R211 Discussion Thread

[subwaycommuter1983]

52 minutes ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Yes, I think considering how long the R179 and R211 took, the  should be ordering the R262 (and probably the R68/A replacement) right now before the older cars are falling apart.

Also just how much testing do new subway cars do? The R211 has been testing for over 1 year now!

I agree 100%. Both orders should have been included in this capital program. Also, CBTC is another big reason why all SMEE's need to be replaced.

[RandomRider0101]

11 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

I agree 100%. Both orders should have been included in this capital program. Also, CBTC is another big reason why all SMEE's need to be replaced.

That's right. Not replacing cars is not an option.

[trainfan22]

1 hour ago, RandomRider0101 said:

1+ year of testing is normal today for subway cars, although the parts shortage has caused the testing to take longer.

I agree that MTA should be ready to order replacements for the older cars. But even then, subway car orders have to be exercised consecutively, not simultaneously. This is to avoid a bigger headache in case all the cars have major issues.

NYCT can receive different car classes at the same time. At one point in the early 2000s the TA was receiving brand new Bombardier R142s, Kawasaki R142As and R143s all at the Same time. It can be done, if the new cars have issues just keep the old ones in service until the teething issues are worked out on the new stuff. That's what did with the R142/142A when they was new, IDK why posters in this thread so worried about new car orders coming in simultaneously, TA made it work in the past and can do it again.

 

 

I believe the R62A and R68 orders overlapped as well.

Edited October 26, 2022 by trainfan22

[trainfan22]

The R68/68As will not fall apart, they are stainless steel and can run as long as the R32s did if necessary. With the Redbirds and 38/40/42/44s it was body issues (rusting, etc) that was an bigger issue than mechanical performance

 

I'll  never forget fans saying that the 42s wouldn't be able to last past the late 2000s..... only for them to run until 2020.

[RandomRider0101]

50 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

NYCT can receive different car classes at the same time. At one point in the early 2000s the TA was receiving brand new Bombardier R142s, Kawasaki R142As and R143s all at the Same time. It can be done, if the new cars have issues just keep the old ones in service until the teething issues are worked out on the new stuff. That's what did with the R142/142A when they was new, IDK why posters in this thread so worried about new car orders coming in simultaneously, TA made it work in the past and can do it again.

 

 

I believe the R62A and R68 orders overlapped as well.

Yes they can and have exercised multiple car orders at one time before, but subway cars today are more complex than they were back then. They are bound to have more issues now than before.

The priority should be replacing the R46s first; they are older than the R62/As and are worse mechanically. The R62/As are in good shape and don't need to be replaced at the same time as the R46s. That's what I'm trying to say.

The R262s will most likely not be here until after the R211 order is done; and the following order (R68/A replacement) will probably not come until after the R262 order is done. So it doesn't make that much of a difference.

Edited October 26, 2022 by RandomRider0101

[R32 3838]

The R46's are bad because of the lack of spares and the fact they are running on the and 24/7 and the fact that the and is sharing the R46s with a very small spare factor plays a big part on why the R46s reliability has dropped.

 

If they have the spares, It would lessen the blow on the R46s. It would be smart to send about 6 to 8 sets of R46s to CI when the R211s are officially in service to increase their spare factor instead of downright retiring them until the 8th set of R211s enters service. 

 

1 hour ago, trainfan22 said:

The R68/68As will not fall apart, they are stainless steel and can run as long as the R32s did if necessary. With the Redbirds and 38/40/42/44s it was body issues (rusting, etc) that was an bigger issue than mechanical performance

 

I'll  never forget fans saying that the 42s wouldn't be able to last past the late 2000s..... only for them to run until 2020.

 

They really had no choice, They didn't even get an SMS and when they did they only did a very light one to 18 cars for that shuttle. They Even tried retiring them around 2012 with 50 R32s after they were SMS'ed but they decided not to do that because they didn't want to reduce the R32s spare factor.

 

44 minutes ago, RandomRider0101 said:

Yes they can and have exercised multiple car orders at one time before, but subway cars today are more complex than they were back then. They are bound to have more issues now than before.

