R179 Discussion Thread

[T to Dyre Avenue]

9 hours ago, Daniel The Cool said:

Only the base order of the R211s were paid for. The option orders were not.

Then the MTA should take delivery of those 535 cars. Why cancel an order of new cars you already paid for? Clearly, 535 cars won’t be anywhere near enough to retire the entire R46 fleet, the R44SI’s and the remaining R32s. It may not even be enough to provide the 60 percent of rush hour/weekday service that we may be looking at come next year. But it may be just enough to put the R46s on a significantly reduced workload, which they so desperately need. It’s going to be a few years till the entire base R211 order is delivered anyway. It’s possible by then the MTA will be in a better place and able to exercise the option orders. 

3 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

R46's are starting to show signs of Frame rot and we Have 56 year old R32 subway cars. Even with the Cuts the still need new cars.

True. I mean, quick fix after quick fix is no way to run a large transit system. They definitely will need the base order of R211s at least. That can at least retire the R46s in the worst condition, while the ones in better condition can see reduced service, saving them from additional wear and tear. 

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Believe me I'm well aware of the age of the subway equipment we have on hand. This dinosaur was a teenager when the R32 was introduced. I have a question I'd like to ask. Suppose we scrap every R32 and R46 car tomorrow ? Kick them to the curb. Put the R179 fleet in good working order, okay ? Throw in the base order of R211 cars if you want. Sounds good to railfans. Once again I say go back to the business and economic pages of the local and national press. The  may be an inept organization, that I grant you, but they're not totally blind. The economic forecast for the NY metro area boils down to this. The pre-Pandemic job situation is gone, kaput, dead. Major corporations in Metro NY, Philly, SF are embracing the WFH model more and more. It's more economical for them than crowding people into cubbyholes in crowded office buildings. It's also safer which helps their bottom lines. The ridership for the subways, MNRR, NJT,LIRR, PATH,SEPTA, DC Metro, BART, is gone for now and none of those agencies expect a return to Pre-Pandemic levels, NONE. Whether the  gets this "bailout" money is immaterial to the point I'm trying to get across. No one is forecasting a return of the ridership levels we've seen. This is countrywide. We're looking at 20-30% ridership levels today and no one expects that to rise above 60% by 2024. As the major businesses retrench nationwide they, not John Q. Public, will determine how much service the  and it's sister agencies provide. The cuts in service are going to happen. I happen to see the local bus system as the major victim but the subways are not immune. People seem to forget that the IRT, BMT, were private entities that allowed the riders to access the business sector. The  was created to allow Long Islanders to reach the business sector via the bankrupt LIRR. This post is not a criticism of your post at all but rather an explanation of my post and my reasoning. When any transit agency points out how much money they lose per rider it's time to wake up, IMO. BTW I'm reading the NYT, Washington Post, as well as the NY Daily News and Newsday daily, from cover to cover. That's how I get my perspective, for better or worse. Carry on.

Well no, of course we wouldn’t throw out all the old cars. And with depressed ridership, we certainly don’t need to be ordering 1,600 new subway cars. But some of the R46s really are in bad shape. I keep reading on here about how the CI ones are really not doing well and I get transit alerts for delays on the Broadway services due to trains with mechanical problems being removed from service on a not-infrequent basis.

Maybe it’s better in the near-term to take delivery of the 535 base order R211 cars and give the remaining R46s a reduced workload. After all, those 535 cars are paid for. Should be doable with a 40 percent reduction in service, I would think. Why spend more money to maintain the worst-performing R46s? Then when the MTA is in better fiscal shape, they can revisit the need to replace the rest of the fleet. It’s true that may well be quite some time from now. 

[Lex]

What I would say to do is to do what @T to Dyre Avenuesuggested with the base R211s and R46s and consider pushing the options and R262s into the future. Even if the R262 order is ultimately reduced in scope, it would make plugging potential holes easier and bring the B Division closer to using only 60-footers.

[Bay Ridge Express]

23 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Maybe I'm just an old crank but after reading the subway and bus threads there seems to be an obvious disconnect between transit fans and the real world. If they're proposing up to 40% cuts what is the rush to bring new subway and buses into the system ? On the surface it appears that the new equipment will just be stored in the yards and depots until ridership picks up and the financial picture gets better,  right? Even with a vaccine it's probably 2 or 3 years in the future. From an admittedly simple view a lot of the equipment that we already have will be used sparingly,  if at all, so perhaps the excitement should be tempered. Perhaps I'm looking at the situation in a different way? Just my opinion.  Carry on. 

