R179 Discussion Thread

[Rigojefte Galo]

1 hour ago, trainfan22 said:

There was 10 car set sitting between stations S/B between Nostrand and Kingston-Throop Ave, NIS. Eventually it passed my train and went though Utica Ave.

 

 

My stopped at Utica, riders boarded and exited, my train left and caught up to that same OOS R179 set! That 179 had to have an mechanical problem of some sort, as the 179s are leaps and bound faster than the R46.

 

There was also a large gap in service as I had JUST missed a train, 10 minutes later no came and a C train came... this was due to an gap in service cause an train had to be removed from service at 175th street. 

When this was happened on the A train on R179 I'm not sure why was being taken out of service I don't know why at least tell me?

[R32 3838]

2 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

There was 10 car set sitting between stations S/B between Nostrand and Kingston-Throop Ave, NIS. Eventually it passed my train and went though Utica Ave.

 

 

My stopped at Utica, riders boarded and exited, my train left and caught up to that same OOS R179 set! That 179 had to have an mechanical problem of some sort, as the 179s are leaps and bound faster than the R46.

 

There was also a large gap in service as I had JUST missed a train, 10 minutes later no came and a C train came... this was due to an gap in service cause an train had to be removed from service at 175th street. 

 

 

It's very obvious rushed these back, How do these things keep on having problems after being OOS for almost 5 months. They should have did one set at a time. It's obvious they did this just to get the R32's off the road instead of doing it the right way and taking their time.

[trainfan22]

18 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

 

 

It's very obvious rushed these back, How do these things keep on having problems after being OOS for almost 5 months. They should have did one set at a time. It's obvious they did this just to get the R32's off the road instead of doing it the right way and taking their time.

It's not good for any train to sit idle for months at an time, that in itself could cause problems. Heard the M3's on LIRR had a lot of problems when they came back after sitting idle for a few months.

[m2fwannabe]

Allow me to repost this with the "bullets" so it makes some sense.

One big reason the full length trains are now on is for maximization of distancing, which will probably require them to stay until the health issues are resolved in the future.

In fact, would it not be possible to use the 10-car R-179s on  as well as  for the same reason?

When or if (i.e. where?) the former fleet from  (3146-3237) is to be restored is uncertain.

Terminal cost is not a reason to reduce the capacity, sparse as it may seem given the ongoing pandemic.

As I understand the is now "double-ended" for relays which eliminates the need for a complete walk-through with associated unlock/relock for each car as previously.

[Rigojefte Galo]

3 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

There was 10 car set sitting between stations S/B between Nostrand and Kingston-Throop Ave, NIS. Eventually it passed my train and went though Utica Ave.

 

 

My stopped at Utica, riders boarded and exited, my train left and caught up to that same OOS R179 set! That 179 had to have an mechanical problem of some sort, as the 179s are leaps and bound faster than the R46.

 

There was also a large gap in service as I had JUST missed a train, 10 minutes later no came and a C train came... this was due to an gap in service cause an train had to be removed from service at 175th street. 

The point is they gonna have to fired the boss from Bombardier by building these type of craziness train because were not gonna keep taking out of service from R179 because lemons train sucks I'm hoping they will hired the new boss from Bombardier to build the trains properly to make it reliable and good that's the point back in 2000 they used to make a good train like R142 Bombardier both trains they are made from Canada the Canadian trains and assembled to New York plattsburgh to deliver to NYC transit. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Rigojefte Galo

[MHV9218]

13 hours ago, m2fwannabe said:

Terminal cost is not a reason to reduce the capacity, sparse as it may seem given the ongoing pandemic.

As I understand the is now "double-ended" for relays which eliminates the need for a complete walk-through with associated unlock/relock for each car as previously.

So they're finally paying for the staffing. As they should!

[VIP]

16 hours ago, m2fwannabe said:

Allow me to repost this with the "bullets" so it makes some sense.

One big reason the full length trains are now on is for maximization of distancing, which will probably require them to stay until the health issues are resolved in the future.

In fact, would it not be possible to use the 10-car R-179s on  as well as  for the same reason?

When or if (i.e. where?) the former fleet from  (3146-3237) is to be restored is uncertain.

Terminal cost is not a reason to reduce the capacity, sparse as it may seem given the ongoing pandemic.

As I understand the is now "double-ended" for relays which eliminates the need for a complete walk-through with associated unlock/relock for each car as previously.

