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.
INDman

Fleet Swap Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, happy283 said:

The R179s arent returning? Whats your source on that? Keeping the R160s at Pitkin is unsustainable if they need to get (F) service back to normal at any time but I will agree as an (A) line rider it is nice having R160s as half the fleet.

R179 is out of service now so R160 sets are running on (A) until they return or they may not return.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

they may not return

Do you mean they are pernamently out of service? Again, do you have a source to verify that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, happy283 said:

Do you mean they are pernamently out of service? Again, do you have a source to verify that?

Until they are fixed and what happens if they are not fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

Until they are fixed and what happens if they are not fixed.

If they are not fixed then they cant re-enter service but that seems unlikely. The current car assignments are unsustainable if they want normal service on all lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subway service is pretty good now.  R46 alone both on (A)(C) will also become short on Subway Cars. They need another fleet of subway cars.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

Subway service is pretty good now.  R46 alone both on (A)(C) will also become short on Subway Cars. They need another fleet of subway cars.

 

Thats why they have the R160s temporarily but as soon as (F) goes back to normal, Jamaica is going to need most of their cars back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

R142A did.. I remember someone linking an article on here about the R142A being pulled from service when they was new due to problems. Prior to the R179s I think many ppl would agree the R142A was easily the worst NTT car class we had...

 

 

And some people forgot that the R142A/188 conversation sets had their own issues too and were delayed because of compatibility issues I believe.

Edited by MysteriousBtrain
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, happy283 said:

I havent heard about that. I would like to see that article. Any chance you know what the problem was that caused them to be removed temporarily.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/17/nyregion/new-subway-cars-show-flaws-and-are-removed-for-repairs.html

Bonus article for a brief mention of R143/188 issues if you still think Kawasaki is always perfect:

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/newer-mta-trains-beating-performance-starting-lag-article-1.3184932

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Bonus article for a brief mention of R143/188 issues if you still think Kawasaki is always perfect:

The performance issues with the R143/188s seemed like the run of the mill new train issues which didnt require a removal from service. The R142/A issue was problematic but the bombardier cars suffered as well. Now I am not saying Kawasaki is perfect but their equipment I still feel is better compared to other manufacturers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, bwwnyc123 said:

R179 is out of service now so R160 sets are running on (A) until they return or they may not return.

 

Where do you come off saying "they may not return" from?  They are out of service till FURTHER NOTICE.  Transit is keeping it at that, so should you!

Your personal opinion?  

If so, let's just keep the facts on this board.

This is how rumors start.

Unless you are a suit at MTA/NYCT, and if you were you wouldn't be posting here anyway, nobody at HQ would be making something like that public.

Edited by Bill from Maspeth
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

Where do you come off saying "they may not return" from?  They are out of service till FURTHER NOTICE.  Transit is keeping it at that, so should you!

Your personal opinion?  

If so, let's just keep the facts on this board.

This is how rumors start.

Unless you are a suit at MTA/NYCT, and if you were you wouldn't be posting here anyway, nobody at HQ would be making something like that public.

This is a public forum we are allowed to have different opinions and ideas. We don't always have to agree on the same things.

Edited by bwwnyc123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

This is a public forum we are allowed to have different opinions and ideas. We don't always have to agree on the same things.

You specifically said "they may not return".  If that was your opinion you should have specifically said so.

Because when others read that remark, like happy283 did, they construe it as fact. 

When giving an opinion, state that it's an opinion.

BTW: I disagree with your OPINION!

  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It is ridiculous to suggest that the R179's may not return to service.  The MTA certainly has the right to require Bombardier to make the necessary fixes, but the expectation will be that the fleet will return to service as soon as satisfactory repairs are completed.  I have not seen the contract between the authority and Bombardier but I have negotiated numerous multimillion-dollar business contracts myself - a purchase of this size will have a lengthy contract which will no doubt stipulate in detail how any defects or disagreements are to be resolved.  There would be no language or provisions in a contract of this magnitude that would allow the MTA to simply walk away and send the cars back to Bombardier and get their money back - that is just not how it works. 

