AndrewJC

The brand new car is not at the end of the set. (On the converted sets, none of the A cars are new.) All of the new R188's are for fleet growth. None of the R188's are replacing any existing cars.

Anybody who suggests moving R32's from the C to the M is forgetting the purpose of moving R32's off the C in the first place.

A lot of the recent ridership growth has been on the Eastern Division. Seems to me that flexibility is particularly important over there.

The R160 order was never planned to be 1700 cars specifically. There was a base order of 660 cars, an option order of 620 cars, and a second option order of between 380 and 420 cars, to provide some flexibility. If the whole point of the swap is to place the R32's on a line that runs mostly outdoors, why would they go on the M at all? The M is mostly underground.

The Culver CBTC test track has nothing to do with the R188's or the Flushing line. Once the permanent NYCT CBTC standard is set - the one that will be in place on the QBL and on all subsequent CBTC installations - new vendors will be required to demonstrate interoperability before they will be allowed to bid. That will take place on the Culver test track.

Of course there's a 207th St. Yard. I see no reason that a former (or current) head of the MTA wouldn't refer to it. Plenty of trains are stored there as I type this. But no cars are assigned to the yard. I certainly don't want to rain on your parade. If being on the first R188 excites you, go for it. To my mind, it's just a subway car, and I'll have 40 years to ride it on the 7 (unlike almost any other car class, there's no risk that it will be reassigned elsewhere). If anything, I'll be hunting down the R62A's as they become less and less prevalent on the line. The opening of a new line is a different story entirely, since it's providing brand new transportation options. Even a CBTC cutover is a big deal to me, since it's an entirely different mode of operation (and I'm generally interested in signal systems). But a simple substitution of one car class for another? No thanks. I'm not going to actively avoid R188's, but I'm also not going to hunt them down.

Track panel installation at Sheepshead Bay. (The next interlocking north of Sheepshead Bay is at Kings Highway.)

On the contrary, from what I've seen and heard, Car Equipment folks are always quite careful to refer to shop/barn assignments, not yard assignments. Here's one example. I mean, if you want to say that trains are assigned to 137th Street Yard, nobody's going to stop you, but it's nonsensical. What do you do with the D trains that lay up at Coney Island Yard, or the B trains that lay up at Concourse Yard, or the C trains that lay up at Pitkin Yard, or the 2, 4, and 5 trains that lay up at Livonia Yard? They are in no way assigned to those yards - the actual cars that end up at those locations change from day to day. But each car is assigned, for inspection and maintenance purposes, to a single barn.

And most important of all: the M is mostly underground, largely defeating the purpose. Emergency is the operative word. It's been a very hot week, and it should be no surprise that the R32's have been having trouble with it. Since train requirements are lower on weekends than on weekdays, there are spare R46's sitting around, so why not press them into C service? Don't be surprised if they all go away tomorrow. Or if they do last past tomorrow, don't expect them to last very long. RTO doesn't like to run a mix of 600 foot and 480 foot trains on the same line. I get the sense that you do care quite a bit. The problems have nothing to do with the age of the car itself - they stem from the design of the air conditioning system and the intended lifespan (which was up years ago). Also, don't forget that PATCO is mostly outdoors, and (as we've seen on the J) the R32's can generally cope if they're mostly outdoors. The R32's had major air conditioning problems in their last summers on the E. What erroneous decisions or premature scrapping? The primary stated purpose of the R160 order was to replace all of the older 60 foot cars. That only changed in 2010 (or was it late 2009?), when the R44's were found to be structurally unsound, and at that time the plan was changed. The R32's that had already been reefed by then couldn't be brought back - nor did they need to be brought back, since (thanks to the 2010) service cuts there is no car shortage at all. The purpose of the testing is to ensure that the performance of the R188's meets contractual requirements. Exact speeds, stopping distances, etc. have to be measured, for trains operating on tangent, level track. The Rockaway test track is tangent, level track, but the Dyre and Sea Beach are not, making the testing process a lot more complex. You mean this? Be careful about who you get your spin from.

Cars are assigned to maintenance shops (barns), not to yards.

Running 600 foot trains on the C would have required 36 more cars, plus spares, to be added to the R179 order.

Aside from the misspelling of Broadway, those are not mistakes - they're just outdated signs. As for the closed stairs, if this is referring to the area behind the stairs to the north overpass, I believe that's where the original elevators were. Or if it's referring to the north end of the platform, I'd guess it's a tower, but I don't know for sure.

We know that DeKalb can handle more tunnel trains to/from 4th Avenue, since the 6 tph M was dropped in 2010. Clearly, another 6 tph, and probably 10 tph, could be added. I'm not convinced it's needed, but if the track connection were in place, it could be used. I don't see anything short sighted about it. I do, however, think that Phase 4 should run down Water Street, as planned, simply because of the major office development along Water Street that isn't well served by the subway. And if it were connected to Montague and extended to Brooklyn, it would be more popular than the M was.

And that's why I said that "I don't know if ENY is set up to maintain R32's." Is the shop set up to maintain and inspect a full fleet of R32's yet? I don't know, and a few isolated instances doesn't say much. In either case, 207th is certainly not set up to maintain or inspect R160's.

