AndrewJC

Who said it was the Rockaways? Far Rockaway isn't the entire Rockaways and just because stuff hasn't hit the press doesn't mean it was never planned. Not everything hits the press you know unless its finalized

 

If not the Rockaways, then where do you claim the former-Lefferts A's would have gone?

 

If "Lefferts riders complained that they wanted their one seat Express Ride to Manhattan" (your words) then Lefferts riders were aware of a proposal to take away their express ride. How did they become aware of said alleged proposal, and how did you become aware of their alleged complaints?

 

Whatever back on topic. The trip to Far Rockaway seems longer than the trip to Rock Park from Manhattan. The good thing about it though is better than riding the to Jamaica-179th Street from Rockaway Park from what I heard. Although we already had an train that went to 179th Street back in 2013 which was from Far Rockaway. Does anyone else think the trip to Far Rock from Manhattan is longer than riding the to Rock Park?

 

Hammels Wye to Far Rockaway is almost twice the distance of Hammels Wye to Rockaway Park. In the PM rush, the scheduled running time is 10-11 minutes from Broad Channel to Rockaway Park and 14-15 minutes from Broad Channel to Far Rockaway.

Only the was supposed to get like 3-4 extra sets. And it was mentioned on here by employees many of times it was supposed to happen

 

The A to the Rockaways is a much longer run than the A to Lefferts. Running all A's to the Rockaways would require significantly more cars and more crews than the current split service. Where would those cars have come from and why on earth would NYCT have proposed a major service increase during a budget crisis?

 

Lots of stuff that has no basis in fact is mentioned here by employees. If this alleged proposal made it to the local communities, it also undoubtedly made it into the press. Can you find me one single link to an article, anywhere, regarding this alleged proposal and the alleged community uproar that followed?

TA now have enough time to change it back 260 in 5car sets and 40 in 4car sets, 5 cars are needed more for Second Avenue Expansion fleet increase and for C line service this way the A C lines can share fleets like the 2 5 lines do, that would be better operational reasons in the long run.

 

Even if changing the order were as simple as you make it out to be (it isn't, because A cars are more expensive than B cars), you've just replaced an order for 36.5 trains with an order for 31 trains. How do you make up for the shortfall of 5.5 trains?

 

The A and C don't share any terminals. There's no operational advantage to sharing a fleet. The 2 and 5 (effectively) share a fleet because southbound 2's often become northbound 5's and southbound 5's often become northbound 2's at the shared Flatbush Avenue terminal.

Nope only reason why they didn't go the back then in 2002 is because the steinway tunnel was to narrow so when the R142A's were tested the tunnels scrapped the side of the trains... that is why the R62A's had to be taken off of the and and were sent to the . That is also why between 2004- around 2012 or so they worked on the tunnels  to extend them so that the R142A's can fit through without any Issues. Had the R142A's been succesful back in 2002 the R62A's would of never left the  and the could of likely been running CBTC right now. However bloomberg is the reason why the R62s left the to go to the .

 

Complete and utter nonsense. The R142's are in 5 car sets, and the 7 runs 11 car trains.

 

A 30 tph test was run one day in 2002 on the 7, to see if the line could get by with 10 car trains running more frequently. The test failed. So the R142's, as initially configured, couldn't go to the 7.

 

Believe it or not politics has a role in service. That's why they haven't done the to Lefferts. It was supposed to happen back in 2011. Lefferts riders complained that they wanted their one seat Express Ride to Manhattan and they have pretty high political people. 

 

If you are seriously claiming that, one year after a major round of service cuts, NYCT was proposing to implement a major service boost in Rockaway service, then surely you can provide links to documentation of said proposal and of the alleged complaints. Incidentally, both the A and the C would have required many more cars for this service plan - where would these cars have come from?

Ok in that case, lets enforce Jay walkers citations from now on. 

 

As I've already pointed out:

 

 

Seems like its ok to cross  the middle of the intersection anytime while  cars are coming. 

