(C) and Rock Pk (S).207th would still be used for storeage if it does become the

main shop for the (1) line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anything concrete about the 1 taking over 207th Street and the C moving to Pitkin? I know the idea was tossed around, but I haven't read anything about this actually happening any time soon. If any of you have any info on this, please point it out.

 

 

they want to do this, so they can rebuild the 240th st barn on the (1) forcing the (1) to use 207th st barn to shop the R62A's, while pitkin yard shops all the (A)/© equipment, not gonna be a good move since all of the cars on the (A)/© are breaking down alot more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they want to do this, so they can rebuild the 240th st barn on the (1) forcing the (1) to use 207th st barn to shop the R62A's, while pitkin yard shops all the (A)/© equipment, not gonna be a good move since all of the cars on the (A)/© are breaking down alot more

 

 

MBDF. Seriously. Use it.

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.