Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
East New York

R179 Discussion Thread

East New York

Program Update effective 2/20/19

E70AE3B5-BCC7-4242-8958-215EA3B3E968.jpeg

2A3D4B44-9846-4D37-8FFE-88142B572B51.jpeg

844D9F11-6BFF-4B1B-A0AA-CEEF1E3D444B.jpeg

D143F871-E911-4F90-BF83-14B590D436A2.jpeg

018FCF27-0E25-47C4-8133-9E14E0160D65.jpeg

FCAB8EC7-FC4C-45EB-95CC-8F213A2E4F1E.jpeg

Message added by East New York

Recommended Posts

Oh your right lol by bad, was thinking about the 8 car sets before the switch up with the 4 and 5 car sets when I did that lol. So you are right ENY.

 

Yeah I double checked to make sure. 

 

Are the 5-car sets being built before the 4-car sets? I remember hearing that the prototype train will be 10 cars long, but who knows if it's still this way.

 

Yes. I already mentioned this, and you need to respond to my PM ASAP.

 

Rumor has it, they'll be numbered from 3001-3300.

 

Heard the same.

 

No it doesn't, the small amount of R179's that ENY is getting can show up on any eastern div. route, those R160's that are on the (C) will go back to ENY

 

True. Plans are for the (C) to go all R179.

 

^I thought the (C) was going to have a mixed fleet of R160's and R179's while the (J) has R160's R179's and R32's.

 

It will until all the R179's come on line.

 

My thing is that will they be built with compatibility with the 160s.

 

Good question.

Edited by East New York

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, for trains that are half built by the same company, that's one hell of an oversight.

It is not an oversight. Backwards compatibility limits what new technology can be put on train due to interface concerns. NYCT wants to move forward with every car order not backwards. I am certain the mechanical couplers are compatible between each other in the event a rescue is needed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not an oversight. Backwards compatibility limits what new technology can be put on train due to interface concerns. NYCT wants to move forward with every car order not backwards. I am certain the mechanical couplers are compatible between each other in the event a rescue is needed. 

The 143 and 160 were supposed to be so identical mechanically, "that the mechanics couldn't tell them apart". So you're saying they at the last minute decided to advance something, throwing backward compatibility out the window?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Adding to that, the main differences between the R143 and R160 (as far as I know as I am not a mechanic) are the FINDS, propulsion, and kind of lights on the ends. The R160 was awarded in 2002. The R143s were still coming in then so how technology could have been too different is not a good excuse. We're not talking an R143/R160/R179 to R211 leap here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 143 and 160 were supposed to be so identical mechanically, "that the mechanics couldn't tell them apart". So you're saying they at the last minute decided to advance something, throwing backward compatibility out the window?

Not sure what you are asking. If an authority wants backwards compatibility, it needs to be written in the tech spec. So far, NYCT hasn't had that requirement in any of their contracts. It would make sense if NYCT ran mixed consists in revenue service but from my understanding, they keep the fleets separated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Adding to that, the main differences between the R143 and R160 (as far as I know as I am not a mechanic) are the FINDS, propulsion, and kind of lights on the ends. The R160 was awarded in 2002. The R143s were still coming in then so how technology could have been too different is not a good excuse. We're not talking an R143/R160/R179 to R211 leap here.

I am certain if the R143's and R160's were ran in a mixed consist the FINDS system wouldn't work. Different communication networks and different signals. Again, I am not electrical guy but that's just from my experience working on other projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Adding to that, the main differences between the R143 and R160 (as far as I know as I am not a mechanic) are the FINDS, propulsion, and kind of lights on the ends. The R160 was awarded in 2002. The R143s were still coming in then so how technology could have been too different is not a good excuse. We're not talking an R143/R160/R179 to R211 leap here.

 

Please tell me the differences in the FINDs from the R160s.  Do you have any close-up pix of the FINDs in the 179s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not an oversight. Backwards compatibility limits what new technology can be put on train due to interface concerns. NYCT wants to move forward with every car order not backwards. I am certain the mechanical couplers are compatible between each other in the event a rescue is needed.

They can couple to each other since they have the same coupler head, but with the different mechanical portions, one would have to tow the other along.

 

The R143/160/179 are all classified in the same subway car generation, with the R211 being the next generation of cars. Seems like a HUGE oversight.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can couple to each other since they have the same coupler head, but with the different mechanical portions, one would have to tow the other along.

 

The R143/160/179 are all classified in the same subway car generation, with the R211 being the next generation of cars. Seems like a HUGE oversight.

Again, I don't understand why it is a huge oversight. NYCT doesn't run mixed consists. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they could. Look at the SMEE generations of cars, and how they were all able to run with each other. That was highly convenient and they didn't have to leave, say, 5 R33 cars in the yard because they didn't have another 5 to complement them, and otherwise scramble to make service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me the differences in the FINDs from the R160s.  Do you have any close-up pix of the FINDs in the 179s?

Are you...trying to be funny or something? Did you miss the point of my post?

Again, I don't understand why it is a huge oversight. NYCT doesn't run mixed consists. 

And then here, the SMEEs historically up to their end (in the cases of R32/R38 and R40M/R42 mixes), ran mixed. What stopped the MTA from running, say, an R32/R42 mix were differences in propulsion as they found that trains generally performed better when the propulsion was the same.

 

Backwards compatibility equals operational flexibility, something that a system of this size should be capitalizing on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you...trying to be funny or something? Did you miss the point of my post?

 

Sorry, I misread it. I thought I saw you said the FINDS were different in the 160s and 179s. I now see you were saying that the FINDs are one of the diffs between 143 and 160! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I just realized and found beautifully coincidental? Both the D and E cars for BART and the rumored numbers for the R179 start at 3001.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I just realized and found beautifully coincidental? Both the D and E cars for BART and the rumored numbers for the R179 start at 3001.

Very cool!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubt it, but does anyone know the day the first set will be sent down? I live a few blocks away from the CP line that goes through the Adirondacks, so assuming it gets sent down by rail, it'll pass through here, and I'd be able to check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also different brakes. R44s had the electronic P-wire while R46s had SMEE ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So propulsions must also be the reason why you don't see R62/R62A, R68/R68A mixes and why the R44 and R46's never ran together.

The R44s used a higher brake pressure than other SMEEs, so it was basically in a category within a category. Couldn't run with anything.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The R44s used a higher brake pressure than other SMEEs, so it was basically in a category within a category. Couldn't run with anything.

Always felt like the R44 had the best brakes. The driver never really had to break hard to stop or slow down coming into a station

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which line is going to get the 8-Car R179 first ?

My money says (C) so the MTA can brag to the 8 Avenue muggles hipsters that their getting rid of the rust buckets R32s.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My money says (C) so the MTA can brag to the 8 Avenue muggles hipsters that their getting rid of the rust buckets R32s.

Those complaints came from Riders Alliance In Brooklyn not from 8th Avenue Riders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My money says (C) so the MTA can brag to the 8 Avenue muggles hipsters that their getting rid of the rust buckets R32s.

I agree and they could send the R160 back to ENY to replace the R32

Edited by R179 8258

Share this post


Link to post
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.