The priority should be replacing the R46s first; they are older than the R62/As and are worse mechanically. The R62/As are in good shape and don't need to be replaced at the same time as the R46s. That's what I'm trying to say.

The R262s will most likely not be here until after the R211 order is done; and the following order (R68/A replacement) will probably not come until after the R262 order is done. So it doesn't make that much of a difference.

I think the R262 order and the R68 replacements will come within the same time frame, It's possible. Plus There is no rush to get the R262s since CBTC has been pushed back for Lexington ave.

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2022 by R32 3838

[trainfan22]

58 minutes ago, RandomRider0101 said:

Yes they can and have exercised multiple car orders at one time before, but subway cars today are more complex than they were back then. They are bound to have more issues now than before.

The priority should be replacing the R46s first; they are older than the R62/As and are worse mechanically. The R62/As are in good shape and don't need to be replaced at the same time as the R46s. That's what I'm trying to say.

The R262s will most likely not be here until after the R211 order is done; and the following order (R68/A replacement) will probably not come until after the R262 order is done. So it doesn't make that much of a difference.

I doubt the R211s are that much more complex than the first gen NTT (R142/143/160/179) . "Under the hood" I wouldn't be surprised if the R160s and R211s are identical  ... they even have the same trucks.

14 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

 

 

 

They really had no choice, They didn't even get an SMS and when they did they only did a very light one to 18 cars for that shuttle. They Even tried retiring them around 2012 with 50 R32s after they were SMS'ed but they decided not to do that because they didn't want to reduce the R32s spare factor.

 

 

 

 

 

I believe all 50 cars that survived the R160 order got an SMS at least once. There's an photo of an SMS'd R42 in CI overhaul shop taken in 2017

 

https://nycsubway.org/perl/show?148099

 

 

Another photo of an SMS'd 42 on the  

 

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?152633

 

 

[R32 3838]

1 hour ago, trainfan22 said:

I doubt the R211s are that much more complex than the first gen NTT (R142/143/160/179) . "Under the hood" I wouldn't be surprised if the R160s and R211s are identical  ... they even have the same trucks.

I believe all 50 cars that survived the R160 order got an SMS at least once. There's an photo of an SMS'd R42 in CI overhaul shop taken in 2017

 

https://nycsubway.org/perl/show?148099

 

 

Another photo of an SMS'd 42 on the  

 

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?152633

 

 

It wasn't all cars, They only did the ones that were on the M shuttle. The others just got a touch up like painting the end bonnets.

[RandomRider0101]

7 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

The R46's are bad because of the lack of spares and the fact they are running on the and 24/7 and the fact that the and is sharing the R46s with a very small spare factor plays a big part on why the R46s reliability has dropped.

 

If they have the spares, It would lessen the blow on the R46s. It would be smart to send about 6 to 8 sets of R46s to CI when the R211s are officially in service to increase their spare factor instead of downright retiring them until the 8th set of R211s enters service. 

I think the R262 order and the R68 replacements will come within the same time frame, It's possible. Plus There is no rush to get the R262s since CBTC has been pushed back for Lexington ave.

 

7 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

I doubt the R211s are that much more complex than the first gen NTT (R142/143/160/179) . "Under the hood" I wouldn't be surprised if the R160s and R211s are identical  ... they even have the same trucks.

Okay so let me clarify my last post. The R262s & R68/A replacement should probably come at the same time. The cars they're replacing (R62/A & R68/A) are roughly in the same age range and are pretty much the same mechanically, minus the obvious differences.

The R46s by comparison are much older, are in worse shape mechanically, and had many more issues since their introduction. They were even once known as the most troubled cars ever purchased; whether or not that still stands today is probably debatable depending on who you ask.

Even if the R46s had a higher spare factor, they still wouldn't be as good as the R62/As & R68/As; which is why no R62/A should be retired until all the R46s are gone. They are already well past their life span and should've been gone completely years ago.