Edited by RailBus63
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, happy283 said:

I havent heard about that. I would like to see that article. Any chance you know what the problem was that caused them to be removed temporarily.

 

7 hours ago, happy283 said:

Notice how all the cars from Kawasaki dating back to the R62 didnt have major issues when first arriving. They should be given a contract to make all cars going forward bringing an end to the ridiculous bidding process.

 

2 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

another example would include the M9s. they also had quite a few delays before going into revenue service last year. 

https://www.newsday.com/long-island/transportation/new-trains-delayed-m9-lirr-1.31387548

this is probably why there's no guarantees as to how the 211s will turn out. even if they do get delivered on time, it still takes time for them to test (about a year) so they won't be arriving en masse until late 2021 at the earliest. 

it is essential to fix all of the problems with the R179s in order to make sure that service is running reliably without any shortages before the 211s arrive. this is probably one of the main reasons why the MTA is doing a through examination and analysis on their unreliability issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

You specifically said "they may not return".  If that was your opinion you should have specifically said so.

Because when others read that remark, like happy283 did, they construe it as fact. 

When giving an opinion, state that it's an opinion.

BTW: I disagree with your OPINION!

In my original post I said they may or may not return.

So far they have not return yet because they are probably fixing them still waiting. I don't care if you disagree with my opinions.

Edited by bwwnyc123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A news anchor simply reposts the same exact statement about "being removed from service indefinitely" and suddenly it's fuel to the agreeably ridiculous thought of being permanently removed. 

On the other hand, I've been hearing the Union does NOT want R32s in passenger service due to having to switch cabs and crews exposed to the public. Possibly they'll find a solution to this and eventually send them out. 

Edited by 4P3607
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coney Island Av said:

 

 

another example would include the M9s. they also had quite a few delays before going into revenue service last year. 

https://www.newsday.com/long-island/transportation/new-trains-delayed-m9-lirr-1.31387548

this is probably why there's no guarantees as to how the 211s will turn out. even if they do get delivered on time, it still takes time for them to test (about a year) so they won't be arriving en masse until late 2021 at the earliest. 

it is essential to fix all of the problems with the R179s in order to make sure that service is running reliably without any shortages before the 211s arrive. this is probably one of the main reasons why the MTA is doing a through examination and analysis on their unreliability issues. 

The M8s also had issues and delays.  The 211s will also no doubt have bugs and other issues that will need to be worked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, beelinefan said:

The M8s also had issues and delays.  The 211s will also no doubt have bugs and other issues that will need to be worked out.

Also the WMATA 7K series. Had some faulty crimping that needed to be fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how the MTA can make service on the (A)(C)(J)(Z) without bringing back the R32's and maybe few R42's- depending on if they stripped some parts already. I know the R32's are in storage in the yards, same thing as the r42's. I understand the union's reason for not bringing them out in service. But when the (F) and (L) return to full service to some point in time, then the R32's would have to at least run in service if the r179's are not ready to return in service yet. You can't run just the r46's on the (A)(C) alone, it won't be enough. I have a feeling more r160's might transfer over to the (C) line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Far rockaway said:

I don't know how the MTA can make service on the (A)(C)(J)(Z) without bringing back the R32's and maybe few R42's- depending on if they stripped some parts already. I know the R32's are in storage in the yards, same thing as the r42's. I understand the union's reason for not bringing them out in service. But when the (F) and (L) return to full service to some point in time, then the R32's would have to at least run in service if the r179's are not ready to return in service yet. You can't run just the r46's on the (A)(C) alone, it won't be enough. I have a feeling more r160's might transfer over to the (C) line.

 

the (F) we got until September, But If they do add more (F) service it still won't be 100% until the Culver GO is over.