 

On a walk signal? Of course. The New York City Traffic Rules make it abundantly clear that a pedestrian may cross the street on a walk signal unconditionally, while any motorist approaching such a crosswalk is obligated to yield.

 

Is there a different version of the traffic rules that you're working from?

 

If being arrested is what it is now if you ACCIDENTALLY run someone over due to being in a blind spot, 

 

If you can't see into your blind spot, you don't know if somebody's in it or not. Assuming that nobody's in it is a recipe for hitting a pedestrian. There's nothing accidental about driving directly into a space that might be occupied by a pedestrian.

 

Or to put it more simply - if you can't see where you're going, stop.

 

So let the city start enforcing fines for Jay walkers and using any electronic devices as they're walking to cross the street and not paying attention for potential danger of obstruction. 

 

For the third time: A pedestrian who violates in the law in a fashion that results in the death or injury of a pedestrian is punished, without exception, by death or injury. Is that not penalty enough for you?

 

There are no laws restricting the use of electronic devices on the part of pedestrians, and the city can't enforce a law that doesn't exist. Personally, I'm far more concerned about distracted motorists than distracted pedestrians, since distracted motorists put other people's lives at risk. How about enforcing those laws?

 

Everything is preventable and that's one of the things transit fights for. "Was it preventable?" 

 

It absolutely was preventable. Francisco de Jesus could have waited to enter the crosswalk until he was absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that no pedestrians were in or approaching the crosswalk. (This is what we refer to as yielding the right of way to pedestrians, and it's what the law requires from motorists making turns.)

 

Looks like if you're not a bus operator, you will go against the operator. And If you're a Bus Operator you will defend the Operator. 

 

That's a pretty stupid distinction. Those of us who take pedestrian safety seriously, who think that pedestrians crossing the street with the walk signal in their favor should not have to worry about being hit by a bus or a car or a truck, have been speaking out in favor of this law.

 

But its good we all have our opinions and Hope there's not another incident. 

 

How about we not rely on "Hope"? How about we try to persuade people to not endanger others by penalizing them for engaging in illegal activities that endanger others - or, at the very least, by penalizing them after they've already caused injury or death to somebody who wasn't doing anything wrong?

 

What of his clean record? Does that grant any amount of leniency? I would be unjust to punish him severely. Any fair trial would have to attempt to discover if the girl had any fault in the matter.

 

It didn't grant any leniency to Jiahuan Xu's left leg, did it? His clean record went out the window the moment he decided to drive his bus into pedestrian crossing the street with the light.

 

The point of 19-190 is to encourage drivers to drive safely, so that they don't ever injure or kill a pedestrian who was crossing legally - not even once.

 

According to every article I've read, Xu was crossing the street with the light in her favor. If that's the case, she had no fault in the matter. End of story. The law is quite straightforward.

Pedestrians need to be held to the same degree of responsibility as drivers.  No excuses.  

 

A motorists who violates the law in a fashion that results in the death or injury of a pedestrian is punished, in very limited cases, by a $250 fine and up to 30 days in jail.

 

A pedestrian who violates in the law in a fashion that results in the death or injury of a pedestrian is punished, without exception, by death or injury.

 

Francisco de Jesus broke the law and struck Jiahuan Xu, who was crossing the street in the crosswalk with the light in her favor. As a result, she may lose her left leg. The pedestrian, who was doing nothing wrong, nonetheless bears a far worse punishment than the driver, who broke the law.

 

That said, the whole Vision Zero package is a bad joke and should be done away with.  I mean, we're talking about a mayor who let his chauffeur hit 50 mph through red lights, but sanctions the unnecessary arrest of bus operators.  

 

Actually, no, we're talking about Jiahuan Xu, a 15-year-old girl who was crossing the street with the light and had every reason to expect to make it to the other side of the street with both legs intact.

 

DeJesus had no criminal intent.  

 

And nobody ever claimed that he did.

