Jump to content

R179 Discussion Thread


East New York

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Eric B said:

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.

Truth can't believe I forgot the most obvious thing we have to do down here.

It is an interesting question. Its like, I'm the pilot, he (or she) is the flight attendant, but they're The boss of the plane.

 

That's the analogy coming to mind for me anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 10.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 hours ago, Eric B said:

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.

I used to ride SEPTA and NJT between Philadelphia and New York in the late 90s. I seem to recall reading a notice to passengers on (NJT) trains about holding the conductor responsible for the safe operation of the train. But I think that notice was aimed mainly at letting the passengers know that they were expected to pay their fares and cooperate with conductor and the assistants or risk being put off the train at the next stop. Though that notice didn’t say anything about who took the lead in emergency procedures. I assumed it would have to be the conductor and the assistants since they were the ones in contact with the passengers and could assist them off the train faster than the engineer, especially if the train is in “pull mode” and the engineer is not in the cab car.

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

7 hours ago, MarkGuy said:

Truth can't believe I forgot the most obvious thing we have to do down here.

It is an interesting question. Its like, I'm the pilot, he (or she) is the flight attendant, but they're The boss of the plane.

 

That's the analogy coming to mind for me anyways.

The way we were taught by our instructors is somewhat different than the later RTO folks did it. We were issued 2 brown books on day 1 and told to read them daily because we were tested on them. The books were the " R10 and up book " and the  Bible,the Rule book.  The former dealt with the rolling stock,  characteristics and overcoming malfunctions. The Rule Book covered everything. Job titles and the responsibilities associated with each one. From the Chief Trainmaster, Desk Trainmasters, Zone Trainmasters,  Motorman Instructors and down to the Conductor that railfans see on the subways. We were taught about the Conductor titles and how they came about.  Most people have seen the old time western movies. Remember that guy with the pocket watch  ? The one who says " All aboard " at the station when it's time to move the train.  The guy who deals with the station agent and gets his instruction via the telegraph? That's a railroad Conductor in charge. Back then the engineer just moved the train when the Conductor gave the order. The subway Conductor has/had similar duties over my time in RTO. When I worked on work trains we always had a conductor or two on board. They dealt with the contractors and the Command Center before we left the yard and when we arrived at the work site. That's the Conductor in charge title back then. The Conductor on passenger subway opens and closes the doors enroute and signals the M/M , T/O when permission is given to leave the terminal. He/she is also responsible for keeping the train on schedule ( as much as possible). I was verbally warned by a motor instructor and my dispatcher at Lenox Terminal because every Sunday night my motorman and I were 8-9 minutes early coming n/b from Flatbush on the (3). As the Conductor it was my responsibility. Not many people know that the Conductor collected fares on the Dyre Avenue line between Dyre and East 180th or that the Myrtle Avenue El Conductor did the same between Sumner Avenue and Bridge Street when the token booths were closed late nights and overnights.  Again that's the Conductor in charge concept. Confused yet ? Trains had brackets for portable radios in the motorman's cab but not in the conductors position.  Kinda hard being in charge when the motorman or anyone with a scanner is more connected than the person in the middle. The railroad comparison doesn't really fit because the job duties aren't really the same. I've been on a LIRR train where the Conductor had to arrange bus transportation because our leader had an accident with a car an hour earlier.  He kept me with him the whole time.  Not gonna happen in NYCTA.  It's not the same Conductor job. My take.  Carry on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2020 at 6:46 AM, VIP said:

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

Exactly. It still sucks that most of the R179 fleet is arranged in four-car sets because the agency is too cheap to make the (C) permanently 10-cars, yet they spend so much money fidgeting around with the NTTs’ LCDs and automated announcements all these past years, and moving the R32s back and fourth between lines instead of keeping them in one place etc etc.

The current (C) fleet is nothing but half-ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Exactly. It still sucks that most of the R179 fleet is arranged in four-car sets because the agency is too cheap to make the (C) permanently 10-cars, yet they spend so much money fidgeting around with the NTTs’ LCDs and automated announcements all these past years, and moving the R32s back and fourth between lines instead of keeping them in one place etc etc.

The current (C) fleet is nothing but half-ass.

Well actually it turned out to be a benefit, because eventually the 4-car R179s can all be transferred to ENY for the (J), since the R160s will be used for Queens Blvd (4-car sets and some 5-cars), and cars from the (L) fleet won't have to be loaned out to the (J) to make service (the CBTC-bypass R143s). Of course, this is dependent on the R211 order, which can retire the R46s from the (A) and (C), and the R179s become free agents for either the (A)(C) or Rockaway (S), rather than being locked in for the (A) line only.

