AndrewJC

I love how it's so easy to pick out the brand new car at the end of the set. Sticks out like a sore thumb lol.

 

(not mine)

The brand new car is not at the end of the set. (On the converted sets, none of the A cars are new.)

This new R188 really has me thinking. So I wonder if more cars will be ordered to be used on the train as well. Also I also am skeptical about an "R188A" provided by Bombarider which would consist of converted standard R142s and an order would consist of new builds as well to replace the aging R62/R62As. I would expect ultilization on the A division to look like this if the MTA decided to buy more R188s and introduce R188A.

 

R188 (Kawasaki): , ,

 

R188A (Bombarider): , , ,

All of the new R188's are for fleet growth. None of the R188's are replacing any existing cars.

People thought with the number of 32's coming over (a total swap mentioned sometimes, even) that some might wind up on the sometimes.

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.

Yes, I realize that. And for the cost it would have greatly increased the flexibility of those R179s, rather than the current set-up where the is made 480-foot-long trains for the next 4 decades and no other lines can use the R179s other than the BMT eastern division lines.

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

The MTA DID have enough money to completely replace the R42s, as well as 32s since that was the plan from the get go. Had the order been 1700 like it was originally planned, maybe the last of those R42s kept after the R44s retirement could have been retired since not as many spares would have been needed. Thus leaving just 222 R32s.

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.

Figured it must be some rationale like that.

Probably won't run on the , then, because that would be confusion (where it would need to be 4/4 on the IND portion).

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.

By word of mouth from a transit worker on this board, the Culver Viaduct is having CBTC test track installed. Aside from the fact that the Rockaways test trackage got wrecked from storm damage, I guess that would be an additional reason for the reforecasting of conditional acceptance testing completion pushed ahead to March 2014, contract completion date posponed until August 2016 as the MTA powerpoint presentation scans states, correct?

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.

I didn't say you were incorrect, I said it was pedantic. It's incredibly common for workers and supervisors alike to refer to Westchester Yard or Corona Yard for assignments; I even recall a former head of the MTA referring to 207th St. Yard. For shared yards, the distinction becomes more important, as in your 137th St. example. You are by no means wrong--you're quite correct--but this is not a significant dilemma.

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.

But there's nothing like witnessing the beginning. To have the honor of being there. I'm sure you'll be saying the same thing about the 7 Subway Extension or SAS? Because that too, will be around for a long time.

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.

Why is Q line Manhattan bound skipping Neck Rd and Ave U? WHY WHY WHY.

 

Why is it always Avenue U and Neck Rd? Absolutely disgusting.

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

This is a little pedantic; I frequently hear TA members from C/Rs to TSSes to the up-tops in corporate refer to trains being assigned to Yards. Not something worth bickering over.

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.

I can almost guarantee that ENY wont get anymore R32's than it already has and they wont pop up on the sorry guys. 1. R32's are terrible at OPTO 2. QBL will need new C/R boards 3. No the C/R wont be in the 4-4 position for half its route then back to the 5-3 position. 4. The rollsigns will be a major issue for obvious reasons.

And most important of all: the M is mostly underground, largely defeating the purpose.

Per some employees on SubChat they're making weekend requirements by pressing all laid up R46's into service, not sure how Monday will be done.

 

Its obvious this is an emergency order issued singlehandedly by someone high up.

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 honestly don't care, but I still think they should do it 50/50 or send the whole fleet to CI for the B, the heatwave took a toll on all subway cars, most were blowing hot air, just the R32s fall victim since they're the oldest, I find it funny how PATCO cars are just about the same age as the R32s and their A/Cs work very good, in 2009 the R32s HVAC units weren't a problem, even from 1988-2008 when all the R32s were on the never a HVAC issue, its management that's screwing up and they need to fix that issue

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.

Very true, mismanagement, agency level. Which leads to erroneous decisions such as the premature scrapping done in the first place with the the R32's after a period of deferred maintenance as you touched upon, leading to the current shortage of cars we can well see on the among many other things, such as delays on the LIRR East Access Project, another issue. I even have to wonder about the delays in the deliveries of the R188's, is it really because of the damage done to the IND Rockaways test tracks due to the storm, when we have test trackage elsewhere such as the IRT Dyre Ave or the BMT Sea Beach?

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.