And I think there is an obvious disconnect between my attitude and the interpretation of others in this forum. It would obviously be very nice to have a modern  system that works well and there is very obviously a lack of upgrading right now considering the drastic cuts and delays from COVID. I'm not dumb. All I was saying is that it would very obviously be nice to have new things, and I was thinking about when we were planned to have said things, but we obviously can't have them now. Count how many times I used the word "obvious." Maybe there are some transit fans that are thinking how you're describing but I'm not one of them.

Edited November 21, 2020 by Bay Ridge Express

[subwaycommuter1983]

On 11/19/2020 at 10:30 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

Maybe I'm just an old crank but after reading the subway and bus threads there seems to be an obvious disconnect between transit fans and the real world. If they're proposing up to 40% cuts what is the rush to bring new subway and buses into the system ? On the surface it appears that the new equipment will just be stored in the yards and depots until ridership picks up and the financial picture gets better,  right? Even with a vaccine it's probably 2 or 3 years in the future. From an admittedly simple view a lot of the equipment that we already have will be used sparingly,  if at all, so perhaps the excitement should be tempered. Perhaps I'm looking at the situation in a different way? Just my opinion.  Carry on. 

Simple answer. To accelerate the retirement of old equipment. A 40% service cut would mean that new buses and trains will run more often, while the older fleet are either stored or retired. I'm fact, during the worst of the pandemic in NYC, where there was massive staff shortage in the MTA, the r179's pretty much dominated the A line.

[Trainmaster5]

1 hour ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Simple answer. To accelerate the retirement of old equipment. A 40% service cut would mean that new buses and trains will run more often, while the older fleet are either stored or retired. I'm fact, during the worst of the pandemic in NYC, where there was massive staff shortage in the MTA, the r179's pretty much dominated the A line.

I'm not sure if you and I are on the same page but here's my take on what's going on. Simple answer is the retirement of the oldest equipment but that's not what I am saying. The road I'm traveling on is saying that even with a one to one replacement of new equipment,  train or bus, there's still less service overall than before. Nothing is going to run more often. The next question is " scrap or store" ? I can only speak about the subway side and only my own experience in the IRT. I was part of the new car delivery unit in the early 80's. We would take horses ( work motors ) down to Coney Island yard and bring the new equipment back to the IRT. While the new stuff was prepped for service the regular, older,equipment still provided the most service daily. Here's where I was going originally. The new  R62 and R62A cars were delivered as designed. Problem was with the conductor's position . Key modifications to all the new equipment were necessary. Luckily for us the older cars weren't on the scrap line already. Now imagine that we had a reduction in service back then. New cars coming in with older cars still providing a lot of service.  Where do you store this overflow of cars ? I remember the grafitti era.  Trains stored on the structure, underground or in the other division's yards. Luckily for us that Unionport yard was constructed in the Bronx to keep us from storing trains on the WPR structure and Gun Hill Road lower on the Third Avenue El tracks. I see that you mentioned the R179 cars. They weren't exactly known for reliability IIRC.  In short this is my opinion.  YMMV. Carry on. 

[Union Tpke]

8 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I'm not sure if you and I are on the same page but here's my take on what's going on. Simple answer is the retirement of the oldest equipment but that's not what I am saying. The road I'm traveling on is saying that even with a one to one replacement of new equipment,  train or bus, there's still less service overall than before. Nothing is going to run more often. The next question is " scrap or store" ? I can only speak about the subway side and only my own experience in the IRT. I was part of the new car delivery unit in the early 80's. We would take horses ( work motors ) down to Coney Island yard and bring the new equipment back to the IRT. While the new stuff was prepped for service the regular, older,equipment still provided the most service daily. Here's where I was going originally. The new  R62 and R62A cars were delivered as designed. Problem was with the conductor's position . Key modifications to all the new equipment were necessary. Luckily for us the older cars weren't on the scrap line already. Now imagine that we had a reduction in service back then. New cars coming in with older cars still providing a lot of service.  Where do you store this overflow of cars ? I remember the grafitti era.  Trains stored on the structure, underground or in the other division's yards. Luckily for us that Unionport yard was constructed in the Bronx to keep us from storing trains on the WPR structure and Gun Hill Road lower on the Third Avenue El tracks. I see that you mentioned the R179 cars. They weren't exactly known for reliability IIRC.  In short this is my opinion.  YMMV. Carry on. 

Can you elaborate on the issue with the C/R's position on the R62 and R62As?

[Trainmaster5]

3 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Can you elaborate on the issue with the C/R's position on the R62 and R62As?

