R211 Discussion Thread

[subwaycommuter1983]

11 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

the original plan did not have the getting any of the R179s; they were originally only for the (later changed to ) and and then the plans changed after the original train shutdown was suspended

The original plan was for the r179's to replace the r32's. If the C wasn't originally getting r179's, then the C would have kept the r160's that it had. A lot of C train riders demanded NTTs on the C. There are even newspapers articles in the past that even talk about the C always getting the oldest equipment (r10's, r30's, r32's, etc).

And yet there are haters (mostly E, F and N train riders) that are criticizing and complaining about the A and C trains getting the r179's and r211's.

[LTA1992]

4 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

The original plan was for the r179's to replace the r32's. If the C wasn't originally getting r179's, then the C would have kept the r160's that it had. A lot of C train riders demanded NTTs on the C. There are even newspapers articles in the past that even talk about the C always getting the oldest equipment (r10's, r30's, r32's, etc).

And yet there are haters (mostly E, F and N train riders) that are criticizing and complaining about the A and C trains getting the r179's and r211's.

You know, just because the had cars needing to be retired, doesn't mean it would have gotten them. And plans changed.

I do remember there being a time when the was an option, though only vaguely

Edited March 16 by LTA1992

[Mysterious2train]

On 3/15/2024 at 3:37 PM, Lawrence St said:

Ordering four car R179’s was absolutely unnecessary in the first place (except the ones for ENY). If the plan was to always have the  become full length, why order four car sets in the first place?

Now you have this mess of fleet uniformity because the  has always been the oddball of 8th Ave. Sure the R211’s will sort of fix the problem, but where will you send the four car R179’s?

Simple answer is when the MTA ordered the R179s, they were planning to keep the  at 480' for the foreseeable future. Just read this excerpt from the  line review (which was released in 2015 after the R179 order was placed)

Quote

There have been periodic requests for the operation of full-length 600-foot trains on the C in lieu of the current 480-foot trains. ... However, based on projections for C ridership incorporating regional employment, population, and transportation forecasts, NYC Transit projects that C loading with 480-foot trains at current frequencies will remain within NYC Transit Rapid Transit Loading Guideline levels5 into the 2020s....Full-length C trains would require an additional 44 cars at a cost of over $100 million. Currently, the cars necessary for 600-foot C trains are not included in the MTA Capital Program. Increasing C trains to 600 feet using existing rolling stock would be an inefficient use of NYC Transit resources because other lines with higher ridership would be required to operate the 480-foot-long trains6 currently assigned to the C, resulting in heavier crowding on those lines.

As others have alluded to the R179s were at one point intended to provide some extra cars for the opening of the Second Avenue Subway. The MTA issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the R179s in 2010 with a base order of 290 cars, and an option of 50 cars. A second option of 80 cars was added with the intention of providing extra cars for the opening of the SAS. I can't find an exact breakdown but the order was intended to be a majority 5-car sets. So the might have been able to graduate to full-length trains. But by the time the contract was actually awarded to Kawasaki in March 2012, the order was shrunk to a 300 car base order with no options with 260 cars in 4-car sets and 40 in 5-car sets. So as ordered, the vast majority of the fleet was to be 4-car sets (making 32.5 8-car trains) with only four 10-car trains. If the R179 fleet was delivered as ordered, then the  would have presumably used exclusively or almost exclusively 4-car R179 sets, at least in the short-term until the R211s was delivered, and the would have been almost entirely R46s and used at most four R179 sets.

Of course, what actually happened is due to Bombardier completely sh*tting the bed with the order, the MTA negotiated an extra eighteen cars in the order, taking what would have been eighteen 4-car sets and turning them into 5-car sets, increasing the number of 10-car train sets from four as originally ordered to an ultimate total of thirteen (and likewise reducing the ultimate number of eight-car trains from 32.5 to 23.5). This allowed the  to use almost a dozen R179 sets each day which freed up some R46s to use on the . So really, it was just the MTA making the most of a bad situation that the  ended up with a mixed fleet.

Additionally, do we actually have any indication from the MTA besides our own speculation that the agency wants to make the  full length now? For all I now, the agency could be fine leaving the  as mixed length for the next few decades - we know the agency was fine leaving the  at 480 ft long last decade.

Edited March 17 by Mysterious2train
submitted post before it was done.