Red herring. Nobody claimed that de Jesus deliberately struck Jiahuan Xu.

 

Perhaps he was perfectly law-abiding up through February 12, 2015. Unfortunately, on February 13, 2015, he violated this law:

 

 

He failed to yield the right of way to a pedestrian lawfully within the crosswalk, and now he's no longer law-abiding anymore.

 

Quick tip for dealing with blind spots: If it's a blind spot, then you can't see whether it's occupied or it's vacant. If the law requires you to yield, then perhaps it's not a good idea to assume that it's vacant.

 

For daring to cross the street with a walk signal, Jiahuan Xu may have lost her leg. In a way she's lucky - many other pedestrians have been killed for engaging in the same act. It's about time we started holding drivers responsible for failing to yield to pedestrians while turning.

The person who is stating that all R142A will be converted for fleet compatibility is a former motorman, so this is pretty confusing...

Former motormen don't decide these things. Even current motormen don't decide these things. I think someone was pulling your leg.

 

And that's why I can no longer trust any statement from the internet pretty much...

A simple sanity check can work wonders. If somebody is telling you that something totally irrational is about to happen, he's probably mistaken or lying.

Not until the train comes online and then only a few may see service on the .

SAS Phase 2 hasn't been funded and you're speculating on car moves for Phase 3 already?

 

Why on earth would the tiny 40 car fleet of 5 car R179's - or a portion thereof, as you claim! - be reassigned to Coney Island Shop?

 

A supervisor did tell me

Supervisors don't make these decisions.

 

Sorry what I meant is from the J/Z if there's enough R179's for the J/Z/C then perhaps a couple of R160's could go from the J/Z to the A.

The A runs 600 foot trains. The R160's on the J are in 240 foot units.

The Remaining R142A's are going to the 4 because Westchester Yard don't want them and don't wanna have to maintain them , so while those go to the 4 , to fill the void on the missing R142A's on the 6 will be R62A's from the 1 , those broadway sets you see on the 6 aren't there because flushing cant send more R62As its to replace the R142A's that have started going to the 4  , and to replace the missing R62As on the 1 will be R62s from the 3 . The reason for those new R188s is because eventually they will be C cars once all the converted R188s are in service. 

 

As others have said, this is nonsense. There's no room for more 4 trains on Lex, so there's no point in increasing the fleet size on the 4. At the same time, you're shorting the 3.

 

There are only two options that would have made any sense: either the R62A's go from the 7 to the 6, or the R62A's go from the 7 to the 4. We all know which of those two options was chosen.

 

Anyways, a member has just said that he heard it as well but a member on this forum came on chat one night and announced this and he explained that the has been getting complaints from passengers about the R142's on the (which is true, there is some probs) with the R142 on the and either this is a command from the itself or Westchester decided to swap their R62A's from the with 239th St.

 

The overwhelming majority of subway riders don't care about one car class as opposed to another, as long as the air conditioning is working. And to the extent that some riders do have preferences, NYCT has never had a policy of assigning cars based on those preferences. Car assignments are based on what makes the most operational sense.

 

And individual shops don't get to decide what cars they're assigned. Those decisions are made on a systemwide basis.

 

That I didn't know, I thought flushing had more cars which is why I thought those extra sets 7811-7898 were for.

 

http://www.thejoekorner.com/carassignments/irt-2014-06-16.html

 

The 6 runs 40 trains (400 cars); the 7 runs 32 trains (352 cars) - and don't forget that the 7 is getting 126 new cars in addition to the cars transferred from the 6.

 

I'm getting information (again NOT ACCURATE, I'm not saying that I KNOW of it, as I'm clearly saying that I HEARD OF IT before any accusations start) from people that I know SHOULD NOT be trusted. I only share it for a confirmation. And I won't be afraid to release who the people are. 

 

Let me clear this up:

I WILL NOT RELEASE THE NAMES HERE, I WILL IF IT DOES HAVE AN IMPACT ON ME.