Edited by darkstar8983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Exactly. It still sucks that most of the R179 fleet is arranged in four-car sets because the agency is too cheap to make the (C) permanently 10-cars, yet they spend so much money fidgeting around with the NTTs’ LCDs and automated announcements all these past years, and moving the R32s back and fourth between lines instead of keeping them in one place etc etc.

The current (C) fleet is nothing but half-ass.

I’ve said this on many occasions that the R179’s on the (C) should have been in 10 car sets to allow the swapping of fleet with the (A). If they ever plan on making the (C)   full length which they should they will have to spend more money ordering more cars to make the line full length when they could have had some of the cars already. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I’ve said this on many occasions that the R179’s on the (C) should have been in 10 car sets to allow the swapping of fleet with the (A). If they ever plan on making the (C)   full length which they should they will have to spend more money ordering more cars to make the line full length when they could have had some of the cars already. 

 

Hopefully, the r211's will allow the C to go full length.

But what about the G?? The G should get the 8 car r179's from the C once the C becomes full length.

ENY doesn't need ALL 8 car trains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Hopefully, the r211's will allow the C to go full length.

But what about the G?? The G should get the 8 car r179's from the C once the C becomes full length.

ENY doesn't need ALL 8 car trains.

I forgot about the (G) line. 
It would make sense for ENY to receive all of 207’s R179’s in order to avoid CI from having to maintain another fleet. I could possibly see ENY sending the 8 car R160’s to CI for the (G).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Hopefully, the r211's will allow the C to go full length.

But what about the G?? The G should get the 8 car r179's from the C once the C becomes full length.

ENY doesn't need ALL 8 car trains.

 

On 12/27/2020 at 9:09 PM, NewFlyer 230 said:

I’ve said this on many occasions that the R179’s on the (C) should have been in 10 car sets to allow the swapping of fleet with the (A). If they ever plan on making the (C)   full length which they should they will have to spend more money ordering more cars to make the line full length when they could have had some of the cars already. 

8 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I forgot about the (G) line. 
It would make sense for ENY to receive all of 207’s R179’s in order to avoid CI from having to maintain another fleet. I could possibly see ENY sending the 8 car R160’s to CI for the (G).

It’s kind of sad how in the past it was so easy for the (A) and (C) to swap when the R32/R38 “salad trains” ran on both lines and that was with the (A) running 600-foot trains and the (C) running 480-footers (the R44s made extremely rare appearances on the (C)). Hope the R211s will finally make it possible to finally have uniform 10-car trains on the (C). The MTA still can’t get uniform 600-foot long trains on the (C) ever since the R32s were banished from 207/Pitkin and they began running R46s on the (C) in addition to the R179s. 

I agree with sending the (C)‘s R179s to ENY and sending an equal amount of four-car 160s to CI for the (G). I don’t really see anything wrong with having both 4- and 5-car sets of 160s based in CI. It’s more of the same type of equipment that they already have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I forgot about the (G) line. 
It would make sense for ENY to receive all of 207’s R179’s in order to avoid CI from having to maintain another fleet. I could possibly see ENY sending the 8 car R160’s to CI for the (G).

ENY isn't losing R160's because of one thing

 

CBTC

the majority or all the R160's have cbtc installed for the (M)

Edited by R32 3838
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, R32 3838 said:

ENY isn't losing R160's because of one thing

 

CBTC

the majority or all the R160's have cbtc installed for the (M)

The (G) is going to be CBTC in the near future. Losing 9 sets of 160’s is not gonna hurt the (M) line, however, the (G) is supposed to have the R179’s for Crosstown CBTC.... I can see why some posts suggest sending R160’s to Coney Island Yard because it’s what that  yard has and maintained before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, VIP said:

The (G) is going to be CBTC in the near future. Losing 9 sets of 160’s is not gonna hurt the (M) line, however, the (G) is supposed to have the R179’s for Crosstown CBTC.... I can see why some posts suggest sending R160’s to Coney Island Yard because it’s what that  yard has and maintained before. 

i know, the (G) is better off going back to Jamaica Yard when that happens, which i think is the plan anyway. have all the CBTC fleet in one yard besides ENY currently.

Edited by R32 3838
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

i know, the (G) is better off going back to Jamaica Yard when that happens, which i think is the plan anyway. have all the CBTC fleet in one yard besides ENY currently.

