R211 Discussion Thread

[R32 3838]

10 minutes ago, Storm said:

You’re also forgetting the fact that if 6th Avenue CBTC is proposed, NTTs need to ALSO run on Broadway, because of the reroutes and GOs that happen on the weekend and on emergencies. 6th Ave CBTC isn't coming until R68s are replaced.

6th ave CBTC won't be a thing until the next new order starts rolling in. The need NTTs because of 8th ave CBTC since CBTC starts at 59th CC. On top of that, GOs and reroutes as well. If Jamaica gets a piece of the R211 order which they will. Those R160s displaced by an R211 would go to CI for the and if they get about 500 R160s, Then the would get the other half of the R160 fleet with the R68s taking up only 10- 20% of the

[subwaycommuter1983]

43 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

6th ave CBTC won't be a thing until the next new order starts rolling in. The need NTTs because of 8th ave CBTC since CBTC starts at 59th CC. On top of that, GOs and reroutes as well. If Jamaica gets a piece of the R211 order which they will. Those R160s displaced by an R211 would go to CI for the and if they get about 500 R160s, Then the would get the other half of the R160 fleet with the R68s taking up only 10- 20% of the

If a good chunk of the option orders consists of open gangway trains (r211T's), then it does make huge sense for Jamaica to get all open gangway trains, maybe put a few on the A.

IMO, I think it's a waste of money to put open gangway trains on the B, C, D, N, W. Those lines don't have the ridership that the E/F trains have.

Edited June 6, 2022 by subwaycommuter1983

[R179 8258]

3 hours ago, Storm said:

See, just one problem with that. 

Rollsign Switching at Ditmars

Many T/O’s and C/D’s have been complaining about the situation with SMEES. They will have to switch upwards of 20 rollsigns from the  to  (R68) or Vice versa, make sure the train is ready to go, and make sure there are no wrong rollsigns all in a 7 minute timeframe. So we have to put as many NTTs as we can on those lines. My opinion, carry on.

Honestly , that’s apart of there jobs. If MTA never went NTT they’ll still have to do. They’re just being spoiled. My opinion though

Edited June 6, 2022 by R179 8258

[Trainmaster5]

44 minutes ago, R179 8258 said:

Honestly , that’s apart of there jobs. If MTA never went NTT they’ll still have to do. They’re just being spoiled. My opinion though

I remember changing roll signs for the majority of my career as a M/M and as a C/R. Redbird equipment for the  and the  at Dyre, East 180, Utica, and especially Flatbush Avenue. There were C/R jobs that changed signs from Dyre to 241St during the pm rush hours at Flatbush. Quite frankly I think they should have the and the as the Astoria lines. I’m not sure if that’s the practice today at terminals that operate SMEE equipment. My take. Carry on.   

[Storm]

1 hour ago, R179 8258 said:

Honestly , that’s apart of there jobs. If MTA never went NTT they’ll still have to do. They’re just being spoiled. My opinion though

Honestly, NTTs have spoiled the majority of the workers. Before NTTs operators and conductors were doing fine. Alas, the operators and conductors who operated R160s on the  have protested about this, and there have been increased complaints.

 

[Storm]

Regarding the  G.O. to Continental, I’m pretty sure they’re running R160s on the line, sharing the ‘s fleet. Although I don’t have a link, trusted people within the transit community have said that they are running tests to see if R160s/NTTS run better on the . If these tests go successful, the  will consider putting NTTs back on the line.

[Storm]

3 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

If a good chunk of the option orders consists of open gangway trains (r211T's), then it does make huge sense for Jamaica to get all open gangway trains, maybe put a few on the A.

IMO, I think it's a waste of money to put open gangway trains on the B, C, D, N, W. Those lines don't have the ridership that the E/F trains have.

What are you proposing we do?

the  should get gangway trains, while the  should get the “A” variants.

The fleet of the  would be around 70-80% NTT, 20% R68/A, with the  being 100% SMEE.

Hopefully with the LaGuardia extension and the SAS phase 2 we can get ridership on broadway up. 