October 1999 car assignments: http://www.thejoekorner.com/carassignments/assgnadiv9910.htm Car-by-car retirement dates: http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/IRT_SMEE_Fleet_Disposition

I've been riding the 1 a lot this summer, and the cars have been consistently frigid. I've taken the liberty of boldfacing the most important part. There was never a plan to retire all of the R38's and R40's, all but 222 of the R32's, and all but 50 of the R42's. The plan was to retire all of the R32's and R42's as well, and to retain all of the R44's. Most of the way through the retirement process, the plan suddenly changed, and the R44's had to be retired. What was left of the old fleet was 222 R32's and 50 R42's, so 222 R32's and 50 R42's were retained. Because the C-J swap raises significant maintenance issues - 207th isn't set up to maintain R160's and I don't know if ENY is set up to maintain R32's. Notice that 66 days from the initial transfer takes us to Labor Day, and inspections are required every 66 days. If the transferred cars were all newly inspected, they will be due for their next inspection as summer is winding down, at which point everything can go back to normal. Until 207th is set up for R160's, a permanent swap would require regular non-revenue equipment moves between the shops. MDBF certainly won't improve on either fleet if the cars can't be adequately maintained! How does it make sense to put R160's on the C and R179's on the A? Why not use R179's for both, to simplify maintenance, since they can be maintained at the same barn? It's highly unlikely that the Q will see any R179's. From a service perspective, all 600 foot trains are essentially interchangeable, and it doesn't matter if the 5-car R179's go to 207th, Pitkin, Coney Island, or Jamaica. But from a maintenance perspective, seeing as the C will already be running R179's, the A might as well also get R179's, so they can be maintained together. Why assign R179's to three shops when two will suffice? By running some R179's, the A won't need as many R46's as it does now. The F will run a few more R46's than it does now, and pass on its excess R160's to Coney Island for restored W service.

53rd maintains the connection with the 6 and keeps service R running at Queens Plaza. What would the advantage be to running it via 63rd instead? It would avoid a switching move on 6th, but at weekend headways I don't think that's a major concern. What happened the last time was the N/Q/R shared the Montague tunnel. That's why the R is running up 6th this time.

To spell it out in gory detail: The 1 has to eventually be on the southbound express track at 14th St. to terminate. It can cross to the express either just north of 14th or just south of 42nd. The 2/3, then, has to be on the local - both to serve the local stops south of 14th and to get past the 1 train that is blocking the express track. But there's no way for a southbound train to cross from express to local just north of 14th, so the 2/3 crosses to the local just north or 34th (and in the past it's sometimes crossed north of 96th). So why peel the 1 off to the express at 42nd rather than at 14th? So that, if it has to wait a few minutes for a northbound train to leave 14th, it won't delay 2/3 trains. That logic doesn't apply northbound - seemingly, the 1 could run local along with the 2/3 from 14th to 34th. I suppose it doesn't to maintain a consistent service pattern, or perhaps running it local would add just enough running time to require another crew. I wasn't there this weekend, but the previous weekend there were lots of signs on the northbound platform directing people to the southbound. I don't know if anybody looked at them, but they were there. At 137th, trains relay north of the station. I don't think trains turn at 215th - I believe the trains that terminate there are typically layups. The only reason I can think of is the signage in the mezzanine. Unofficially. All of the system maps, all of the (rider-oriented) station signage, and all of the R160 programs treat Alabama as a J-only stop. I've heard that Z trains stop there as a courtesy to NYCT employees based out of the nearby transit facilities. (Which, frankly, in my opinion, is bunk - trains shouldn't be routinely making extra stops as special favors.)

Amusing! Everybody who works in a public setting knows that sometimes members of the public ask silly questions. It's not worth getting worked up over them. (scratches head) Repeatedly asking a question is worse than trespassing? Really? lol @ Schemememrmerhorn Doesn't sound like a foamer to me - he didn't even know they're called R32's. Sounds more like a curious (and perhaps overly persistent) rider who's noticed the change the past few years. Maybe he finds one of the car classes more comfortable than the other (and I won't hazard a guess at which). Was it immature of me to tell the conductor on a D train at Broadway-Lafayette on the local track, in no uncertain terms, that, despite his announcement, his next stop was not going to be Grand St.? He checked with his train operator and confirmed what I told him. He corrected his announcement and thanked me for saving his ass. Better for him to suffer a bit of mild embarrassment than to bear the wrath of the entire trainload when it pulled into 2nd Avenue. (There had been a police investigation somewhere around DeKalb that had suspended all southbound service across the bridge. Service had just resumed, but this conductor didn't realize that he was past the point of no return. Not two minutes after his train pulled out, another D pulled in on the express.) Lack of proper controls? In the past ten years alone, R32's have run in 10 car consists on all of the 600-foot lines except the D. What's changed since last September?

Is the Rockaway test track back in service yet? If not, that might explain it.

Not a bad idea, but I agree with the others regarding maintenance. If that's not a problem, then go for it. That's the overhaul shop, not the maintenance shop. The CBTC-equipped R160's currently run on both the L and the J.

The J/Z is a single line. It has two letters so that riders can tell the two skip-stop variants apart, but it's one line. (Think of it as the "JA" and "JB".)

And with the recent announcement that the Montague tube is going to be closed for over a year, any GO's on the Broadway side of the bridge that don't get done soon will have to wait until late 2014.

R42's could run on the C if R42 conductor boards were posted at each station, as they are on the Eastern Division. But that would be an unnecessary expense, especially at stations with visibility issues that would need new monitors installed. East New York has 50 active R42's. Whichever cars aren't being used for service on any given day are spares.

There have certainly been reliability problems with the Montague signals, but I'm not aware of any capacity issues. The control lines of the signals haven't been changed. I agree 200%. There are a lot of knowledgeable riders who can reroute themselves past a nasty delay - but only if they know that there is a delay, and where exactly it is. I don't like getting stuck in a delay of any sort, but it's particularly annoying when I could have easily saved 20 minutes had I only known about it. Sometimes it's as simple as taking the local instead of the express. http://www.mta.info/nyct/procure/contracts/55466pb.pdf Oddly, signals don't seem to be mentioned at all!