CDTA

There's a 5th track just north of and south of 72nd St that's used to crossover between the local and express tracks.

If I have a ticket from say, Poughkeepsie to Ossining, can I buy a ticket from Ossining to idk, Marble Hill and use them as a ticket from Poughkeepsie to Marble Hill on the same train?

Why does the 1:51 AM train out of Southeast end at Dover Plains? The only thing I could think of is the crews timing out but I can't imagine that's it.

Does the S92 get a lot of North Fork-South Fork riders or does the whole bus usually bail at Riverhead?

Also as an addendum:

By installing switches just south of 50th St, and between Broadway-Lafayette and Grand St (This would be fairly difficult to do southbound but northbound is fine) you have the run over the 8th Ave Express, and the run via 63rd St and the 6th Ave Express. That, combined with moving the to 53rd St would completely segregate the , which allows for a very high degree of operational flexibility. Something wrong on the... ...8th Ave Local? Just run all the s via the , which can be done without causing any additional merging or delays. ...6th Ave Local? Just run all the s via the , which can be done without causing any additional merging or delays. ...8th Ave Express? Move the and to the local track, then move the to the , which can all be done without causing any additional merging or delays. ...6th Ave Express? Move the and to the local track, then move the to the , which can be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

There's a big thing here I think a lot of people are going to pass over. Look at what the City has done for transit with what it DOES directly control, and tell me they'll run the MTA better than the state.

They can't go over the GWB during the day, they're likely going to be parked in Fort Lee for quite some time.

Didn't mention it at the time because I didn't think it was relevant, but there's one extra 8-car R42 that wouldn't be used for service that isn't a spare. You could take that train and split it up so all the remaining R42s are 10 cars, then put them on the most crowded runs. (There's also an extra 8-car R32 and 8-car R160 for anyone wondering, again this is accounting for the current spare ratio for each fleet)

This would not add any trains to the , the R179s would just allow for the 's R68As to be moved to the . Something about having to pull up all the way to the 10 car marker, right? That could potentially be an issue, but I don't see it as a deal-breaker, especially when we're talking a max of 3 on the line at once (potentially lower if you decide to lower the R32's spare ratio and have the R42s as spares primarily). Is there any other reason why the R32s wouldn't work on the other then the A/C issue? Not downplaying the A/C issue, I just want to make sure that's it, because if it is, given the benefits of putting it on the R32s (can make 480-foot trains, keeps them isolated, puts them on a line that doesn't need rollsign changes) they might be willing to overlook it. I don't believe the and are crowded enough to warrant moving 60-footers on the line given the operational inefficiencies that come with that. With Jamaica having so many R160s, the 75-footers have to go somewhere, and right now the only proposed line that doesn't have them is the (which only has the R179s because they're already based at CI), and the (which has them for the reasons stated above). There really aren't any 8-car R160s left if the are all NTT (which correct me if I'm wrong but I believe needed to be the case to maximize capacity over the Williamsburg Bridge) Wouldn't really work because of the stuff I mentioned above, unless you're putting 6-car R46s on the (which could admittedly theoretically work but I don't think is optimal simply because of rollsign issues, I imagine stopping location issues, and complications after the shutdown, but if it's that important to make the 60-footers that can be overlooked, again I just don't think it's important enough) From what I recall nothing is retiring until the end of the shutdown.

I can respect that. Having said that...... 18 R32s, 3 R42s 21 R179s, 3 R160s, 5 R143s 32 R160s 16 R143s which would turn into at the end of the shutdown 13 R179s (maintains the 8-car length but brings it back to its pre-shutdown frequency) 11 R160s, 9 R179s 23 R160s 21 R143s, 3 R160s As for the other lines..... 33 R46s 21 R68As 14 R68s, 11 R179s 38 R46s 4 R46s, 14 10-car R160s All R160 This would keep things relatively simplified while also meeting the MTA's goals (SMEEs off of the , full length trains) while also matching the planned service levels during the shutdown. (Also with an added bonus of keeping the R68s off of rollsign changing lines as much as possible) During the shutdown the yards would look like this: 207th - R160, Pitkin - R46, ENY - R143, R160, R179, Jamaica - R160, CI - R32, R42, R46, R68, R179 And afterwards would look like this: 207th - R160, Pitkin - R46, ENY - R143, R160, R179, Jamaica - R160, CI - R46, R68, R179 Seems like the best way to divvy it up to me.

Wait, are we seriously not allowed to post about fleet speculation anymore? Speculation is completely normal and widely accepted across various communities. I don't know how many of you are into video games, but when Nintendo's NX was announced everyone and their mother had at least three ideas on what it could be, and people didn't care, because it was an exciting time and speculating can be both exciting and fun. Yes, plans are subject to change and nothing is final until we see the trains rolling on the tracks, but you could say that about anything. Forums are for discussion, you take that away and what's left? Maybe I'm in the minority here but to me it seems the problem are certain users who seem to be so for or against certain proposals that they stop discussing the merits of the actual proposals themselves and just resort to shit-flinging. Eventually there's going to be an impasse and that needs to be understood. Earlier in the Canarsie swap thread me and Jemorie had a back and forth that lasted about two posts. Why? Because I realized he wasn't going to accept my proposal and that's ok. It's important to treat your ideas as just that-ideas. My earlier proposal was based off of what were facts at the time, but that doesn't mean the proposal itself was factual. And this goes both ways, it's not a fact that something is happening and it's not a fact that something isn't happening. As long as people realize this and act accordingly there shouldn't be any problems with proposals and speculations.

This really stood out to me