That was made clear with the recent audit by city officials and financial firms that revealed that the MTA under Joe Lhota, was hiding the fact that at least 90 million dollars sit uninvested in operational costs last year alone, while the agency was pushing for the payroll tax, creating a multi billion dollar mess with years of accumulated waste of funds resulting from the financial management mistakes. Taxpayers, city workers and even schools suffer as the result. I would presume as well the proper working order of the fleets that keep the system running, as well as infrastructure maintenance.

 

You mean this? Be careful about who you get your spin from.

 

Yes, but they still store trains there so it counts as a yard.

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

Still think it should've been the other way around with mostly 5-car units (so they could use them anywhere on the A division and not just the ) and some 4-car units for the / to retire the R42s.

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

Uhm, you do realize that not all staircases end up at the street they're supposed to end at? Read this if you still think I'm wrong.

http://forgotten-ny.com/2009/02/they-went-brodaway-and-other-subway-sign-errors/

 

(there are a few of those mistakes mentioned there like the 163rd St exit that exits at 161st St or the 153rd sign even though the exit is not at 153rd)

So all in all: the fact that the staircase says 168 St doesn't mean that it exists there, it could be a mistake like in the link above.

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.

Because DeKalb can totally handle more trains, right?

 

The only connection that has enough TPH to support Second Avenue Service would be a brand new tunnel into Brooklyn, linking up to either Court St (probably not happening due to the existence of the Transit Museum) or the Atlantic Branch, because it provides either more service on a trunk line, or creates an entirely new trunk line, opening the doors to expansion later on. A Montague connection would be extremely short sighted.

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.

ummm ENY has experience of doing work on the R32s, when the 1st set got there guess why it took so long to enter service, it was in the shop being maintained, in 2010/11 the R32s went to ENY for HVAC work as well as the spring of 2007, ENY can and does maintains the R32s that are currently there

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.

Before the R142's came didn't the and have all R62A and wasn't the and lines consist of R33's and R36's. I know the had the R33 and R36's and the was R62's.

 

Oh yeah when did those R26's R28's and R29's retire.

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

and the A/C units are busted because of them being underground all the time,this is why they did the swap, the R62As on the also have busted A/C no one cries about that

I've been riding the 1 a lot this summer, and the cars have been consistently frigid.

The R38 R40s and R44s were all more reliable than the R32. The retirement order was based largely on time since last SMS, as all cars R32-R42 were intended to be retired. Technologically speaking, very little of the R32-R46 cars is older than an R62A. 

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.

I'm just wondering why this and swap wasn't done before, when the clearly spends most of its time elevated, and not underground.

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.

an R32 on the can pop up anytime when an R46s is off the road and they have no spares, but this swap is working and the a/c works very good

 

honestly they should keep it like this let half of the R32s stay on the and let half of the R160s stay on the , both lines will have a mixture of both and the MDBF on the R32s and R160A1's would improve

MDBF certainly won't improve on either fleet if the cars can't be adequately maintained!

if the keeps the R160s the R179s will all go to the east (makes better sense) the 5 car set ones will go to the , I honestly think things won't go back to normal after this, we'll see

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?

The R179s go mostly to the . The gets some to kill the last R42s. The 5-Car R179s go to the for SAS.

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.

via 53rd seems interesting... I wonder why they aren't it sending via the line tunnel?

 

(N)/(Q) via the tunnel seems like another headache, I remember seeing posts how messed up service was when they last had that G.O.

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.

Can someone explain why the is going express from 34th Street to 14th Street and the and are going local from 34th Street to Chambers Street? I heard the announcement that it was for construction purposes, but why the swap? I even asked an worker and he, like me, had no idea.

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.

Thanks for the info, guys. I wish they would've told everyone that trains are only running at 14th on the southbound side. I had to watch a train leave and see the next one pull in and not come to the northbound side to realize this. Curious as well as to how 137th and 215th handle trains terminating there when there's no middle track in use.

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.

Because there's no REASON to use the relay.

The only reason I can think of is the signage in the mezzanine.

Correct. Alabama Av has been an "all trains stop" station for at least the past couple of years.

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.)

Alright, so which one of you was the guy who came up to me at Jay St last night and asked when the R32's were gonna start running on the again..... and then wouldn't accept my answer when I told you THEY AREN'T.

Amusing!