- One person has told me they got notified by a motorman that works the that he laid up R142s 6661-6670 one day. Again, have no clue if this is true or false.

- Another person is stating that the R142A's will be going to the and that westchester HATES R62A because they are lazy & don't want to change signs. That comes to the statement by another person that R142 from the will be going to the and that R62A will be heading to the 7th Ave Line.

- Another person states that all R142A will be converted for fleet compatibility. Again, I highly doubt it was true although he did seem like a worker. That is why I didn't share it until now. 

- They are also stating that an R62 from the was once on the .

 

ONCE AGAIN, I AM NOT THE ONE WHO IS MAKING THIS UP, I AM THE ONE WHO IS SHARING THIS TO GET FURTHER INFORMATION ON WHETHER THIS IS RELEVANT OR IRRELEVANT INFORMATION I WILL BE SHARING THEIR NAMES (in which I really don't want to) IF I POSSIBLY GET INVOLVED OR ACCUSED FOR FALSE INFO

 

An isolated sighting of a foreign car class is meaningless. Maybe a 5 train was diverted up the Pelham line (to fill a gap in 6 service or because of a blockage on the Jerome or WPR line) and it ran in 6 service for a trip or two and was laid up at Westchester temporarily.

 

If the crews on the 6 line are too lazy to do their jobs, they should be disciplined or fired. Wholesale car fleets are not reassigned to accommodate somebody's desire to not do his or her job.

 

Converting all of the R142A's to R188's would be an incredible waste of money. The R188 contract doesn't call for it, nor is it funded. It's not happening.

 

I guess it's possible that some people find unsubstantiated rumors interesting or exciting. I suspect that you're making them up to try to fool others (it doesn't seem to be working well), or maybe your friends made them up and fooled you.

 

The and   are staying with what they have just due to the fact that there isn't enough R62A's to cover service and that they also swap cars at flatbush constantly so the crew there wouldn't wanna have to go back to constantly changing rollsigns when with an R142 just press a button and change the route for the train .

 

It has nothing to do with what the crew wants and everything to do with the need to pump trains through Flatbush Avenue terminal as fast as possible in order to maintain the intense rush hour service there. (Even the midday service there is incredibly intense - aside from Brooklyn Bridge, which doesn't really count, I can't think of any other terminal that runs a 4 minute headway straight through the midday.) Holding the train at the terminal for five or ten minutes as the crew cranks the signs from 2 to 5 just isn't an option. If the 2 were to get any R62A's, they simply wouldn't be reassigned as 5's at Flatbush (barring a massive gap in service). Back in the redbird days, 2-5 swaps were uncommon.

 

There is somewhat a solution for and using  R62A. Just like the and they have two strips for local / express. They COULD do that with one strip as the and one strip as the . Now the only hassle is rollsign business..

 

The strip maps aren't the issue. (When R142 2 trains and R142 5 trains swap places, the strip maps are all wrong.) The issue is that the trains don't spend enough time at the terminal to have all of the signs cranked from 2 to 5 or 5 to 2.

 

Yup. They claim its impossible because of the aged space age era technology in circuits incorporated into the boards. Then again they did do it with the R44's/46's. I remember that study.

 

The R44 and R46 originally came with rollsigns remote-controlled from the cabs. The wiring for that system was recycled into the digital signs when they were installed.

 

The R62 and R68 never had such wiring.

 

In any case, the idea to retrofit the R62/R68 with digital signage was Jay Walder's. When he left, the idea died.

 

So I'm being told that there is literally NOTHING in the CBTC box right now? True or false?

 

Kawasaki is producing CBTC-ready cars in the R188 contract. Thales (the CBTC contractor) will come in at a later date and install the CBTC equipment.

 

The 32s and 38s received the flipdot signs because the air conditioner components in the front of the train's interior made it difficult to change the overhead signs. If that wasn't the case, we'd likely still see standard rollsigns on those cars. For what it's worth, I'm in complete agreement concerning the legibility of the older rollsigns over the flipdots.