At this point, car equipment should really consider the R32’s be transferred to Coney Island for  service. Those perfectly performing 68A’s can fill in for  service and only the   this way you eliminate the double ended switching at the terminals and the  will be full length “to provide adequate social distancing” because the R179’s issues have no means of slowing down. 

[R32 3838]

52 minutes ago, VIP said:

At this point, car equipment should really consider the R32’s be transferred to Coney Island for  service. Those perfectly performing 68A’s can fill in for  service and only the   this way you eliminate the double ended switching at the terminals and the  will be full length “to provide adequate social distancing” because the R179’s issues have no means of slowing down. 

 

they need to just stay on the or go back to the or , Putting them on the would cause the politics to scream plus CI has the R46's to deal with. If CIY was the same as before the I would agree but it would cost more to put them on the . Yes ENY had multiple car fleets as well but the is a better option since the majority of the fleet can run on the and its all outdoors.

 

If the R32's were to go back to the which would be the cheapest option, the majority of them would be lefferts put ins with 2 running all day like before.

 

at the end its all about money and how to spend it, Having the R32's on the this time around costed more money due to them still being maintained by 207th vs. 2013-2018 when ENY maintained their R32's which didn't cost them as much.

 

I'm Not a fan of 75 foot full length trains on the and it's a big waste of money, If they were so concerned about having full length trains to keep everyone spread out, the could have been full length as well meaning the R32's would have to stay in service. This Is why the is better off with 60 footers since it's alot cheaper in the long run.

17 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

It's not good for any train to sit idle for months at an time, that in itself could cause problems. Heard the M3's on LIRR had a lot of problems when they came back after sitting idle for a few months.

 

when the most of R32's returned back in January, half of them ran like garbage because they had no time to prepare them vs. the 2nd time when the R179's went down again, most of them were decent.

Edited October 12, 2020 by R32 3838

[R10 2952]

It would probably make the most sense for the R32s to stay on the  and be maintained at ENY; I never understood why the TA has to make things so complicated. 

Hell, the R40/42s should never have even ran on the Eastern Division in the first place- all that arithmetic they had to do with C/R board placements was freakin' ridiculous.. 

[Bill from Maspeth]

3 hours ago, VIP said:

At this point, car equipment should really consider the R32’s be transferred to Coney Island for  service. Those perfectly performing 68A’s can fill in for  service and only the   this way you eliminate the double ended switching at the terminals and the  will be full length “to provide adequate social distancing” because the R179’s issues have no means of slowing down. 

R68A's on the C line would NOT eliminate the need for double ended switching as the end doors would still have to be unlocked and locked back, just like on the R46's.

And for reasons which I do not wish to repeat anymore, R32's will not be assigned to CIYD.  Furthermore, CIYD has a headache trying to keep the R46's in operating shape.  They do not need the poor performing R32's to add to their misery.

[subwaycommuter1983]

2 hours ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

R68A's on the C line would NOT eliminate the need for double ended switching as the end doors would still have to be unlocked and locked back, just like on the R46's.

And for reasons which I do not wish to repeat anymore, R32's will not be assigned to CIYD.  Furthermore, CIYD has a headache trying to keep the R46's in operating shape.  They do not need the poor performing R32's to add to their misery.

What about the 8 car r179's that were running on the C? Ridership on the C is much lower than A and it has lower ridership than before the pandemic. Putting the 8 car r179's back to the C will increase frequency and the r46's will still be needed to complete the C fleet. ENY will not need those extra r179's once all r179's are back in service.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 10/12/2020 at 4:57 PM, Bill from Maspeth said:

R68A's on the C line would NOT eliminate the need for double ended switching as the end doors would still have to be unlocked and locked back, just like on the R46's.

And for reasons which I do not wish to repeat anymore, R32's will not be assigned to CIYD.  Furthermore, CIYD has a headache trying to keep the R46's in operating shape.  They do not need the poor performing R32's to add to their misery.

With CIYD having headaches over keeping the R46s in operating shape, which translates into higher maintenance costs, it makes me wonder if it would be more cost effective to just go ahead with the R211 order. Maybe order just enough R211s to make rush hour service, plus a small spare factor, based on whatever service plan they come up with that fits within a potentially diminished NYC Transit operations budget. I realize the MTA’s in a huge money hole right now, but wouldn’t higher maintenance costs of old car equipment (not to mention other old equipment, such as signals) also be a potential drain on a diminished NYC Transit budget? 

On 10/12/2020 at 3:14 PM, R10 2952 said:

It would probably make the most sense for the R32s to stay on the  and be maintained at ENY; I never understood why the TA has to make things so complicated. 