[BelieveinMe]

21 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

the original plan did not have the getting any of the R179s; they were originally only for the (later changed to ) and and then the plans changed after the original train shutdown was suspended

No.this is incorrect.

The 179s were Originally the 3rd option order for R160s, until the funding was pulled by the Hatchet Man the MTA hired to make the draconic cuts agency wide.

However, the majority of his cuts only affected the NYCT, subway and bus system, and certain neighborhoods the routes served.

This was pretty much confirmed with some restoration of the eliminated services, and the sudden "retirement" of that MTA chairman after the deed was delivered.

The R179 was the direct response to cuts, matching car for car the intended retirement of the Remaining R units intended to be replaced by the 160s.

The FTA threw it monkey wrench into the works, by ordering the 44s into retirement because of structural defects.

In any case, the 179s were Not intended for the Q line,(assumed because of the Second Avenue Subway opening).

The cars Were now intended for 8th avenue service, replacing all R32s that remained there.

The R32s were moved to the J and Z line, with some still in A service.

The C was given the majority of the J line's 160 fleet.

So because of circumstances, the 179s were given to the Eastern Division, and the 8th Avenue line simply because they ran the oldest cars in the system at the time.

 

[U-BahnNYC]

28 minutes ago, BelieveinMe said:

No.this is incorrect.

The 179s were Originally the 3rd option order for R160s, until the funding was pulled by the Hatchet Man the MTA hired to make the draconic cuts agency wide.

However, the majority of his cuts only affected the NYCT, subway and bus system, and certain neighborhoods the routes served.

This was pretty much confirmed with some restoration of the eliminated services, and the sudden "retirement" of that MTA chairman after the deed was delivered.

The R179 was the direct response to cuts, matching car for car the intended retirement of the Remaining R units intended to be replaced by the 160s.

The FTA threw it monkey wrench into the works, by ordering the 44s into retirement because of structural defects.

In any case, the 179s were Not intended for the Q line,(assumed because of the Second Avenue Subway opening).

The cars Were now intended for 8th avenue service, replacing all R32s that remained there.

The R32s were moved to the J and Z line, with some still in A service.

The C was given the majority of the J line's 160 fleet.

So because of circumstances, the 179s were given to the Eastern Division, and the 8th Avenue line simply because they ran the oldest cars in the system at the time.

 

There was supposed to be a third option of R160s? If I remember, the last of the R160s were delivered in early 2010 (the 9803-9942 R160B cars assigned to Jamaica Yard) and that was to be the end of the R160 order

Interesting to think that the age difference between the youngest R160 (9942 delivered in June 2010) and the oldest R160 (delivered mid 2005), is greater than the age difference between the newest R179 (January 2020) and the oldest R211 (June 2021).

[R32 3838]

23 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

the original plan did not have the getting any of the R179s; they were originally only for the (later changed to ) and and then the plans changed after the original train shutdown was suspended

The R179's were never intended for the . The Majority of the R179's were always planned for the and . The 40 10 car units were for addtional service to push out cars to the . CI was never getting a oddball fleet of 40 R179 cars. The Plan was the get the 40 cars, The get the majority of the 8 car sets and the and get a small chunk. That all changed when they decided to give the the R179s first instead of the with ENY/207th splitting the 8 car units and them adding 16 more B cars to the last 18 4 car units that were turned into 18 5 car units.

[R32 3838]

1 hour ago, BelieveinMe said:

No.this is incorrect.

The 179s were Originally the 3rd option order for R160s, until the funding was pulled by the Hatchet Man the MTA hired to make the draconic cuts agency wide.

However, the majority of his cuts only affected the NYCT, subway and bus system, and certain neighborhoods the routes served.

This was pretty much confirmed with some restoration of the eliminated services, and the sudden "retirement" of that MTA chairman after the deed was delivered.

The R179 was the direct response to cuts, matching car for car the intended retirement of the Remaining R units intended to be replaced by the 160s.

The FTA threw it monkey wrench into the works, by ordering the 44s into retirement because of structural defects.

In any case, the 179s were Not intended for the Q line,(assumed because of the Second Avenue Subway opening).

The cars Were now intended for 8th avenue service, replacing all R32s that remained there.

The R32s were moved to the J and Z line, with some still in A service.

The C was given the majority of the J line's 160 fleet.

So because of circumstances, the 179s were given to the Eastern Division, and the 8th Avenue line simply because they ran the oldest cars in the system at the time.