 

Difficult? I think you're understating the case. The R32/R38 air conditioning unit completely blocked the panel that needed to be opened in order to crank the rollsign.

There's a good reason why the is express and the is local on CPW at night. It is because there are SCHEDULED connections at 59 St on the 20 minute headways so that riders can make two-way transfers between the two branches. In reality, overnight flagging delays mean that not every single transfer can be made, but when it does, it saves riders from having to wait 10+ minutes to change between the two lines. Also the reason why the is the express is because the also needs to run local from 59-Canal, meaning it HAS to be on the local track at 59 St. So if the were also local, that across the platform transfer wouldn't be possible. The and do something similar at Nevins St on the late nights.

 

But the 2 and 4 both run local south of Nevins at night, so the analogy isn't perfect.

 

The A and D could still make connections at 59th and both run local - the D would have to pull into 59th on the express track and then cross to the local. (That's for northbound - reverse it for southbound.) That way, if the D is running a minute late and misses its connection with the A, the people going to local stops aren't stuck with a 19 minute wait for the next A - and the express stops are far enough apart that walking from 59th or 125th isn't a realistic option for most.

If you want to ride R46's on the so badly, just ride the after 11pm.......

 

Watch it, somebody might take that as encouragement to break into the cab and change the signs!

I agree with this post. The catch is though, when mishaps happen with the CBTC system the whole line shuts down. Is there anything that can be done in regards to this or can we say the T/Ds are screwed when these sort of things happen? What would be the protocol for when the line shuts down? Implementing of block signaling mode if there is such a function?

 

Any sort of signal failure will cause major disruptions. Even with CBTC, they very rarely take out the whole line (and, on the flip side, if you've never encountered an AC power failure that knocks out all of the wayside signals along a stretch of track, consider yourself fortunate).

 

I'm sure there are procedures for maintaining some semblance of operation when the signals are out, but it will inevitably be seriously degraded from regular rush hour levels of service.

 

Except at interlockings and south of Broadway Junction, there are no more wayside signals on the Canarsie line, so there are no (or, more accurately, few) wayside signals to fall back on. Signal systems are quite pricey - it's very hard to justify spending money on two redundant signal systems on the same line. Signal replacement projects are basically wayside or CBTC, but not both - and CBTC is higher-capacity, safer, and faster than wayside, and I believe the life-cycle cost is lower.

 

That said, the Canarsie CBTC system does seem to be somewhat lacking in reliability - I hope Siemens and Thales do better in future jobs.

 

I have another question: The R143's have almost the worst MDBFs in the entire NYC Transit fleet but this is due to CBTC failures not the cars. I fail to understand why the MTA counts car reliability like this? It makes no sense to me. I mean the cars themselves seem to run well in itself.

 

Subway cars have lots of systems and components on board that have the potential to fail. Just because a car seems to run well doesn't mean that those systems and components never fail.

 

CBTC-equipped cars do have extra components that other cars don't have, so I do agree somewhat that it's a bit unfair to compare MDBF on cars with CBTC to MDBF on cars without CBTC - an R143 with failed CBTC is no worse off than any non-CBTC car. As the CBTC program progresses, I wonder if the MDBF tables will be split between CBTC cars and non-CBTC cars.

 

Well with the and CBTC craps out, they drive it manually and follow the regular signals...

 

...now the problem is that the signals are spaced so far apart (north of Bway Jct anyway), the absolute block rule takes effect; and since one signal block has multiple stations in between it, there's gonna be MAJOR delays along the line.

 

With the , they learned from that mistake on the and all the signals are generally staying put (or moved slightly). It'll be easier to keep service when CBTC craps out

 

The signals are most certainly not staying put! The entire point of a signal modernization project is to replace the old signal system with something new, whether wayside or CBTC.

 

Flushing will have more (brand new) wayside signals than Canarsie, but I believe they're only going on the two-track section of the line (and at interlockings), and, like on the southern end of the Canarsie line, they still won't support regular rush hour headways. Given the cost involved, I don't see how a high-capacity wayside system on top of a high-capacity CBTC system could possibly be justified.