[jon2305]

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I remember changing roll signs for the majority of my career as a M/M and as a C/R. Redbird equipment for the  and the  at Dyre, East 180, Utica, and especially Flatbush Avenue. There were C/R jobs that changed signs from Dyre to 241St during the pm rush hours at Flatbush. Quite frankly I think they should have the and the as the Astoria lines. I’m not sure if that’s the practice today at terminals that operate SMEE equipment. My take. Carry on.   

Ive been harping on this thought for weeks, for some reason.

[Amiri the subway guy]

2 hours ago, Storm said:

What are you proposing we do?

the  should get gangway trains, while the  should get the “A” variants.

The fleet of the  would be around 70-80% NTT, 20% R68/A, with the  being 100% SMEE.

Hopefully with the LaGuardia extension and the SAS phase 2 we can get ridership on broadway up. 

The  should get the R160s instead.  And the  R211s are needed for the   

Edited June 6, 2022 by Amiri the subway guy

[Amiri the subway guy]

On 6/2/2022 at 1:13 AM, R32 3838 said:

 

Again, The isn't getting R179's. The is back at Jamaica Yard and Jamaica yard isn't getting the R179's. The R179's would stay where they are. The Only R179's I see moving are the 130 10 car units to 207th st to push out the 8 car units back to ENY. Thus Pushing out the R160's for 8 car service. By then the R179's should have CBTC in them meaning the could use the R179's. This would allow the R179's to be at 2 yards instead of 3.

CI isn't slated to get these cars, The will stay at CIY and would probably be R160's since it's a part time line. Those R160's if they get 580 back would be shared with the with only a few R68's being on those lines with the being all R68's.

 

is likely to get a chunk of this order to prepare for future CBTC.

 

has to be fully tech by 2026 at the latest

 

Jamaica would get a piece of this order due to the fact these cars would have open gangways (if they go through with it) and larger doors. These would be mainly for the

 

The lines aren't the priority for tech trains right now as the IND lines are the main focus. Astoria CBTC has been brought back on board so it's possible that the R160's would be shared with the   but by the time Astoria CBTC is completed, The newest order of cars will likely be in service by then.

 

 

 

 

 

That may be true but again. They deserve new trains too. Further more REROUTE HAPPENS. So  need CBTC train cars to allow for that to happen 

[trainfan22]

5 hours ago, R179 8258 said:

Honestly , that’s apart of there jobs. If MTA never went NTT they’ll still have to do. They’re just being spoiled. My opinion though

The N/W shared the Astoria terminal for a few years before the R160s were introduced. They made it work. They can handle the terminal being 100% R68/68A if necessary.

 

3 hours ago, Storm said:

Regarding the  G.O. to Continental, I’m pretty sure they’re running R160s on the line, sharing the ‘s fleet. Although I don’t have a link, trusted people within the transit community have said that they are running tests to see if R160s/NTTS run better on the . If these tests go successful, the  will consider putting NTTs back on the line.

Why would they need to run tests for R160s on the when they ran on that line for like a decade without issue? 

[Storm]

23 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

The N/W shared the Astoria terminal for a few years before the R160s were introduced. They made it work. They can handle the terminal being 100% R68/68A if necessary.

 

Why would they need to run tests for R160s on the when they ran on that line for like a decade without issue? 

This is a point that most brought up. It most likely is because the  is not that smart. We all know that R160s run better on the  than SMEEs, so why not just put them back rather than doing tests?

[subwaycommuter1983]

5 hours ago, Storm said:

Honestly, NTTs have spoiled the majority of the workers. Before NTTs operators and conductors were doing fine. Alas, the operators and conductors who operated R160s on the  have protested about this, and there have been increased complaints.

 

They are spoiled. NQW workers and riders need to stop whining and relax. They had NTT's before and they will eventually get them again, possibly before 2030.

It's time for A/C train workers and riders (who for a really, really long time have to operate/ride the worst performing subway cars in the system) to enjoy fresh brand new trains. 

Keep in mind that workers that operate the A/C trains get paid the same salary as workers who operate the N/W trains and riders that ride the A/C trains pay the same fare as N/W riders.

