Jump to content

R179 Discussion Thread


East New York

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 10.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

At this point, F*ck Bombardier. Alstom made the R160As, so I'd say it should be a competition with Kawasaki and Alstom if the MTA wants to keep on "comparing" builders for the best cars they want/need. 

Alstom and Kawasaki had more of a "coopetition" with the R160 contract via a joint venture LLC (Alskaw), and would have had a similar arrangement with the R179 contract had MTA chose Kawasaki.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Alstom and Kawasaki had more of a "coopetition" with the R160 contract via a joint venture LLC (Alskaw), and would have had a similar arrangement with the R179 contract had MTA chose Kawasaki.

 

Whatever works. Cooperation with both companies (maybe with all future orders) is not even close to a bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is true. If the MTA did scrap the R32's and R42's, the least thing you would be seeing is service cuts and fleets spread out all around the system. Lets see what the (MTA) has messed up so far:

 

Shortage in Westchester Yard (6)

R179 Order Hold Up

6$ Million to be spent on keeping the R32's on their feet until 2022.

 

 

Besides, why was the test train rejected yet AGAIN.

The Shortage at Westchester was likely seen coming due to the fact that for an R62A to go back to Westchester yard an R188 has to enter service on the (7)  so since they knew that the (1) had extra R62A's for spares they prepared themselves. As for the R179 hold up that is their fault , bombardier is known for not delivering their contracts on time and if they did the train had issues after entering service , at least they found the issues before regoing scrap happy on the R32s and R42s. As far as spending more money to keep the R32s in service well its part of it , and until the R179s come in and are tested and do function properly you can't retire anything.

Edited by R62AR33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

260 in 4 car sets(65 sets). 40 in 5 car sets(8 sets).

TA now have enough time to change it back 260 in 5car sets and 40 in 4car sets, 5 cars are needed more for Second Avenue Expansion fleet increase and for C line service this way the A C lines can share fleets like the 2 5 lines do, that would be better operational reasons in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TA now have enough time to change it back 260 in 5car sets and 40 in 4car sets, 5 cars are needed more for Second Avenue Expansion fleet increase and for C line service this way the A C lines can share fleets like the 2 5 lines do, that would be better operational reasons in the long run.

No they don't have enough time. It's already ordered and being work on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TA now have enough time to change it back 260 in 5car sets and 40 in 4car sets, 5 cars are needed more for Second Avenue Expansion fleet increase and for C line service this way the A C lines can share fleets like the 2 5 lines do, that would be better operational reasons in the long run.

 

Even if changing the order were as simple as you make it out to be (it isn't, because A cars are more expensive than B cars), you've just replaced an order for 36.5 trains with an order for 31 trains. How do you make up for the shortfall of 5.5 trains?

 

The A and C don't share any terminals. There's no operational advantage to sharing a fleet. The 2 and 5 (effectively) share a fleet because southbound 2's often become northbound 5's and southbound 5's often become northbound 2's at the shared Flatbush Avenue terminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if changing the order were as simple as you make it out to be (it isn't, because A cars are more expensive than B cars), you've just replaced an order for 36.5 trains with an order for 31 trains. How do you make up for the shortfall of 5.5 trains?

 

The A and C don't share any terminals. There's no operational advantage to sharing a fleet. The 2 and 5 (effectively) share a fleet because southbound 2's often become northbound 5's and southbound 5's often become northbound 2's at the shared Flatbush Avenue terminal.

Well it was possible with the (A) & (C) trains back then with the R27/R30's around with what you have with the (2) & (5) trains today. Maybe keep some good R32's to respond to that shortfall.

Unless official documentation comes out from the August board meeting stating otherwise, the R179 order is still going to be for 65 four-car sets and 8 five-car sets.

Interesting. We'll see...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why they didn't just order them all as 5 car sets. There's nothing preventing the C from running 10 car trains.

 

I know it doesn't need to, and I know the 5 car sets would be more expensive - but this would afford them far greater versatility going forward. 

 

Sure, keep a couple 4 car sets on the order to replace the 42's on the J/Z. But the rest of them... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why they didn't just order them all as 5 car sets. There's nothing preventing the C from running 10 car trains.

 

I know it doesn't need to, and I know the 5 car sets would be more expensive - but this would afford them far greater versatility going forward. 

 

Sure, keep a couple 4 car sets on the order to replace the 42's on the J/Z. But the rest of them... 

Actually, having more 4 car units is what really brings versatility. Think of the service pattern after 9/11. Such would be impossible with the original R179 configuration. With the new configuration, one could just take the C's R179s and put them on the J and M, while anything could be placed on the C to backfill. Furthermore, since the eastern division is one of the fastest growing parts of the system, it is essential that there be more cars available for the eastern division than are currently assigned.  Look at recent history- the growth of the eastern division has outpaced the new cars built for it on 4 occasions in the last 15 years! (R143, R160A Base, R160A Option 2, and the original R179 configuration)

Doesn't smaller sets require more A-cars, thus making the order more expensive?

On a per car basis, yes, but it results in a cheaper per train cost, as well as a lower overall cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why they didn't just order them all as 5 car sets. There's nothing preventing the C from running 10 car trains.

 

I know it doesn't need to, and I know the 5 car sets would be more expensive - but this would afford them far greater versatility going forward.

 

Sure, keep a couple 4 car sets on the order to replace the 42's on the J/Z. But the rest of them...

I agreed they should be mostly 5 car sets like I said operational reasons it would be good then can shift the cars around the system if need, the (C) needs to be 10 train

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agreed they should be mostly 5 car sets like I said operational reasons it would be good then can shift the cars around the system if need, the (C) needs to be 10 train

Yeah, I agree they should make the (C) full length so it can share it's equipment with the (A) and the (C) can be less packed during rush hours
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard rumors MTA is talking about they may increase the car assignments of the R179s to ENY yard due to ridership growth the TA may mix the (C) line with 10 car trains and 8car trains, and as for 5 car sets of R179s is going to Coney Island for the (Q) service 2nd Avenue Extension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the (A) and (C) need to share equipment? They don't share any terminals or yards like the (2) / (5) or (N) / (Q) where such a move would be feasible.

I would use the extra trains late nights from the (C) to help out the (A) or just in case there is an unplanned service change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the (A) needs extra trains in the night, they can dig into their own reserves for that, no need to get the fleet of another yard involved.

I agree I don't understand why the (A) uses the R68 and R32 where they should more than enough R46 I know because i live right next to Pitkin Yard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree I don't understand why the (A) uses the R68 and R32 where they should more than enough R46 I know because i live right next to Pitkin Yard

 

They don't have enough for the rush hour periods, which is when the R32 and R68 come out. Hence, every rush hour they borrow one of each from their respective lines.

 

In the night, when far fewer trains are out on the line, Pitkin has an ample spare rate.

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.