No he shouldn't calmdown, the man is doing his job and some foamer asks him a question about the swap and he's said its not happening and the foamer can't handle the answer of course he's gonna be irritated, alot of times foamers can be very annoying

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.

You know I use to (and still think) trespassing onto private property to take photos or videos of trains was crazy enough, but for someone to come up and ask a person doing their job when a fleet of trains is running just takes the cake here. What's even worse is that the person refused to accept the fact the R32s are not running on the this year. You can't write this stuff anywhere guys. 

(scratches head)

Repeatedly asking a question is worse than trespassing? Really?

It went something like this.

 

Me: This is Jay St-Metrotech, transfer to the and cross over for & towards Manhattan

Foamer: Hey when is this equipment gonna start running on the again?

Me: It isn't. This is a local train to Euclid Ave

Foamer: But they did it last summer!

Me: Well they aren't this year. Next stop will be Hoyt-Schemememrmerhorn

Foamer: But they do it every summer! When are they gonna do it?

Me: *ignores him cuz I already answered him twice* Stand clear of the closing doors please!

 

And realizm, I just took a long vacation (both from work and the message boards) last month. I'm out of vacation days for the year....but yeah, I could use another one already.....

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).

I think the big issue here is not that the guy asked Snowblock but rather than accepting the answer he received he instead proceeded to tell him, a transit employee, how he was "wrong" about the inner workings of HIS OWN transit system. Regardless of your age, it's incredibly immature to do.

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.)

Anyway, I can tell you with certainty that the is never going to see the R32's again. They have been specifically banned from that line, as well as any other line which runs with 10 cars, due to the lack of proper controls in the B-cab for conductors, As far as I know, the R160's HAVE been approved for the Rockaways again, but don't get your hopes up because only 5 car sets would run on that line.

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?

I knew B division equipment are tested on Sea Beach, but never have I heard of IRT equipment being tested on Sea Beach.

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

I have a prediction. Swap the ENY R160's for the 207 R32's. This way the gets good A/C, the R32's get confined to a route which is mostly outdoors, both lines remain 8 cars, and 207 and ENY can both handle those equipment. And those idiots who picked jobs on the this summer assuming they'd be avoiding working the 32's on the can stop their bitching about being stuck with 32's the entire pick.

Not a bad idea, but I agree with the others regarding maintenance. If that's not a problem, then go for it.

Sure 207 can handle the 160's. They handle them on a pretty regular basis in the overhaul shop.

 

The has their own dedicated fleet separate from the .

That's the overhaul shop, not the maintenance shop.

The CBTC-equipped R160's currently run on both the L and the J.

Arent the R32s gonna be just for the while the R42s get split with the and

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".)

SKANSKA is doing work on the bridge that inhibits the flow of northbound train service. 

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.

I meant the 5th and 6th car which is actually the middle if the train is ten cars in sets of five and not eight cars in sets of four. And that the R40s and R42s have to stop all the way at the 10 car marker or S car marker regardless of them being eight cars in sets of four due to aforementioned reasons.

 

Sorry if I was unclear....I was basically referring to the mainline IND/BMT B Division (not BMT Eastern Division)....

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.

Isn't there a 6th set of R42s at Eny just laying around there that are retired ?

East New York has 50 active R42's. Whichever cars aren't being used for service on any given day are spares.

When they know they are having major capacity/signal problems in the Montague St tunnel, I'm not sure why they choose to send three trains thru the tunnel this weekend.  Smarter thing to do would have been to reroute the R via the D from DeKalb to Broadway-Lafayette, then via the M or F to Queens.

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.

On that note, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I can't stand it when conductors hide behind the automated announcements. I know that sometimes you guys dont get much info either, but if the train is at or near a transfer point, it might be a good idea to tell riders to hop over to other lines, especially if the train hasn't been moving all that much for an extended period of time. Playing the "delay-dispatcher" or "delay-train traffic" announcement several times in rapid succession is not helpful in the slightest.

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.

Posted June 2nd 9:55 pm

 

Due to signal problems at Court St, some trains are running via the line from Dekalb to W4 st, then via the line from W4 st to 36st (qns).

 

That is one hell of a reroute. The signals in montague really need to be totally ripped out, huh?

http://www.mta.info/nyct/procure/contracts/55466pb.pdf

Oddly, signals don't seem to be mentioned at all!