I hope they don't. Hope the  decides to do something like the  with both R160s and R46s.

The 6 will mostly run R62A's, but some R142A's will still run, simply because they're not all needed on the 7.6 riders will cope the same way 1 and 3 riders cope today. For the most part, they don't even care.

 

About ATS, what is the difference between it and CBTC? Don't they both locate trains?

CBTC is a type of signal system, which enforces safe train separation and safe interlocking operation, much like the old wayside signals we're all used to seeing. ATS is an overlay on top of a signal system that automatically tracks trains and routes them through interlockings.

 

Not trying to be rude man, but i know why the R62As are coming back to the , long story short incase u didn't know R62As ran on the when they first came in 1987-2002 . They went to Flushing in 2002 because back then the R142As couldn't fit in the steinway tubes.

Nonsense. They didn't run on the 7 at first because they were in five car sets, because Corona Shop wasn't yet equipped to handle the roof mounted HVAC units, and because there simply was no pressing reason to run them on the 7 rather than the 6.

You can pick two out of three: Service runs fine, Service runs 24/7, and MTA fixes 30 years' worth of maintenance backlog so that service continues to run fine. You don't stop going to the dentist because it's painful and you don't like it.

 

Actually, you can't even pick two. Systems that shut down every night also have weekend GO's. This weekend, for instance, the London Underground website shows outages on the Central line for six stops, on most of the Metropolitan line northwest of Wembley Park, on the Piccadilly line for seven stops, on the entire Edgware branch of the Northern line, and on a segment of the DLR.

 

Line shutdowns are unavoidable. In fact, we're fortunate to have express tracks and reroute options that often allow some semblance of service to continue running, where other systems would have to shut down.

 

Maybe it's best not to post my opinions on these topics. I see how it is.

 

There's nothing wrong with posting your opinions, but don't be surprised if others disagree.

 

Just looking out for the common man.

 

Who do you think benefits from adequate system maintenance?

 

We can have respectful conversations without ''bashing'' me or anyone else for their opinions if you disagree. 

 

Nobody's bashing you.

As the Wood is now over, this is a dead issue and the G.O. is(hopefully) over. With that being said, i'll make one final statement on the matter: i'm not saying your points aren't valid or logical. What I am saying is that the date of the Wood was known months in advance and the G.O. could've been scheduled around it. If inclement weather was the cause of the G.O. being postponed yesterday, as i've seen posters say here, then that's unfortunate, but still could've been avoided with careful planning. I've seen(not your post(s)people downplay the Wood, yet, as i've stated repeatedly, you don't know what it does for the city in every way possible. I was on the chat last night and was talking about a different matter, but was told that the gets federally funded money. Aside from that, some events that the city hosts mean more beyond money and transit and the Wood is one of them. That's why i've consistently said that you have to be a part of the racing community to understand what the Wood means.

 

There are very important events every single weekend of the year, all over the city. When GO's are scheduled, the goal is not to make it convenient to get to all important events easily, since invariably that's simply not possible. The goal is to try to keep the inconvenience to a minimum, to ensure that the various GO's aren't incompatible with each other, and to try to maintain adequate capacity for everybody. (That's why Flushing line GO's are avoided during Mets games - because there wouldn't be enough capacity to handle the post-game rush.)

 

I'm not downplaying the Wood - but I think you may be downplaying everything else.

Pushing it back one weekend or two hurts NO ONE.

And you've verified that there are no conflicts with any GO's scheduled for those weekends?

 

one example is the Livonia Av station in the  . The   is planning to connect the  with the 

No they're not. NYCT policy is to institute out of system transfers only to take the place of former transfers that have been eliminated by service changes. While I'd like to see a transfer here, NYCT hasn't been willing thus far to incur the loss of revenue (from people who the MetroCard system might be transferring but aren't actually).

