This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Nope, the first test train isn't scheduled to arrive for at least another 2 years so there will probably not be much information till then.--iGeMiNix17:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's R46 can split on the A and C line so that would retire all remaining r32 you got solve the problem is up to you cause I'm smart Rgalo10 (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ever lie again about YouTube that I just checked I hope retire R44 and R46 is replacing by R179 lair be honest and tell the truth I don't like liars so stop lying about replacing R44 and R46 on YouTube Rgalo10 (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it because Wikipedia is not a not a crystal ball. The infobox is currently pointless because there is so much more information about the fleet that still we do not know about, unlike the R188s, which are already undergoing testing in our system. So far, the three things you have there already exist in the article and we have no projected date on when the first cars will enter service. Please have some patience. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Train2104:WP:UGC says "Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs" should not be used as sources. This need not necessarily apply to YouTube videos or images, though they can also be considered user-generated. However, I do agree with removing some irrelevant details. epicgenius (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: See also WP:VIDEOLINK. The people posting these videos aren't considered WP:RS by any means, nor are they official MTA videos. Though the dates that the R179's were first delivered (and eventually enter service) are encyclopedic, I don't think including this much detail about individual cars is necessary. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Train2104: I see. I thought they were reliable, but if it's by Wikipedia editors, then maybe these are not reliable. However, the video refs for the dates of delivery should suffice if we can get geographic information to confirm the locations of the videos, or else we run the small risk of using videos that have been photoshopped. epicgenius (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assigned routes versus R179 service entry routes
As discussed heavily, the R179s are not assigned to particular routes at the moment. However, the cars did enter service on the J, so that information should be kept. Information about the lines a train entered service on can be here, in the R160 article, for example, and with most other articles too! Mtattrain (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...are supposed to serve as a summary for the article, per WP:LEAD. All the info mentioned in the lead is mentioned in the body as well. There is no harm in having this extra information, since the reader probably won't go looking through the entire article anyway. I don't know why the lead keeps getting removed in this and the R211 articles. epicgenius (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The R179s include provisions for the retrofit of CBTC equipment.[citation needed]
Do the R179s include provisions, or are they fully ready for CBTC? Is whatever CBTC system they have provisions for compatible with all MTA CBTC hardware, or just the install planned on the Queens Blvd line (which has different hardware than the Canarsie install). The January 22nd committee meeting has someone state that they are CBTC ready, but what they mean is not clarified. Metropantograph (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ten car set shipped back to Bombardier
So according to Facebook subway fan pages, the ten car set is pending being shipped back to Bombardier due to a plethora of issues. I am trying to find a news source that can verify this statement before I incorporate it into the article and not risk having it be marked as original research and unverifiable. —LRG5784 (talk·contribs·email) 14:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
> We would like to change that, but users who moderate the articles like to stick to assignments listed by the Electric Railroader's Association, which unfortunately does not change a lot. Mtattrain (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's more than 1 A train r179 active assigned service there's 13 A train assigned on Pitkin ave yard so you have to fix it. Rgalo10 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It means you need something to reference to prove what you claim is correct. If you don't understand that, you really shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. oknazevad (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
R179 retiring R32's
Attention all users. In order to stop having edit warring on the main page its self, we are going to have a discussion here.
The R179's have already retired the R42's. That's over and done with. Now with the R32's, the plan was, and still is, to retire SOME of the R32's and put the surplus fleet onto the A line. A link from NY1 is not a strong reference in its self, as information is always subject to change and is most likely an error from NY1's part. Retiring all of the R32's wont only cause a severe reducement in the surplus fleet, it will also cause a big car shortage, something the MTA is trying to not get into again. Until a more credible source is found, please leave the top of the page as "projected to replace some, if not all, remaining R32s". FlushingLocal (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FlushingLocal: I know that YouTube isn’t the greatest of sources but we should keep the source on the page stating about the R179’s and the R32’s. I think it does explain how it’s gonna work. A.R.M.21:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't even know for sure what they plan on doing with the remaining 120 or so cars. We need to wait and see. And just a tip, do not use any website that is YouTube, NY1 News, or Twitter. The NYCT Subway page on Twitter may be real, but they are not fully accurate enough to be use on Wikipedia. They are not the head of Car Equipment Department, Line Superintendent, or the MTA in general. It was an issue plaguing the R42 article until their retirement was officially announced by the MTA itself. Jemorie (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the R32s, the MTA Committee Meeting stated that the cars will be retired by the first quarter or this year. If it’s evident that a considerable amount of R32s are still in-service after March 31st, then I suggest we change it back to “some” R32s being retired.
Some people on the Forums recently have suggested the R32s are in for a longer stay... TheThingISee28 (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheThingISee28: But that simply does not make sense. They've spent years trying to get out of the car shortage since the R44 debacle, only to get back into it once more? From a logical standpoint it does not make sense. I would understand retiring some of them and keep the rest as a surplus fleet to the (A), but to retire all of them, especially near the start of the year is just unthinkable. FlushingLocal (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FlushingLocal: Trust me, I’d rather the R32s stay than leave. We lost 7 trains by retiring the R44s, then SAS, and QBL CBTC increased fleet requirements. With that said, I understand why retiring the R32s doesn’t make sense at the moment. Also, I was just saying we can change the info box to “some” rather than saying “some, if not all.” TheThingISee28 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - the final ten R179's 3040-3049 were observed and seen on the (A) line on Tuesday March 24, 2020. At last !!!!!