 

No The R179s were intended to always be a separate order to replace R44s in which they did 7 years after the latter half that didn't get retired by the R160s. The supposed 3rd Option order of R160s Was to pretty much wipe out the remaining R44's and the R42s While The R179's Would have just been R32 replacements instead of R44 replacements. They Didn't want to pay out of pocket for More R160s since they needed like 300 More cars in order to replace the remaining R44 and R42 fleets. The going to 6th ave helped them deal with the shortage as more R46s that were on the along the 2 sets of R32s (these were swapped a month prior) went to the . CI also gained back their R160 sets as well as The lowest R160B Jamaica had was 9123. Those R160s replaced that 1 R32 set that was on the .

 

Mods Please merge post with my previous one.

Edited March 17 by R32 3838

[Around the Horn]

Unless I'm Mandala effecting this somehow, they definitely said back in 2014 that the then only 5 10 car trains were fleet expansion for the for SAS until they got so delayed that there was no chance the cars would be ready by then.

[BelieveinMe]

6 hours ago, LTA1992 said:

You know, just because the had cars needing to be retired, doesn't mean it would have gotten them. And plans changed.

I do remember there being a time when the was an option, though only vaguely

Yes, with that being the case many times,as seen on the A for many years until the 179s.

The Southern Division has received new equipment that was designated for the A and C since the 80s, starting with the R68/68a contract.

The R55 would have been "the cars built directly for the A line", but the cars were sidelined because of the defects found within the 44 and 46s, which the cars were based on.

The TA grew cold feet, redesigned the cars into something they were more familiar with, and renamed them R68.

The MTA never seemed to understand,or care about the costs of its callousness.

It has always been a "taker", not a Giver.

Not a big surprise, looking back on its track record.

Another issue is how the TA favored the Queens Blvd Express services during the "lean years", placating the whining of Donald Manis and the rest of the Nimby types.

He killed himself when his corruption was discovered, and others were involved.. but everything seemed to be buried.

The new R68 cars were given to the south, while the 68a were given to the Concourse shops.

It's ridiculous to think that there wasn't a new subway car order of any large number between 1988 and 2001, but That's exactly what happened,as the TA believed it's GOH program saved it some time and money replacing equipment.

Whatever the excuse was,these decisions put the NYCTA behind the times,in a technology black hole, for years.

The MTA had to play catch up, from front of the house, to back of the house...trains shops,yards,depots, management.. signals structures stations tracks ROW..top to bottom.

New cars are Always a "big deal", especially to those who benefit from them immediately.

However,as with All things, there will always be those who feel as if they are missing out, not getting Their fair share.

However, the A line has always been given the "well rounded out" fleets,so the needs of service can be met.

The NTTs introduction to the A line was simply a "no choice" situation.

The same will be done with the B,D,N, and Q ,as the cars there are either aged out,or at the point of it.

It is what it is, sometimes.

[BelieveinMe]

35 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

No The R179s were intended to always be a separate order to replace R44s in which they did 7 years after the latter half that didn't get retired by the R160s. The supposed 3rd Option order of R160s Was to pretty much wipe out the remaining R44's and the R42s While The R179's Would have just been R32 replacements instead of R44 replacements. They Didn't want to pay out of pocket for More R160s since they needed like 300 More cars in order to replace the remaining R44 and R42 fleets. The going to 6th ave helped them deal with the shortage as more R46s that were on the along the 2 sets of R32s (these were swapped a month prior) went to the . CI also gained back their R160 sets as well as The lowest R160B Jamaica had was 9123. Those R160s replaced that 1 R32 set that was on the .

 

Mods Please merge post with my previous one.

Nope.

As I said, the cars were originally the Third Option order of R160s.

Budget cuts moved the cars further up the timeline, and the purpose of the purchase was changed due to a Federal Government edict.

The MTA had to adjust Everything,even the specs(car Were 75ft, now 60ft,one for one replacement of R44s , even the Staten Island cars)

The number of cars were budgeted at 300,to replace the cars that had to be retained due to the FTA.

Meanwhile, the MTA told the public that the R44s were "replaced_" by the last option order R160 cars.

However, the truth was that they were essentially in a situation now, with a serious car shortage in the B Division, time constraints and other factors wrecking havoc.

This was when they Should have stepped up, and made a proper decision, instead of stop gap measures.

The needs of Service dictated the purchase of around 650 cars or more.

MTA choose to push the issue further down the road, continuing the Catch Up game plan.