[subwaycommuter1983]

5 hours ago, Storm said:

What are you proposing we do?

the  should get gangway trains, while the  should get the “A” variants.

The fleet of the  would be around 70-80% NTT, 20% R68/A, with the  being 100% SMEE.

Hopefully with the LaGuardia extension and the SAS phase 2 we can get ridership on broadway up. 

It's the most logical thing that the MTA should do. The open gang way trains can displace r160's from Jamaica to CIY.

Jamaica and maybe Pitkin are the only yards that will need open gangway trains. The other yards will do fine with standard trains.

 

 

[Storm]

12 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

They are spoiled. NQW workers and riders need to stop whining and relax. They had NTT's before and they will eventually get them again, possibly before 2030.

It's time for A/C train workers and riders (who for a really, really long time have to operate/ride the worst performing subway cars in the system) to enjoy fresh brand new trains. 

Keep in mind that workers that operate the A/C trains get paid the same salary as workers who operate the N/W trains and riders that ride the A/C trains pay the same fare as N/W riders.

My thoughts precisely. Honestly, as one of the ‘s daily riders, I can say the complaints are just not needed. We got our R160s for a good amount of time, and now it’s time for us to suck it up and get the SMEES and get rewarded with R68 replacements later on. Even though I get to my high school a little later than I did when I had 160s, it isn’t that much of a difference. I’m just happy the 46s are going.

The  will get 211s before the  

Honestly, let’s not complain about which line the 211s are and aren’t going to, and which lines the final SMEES are going to, let’s just be glad that we’re finally getting some open gangway trains and replacing the aging 46 model.

 

[CenSin]

5 hours ago, Storm said:

Although I don’t have a link, trusted people within the transit community have said that they are running tests to see if R160s/NTTS run better on the . If these tests go successful, the  will consider putting NTTs back on the line.

What is there to test? They had NTTs on the since the mid-2000s! They know how it performs.

[Storm]

1 minute ago, CenSin said:

What is there to test? They had NTTs on the since the mid-2000s! They know how it performs.

Once again, it’s just your usual .

[trainfan22]

I have a feeling whatever railfan that said that is simply lying. I've gotten tricked by lying foamers before. I remember when the NG bus order first started someone said Castelton depot had a bunch of them, long story short I go to CAS depot in hopes of catching a glimpse of the new NG buses and not ONE NG bus was there  The Prevost demo bus was there which I didn't expect so the trip wasn't an complete waste lol.

 

 

Also literally every somewhat rare movement in the subway is documented on video these days and yet there's no footage of these R160 trains testing 

[Amiri the subway guy]

Would it even be a good idea to scrap the R68s And R68As entirely and replaced them with extra R211s I’m asking this cause the R68s  and R68As are getting old and having to maintenance them will become more expensive to repair and CBTC is coming so that limits how many trains routes they could operate on and the R211s might be up to 1612 cars   940 will replace the R46s meaning that the 672 remaining ones can replace the R68s and R68As. And they are say to retire 2025–2030 so yeah?

[Cait Sith]

7 hours ago, Storm said:

Regarding the  G.O. to Continental, I’m pretty sure they’re running R160s on the line, sharing the ‘s fleet. Although I don’t have a link, trusted people within the transit community have said that they are running tests to see if R160s/NTTS run better on the . If these tests go successful, the  will consider putting NTTs back on the line.

Yeah.....I don't buy that at all, especially given the amount of years NTTs have ran on the .

[Around the Horn]

9 hours ago, Storm said:

Honestly, NTTs have spoiled the majority of the workers. Before NTTs operators and conductors were doing fine. Alas, the operators and conductors who operated R160s on the  have protested about this, and there have been increased complaints.

 

It's not a question of "spoiling" workers.

They had additional workers stationed at terminals whose job was specifically changing rollsigns to make sure that they were correct. Those positions were axed in the 2010 budget cuts and never came back, hence its now a problem.

