R179 Procurement Delivery and Acceptance

[abenm613]

Those R32s are going to be around until 2015

WwwwHHHAT?! Do you think it's permitted to operate subway cars for almost half-a-century? From what I know, the cars are to be resigned after they have served for 40 years. And the R32 is the oldest running fleet as of now.

R-26: 1994
R-27: 1995
R-28: 1995
R-29: 1997
R-30: 1997

But by mid-1993 they were all gone.

R-32: 2000
R-33: 1998
R-36: 1999
R-38: 2002
R-40: 2003
R-42: 2004

The R160 contract was only signed in 2002, expecting the deliveries to start in 2006, which was slightly delayed.

And without the R160's what would replace these six car classes?

R-44: 2007
R-46: 2011

While I don't really like them (especially R44's), they still look relatively young.

[R36 Combine Coach]

In the 1960s and 70s the 35-year life expectancy was expected. But rebuilding in the late 80s, SMS and improved quality control improved that, plus delays in new car orders.

[de402]

Another change the NYCTA ought to make in addition to bringing back the 75-feet length which I applaud, they should also manufacture them as "married pairs" instead of 4-car sets, this way, they can run two-car Shuttles on the Rockaway Park on weekends or dead-day travels, or six cars, like the G. Also, the should get 600 of these not only to relieve the R44 and R44SI, but to relieve some of the worst-performing R46 units, especially the B cars, I think the R179s ought to be like the R46 6208-6258, married pairs, and the R179 cab should also be as big and roomy as the R46, and yes, I also support transverse bucket seats NOT longitudinal bench seats and straight standee bars with rubber strap holders like the MBTA cars in Boston. That's how my R179s should be.

IMHO, you'll never see another new 75 foot car.. For one tunnel clearances are a major problem, hence their availability only on certain routes. Ever see that R1 that they chopped up in the 70's with feelers and a light bulb to test clearances ?

Besides the obvious door problem or lack of doors.. they exert a higher degree of force on infrastructure (track, points, switches, and even the vehicle itself. 60-5 foot length cars are the operational sweet spot.

[Kamen Rider]

Another change the NYCTA ought to make in addition to bringing back the 75-feet length which I applaud, they should also manufacture them as "married pairs" instead of 4-car sets, this way, they can run two-car Shuttles on the Rockaway Park on weekends or dead-day travels, or six cars, like the G. Also, the should get 600 of these not only to relieve the R44 and R44SI, but to relieve some of the worst-performing R46 units, especially the B cars, I think the R179s ought to be like the R46 6208-6258, married pairs, and the R179 cab should also be as big and roomy as the R46, and yes, I also support transverse bucket seats NOT longitudinal bench seats and straight standee bars with rubber strap holders like the MBTA cars in Boston. That's how my R179s should be.

IMHO, you'll never see another new 75 foot car.. For one tunnel clearances are a major problem, hence their availability only on certain routes. Ever see that R1 that they chopped up in the 70's with feelers and a light bulb to test clearances ?

Besides the obvious door problem or lack of doors.. they exert a higher degree of force on infrastructure (track, points, switches, and even the vehicle itself. 60-5 foot length cars are the operational sweet spot.

actually there is more of a chance of them being 75' than not. the cars will be, acording to the most up to date info that's been passed around, in a 5 door configruation. the idea is also that buying 10 cars to replace 8 is not a very effective idea from a money standpoint. 8 75's are also less labor intesive as they have fewer parts. 4 less trucks mean 4 less traction motors, 4 less wheels/axle assemblys, and a lot fewer break pads for example.

[jtr1962]

75 foot cars make a lot of economic sense, at least on the routes where they fit, for the reasons Kamen Rider mentioned. Funny, but I mentioned earlier in the thread that they might go to a 5-door configuration. I'm glad to see my prediction looks like it might be correct. 5 doors per side negates the only real disadvantage of 75-foot cars.

Regarding car life, with pure stainless steel bodies I don't see why we shouldn't get pretty much indefinite life of the carbody with regular maintenance. The only reason to ultimately take a unit out of service is when the cost of keeping it in service is more than the cost of buying new equipment. Perhaps this point is starting to be reached with the R32s, R38s, R40s, and R42s. Still, I'd like to see the 32s hang in there long enough to reach 50 years.