Hell, the R40/42s should never have even ran on the Eastern Division in the first place- all that arithmetic they had to do with C/R board placements was freakin' ridiculous.. 

But they ran out of ENY for decades. They must have had the proper C/R boards then. For most of the 90s (after the R30 Redbirds were retired) and right up to the delivery of the first R143s, that was all they had. They even had a few trains of slant R40s, used mostly on the , but these eventually got bumped over to CIYD once ENY had enough R143s in service. 

On 10/12/2020 at 7:20 PM, subwaycommuter1983 said:

What about the 8 car r179's that were running on the C? Ridership on the C is much lower than A and it has lower ridership than before the pandemic. Putting the 8 car r179's back to the C will increase frequency and the r46's will still be needed to complete the C fleet. ENY will not need those extra r179's once all r179's are back in service.

True but they shouldn’t be running both 8-car R46s (600’) and 8-car R179s (480’) on the  at the same time. If people spread out on the platform expecting a full-length train to pull in, and then a shorter train pulls in, that will result in people rushing down the platform and crowding into the end cars of the train. 

Edited October 14, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Vulturious]

59 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

With CIYD having headaches over keeping the R46s in operating shape, which translates into higher maintenance costs, it makes me wonder if it would be more cost effective to just go ahead with the R211 order. Maybe order just enough R211s to make rush hour service, plus a small spare factor, based on whatever service plan they come up with that fits within a potentially diminished NYC Transit operations budget. I realize the MTA’s in a huge money hole right now, but wouldn’t higher maintenance costs of old car equipment (not to mention other old equipment, such as signals) also be a potential drain on a diminished NYC Transit budget? 

But they ran out of ENY for decades. They must have had the proper C/R boards then. For most of the 90s (after the R30 Redbirds were retired) and right up to the delivery of the first R143s, that was all they had. They even had a few trains of slant R40s, used mostly on the , but these eventually got bumped over to CIYD once ENY had enough R143s in service. 

True but they shouldn’t be running both 8-car R46s (600’) and 8-car R179s (480’) on the  at the same time. If people spread out on the platform expecting a full-length train to pull in, and then a shorter train pulls in, that will result in people rushing down the platform and crowding into the end cars of the train. 

This is sort of the idea I get when it comes to the R211's and older cars. Subway cars like the R32's and R46's at this point need to be retired sooner rather than later as it's a hassle to keep them in working order. It's not really an easy question to answer as a lot of factors contribute to say no when it comes to the  to decide whether they should order as much as R211's as possible. Personally, I have to think of it in the long run as, sure, the  is in a huge money hole, like you said, the idea of keeping older cars that have maintenance issues can only be fixed in the short-term and never again in the long run. Sooner or later, ridership is going to increase and I personally don't want to take a chance with the R179's. This is 2 times in 1 year, scratch that, less than half a year that they broke down and the entire fleet was taken out of service. Now with it having Brake issues I hear (I could be totally wrong, but I don't hear anyone denying it either), the R211's would probably be here in revenue testing. I've already said that before, but it really could be true.

[R10 2952]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But they ran out of ENY for decades. They must have had the proper C/R boards then. For most of the 90s (after the R30 Redbirds were retired) and right up to the delivery of the first R143s, that was all they had. They even had a few trains of slant R40s, used mostly on the , but these eventually got bumped over to CIYD once ENY had enough R143s in service. 

I know they were at ENY for a long time, I grew up riding them on those lines.  My point is that they should never have been in the Eastern Division to begin with; R40/42s never had conductor controls in the motorman cabs (unlike R32/38s), so running them as 8-car trains meant that additional C/R boards had to be placed for those cars at the 5/3 position.  It was even worse when they tried running the R40/42s as 8-car trains on the .  They had them stop at the 10-car marker, and because of the issue with door-control placement it was a mess.  After a few weeks they ended up switching the C back to R32/38s.

What I'm trying to say is that looking back at all of this hassle in retrospect, it would have been easier to just have R40/42s run on 10-car routes only, and send the R32/38s to 8-car routes instead (of course in the past there were also 4 and 6 car trains of 60-footers, but that's another story entirely).  Why try to fit a square peg through a round hole?

Edited October 14, 2020 by R10 2952

[m2fwannabe]

FWIW, My (rare) thought is...(ahem)...

As was proposed a few years ago for different reasoning, to find a home for the new trains that were procured in a shortened length:

Assign 16 (sixteen) 8-car R-179 trains (128 cars) to Coney Island for erstwhile use on the .  That falls along with maximizing train lengthening for health reasons as well as comfort.