They were absolutely sure that the current program concerning car maintenance was enough, and if that wasn't enough, then public be damned.

This is the reason why there are so many missing interval runs..lack of equipment,lack of spares,far too many cars out needing repairs.

This is the situation we are in Now.

Even with the incoming 211s,there will not be enough cars until they fill the gap.

At least 550 cars are needed to meet that goal, and they know it.

 

[BelieveinMe]

1 hour ago, U-BahnNYC said:

There was supposed to be a third option of R160s? If I remember, the last of the R160s were delivered in early 2010 (the 9803-9942 R160B cars assigned to Jamaica Yard) and that was to be the end of the R160 order

Interesting to think that the age difference between the youngest R160 (9942 delivered in June 2010) and the oldest R160 (delivered mid 2005), is greater than the age difference between the newest R179 (January 2020) and the oldest R211 (June 2021).

Yes.

There absolutely Was suppose to be another contract extension, except it was cancelled by the hatchet man the made the very worst service cuts ever.

He cancelled bus orders, train orders, commuter car orders,bus service, and everything else within reach.

 

[Kamen Rider]

The 1662 we got was pretty close to the original pitch of about 1700 cars. If there was going to be another option, it probably would not have been that large, a bit like the order nicknamed at the time “R142S”, an extra 8 trains of R142A ordered in 2003, car numbers 7731 through 7810.

And the 160 contract was still the largest rapid transit car order in history when it was completed.

 

the R179s were then what the R268s are now… pie in the sky “shakes the magic 8 ball and gets ‘ask again later” speculation… and that was within transit itself.

When I worked at the Transit Museum in 2006, I remember being sent upstairs to 130 Livingston to pick up the mail (not one of my normal duties back then, but I am mostly a people pleaser when I’m in a good mood and they asked nicely) and a TV screen in the lobby talking about the future R179 order… I think might have been a “Transit Transit” episode or it could have been some internal company video. and remember, this was when the 160s were brand new.

[LTA1992]

11 hours ago, U-BahnNYC said:

There was supposed to be a third option of R160s? If I remember, the last of the R160s were delivered in early 2010 (the 9803-9942 R160B cars assigned to Jamaica Yard) and that was to be the end of the R160 order

Interesting to think that the age difference between the youngest R160 (9942 delivered in June 2010) and the oldest R160 (delivered mid 2005), is greater than the age difference between the newest R179 (January 2020) and the oldest R211 (June 2021).

The third option was a rumor and never actually confirmed. While there was a decrease from the original 1,700 number, that doesn't mean there would have been a third option. It just means one or both options were smaller than originally intended.

I don't know where that person saying the 179s were originally Option 3 is coming from with that

[Kamen Rider]

His source is basically “dude, trust me”… which is effectively also a more appropriate way to read his user name given how cynical this place often gets.

[subwaycommuter1983]

12 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

No The R179s were intended to always be a separate order to replace R44s in which they did 7 years after the latter half that didn't get retired by the R160s. The supposed 3rd Option order of R160s Was to pretty much wipe out the remaining R44's and the R42s While The R179's Would have just been R32 replacements instead of R44 replacements. They Didn't want to pay out of pocket for More R160s since they needed like 300 More cars in order to replace the remaining R44 and R42 fleets. The going to 6th ave helped them deal with the shortage as more R46s that were on the along the 2 sets of R32s (these were swapped a month prior) went to the . CI also gained back their R160 sets as well as The lowest R160B Jamaica had was 9123. Those R160s replaced that 1 R32 set that was on the .

 

Mods Please merge post with my previous one.

Thanks for the clarification.

It's good to know that the A and C trains were originally meant to get the r179's as well as the base order of r211's, which will provide enough trains to displace all Pitkins r46's.

The A and C trains need to be fully NTTs before work on 8th Avenue CBTC is complete.

[Bill from Maspeth]

On 3/15/2024 at 7:39 PM, Calvin said:

A video of R211 4185-9 with 4060-4 coupled. 

That train had better not be leaving the yard for service.........because the barrier springs are not in position between the 5th and 6th cars.   I would imagine it's a transfer to 207YD or a regular yard move in Pitkin.

[Kamen Rider]

19 minutes ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

That train had better not be leaving the yard for service.........because the barrier springs are not in position between the 5th and 6th cars.   I would imagine it's a transfer to 207YD or a regular yard move in Pitkin.

considering that's one of the barn tracks she's on, yeah, safe to say nothing to worry about. 