I don't know how to feel about sending the (G) to Jamaica Yard, not unless you don't plan on having rush hour put-ins to Forest Hills that is. Even then, that isn't really going to help out the (G) much. Not to mention QBL is already a hit or miss anyways. Plus, the closest yard for the (G) is Coney Island, having it go all the way to Jamaica is much farther away. Isn't Astoria line coming up after 8th Av CBTC? I'm not entirely sure which is going to be next if I'm going to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

I don't know how to feel about sending the (G) to Jamaica Yard, not unless you don't plan on having rush hour put-ins to Forest Hills that is. Even then, that isn't really going to help out the (G) much. Not to mention QBL is already a hit or miss anyways. Plus, the closest yard for the (G) is Coney Island, having it go all the way to Jamaica is much farther away. Isn't Astoria line coming up after 8th Av CBTC? I'm not entirely sure which is going to be next if I'm going to be honest.

Jamaica had the (G) for years when it was going to court sq more than forest hills. Astoria getting CBTC might not happen so soon and 6th ave or lexington is next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Why was 63rd St not included in part of the QBL CBTC project?

The CBTC project was split into 2 phases. The first phase includes the QBL mainline from 8 Av-50 St to Kew Gardens and was funded in previous capital programs. The next phase is (was?) part of the 2020-2024 program and includes 63rd Street (the 6th Av-Queens line) and Kew Gardens to 179 St and Archer Av.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/29/2020 at 4:26 PM, Vulturious said:

I don't know how to feel about sending the (G) to Jamaica Yard, not unless you don't plan on having rush hour put-ins to Forest Hills that is. Even then, that isn't really going to help out the (G) much. Not to mention QBL is already a hit or miss anyways. Plus, the closest yard for the (G) is Coney Island, having it go all the way to Jamaica is much farther away. Isn't Astoria line coming up after 8th Av CBTC? I'm not entirely sure which is going to be next if I'm going to be honest.

Is Jamaica Yard that much farther away from Court Square than CI Yard is from Church? Either way, there’s going to be a significant amount of deadheading from the yard required for (G) trains. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Is Jamaica Yard that much farther away from Court Square than CI Yard is from Church? Either way, there’s going to be a significant amount of deadheading from the yard required for (G) trains. 

I'm gonna look at this from a different perspective. Suppose you have a train that needs servicing? Depending on the problem, if that's the case, and the location Church Avenue has an advantage IMO. That middle track on the Culver line makes things easier compared to Jamaica yard. One can stack put ins or send a troubled train s/b without blocking service. I can't see that happens on the QBL without delaying service. I've operated other than head end where the speed limit is 10 mph or less. Culver would be no problem whereas QBL ??? . Just my take. Carry on .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely agree with TM5 here. Setting aside Jamaica’s chronic capacity issues and the fact that the yard is almost twice more distant from CRS than CI is from CHU, placing NYCT’s busiest mainline in between a service and its yard is a recipe for ugly schedules and fragile operations. Running stuff up Culver is easy and flexible; QB not so much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I'm gonna look at this from a different perspective. Suppose you have a train that needs servicing? Depending on the problem, if that's the case, and the location Church Avenue has an advantage IMO. That middle track on the Culver line makes things easier compared to Jamaica yard. One can stack put ins or send a troubled train s/b without blocking service. I can't see that happens on the QBL without delaying service. I've operated other than head end where the speed limit is 10 mph or less. Culver would be no problem whereas QBL ??? . Just my take. Carry on .

 

9 hours ago, RR503 said:

Completely agree with TM5 here. Setting aside Jamaica’s chronic capacity issues and the fact that the yard is almost twice more distant from CRS than CI is from CHU, placing NYCT’s busiest mainline in between a service and its yard is a recipe for ugly schedules and fragile operations. Running stuff up Culver is easy and flexible; QB not so much. 

I’ll admit this was something I thought about for why CI is a better home base for the (G) after I posted last night. It’s true Culver has more spare capacity to stack put-ins and send troubled trains back. And Jamaica Yard is farther from Court Sq than CI is from Church (though I didn’t think it was almost twice as distant). And I’ll agree it’s best to not have regular put-ins on busy, unpredictable QB. So CI it is. But I still think they should use 4-car R160 sets on the (G) since CI has had 160s for years and has never had 179s. It might be better to keep 179s confined to as few yards as possible, given their not-so-great history.  

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

20 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

I’ll admit this was something I thought about for why CI is a better home base for the (G) after I posted last night. It’s true Culver has more spare capacity to stack put-ins and send troubled trains back. And Jamaica Yard is farther from Court Sq than CI is from Church (though I didn’t think it was almost twice as distant). And I’ll agree it’s best to not have regular put-ins on busy, unpredictable QB. So CI it is. But I still think they should use 4-car R160 sets on the (G) since CI has had 160s for years and has never had 179s. It might be better to keep 179s confined to as few yards as possible, given their not-so-great history.  