[R32 3838]

3 hours ago, RandomRider0101 said:

 

Okay so let me clarify my last post. The R262s & R68/A replacement should probably come at the same time. The cars they're replacing (R62/A & R68/A) are roughly in the same age range and are pretty much the same mechanically, minus the obvious differences.

The R46s by comparison are much older, are in worse shape mechanically, and had many more issues since their introduction. They were even once known as the most troubled cars ever purchased; whether or not that still stands today is probably debatable depending on who you ask.

Even if the R46s had a higher spare factor, they still wouldn't be as good as the R62/As & R68/As; which is why no R62/A should be retired until all the R46s are gone. They are already well past their life span and should've been gone completely years ago.

 

 

Prior to the R46s going to Coney Island and The R32 retirement, The R46s were very reliable and have been since post GOH 1991 to present day.  Besides them Running on the , They were mainly on the with a few on the for rush hours. If it had a higher spare factor, reliability wouldn't be as bad, It's still drop a little due to them being on the   / 24/7 but it wouldn't be as bad.

Edited October 26, 2022 by R32 3838

[Lawrence St]

14 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

I agree 100%. Both orders should have been included in this capital program. Also, CBTC is another big reason why all SMEE's need to be replaced.

I still don't think CBTC is the solution to the subways problem. Sure we can run trains closer together but look at QBL, there's been a "communications issue" almost every week delaying service.

 

[JustTheSIR]

Why doesn’t the MTA order trains that look like the R32s or SMEEs in general that are fitted with modern technology for railfan value?

[JustTheSIR]

Sorry wrong thread 

[zacster]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

I still don't think CBTC is the solution to the subways problem. Sure we can run trains closer together but look at QBL, there's been a "communications issue" almost every week delaying service.

 

Once all these issues are completely ironed out the performance will be much better.  The and are both very reliable now.  Also, unlike the other two lines, QBL is running in a mixed mode with trains only going into CBTC on that line but running in block mode elsewhere.  And on top of that it is the first line with interlined trains.  When they do 6th and 8th Ave the E and F at least will be fully CBTC (with an exception for Jay to Church I believe.)

[RandomRider0101]

4 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

 

 

Prior to the R46s going to Coney Island and The R32 retirement, The R46s were very reliable and have been since post GOH 1991 to present day.  Besides them Running on the , They were mainly on the with a few on the for rush hours. If it had a higher spare factor, reliability wouldn't be as bad, It's still drop a little due to them being on the   / 24/7 but it wouldn't be as bad.

And I don't deny these things; I know the R46s would be more reliable than they are now if they could get more rest via more spares. But the fact is that these cars are past their retirement age, and it's time for them to go.

The R62/As are younger and in better shape, so the urgency to replace them is not as strong right now as it is for the R46s. Of course all the old techs have to go eventually, due to CBTC and the fact that the old technology gets harder to maintain over time. Right now the priority is the R46s; afterwards it will be the R62/As & R68/As.

Edited October 26, 2022 by RandomRider0101

[Big Railz]

I know this is off topic but was just wondering if there is a PATH discussion thread that exists?

[Trainmaster5]

4 hours ago, zacster said:

Once all these issues are completely ironed out the performance will be much better.  The and are both very reliable now.  Also, unlike the other two lines, QBL is running in a mixed mode with trains only going into CBTC on that line but running in block mode elsewhere.  And on top of that it is the first line with interlined trains.  When they do 6th and 8th Ave the E and F at least will be fully CBTC (with an exception for Jay to Church I believe.)

Did you overlook the obvious  and  situations concerning the reliability of those lines ? Those two lines were chosen as test beds for the CBTC technology because they were isolated from the rest of the system. It was a test of the new signal, period. A very knowledgeable person recently posted in a thread about CBTC something that we were taught long before CBTC was a thought. As long as a train is moving riders are satisfied. CBTC, with less signals than the older wayside system, gives the impression of speed but the running time between terminals remains basically unchanged. I know that many of my former colleagues stopped posting on the forums because they were reading things that were not true or being inaccurate. I’ve personally given up on postings about the junction between lines on the IRT in Brooklyn. My coworkers realize that the average rider or rail fan has absolutely no idea what the timetable, aka “ the Bible “, means or calls for and those that do have stopped being active . They also see the widespread misconception that CBTC means more service running. In theory that’s possible but the  never promised that. We were told that in our refresher courses even before the  CBTC test launched. We all hope that the rollout is successful in both divisions because the signal system is the most important component of RTO, not NTT, and is obsolete. BTW a train is only late after five minutes of the scheduled arrival time. My opinion. YMMV. Carry on 