[BelieveinMe]

5 hours ago, LTA1992 said:

The third option was a rumor and never actually confirmed. While there was a decrease from the original 1,700 number, that doesn't mean there would have been a third option. It just means one or both options were smaller than originally intended.

I don't know where that person saying the 179s were originally Option 3 is coming from with that

Never was a "that person",fella.

Always had a name.

Not to mention, but I will anyway, that things change with the MTA as much as SOME of Us change socks and underwear.

The Third Option Cars WERE a thing, but a certain individual in charge of the overall system decided to make drastic cut across the spectrum of the system.

The 179s were being Planned for both the subway And SIRT..as 75ft cars.

Because of the service and budget cuts, the whole program was tossed under the bus, just like the 3rd option order.

When the 179s order was finally let, the proposal was completely different.

60ft cars, the majority of them were 4 car sets.

I believe I've gone through lengths to explain this, so repetition is unnecessary.

In any case,it doesn't matter what happens you choose to believe, simply because I don't care. Doesn't matter.

I Only addressed the situation because it Needed to be Addressed.

Thank you.

[Around the Horn]

17 hours ago, U-BahnNYC said:

Interesting to think that the age difference between the youngest R160 (9942 delivered in June 2010) and the oldest R160 (delivered mid 2005), is greater than the age difference between the newest R179 (January 2020) and the oldest R211 (June 2021).

There was a genuine concern back then when they had to pull the R179s from service the first time that Kawasaki would deliver the prototype R211 before the R179 order finished. In the end, Bombardier got their act (somewhat) together and COVID supply chain issues delayed the R211.

[Kamen Rider]

1 hour ago, BelieveinMe said:

Never was a "that person",fella.

Always had a name.

Which we don’t know… so…

 

1 hour ago, BelieveinMe said:

I believe I've gone through lengths to explain this, so repetition is unnecessary.

 

And I can go through great lengths to explain why the bottle of ketchup in your refrigerator is secretly plotting to empty your savings, burn down your house and flee to Canada…

just because you say something is fact doesn’t make it fact unless you have the evidence to back it up.

We don’t know you. You’ve been here a week. Your word isn’t worth anything.

 

i work for transit (still waiting for my profile badge, guys, I asked weeks ago). I have been here for years. These guys know me and know that I know what I’m talking about.

 

That level of trust is something that is earned. Not given out to everyone who walks in the door.

 

that being said… the 179s are not a 160 option order… if they were… they would still be 160s.

[LTA1992]

8 hours ago, BelieveinMe said:

Never was a "that person",fella.

Always had a name.

Not to mention, but I will anyway, that things change with the MTA as much as SOME of Us change socks and underwear.

The Third Option Cars WERE a thing, but a certain individual in charge of the overall system decided to make drastic cut across the spectrum of the system.

The 179s were being Planned for both the subway And SIRT..as 75ft cars.

Because of the service and budget cuts, the whole program was tossed under the bus, just like the 3rd option order.

When the 179s order was finally let, the proposal was completely different.

60ft cars, the majority of them were 4 car sets.

I believe I've gone through lengths to explain this, so repetition is unnecessary.

In any case,it doesn't matter what happens you choose to believe, simply because I don't care. Doesn't matter.

I Only addressed the situation because it Needed to be Addressed.

Thank you.

You just told me your age with that first sentence lmfao. Get over it. 

Anyway

You said all this, but didn't give a S-I-N-G-L-E piece of evidence. Second, you're blaming this nameless individual like the 2008 recession wasn't still being felt and was the REAL reason why the number was reduced.

I was there. I don't need your lecture. 

[Kamen Rider]

9 minutes ago, LTA1992 said:

Second, you're blaming this nameless individual like the 2008 recession wasn't still being felt and was the REAL reason why the number was reduced.

If anything he’s making him sound like the second coming of Dr. Beeching

[Bx6Select1010]

4200-4204 is currently testing on the Rockaways Test Track as of 11:48 AM, just seen it while on the 

Edited March 18 by Bx6Select1010

[Comrade96]

When do yall think theyll sign off on the 2nd option order?

[Ale188]

40 minutes ago, Comrade96 said:

When do yall think theyll sign off on the 2nd option order?

I mean, if they do, maybe around next year, when the base is almost done/done and when OOI is starting to get delivered. That's what I think