Very few? Yes, but those very few form a very vocal and very annoying minority.

 

Railfans? Be nice.

 

Thank you, if they overhaul R62A with modern tech it would be a lot better,

 

Not in my opinion.

How much more would it cost the MTA to have 260 cars in a 5 set and 40 in a 4 set for the R42's? That's still 300 cars.

 

Yes, but it's only 31 trains, rather than the 36.5 that the actual R179 order is providing.

Heard today at work that effective April 31, the and are going to swap equipment - R160's on the and R68A's on the . This is due to the rollsign issues with the changing terminals 3 times a day. R160's will also be used on the on weekends as needed.

 

Great news! Thanks. April 31? I've marked my calendar.

6 line riders will just have to learn to deal with it.

 

Very few of them care one way or the other.

The could and has Run full 8 car R46 2 summers ago. They did it successfuly, Giving the R32's to the , in return making the 600 feet.

That was on a temporary basis with the current fleet. Once the 300 R179's (most in 4 car units) replace the 272 R32-42's and SAS opens, there won't be enough cars for a 600 foot C.

 

CBTC as in, If they were installed the components would already be there. They can save alot more time and money this way.

Again, the CBTC standard doesn't exist yet. The cars will be CBTC-ready, and once the standard is finalized, the cars can be equipped.

 

50 isn't divisible by 4...ever heard of spares.

Yes, they also have to be divisible by 4.

 

This order is a waste plan as simple, the needs to be full length, the ©'s ridership is growing, I don't understand why this order is 8 car trains it doesn't make any sense at all, and once MTA realizes that they screwed up, then they're gonna feel stupid, and bombardier will not make extra B or C cars, that's why the R188 conversation automatically went to Kawasaki, bombardier didn't want no part in that.

What you apparently don't understand is that the MTA doesn't have an unlimited capital budget.

Saw an R62 set starting with a lead car in the 1560s and the end car 1470 on the today, hadn't seen that one before.

 

The 1 was cut off from its usual storage areas all weekend, so it presumably borrowed some equipment from the 3.

The weekend M should not terminate at Essex Street, but instead run full length to 71 Avenue.  

 

The M would have to be cut back to Essex whenever GO's affect 6th Avenue or QBL service.

 

The QBL interlockings are currently being redone. Then comes years of CBTC installation on the QBL, plus interlocking replacements on 6th.

 

What's the point of paying for a service that might run a few weekends each year for the next decade or more?

Watch them put the R179s on the and give 207st Hand-me-down R160s from the and for service.

What would be the point of that?The East New York fleet includes 64 cars equipped for the unique Canarsie CBTC system. Those cars, at a minimum, will not be leaving East New York.

 

As far as the five car sets, im sure the MTA will place them in CI for the

They could in principle go to any line running 600 foot trains, bit why do you think they'll go to the Q specifically?

 

Can't rule out Jamaica getting some 179's bumping the 46's to the exclusively since QBL is supposed to get CBTC in the future. As for the 4 car sets ENY/Fresh Pond....

The C can't run R46's. The R179 order isn't large enough to accommodate 600 foot C trains.If QBL CBTC is ready to go before the R211's are in, the Jamaica R46's will have to go to Coney Island in exchange for more R160's.Fresh Pond, by the way, is a yard, not a maintenance shop. Cars are assigned to maintenance shops, not to yards. No cars are assigned to Fresh Pond.

 

Now to really go out on a limb, they could decide to move the R143s to the and put the 179s on the ...

The entire R143 fleet has specialized Canarsie CBTC equipment. The R143's won't be going to the C.

 

I highly doubt that, seeing as if CBTC is now being installed on the QBL soon,  Im 100% positive all new tech trains will come CBTC ready.

The NYCT CBTC standard hasn't even been determined yet!

 

True forgot the majority of the order was 4-car sets and not 5. Got mistaken that 50 cars will be 4 car sets and the rest 5 car sets.

50 isn't even divisible by 4!