 

Edited October 26, 2022 by Trainmaster5

[Comrade96]

5 hours ago, JustTheSIR said:

Why doesn’t the MTA order trains that look like the R32s or SMEEs in general that are fitted with modern technology for railfan value?

because railfan value is not and should never be a consideration to base orders off of, plus what youre asking is very impractical, the new trains look the way they do for a reason

[darkstar8983]

5 hours ago, zacster said:

Once all these issues are completely ironed out the performance will be much better.  The and are both very reliable now.  Also, unlike the other two lines, QBL is running in a mixed mode with trains only going into CBTC on that line but running in block mode elsewhere.  And on top of that it is the first line with interlined trains.  When they do 6th and 8th Ave the E and F at least will be fully CBTC (with an exception for Jay to Church I believe.)

Yeah, the  (west of Kew Gardens Union Turnpike) will be CBTC after 8th Av comes online. The  from Kew Gardens to West 8 St will be finished when 6th Av is completed since Crosstown will also be done at the same time, from Court Square to Church Av.

[trainfan22]

7 hours ago, JustTheSIR said:

Why doesn’t the MTA order trains that look like the R32s or SMEEs in general that are fitted with modern technology for railfan value?

Funny you bring this up, LIRR sort of planned this with the M7 (it was originally planned look like the M3s do before they changed the design, rendering below)

 

 

 

 

I love the M1/M3 cars but I'm glad the M7s ended up with its current design. The SMEE's are my favorite group of subway cars but I wouldn't want the NTT to look like them... I'm satisfied with the design of the current NTT, just wish the R211 doors were the same size as the R160s doors, my only complaint.

[RandomRider0101]

10 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

The SMEE's are my favorite group of subway cars but I wouldn't want the NTT to look like them... I'm satisfied with the design of the current NTT, just wish the R211 doors were the same size as the R160s doors, my only complaint.

I'm assuming your complaint is rooted in the smaller windows, which would be understandable; other than that, the wider doors are a plus as far as I'm concerned.

[trainfan22]

10 minutes ago, RandomRider0101 said:

I'm assuming your complaint is rooted in the smaller windows, which would be understandable; other than that, the wider doors are a plus as far as I'm concerned.

I don't l like to stand, bigger doors = less seating capacity. 

 

 

I backtrack to 8th Ave and Hudson Yards so I don't have to stand on and trains 

 

 

It always irks me whenever there's a news report about the R211 they always tout the bigger doors as some kind of improvement but never mention the reduced seating capacity due to those bigger doors. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

6 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

I don't l like to stand, bigger doors = less seating capacity. 

 

 

I backtrack to 8th Ave and Hudson Yards so I don't have to stand on and trains 

 

 

It always irks me whenever there's a news report about the R211 they always tout the bigger doors as some kind of improvement but never mention the reduced seating capacity due to those bigger doors. 

Unless it's an extremely long ride, there's generally enough turnover to get a seat at some point during the trip, not to mention that a number of people prefer to stand anyway.  Bigger doors means less dwell time at stops, which means faster trips if there aren't signal issues or other delays.

[Lawrence St]

2 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

Yeah, the  (west of Kew Gardens Union Turnpike) will be CBTC after 8th Av comes online. The  from Kew Gardens to West 8 St will be finished when 6th Av is completed since Crosstown will also be done at the same time, from Court Square to Church Av.

Why the hell is the  getting CBTC?

[Vulturious]

12 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Why the hell is the  getting CBTC?

Their signal system last I heard are very old and in need of an upgrade anyway, I could be wrong.