[de402]

[quote=]75 foot cars make a lot of economic sense, at least on the routes where they fit, for the reasons Kamen Rider mentioned. Funny, but I mentioned earlier in the thread that they might go to a 5-door configuration. I'm glad to see my prediction looks like it might be correct. 5 doors per side negates the only real disadvantage of 75-foot cars.[/quote]

[quote=]actually there is more of a chance of them being 75' than not. the cars will be, acording to the most up to date info that's been passed around, in a 5 door configruation. the idea is also that buying 10 cars to replace 8 is not a very effective idea from a money standpoint. 8 75's are also less labor intesive as they have fewer parts. 4 less trucks mean 4 less traction motors, 4 less wheels/axle assemblys, and a lot fewer break pads for example.[/quote]

I fail to understand why the 'so called' savings that would come deviating from current design and pay Bomb, Kawasaki, Astholm, or Siemens (as it is the 160+ cars cost about 1-2 million per copy) money to design, build, and test yet another new carbody when they've standardized on the 65ft length and 5 car permanent sets? (now why they have not went to 5 car articulated sets is the real question).

Does history repeat itself? They guys who were responsible for the original 75ft vehicles got their collective asses handed to them remember? Remember the court cases, two car companies went out of business?

Any savings derived from less components (motors etc) will be offset by the expense in infrastructure maintenance. Points, switches, and curved track takes a beating already -- not to mention the exertion of a 75ft equipment . But hey maybe you know something I don't...

[Kamen Rider]

I fail to understand why the 'so called' savings that would come deviating from current design and pay Bomb, Kawasaki, Astholm, or Siemens (as it is the 160+ cars cost about 1-2 million per copy) money to design, build, and test yet another new carbody when they've standardized on the 65ft length and 5 car permanent sets? (now why they have not went to 5 car articulated sets is the real question).

Does history repeat itself? They guys who were responsible for the original 75ft vehicles got their collective asses handed to them remember? Remember the court cases, two car companies went out of business?

Any savings derived from less components (motors etc) will be offset by the expense in infrastructure maintenance. Points, switches, and curved track takes a beating already -- not to mention the exertion of a 75ft equipment . But hey maybe you know something I don't...

a one for one replacement ratio is what the MTA is going for. making an R160 frame 15' longer is simpler and cheeper than building the two extra cars.

[abenm613]

5 doors per side negates the only real disadvantage of 75-foot cars.

While making the 75-foot cars have five doors is a great idea, the lack of doors is not the only disadvantage of the existing 75-footers. Another disdavantage is that they don't fit in all places of the B-division. I have heard that such authentic BMT lines as Broadway Brooklyn (J,M), Myrtle Ave (M), or Canarsie (L) cannot handle the R44, R46, or R68. A solution? Making the new 75-footers bending (articulated). I heard that this is one of actual proposals for the new 75-foot fleet.

[jtr1962]

While making the 75-foot cars have five doors is a great idea, the lack of doors is not the only disadvantage of the existing 75-footers. Another disdavantage is that they don't fit in all places of the B-division. I have heard that such authentic BMT lines as Broadway Brooklyn (J,M), Myrtle Ave (M), or Canarsie (L) cannot handle the R44, R46, or R68. A solution? Making the new 75-footers bending (articulated). I heard that this is one of actual proposals for the new 75-foot fleet.

If you're going to do it that way then perhaps the way to go is to replace two 75-footers with a 3-section 150 foot articulated unit. The two end sections could have 3 sets of doors per side and the center section 4 sets. That gives 40 door sets per side for a 600-foot train but still the same number of trucks (16) per train as current 75-footers. If you want to extend the concept a bit further you could go with 300 foot articulated sets composed of 5 60-foot sections. That cuts the number of trucks per train down to 12. I personally like the idea of articulated sets in that you can freely move along a longer length of train without crossing between cars (which is currently forbidden by the MTA anyway). This means a better chance of either finding a seat, or getting away from undesireable elements.

The downside is obviously loss of operational flexibility. If one section of the set goes down, you lose either 150 or 300 feet of train.