Leave the balance (60) on  as is where the R-32s could fill any fleet shortages.  Not all probably but as many as necessary.  That's the best place to keep the R-32s as their burden seems far less onerous at East New York for whatever time they have left until the R-211s are delivered.  Plus depending on how well or not ridership recovers overall in the next few years. 

Use the 64 R-68/68As now on  to fill out CIY needs on  which could relieve the 85 remaining R-160s at CIY (almost perfect translation to 8-8.5 trains) for furtherance to JYD.

There the surplus R-160s would remain as required on  from JYD, where the full fleet of 1285 are planned to be deployed eventually in any case.

This allows the use of complete full-length R-46 trains on  and  as is present, with the infusion of both R-46s and 5-car R-179s on both routes. 

[SubBus]

5 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

With CIYD having headaches over keeping the R46s in operating shape, which translates into higher maintenance costs, it makes me wonder if it would be more cost effective to just go ahead with the R211 order. Maybe order just enough R211s to make rush hour service, plus a small spare factor, based on whatever service plan they come up with that fits within a potentially diminished NYC Transit operations budget. I realize the MTA’s in a huge money hole right now, but wouldn’t higher maintenance costs of old car equipment (not to mention other old equipment, such as signals) also be a potential drain on a diminished NYC Transit budget? 

But they ran out of ENY for decades. They must have had the proper C/R boards then. For most of the 90s (after the R30 Redbirds were retired) and right up to the delivery of the first R143s, that was all they had. They even had a few trains of slant R40s, used mostly on the , but these eventually got bumped over to CIYD once ENY had enough R143s in service. 

True but they shouldn’t be running both 8-car R46s (600’) and 8-car R179s (480’) on the  at the same time. If people spread out on the platform expecting a full-length train to pull in, and then a shorter train pulls in, that will result in people rushing down the platform and crowding into the end cars of the train. 

They'll be R179s  on the later on today....

[Vulturious]

27 minutes ago, SubBus said:

They'll be R179s  on the later on today....

Has there been any issues about the R179's with braking still?

[VIP]

6 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Has there been any issues about the R179's with braking still?

No, that was an isolated incident. There’s now 4 R179 10 car units in  service and 2 R179 8 car units on the  (currently).

Edited October 14, 2020 by VIP

[subwaycommuter1983]

14 hours ago, m2fwannabe said:

FWIW, My (rare) thought is...(ahem)...

As was proposed a few years ago for different reasoning, to find a home for the new trains that were procured in a shortened length:

Assign 16 (sixteen) 8-car R-179 trains (128 cars) to Coney Island for erstwhile use on the .  That falls along with maximizing train lengthening for health reasons as well as comfort.

Leave the balance (60) on  as is where the R-32s could fill any fleet shortages.  Not all probably but as many as necessary.  That's the best place to keep the R-32s as their burden seems far less onerous at East New York for whatever time they have left until the R-211s are delivered.  Plus depending on how well or not ridership recovers overall in the next few years. 

Use the 64 R-68/68As now on  to fill out CIY needs on  which could relieve the 85 remaining R-160s at CIY (almost perfect translation to 8-8.5 trains) for furtherance to JYD.

There the surplus R-160s would remain as required on  from JYD, where the full fleet of 1285 are planned to be deployed eventually in any case.

This allows the use of complete full-length R-46 trains on  and  as is present, with the infusion of both R-46s and 5-car R-179s on both routes. 

I like this idea. I agree that the r160's should stay on the A at least until ridership on the F becomes as high as it was before the pandemic or if ridership stays low on the F until the r211's. That would bump more r46's on the C. However, I think that the 5 car r179's should stay only on the A because the A needs more 60ft cars due to ridership. All 5 car r179's plus the r160's would make most of the A fleet.

Edited October 14, 2020 by subwaycommuter1983

[1998NewFlyer]

On 10/12/2020 at 3:14 PM, R10 2952 said:

It would probably make the most sense for the R32s to stay on the  and be maintained at ENY; I never understood why the TA has to make things so complicated. 

Hell, the R40/42s should never have even ran on the Eastern Division in the first place- all that arithmetic they had to do with C/R board placements was freakin' ridiculous.. 

I definitely agree with you 

[TheNewYorkElevated]

Here's one of the 8-car sets that was spotted on the  line today. Note the 10-car R179  train on the northbound track at the end of the video to the left.