Prior to the arrival of these new cars  in the IRT all SMEE conductor positions used a key with a long shaft, sometimes called a skeleton key, to activate the door opening mechanism at that position. Depending on the age of the car when the conductor was properly positioned in the station they would insert the key and turn it to activate the door opening process,  either handles or the buttons in the newer cars. The R62/62A cars came with a new opening mechanism with a different type key.  It was a smaller part with a circular grooved interface that was called a skate or barrel key. IIRC the key was a part of the R44 or R46 operating equipment originally. The problem with this type of mechanism came at the terminals. When the conductor had to remove  the key to leave the train the doors would automatically close leaving their partner and the passengers on the train or the platform totally screwed. Riders with half of their traveling party on the platform and the other half still on the train while the leaving conductor is trying to catch the train across the platform to go home. To eliminate the problem those cars were retrofitted with a new door operating mechanism called the Vapor door system,  made by that company, along with a new key, which eliminated the terminal problem eventually. I said eventually because when they started doing the retrofitting there weren't enough new Vapor keys to go around at the start so the platform personnel were sharing keys at the terminals. Motormen assigned to yards had to be issued keys in order to OK trains for road service because,  to save money, conductors would not have to be paid for the time spent okaying and their time would start later than their partner. To this day I'll never understand how the Conductor,  who is in charge of the train, got paid less than his partner,  unlike the railroad counterpart. My memories.  Carry on 

[danielhg121]

6 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

To this day I'll never understand how the Conductor,  who is in charge of the train, got paid less than his partner,  unlike the railroad counterpart. 

Wait do LIRR Engineers make more money than conductors?

[Trainmaster5]

20 minutes ago, danielhg121 said:

Wait do LIRR Engineers make more money than conductors?

The conductor, who is in charge of the train, makes more than the engineer. The opposite holds true in NYCTA.

[Kurtis]

2 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

The conductor, who is in charge of the train, makes more than the engineer. The opposite holds true in NYCTA.

I've wondered why that's the case too. Why is it that motormen get paid higher salaries than their partners when it is in fact the conductor's train? The conductor has the crucial responsibility of ensuring that passengers safely make it both on and off that train. If the motorman upfront is moving that train in an unsafe fashion, the conductor has the authority to pull that EBV and stop the train altogether. The motorman and conductor should be paid the same rate at the very least. I see it as a cost-saving measure...

[vioreen]

Today an R179 on the , three of its contact shoes came off.

[Vulturious]

10 minutes ago, vioreen said:

Today an R179 on the , three of its contact shoes came off.

Was that the  that had its brakes activated at Liberty Av? 

[trainfan22]

2 hours ago, vioreen said:

Today an R179 on the , three of its contact shoes came off.

[R32 3838]

From what I heard it was an R46, Not an R179 but I'm not too sure

 

[Vulturious]

2 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

From what I heard it was an R46, Not an R179 but I'm not too sure

 

Yeah, I heard the same, I just wanted to make sure. Although, that is still a big issue regardless if it was a R46 or R179.

[Bill from Maspeth]

12 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Yeah, I heard the same, I just wanted to make sure. Although, that is still a big issue regardless if it was a R46 or R179.

The difference in the size of the third rail shoes on the new tech trains (tiny) vs. the ones on the old trains (large) is a big issue to me.

There have been several incidents, many kept hush, of new tech shoes falling off.  There have been several instances at 36th St. (E/F/M/R) in addition to one a few months ago at Seneca Ave. where several fell to the street.  One of which, after normal service was restored, was handed over to the station agent at Seneca.

[Trainmaster5]

On 12/4/2020 at 1:32 PM, Bill from Maspeth said:

The difference in the size of the third rail shoes on the new tech trains (tiny) vs. the ones on the old trains (large) is a big issue to me.

There have been several incidents, many kept hush, of new tech shoes falling off.  There have been several instances at 36th St. (E/F/M/R) in addition to one a few months ago at Seneca Ave. where several fell to the street.  One of which, after normal service was restored, was handed over to the station agent at Seneca.

IIRC, before I left they were called " current collectors" or something similar instead of contact shoes or am I mistaken ?

[Lex]

52 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

IIRC, before I left they were called " current collectors" or something similar instead of contact shoes or am I mistaken ?

I wouldn't be able to say one way or the other about the nomenclature used, but it wouldn't be wrong to call them such.

[Bill from Maspeth]

19 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

IIRC, before I left they were called " current collectors" or something similar instead of contact shoes or am I mistaken ?

Yes, they are called "current collectors" on the new techs.  IMO only changing the name to justify their petite size.

[Lawrence St]

Can I ask why the R179 car numbers are out of order when it comes to the 4 and 5 car sets? Why do the 4 car sets take over the 3050-3237 numbering range for the 5 cars sets instead of the other way around?