[Kamen Rider]

While making the 75-foot cars have five doors is a great idea, the lack of doors is not the only disadvantage of the existing 75-footers. Another disdavantage is that they don't fit in all places of the B-division. I have heard that such authentic BMT lines as Broadway Brooklyn (J,M), Myrtle Ave (M), or Canarsie (L) cannot handle the R44, R46, or R68. A solution? Making the new 75-footers bending (articulated). I heard that this is one of actual proposals for the new 75-foot fleet.

If you're going to do it that way then perhaps the way to go is to replace two 75-footers with a 3-section 150 foot articulated unit. The two end sections could have 3 sets of doors per side and the center section 4 sets. That gives 40 door sets per side for a 600-foot train but still the same number of trucks (16) per train as current 75-footers. If you want to extend the concept a bit further you could go with 300 foot articulated sets composed of 5 60-foot sections. That cuts the number of trucks per train down to 12. I personally like the idea of articulated sets in that you can freely move along a longer length of train without crossing between cars (which is currently forbidden by the MTA anyway). This means a better chance of either finding a seat, or getting away from undesireable elements.

The downside is obviously loss of operational flexibility. If one section of the set goes down, you lose either 150 or 300 feet of train.

the BMT eastern platforms are not long enough any way for a 600'.

[Radioguy]

Feasible or not, the idea of articulated subway cars is exciting. I remember riding an articulated bus in westchester years before the MTA brought them into NYC and wondered for a long time why we didn't have them here. (still no trash baskets here though)

The other problems are that a derailment could injure more, and while you can get away from gangs and the like, they can just as easily follow you through such a car.

[abenm613]

The articulated buses came to NYCTA only in 1997, while other cities of the world had had such buses for decades already. I don't really understand a reason for that.
As for articulated subway cars, they are used in some other major systems. Particularly, in Paris and, as of recently, in Moscow. Although the Moscow's new articulated units (known as "Rusich") have smaller capacity than regular subway cars. These units are only used on two lines, one of which runs on the street level for most of its length, and another line (a new shuttle) is primarily elevated. For the most part of the system, however, classical subway cars (whose design has not been significantly changed since the 80's) are still being purchased.

[R36 Combine Coach]

The BMT already had articulated subway cars with the D-type Triplexes in 1928.

[de402]

The BMT already had articulated subway cars with the D-type Triplexes in 1928.

ever ride them? they are really neat.. and they illustrate how a semi-private traction interest experimented with the economics of using articulated equipment. Less trucks, motors, no vestibule to fall through, nice ride, oh and they lasted forever. Unlike the IRT.. The BMT operated with some solvency till unification.. perhaps because they invested in technologies that lowered operational costs, or maybe management knew what they were doing.. or simply the company had routes with more patrons... you be the judge.

When i was at the TA and the 142's were being delivered I asked why no articulated car bodies? Seemed like perfect sense to me, especially with the 142's AC traction package, control stand, and ride control system that made them a nice riding vehicle. At the time the Kawasaki's seemed really good while the Bombs.. just bombed with door and BCO problems. RTO cried 'no operational flexibility'. I think they just lacked the balls to try something that actually worked (1928). Articulation equals Car Equipment accountability..

Seems that there is always some dimwit that has to prove that their idea is better than something that has been already been proven to work and work well. Look at the 44's and 46's, the ass that recommended them still curses the road with control stand and contactor issues + the fact that they are useless on certain routs, lack of doors, and the extra wear & tear on infrastructure.

Almost all the new IRT cars were 5 car 'semi-permanent' sets. plus with the trailer and alternate motor arrangement they really are permanent 5 car sets because you'd have to either mod them or bust another like pair up. not to mention the time/personnel to do that cost's money too. Seemed to me that operational flexibility was already kinda a moot point.

Since we're on the subject of fantasy equipment.. Mine would be a R32 car-body, articulated in 5 car sets, ac traction with full-width cab. Corrugated Stainless sides mean lightweight vandal proof exterior (now that scratchitti is killing my 7 line) Interior would be like R160 but without the stupid video screens. Steel dust is making them go retarded and will just kill them anyway. IMHO R32 is/was the pinnacle of car-body design, light-weight, simple, robust, and would go forever if it did not get the sh*%t knocked out of it 24hours a day. 40 years is damn good if you ask me..

[Head-end View]

I think I might have rode one of the last BMT articulated trains. I seem to remember (circa 1962) when I was a kid there were very old trains still on the Astoria Line that were different from the BMT "Standards". Could that have been what it was?