ENY is the only yard that needs cars since its restricted to 8 car only trains, with 98-102 R179's OOS at ENY. They need atleast 4-6 sets of R32's to cover service if the (L) goes back to full service.

  • Thumbs Up 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, bwwnyc123 said:

In my original post I said they may or may not return.

So far they have not return yet because they are probably fixing them still waiting. I don't care if you disagree with my opinions.

Again, if something is your opinion, you should state so, rather than me or someone else asking you about your statement, then afterwards you tell us it was your opinion.

If I didn't ask, others would take your opinion as fact.

Edited by Bill from Maspeth
  • LMAO! 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, RailBus63 said:

It is ridiculous to suggest that the R179's may not return to service.  The MTA certainly has the right to require Bombardier to make the necessary fixes, but the expectation will be that the fleet will return to service as soon as satisfactory repairs are completed.  I have not seen the contract between the authority and Bombardier but I have negotiated numerous multimillion-dollar business contracts myself - a purchase of this size will have a lengthy contract which will no doubt stipulate in detail how any defects or disagreements are to be resolved.  There would be no language or provisions in a contract of this magnitude that would allow the MTA to simply walk away and send the cars back to Bombardier and get their money back - that is just not how it works. 

 

2 hours ago, bwwnyc123 said:

In my original post I said they may or may not return.

So far they have not return yet because they are probably fixing them still waiting. I don't care if you disagree with my opinions.

There is at least one person who agrees with me......bwwnyc123

Edited by Bill from Maspeth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, 4P3607 said:

A news anchor simply reposts the same exact statement about "being removed from service indefinitely" and suddenly it's fuel to the agreeably ridiculous thought of being permanently removed. 

 

Here's another one bwwnyc123 disagreeing with you.  And as I said earlier, statements like what you made others construe as facts.  Like how it's stated above.  Your opinion has been construed as a fact.  This is how internet disinformation revolves.

4P3607: Let it be known that the thought of them being permanently removed comes form the brain of one individual.  His idea.  I can assure you that the thought of them being permanently removed is not in the mindset of MTA/NYCT. 

Edited by Bill from Maspeth
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

We've had many rail car manufacturing companies over the years ACF, Budd, St. Louis, Pullman off the top of my head. Many of them have exited the business for one reason or another. New companies have entered the field to replace those that left. Kawasaki, Bombardier, Alstom are among the newer manufacturing concerns as are others worldwide. Let's get real for a moment. All of these companies have limited construction capabilities. Not one can produce unlimited railcars or subway cars for the NYCT, LIRR, MNRR, PATH, DC Metro, Toronto, Shanghai, or whomever needs new cars. That's why some companies don't bid on particular contracts. Why tie up a production line with one agency and lose potential business worldwide ? What many people on the forum overlook is that Kawasaki, Alstom, and the others are the assemblers of the finished product. They don't make the individual components. Much like Ford or GM rely on components from myriad seat, AC, steering, radio, and electrical plants in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan for example thats what railcar companies do. If a linkbar fails on a particular unit from Bombardier the prudent thing to do is re-check all of them to see if it's an isolated incident or a manufacturing defect. Rockwell trucks couldn't stand up to the rigors NYCT put them through. Even though they seemed to work elsewhere. I seem to recall NYCTA buying a fleet of Grumman Flxible Buses years ago that couldn't stand up to NYC streets although they worked fine for other cities. Look at the airbag recalls in certain automobiles. Those of us oldtimers remember the saying " don't buy a car manufactured on a Monday". Didn't matter what car company or model. That's before the robots took over. Why you might ask ? Think about what the workers did Friday Saturday, and maybe even Sunday nights.  All of the "mishaps" I've mentioned were tested and accepted by the companies and the final purchasers.  Before we rush to judgement and condemn anybody let's see how this all plays out. Just my opinion. Carry on.

 

Edited by Trainmaster5
additional thought
  • Upvote 4

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.