 

[R32 3838]

and all the R32's are all reserve fleet again

[m2fwannabe]

6 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

20 hours ago, m2fwannabe said:

FWIW, My (rare) thought is...(ahem)...

As was proposed a few years ago for different reasoning, to find a home for the new trains that were procured in a shortened length:

Assign 16 (sixteen) 8-car R-179 trains (128 cars) to Coney Island for erstwhile use on the .  That falls along with maximizing train lengthening for health reasons as well as comfort.

Leave the balance (60) on  as is where the R-32s could fill any fleet shortages.  Not all probably but as many as necessary.  That's the best place to keep the R-32s as their burden seems far less onerous at East New York for whatever time they have left until the R-211s are delivered.  Plus depending on how well or not ridership recovers overall in the next few years. 

Use the 64 R-68/68As now on  to fill out CIY needs on  which could relieve the 85 remaining R-160s at CIY (almost perfect translation to 8-8.5 trains) for furtherance to JYD.

There the surplus R-160s would remain as required on  from JYD, where the full fleet of 1285 are planned to be deployed eventually in any case.

This allows the use of complete full-length R-46 trains on  and  as is present, with the infusion of both R-46s and 5-car R-179s on both routes. 

I like this idea. I agree that the r160's should stay on the A at least until ridership on the F becomes as high as it was before the pandemic or if ridership stays low on the F until the r211's. That would bump more r46's on the C. However, I think that the 5 car r179's should stay only on the A because the A needs more 60ft cars due to ridership. All 5 car r179's plus the r160's would make most of the A fleet.

Well, let's do it!

Then there won't be any more complaints about mixed 8 and 10 car trains on the .  There's no way now to run a full schedule of 8-car trains on  without stealing equipment from someplace else that's now configured for operation on a particular line because of CBTC.

I gotta believe the media won't appreciate the shortened train lengths once they figure this out and no matter what to run about half of the schedule for the foreseeable future (barring a return of the R-32s) there will only and always be full-length R-46s to fill out the  requirement until the R-211s do start to arrive.

[Calvin]

I wonder if they'll have the  and  lines back up and running, November 8th

[Rigojefte Galo]

4 hours ago, m2fwannabe said:

Well, let's do it!

Then there won't be any more complaints about mixed 8 and 10 car trains on the .  There's no way now to run a full schedule of 8-car trains on  without stealing equipment from someplace else that's now configured for operation on a particular line because of CBTC.

I gotta believe the media won't appreciate the shortened train lengths once they figure this out and no matter what to run about half of the schedule for the foreseeable future (barring a return of the R-32s) there will only and always be full-length R-46s to fill out the  requirement until the R-211s do start to arrive.

FWIW, My (rare) thought is...(ahem)...

As was proposed a few years ago for different reasoning, to find a home for the new trains that were procured in a shortened length:

Assign 16 (sixteen) 8-car R-179 trains (128 cars) to Coney Island for erstwhile use on the .  That falls along with maximizing train lengthening for health reasons as well as comfort.

Leave the balance (60) on  as is where the R-32s could fill any fleet shortages.  Not all probably but as many as necessary.  That's the best place to keep the R-32s as their burden seems far less onerous at East New York for whatever time they have left until the R-211s are delivered.  Plus depending on how well or not ridership recovers overall in the next few years. 

Use the 64 R-68/68As now on  to fill out CIY needs on  which could relieve the 85 remaining R-160s at CIY (almost perfect translation to 8-8.5 trains) for furtherance to JYD.

There the surplus R-160s would remain as required on  from JYD, where the full fleet of 1285 are planned to be deployed eventually in any case.

This allows the use of complete full-length R-46 trains on  and  as is present, with the infusion of both R-46s and 5-car R-179s on both routes. 

I like this idea. I agree that the r160's should stay on the A at least until ridership on the F becomes as high as it was before the pandemic or if ridership stays low on the F until the r211's. That would bump more r46's on the C. However, I think that the 5 car r179's should stay only on the A because the A needs more 60ft cars due to ridership. All 5 car r179's plus the r160's would make most of the A fleet.

 

Rigojefte Galo said:

 

I don't think is a good idea for MTA's unless MTA's says if is okay and I would like to see it happen but we have to find out and R32 subway cars is still going back to retirement soon as possible when the R179 subway cars is completed because MTA's decision doesn't want to keep the R32 that long is too old and the fact what you saying are not reliable I could challenge that wasn't true but we have to find out I know I heard everything about it. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Rigojefte Galo