BTW - it was eight years to the date that on March 24, 2012 that the MTA board voted to award this 300 cars R179 rolling stock contract to Bombardier Transportation. What a coincidence.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:610B:4600:BCE0:7410:5897:DD1F (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I removed the unneeded hedging from the lead again, based on the source already in the article that consists of the actual recording of the actual MTA board meeting where the decision to retire the R32s was made. It does not matter if a video is hosted on YouTube as long as the content is reliable, and an actual recording of an actual meeting of a public agency is reliable for the purposes of reporting the decisions made at that meeting. Does this contradict older sources? Yes. But they're older sources. Plans have clearly changed and the retirement of all R32s by the R179s has been decided. There is no "if not all" anymore, and continuing to re-add that against plain meaning of reliable sources is inappropriate and incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it does not matter, YouTube is not a good source for anything PERIOD. We have never used youtube videos as reference before.
Firstly, you're incorrect about YouTube as a reference. We use them all the time. YouTube is just a publishing platform. It's the content, and the author, that make it reliable. It's an official record, not a fan-made video. Huge difference. As for the need to change it, that's a matter of accuracy. It plainly is a forward looking statement, stating what the plans are, and the current plans, plainly stated at an official meeting, are for the R179s to replace the R32s. Period. oknazevad (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this were actually true and correct, we would be seeing this "R32 retirement" in other documents. The only thing we have is a YouTube video which may not even be accurate, so again, please STOP using this as a source. FlushingLocal (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MTA's administration and R32 subway cars wikipedia's pages said they still not gonna change it into some remaining R32 is still decided all remaining R32 unless MTA's change it you just change it on your own is up to MTA's work or administration and I read all information on R32 subway cars wikipedia's pages and MTA's saids. Rgalo10 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, STOP thinking that the R32s will remain for another while because the MTA Board specifically already discussed on a YouTube live board meeting that the R32s will be retired sometime in Spring 2020. FlushingLocal, you're wrong, I'm right
You are not right. The data specifically shows that we CAN NOT logically retire the R32's without additional cars from the R211 order. They are NOT FULLY RETIRING. PERIOD. FlushingLocal (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So we have an official record of a board meeting vs one editor's personal calculations. That seems like a pretty clear case of sources vs original research. oknazevad (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
> I don't think I can share them, but there indeed exist official MTA plans for B-div car assignments that assume that all R32s are retired by the R179, and some that assume that many but not all R32s are retired by the R179. So the MTA can make service without R32s. Mtattrain (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - The R32's have NOT been seen in passenger (customer) service after March 26, 2020. They are all "OUT OF SERVICE" now, until further notice.
Since people clearly do not know how to stop we are going to have another vote.
It's a public record regardless of where it is hosted. It's a completely reliable source, indeed the most valid of sources, and should be used. oknazevad (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Counter point; as discussed by the original editors, anything social Media Wise from the MTA is not reliable and should not be used. Another thing; it is not STATISTICALLY LOGICAL for them to retire all of the cars right now. FlushingLocal (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is an incorrect interpretation of wikipedia sourcing guidelines. official accounts are considered reliable first-party publications. As for your "statsiticvally logical" claims,your personal doubts are not a valid reason to introduce skepticism to an article. oknazevad (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
> Hell, we have used MTA's instagram to cite the reopening of subway entrances, and Bombardier's Twitter to show how the first R179 entered service on the A. It is possible to retire all the R32s cars right here and right now; it does not matter if it is "statistically logical" or not. Until a new update on the R32s comes, it's suffice to say that they will all be replaced with the R179s, later than spring 2020, but before the R211s come in. Mtattrain (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
> Thus, I vote to have the article stating all R32s will be retired by the R179s, but remove the "by spring 2020" portion. If any new source regarding the R32s pops up from the MTA, then change it. I don't know where the hell on this talk page we are voting so I'm just typing my vote here. Mtattrain (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the R32s just got retired, you all are welcome to change to all remaining R32s. There should be no more edit warring because we just found a reliable source that the R32s are retired. Remember to cite the source under the section retirement on the R32 page. Williamwang363 (talk)
I just gave a warnings to a bunch of you for edit warring. You are all established editors and you know better. While I was doing that, another administrator took pity on you and locked the page, so there won't be any EW blocks quite yet. But this is the second time locking the page has been necessary, and it needs to be the last. If you can’t agree, you need to seek an opinion from neutral third parties. Your dispute seems to be about whether or not a youtube source is acceptable. I suggest you use the Reliable Sources Noticeboard at WP:RSN. State your question briefly and neutrally, and be prepared to accept whatever advice you get. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once this page is unprotected, add this source and then knock off with the war. You made it go too far to the point of protection. --Davidng913 (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone add a source for the R42 retirement? Someone removed it and I don't exactly know how to put the source back. So can anyone put the R42 retirement source back? Williamwang363 (talk)
Keep original Initially I was inclined to think the new photo was better, but after looking at other photos on the web of similar interiors, I'd agree that the colors appear to be oversaturated; maybe HDR mode was too aggressive? OhNoitsJamieTalk01:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New photo
Original photo