[Storm]

8 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Would it even be a good idea to scrap the R68s And R68As entirely and replaced them with extra R211s I’m asking this cause the R68s  and R68As are getting old and having to maintenance them will become more expensive to repair and CBTC is coming so that limits how many trains routes they could operate on and the R211s might be up to 1612 cars   940 will replace the R46s meaning that the 672 remaining ones can replace the R68s and R68As. And they are say to retire 2025–2030 so yeah?

You remember the tragedy the Eastern Division had when they retired their R30s too soon, and there was a car shortage along the Eastern Div until R160A-1s arrived? Well, it’s the same thing with the R68/A’s. If we retire then **too** soon, then there could be another shortage, until we get new models.

[Amiri the subway guy]

Off topic but here some questions I had 

So we all know that originally the R160s were supposed to replace every train car build in the 1960s like the R142s did. But ended up replacing all R38s R40s as well as all NYCT operated R44s but most of the R32s and R42s. Both of the remaining R32s and R42s would eventually be replaced by the R179s. Here’s my thoughts the R32 surprisedly lasted very long and the steel was very strong but the R38s R40s R42s which were all newer than the R32s was in even worse state of Despair than the R32s which is older why that’s.

Was the R44s as bad as the R46s in the 1970s and 1980s. If the R44s lasted longer and were better taken care of by the MTA and replaced by the R179s as planned what would the R211 order looked like? And if the R46s and R44s were identical why didn’t the R46s had the same structural integrity issues that plagued the R44s?

I heard rumors about a train car shortage after the forced premature retirement of the R44s which lead me to wonder if the MTA could’ve kept some of the R40Ms and R32s phase II until the R179s arrived you know like (44 remaining R40 Mods and 72 of the R32 Phase 2s). 

[Storm]

18 minutes ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Off topic but here some questions I had 

So we all know that originally the R160s were supposed to replace every train car build in the 1960s like the R142s did. But ended up replacing all R38s R40s as well as all NYCT operated R44s but most of the R32s and R42s. Both of the remaining R32s and R42s would eventually be replaced by the R179s. Here’s my thoughts the R32 surprisedly lasted very long and the steel was very strong but the R38s R40s R42s which were all newer than the R32s was in even worse state of Despair than the R32s which is older why that’s.

Was the R44s as bad as the R46s in the 1970s and 1980s. If the R44s lasted longer and were better taken care of by the MTA and replaced by the R179s as planned what would the R211 order looked like? And if the R46s and R44s were identical why didn’t the R46s had the same structural integrity issues that plagued the R44s?

I heard rumors about a train car shortage after the forced premature retirement of the R44s which lead me to wonder if the MTA could’ve kept some of the R40Ms and R32s phase II until the R179s arrived you know like (44 remaining R40 Mods and 72 of the R32 Phase 2s). 

I think it’s just a question of what number the model is (eg R36 vs R38). The R44 was originally supposed to be fully replaced by R179s, but there were enough R160s to force some of them into retirement. R179s, as it ended up, replaced most of the remaining R32s (my favorite B div SMEE), Replaced all of the remaining R40/S/M’s. This R211 order is set to replace the remaining R32s, MTA operated R44s in storage, R46s, and slowly but surely phase out the R68s as more options arrive.

[subwaycommuter1983]

11 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Would it even be a good idea to scrap the R68s And R68As entirely and replaced them with extra R211s I’m asking this cause the R68s  and R68As are getting old and having to maintenance them will become more expensive to repair and CBTC is coming so that limits how many trains routes they could operate on and the R211s might be up to 1612 cars   940 will replace the R46s meaning that the 672 remaining ones can replace the R68s and R68As. And they are say to retire 2025–2030 so yeah?

The 672 remaining r211's can retire the worst performing r68's. The MTA will need to add an additional option order of r211's to replace the remaining r68's and avoid any car shortages.

I don't think it's a good idea to create a separate car order to replace the r68's. The r179's are a good example of that.

The MTA needs to hire staff just like the old days to quickly change the rollsigns at Astoria. 

IMO any NTT's that go to CIY needs to go primarily to the B/Q trains. Keep in mind that the only Broadway lines that do get rerouted on 6th Avenue are the Q and R trains. The N can still use NTTs during the weekends.