[Bill from Maspeth]

54 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Can I ask why the R179 car numbers are out of order when it comes to the 4 and 5 car sets? Why do the 4 car sets take over the 3050-3237 numbering range for the 5 cars sets instead of the other way around?

That could not be helped as the free cars that NYCT got, because the order was late, were mid-unit cabless cars.  Those cars were put into units that were originally supposed to be 4 car units continuing with car #3238.  Instead, due to the free cars, these are now 5 car units starting with car #3238.  If it wasn't for the free cars, the A line would only have cars 3010-3049. 

In other words, if NYCT did not get free cars you would see 3238/39/40/41; then 3242/43/44/45 etc.  Because of the free cars we DO have 3238/39/40/41/42; then 3243/44/45/46/47.  You don't have the additional 5 car units starting at 3050 because at the time 3050/51/52/53 etc. were created the free car penalty was not part of the agreement at that point.

[R32 3838]

Be glad they got those Free cars because if they didn't the would be running 3-4 sets of oddball 10 car R179's instead of 12-13 sets.

[VIP]

6 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

Be glad they got those Free cars because if they didn't the would be running 3-4 sets of oddball 10 car R179's instead of 12-13 sets.

12-13 sets are still “oddball” because it doesn’t even come close to making up half the fleet. 

[MarkGuy]

On 11/23/2020 at 8:30 PM, Kurtis said:

I've wondered why that's the case too. Why is it that motormen get paid higher salaries than their partners when it is in fact the conductor's train? The conductor has the crucial responsibility of ensuring that passengers safely make it both on and off that train. If the motorman upfront is moving that train in an unsafe fashion, the conductor has the authority to pull that EBV and stop the train altogether. The motorman and conductor should be paid the same rate at the very least. I see it as a cost-saving measure...

Before I became a train op myself, I asked that question in this very forum too. Now having worked down here, I can understand why there is a pay differential. 

Now, before I continue, I want to make something clear: I'm not interested in jumping too deep into the who should be paid more argument. It's anti-working class in the long run. But there's something you guys have to understand: yes, the conductor is in charge of the train (when assigned to revenue service), but the train operator has FAR more responsibilities.

Conductors rarely have to come out during put ins. I've often had jobs where the conductor was just chilling at the terminal while I had to go out and inspect that train from top to bottom, from shunts and shoe beam assemblies to BCO's and end door locks. Not to mention ensuring the train is secure from defects, making sure the brakes work at each end, and it's not derailed or damaged from prior use. 

That in itself is time consuming, and can be tiring.

And on jobs where I've had conductors accompany me on put ins, all they do is pop the doors-I still have to do the rest. 

Now, the following isn't indicative of all or most conductors, but I've had some partners who've slept in between stations. If I, as the train operator, do that, it's clearly an entirely different story. I constantly have to make sure I have proper lineups at interlockings, there are no track obstructions or people on or near the roadbed.

And when we have WAA at the end of our jobs, it isn't entirely uncommon for conductors to just have to change train signs or do platform control. I was reminded of that one day, when after working the N line, my partner hung out at the terminal on his WAA.

Meanwhile, for mine I had to not only lay up the train at Coney Island Yard, but wash it beforehand, bring it into the spur track, call in a defect I noticed on the last car, change ends, lay up, said train, collect all train numbers, properly secure the train, and do a safety test, then walk back to the yard master to sign out. Though I enjoy doing yard work, mind you, this was on my Friday, late, and pushed my clear time by almost an hour.

And btw, train ops have some responsibility for conductors too. If I'm arriving at a terminal and deactivate the enabling  system and my partner opens on the wrong side, I'm getting in huge trouble as well.

 

That all being said, conductors DO have a hard job themselves. They deal with a lot of crap in the middle. But upfront it's a whole different ball game.

[Eric B]

You didn't even mention BIE's, where we have to do the whole walkaround wherever it is. The conductor is only responsible for making announcements. 

I heard on the railroads, the engineer is the one who sits it out, and the conductors do everything. I wonder if that is supposedly holding true to the 'rule' of the conductor being in charge (though there's more than one conductor, but I'll guess one of them is over the others), and the subway changed the practice? Or perhaps that rule didn't apply to the railroads, and the engineer is the one “in charge”, and “in charge” is in the sense of a supevisory position rather that who has the most physical responsibilities?

I myself always wondered why the lower paid man is said to be in charge, and as stated, we're responsible if we know a conductor is doing something wrong as well; but it seem they were only thinking about the conductor being able to immediately pull the cord for [obvious] improper operation, where we have less awarenes of what they're doing.