R160's have to stay at ENY due to the CBTC for the (M) , The 8313-8376 group and 8377-8652 group have different cbtc kits inside them (if im correct) so ENY has to keep these R160's in certain groups when running on the (L) and (M) lines meaning increased spare factor for the (M) line's fleet.

i don't know if 9943-74 was upgraded or not.

Edited by R32 3838
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

R160's have to stay at ENY due to the CBTC for the (M) , The 8313-8376 group and 8377-8652 group have different cbtc kits inside them (if im correct) so ENY has to keep these R160's in certain groups when running on the (L) and (M) lines meaning increased spare factor for the (M) line's fleet.

i don't know if 9943-74 was upgraded or not.

The R160s have to stay minimally on the (M) until the R211 order is completed. Then the R211s will be upgraded to CBTC operations and then cars can be moved to remain in CBTC service or moved to routes with CBTC bypass (like R160s back to Coney Island for example).  

 

the whole fleet is being upgraded (8313-9974), but the current Coney Island R160s operate in CBTC bypass I assume. 8913-8917 / 9008-9012 / 9023-9102 were the stragglers that were not yet upgraded until they were swapped out for 9833-9922.


I wouldn’t be surprised if 9923-9942 are transferred to Coney Island too (to make the CI balance 110 cars, or 9833-9852 transferred back to Jamaica in their place). Currently, cars 9923-9942 are only running within themselves, which opens that transfer possibility (meaning 9923-9927 is running with 9928-9932 / 9933-9837 or 9938-9942), just to keep the numbering scheme even. The same thing was done in 2015 when the (C) was given R160As (8577 and above were the transferred sets).

speaking of the (C), I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire balance of 4-car R179 are moved to the (J) because of the increased fleet requirements for the (M). At this point in time nothing else can really be moved (unless it is R160s out of Jamaica, while taking advantage of the temporary ridership dip and the (F) train GO) because you have no R32s, an increased need for spares in R46s (maintenance issues) and R160s (CBTC issues). Otherwise, service has to be reduced further in the yards where you have the new shortages.

Edited by darkstar8983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

The R160s have to stay minimally on the (M) until the R211 order is completed. Then the R211s will be upgraded to CBTC operations and then cars can be moved to remain in CBTC service or moved to routes with CBTC bypass (like R160s back to Coney Island for example).  

 

the whole fleet is being upgraded (8313-9974), but the current Coney Island R160s operate in CBTC bypass I assume. 8913-8917 / 9008-9012 / 9023-9102 were the stragglers that were not yet upgraded until they were swapped out for 9833-9922.


I wouldn’t be surprised if 9923-9942 are transferred to Coney Island too (to make the CI balance 110 cars, or 9833-9852 transferred back to Jamaica in their place). Currently, cars 9923-9942 are only running within themselves, which opens that transfer possibility (meaning 9923-9927 is running with 9928-9932 / 9933-9837 or 9938-9942), just to keep the numbering scheme even. The same thing was done in 2015 when the (C) was given R160As (8577 and above were the transferred sets).

speaking of the (C), I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire balance of 4-car R179 are moved to the (J) because of the increased fleet requirements for the (M). At this point in time nothing else can really be moved (unless it is R160s out of Jamaica, while taking advantage of the temporary ridership dip and the (F) train GO) because you have no R32s, an increased need for spares in R46s (maintenance issues) and R160s (CBTC issues). Otherwise, service has to be reduced further in the yards where you have the new shortages.

R211's are coming in with CBTC installed, the 98/9900's have cbtc kits in them, they just moved them so Jamaica could have all the siemens keeping them in one yard to save money. I do think the 98/99's will go back to jamaica when the R211's come in to bump out the siemens back to CI.

 

The R179's are slated to be upgraded with CBTC kits too within 2 years, mainly the ones on the (A)(C) .

 

9803-9822, 9923-9942 haven't moved because Jamaica still needs those cars.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

R211's are coming in with CBTC installed, the 98/9900's have cbtc kits in them, they just moved them so Jamaica could have all the siemens keeping them in one yard to save money. I do think the 98/99's will go back to jamaica when the R211's come in to bump out the siemens back to CI.

 

The R179's are slated to be upgraded with CBTC kits too within 2 years, mainly the ones on the (A)(C) .

 

9803-9822, 9923-9942 haven't moved because Jamaica still needs those cars.

 

I’m still trying to figure out how they came up with transferring SPECIFIC units, as such 9833-9922 and not a “mixed bag”... as if it was written somewhere stating that Coney Island yard Needs R160B’s or the highest numbered R160 sets from Jamaica Yard. 

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.