Javier Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1876 Posted August 14, 2015 Any pics on the R179 test train? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m7zanr160s Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1877 Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) Might as well merge the R179s with the R211 order now. I was wondering that... Edited August 14, 2015 by m7zanr160s 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javier Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1878 Posted August 14, 2015 And I wonder if this is the samething that happened with the R142's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1879 Posted August 14, 2015 And I wonder if this is the samething that happened with the R142's.No those cars came exactly on time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted August 14, 2015 Author Share #1880 Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) Might as well merge the R179s with the R211 order now. MTA already considered this, and would have added options to the R179 order. They decided not to do this, and work with vendors, suppliers, and engineers to create a new car with a near identical platform. One of the major reasons they decided not to merge the programs was when the R46 retrofit was scrapped, and SIR was added to the R211 roster. At this point, it is quite late in the game to add SIR specs, and if MTA stays with Bombardier on this one, it is going to be a major evaluation point when specs and RFP's are rreleased on the R211. Even thought the first of the R211's will arrive (if they are on time) as the last of the R179's are coming in, this cannot be done. They are separate procurement programs, and the specs of the R211 have not been finalized other than the fact that the trains will look similar, and be the same length. They are also under different capital programs, which the R211 has not been fully funded yet. There is no way to merge the programs without spending tens of millions more. MTA is loosing out now, and all of this is going to cost upwards of $70-$100 Million more than initially expected. As for the R142's, they came in on times, but had major teething problems.... One of the main reasons only R142A's were selected for conversion to R188's. Edited August 14, 2015 by East New York 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javier Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1881 Posted August 14, 2015 Sigh, this issue why the test train was rejected again is because of more frame issues and truck issues. But where are the pictures for the test train I wanna see how it looks. I wanna know why dosent the just scrap the idea and order more R143's/R160's for the . This is getting ridiculous. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulrivera Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1882 Posted August 14, 2015 Man, those construction delays on the 2nd Avenue subway turned out to be a blessing in disguise for the MTA as far as PR goes. Imagine if that project would have finished on time and end up not having enough equipment to make service? I said in another thread that at this rate they were one budget shortfall away from having the R32's make it to 60 years in service and it looks like it might happen... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1883 Posted August 14, 2015 Sigh, this issue why the test train was rejected again is because of more frame issues and truck issues. But where are the pictures for the test train I wanna see how it looks. I wanna know why dosent the just scrap the idea and order more R143's/R160's for the . This is getting ridiculous. They can't order anymore because Kawasaki and Alstom already finished delivering what they were supposed to be delivering. And you can't go back to a previous order after 5 years. Man, those construction delays on the 2nd Avenue subway turned out to be a blessing in disguise for the MTA as far as PR goes. Imagine if that project would have finished on time and end up not having enough equipment to make service? I said in another thread that at this rate they were one budget shortfall away from having the R32's make it to 60 years in service and it looks like it might happen... The only thing I think the MTA is worrying about is the train since Astoria needs a secondary line there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTA Bus Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1884 Posted August 14, 2015 The R42s should be gone. The R32s, they could go longer. They can't retire the R42s until the R179s come in, which God knows when that will happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1885 Posted August 14, 2015 They can't retire the R42s until the R179s come in, which God knows when that will happen.Obviously. Just something I'm pointing out. If the R42s weren't 8 car sets for the , I would push for them to be retired. But even so, the MTA needs as many cars as possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javier Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1886 Posted August 14, 2015 If only the R44's weren't scrapped... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayJay85 Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1887 Posted August 14, 2015 They should drop the R179 order and increase the R211 order from 940 to about 1,280 cars (80 cars in 4 car units and 1,200 cars in 5 car units). That would solve the problem this would be a fresh start for the TA and Kawasaki should get the R211 order. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East New York Posted August 14, 2015 Author Share #1888 Posted August 14, 2015 They should drop the R179 order and increase the R211 order from 940 to about 1,280 cars (80 cars in 4 car units and 1,200 cars in 5 car units). That would solve the problem this would be a fresh start for the TA and Kawasaki should get the R211 order. Even though this sounds like a great idea, there is no way we can wait until 2023-2028 for cars that have yet to be designed, built or tested. Not only that, but what if some type of delay happens with the R211? Then we are completely screwed, and right back where we are now. Let's not forget that when the test train finally arrives, it will still have to undergo a 12 month test, then MTA will conduct an audit inspection. AT that time, if they are satisfied, the production cars will be built, but if not, there will be further delays. At this time, it would be wise for MTA to see this whole thing through with Bombardier. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1889 Posted August 14, 2015 If only the R44's weren't scrapped... they had structural problems in their frames, so that wouldn't work. Instead you should have said If only the R40Ms and some of the R32s weren't scrapped 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javier Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1890 Posted August 14, 2015 Why don't we take the R32's/R42's/R38's that are in service as work trains and revert them back to passenger service? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2 Train Master Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1891 Posted August 14, 2015 Why don't we take the R32's/R42's/R38's that are in service as work trains and revert them back to passenger service? What will be used for WORK train service then? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewYorkElevated Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1892 Posted August 14, 2015 Honestly for me right now, I hope that the R179's don't end up like the R44's. Already, the passengers and rider adovacy groups are getting pretty fed up with the 32's right now. The MTA has to take this into consideration. Also, it looks like the MTA needs to find other train companies to construct subway cars rather than just Bombarider and Kawasaki. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainfan22 Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1893 Posted August 14, 2015 Honestly for me right now, I hope that the R179's don't end up like the R44's. Already, the passengers and rider adovacy groups are getting pretty fed up with the 32's right now. The MTA has to take this into consideration. Also, it looks like the MTA needs to find other train companies to construct subway cars rather than just Bombarider and Kawasaki. Most of the 160s was built by Astom. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewYorkElevated Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1894 Posted August 14, 2015 Most of the 160s was built by Astom. That counts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javier Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1895 Posted August 14, 2015 What will be used for WORK train service then? You still have the R152's and other non converted cars. It would be a shortage but its the best we could right now. Especially with the Rider Cars. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayJay85 Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1896 Posted August 14, 2015 Even though this sounds like a great idea, there is no way we can wait until 2023-2028 for cars that have yet to be designed, built or tested. Not only that, but what if some type of delay happens with the R211? Then we are completely screwed, and right back where we are now. Let's not forget that when the test train finally arrives, it will still have to undergo a 12 month test, then MTA will conduct an audit inspection. AT that time, if they are satisfied, the production cars will be built, but if not, there will be further delays. At this time, it would be wise for MTA to see this whole thing through with Bombardier. Kawasaki seems more trusted them Bombardier btw I got a question is having most R179 4car units is a good ideal or not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1897 Posted August 14, 2015 You still have the R152's and other non converted cars. It would be a shortage but its the best we could right now. Especially with the Rider Cars. No 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1898 Posted August 14, 2015 I feel like the R46 and SI R44 retirement will be delayed as well. I know the MTA is mad too because the R32's and R42's are a risk keeping them for another 8 years. That is more money being thrown at old cars when it should be used for service improvement and other things. I thought the MDBF was so bad on the R42's that the MTA was thinking of retiring the remaining 50. Shouldn't the spare R32's be enough to cover most of those R42's. All I know is that all the 1960's trains need to go and I feel it when I ride on some of those trains. I remember one Saturday riding an R42 and it was jerking so bad I thought the train was going to break. It did go out of service and back to ENY afterwards though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1899 Posted August 14, 2015 Why don't we take the R32's/R42's/R38's that are in service as work trains and revert them back to passenger service? there are no R42s or R38s in work service. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted August 14, 2015 Share #1900 Posted August 14, 2015 And furthermore, there are only a handful of R32s in work service. Work cars are occasionally put back in service (3718 comes to mind), but it's not all that common. The 9th Ave set (3642, I wanna say?) and the 207 cars (3511?) have been out of revenue service for a while. Obviously with A Div cars it's a different story, as those single 62As are used. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.