R42N

More simulated stop testing:

To be honest, I have no idea. I just remember it being a key hint during the R188 introduction: https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/44758-r188-discussion-thread/?do=findComment&comment=727436

So I’m getting more messages on the R179 in service date, or, more accurately, the legitimacy of the in-service date that I posted a few days ago. I’m getting an alarming number of texts saying that the date is not a possibility, while others aren’t ruling it out. My personal thoughts are mixed, the final burn-in tests are a good sign, but the lack of any advertisements on the train troubles me. I guess we will know on Friday, when we should get the simulated test. Let’s hope! (And yes, I stand with my original statement.)

Dj, The same guy who replied to you about the same exact argument you had in August:

That’s true, but some fairly credible people have posted hints that the MTA is seriously considering it, so obviously it’s a valid thought.

I'd truthfully retire some, and put whatever's left on the . Yes, it's Montague is a problem, but it's not a huge one, and if the doesn't seem to have an issue with it, so, why not?

I agree, but you have to remember that the Rockaway’s are only 25-30 cars, you’ll have to place some more 32’s somewhere else. Also, I agree 100%, that service on SAS is enough. Worse comes to worse extract one more or one more .

If I had to guess, and, yes I’m aware there is the obvious elephant, I really think it’ll go to the . Let’s see, though.

The “employee” in Toronto is not an “employee”. She oversees a lot and has many NY connections, but, as you said, it’s not from the mouths of an MTA insider so your skepticism is completely valid. Look, I’m being completely honest. I’m not saying it’s a guarantee, and I’m not saying it’s someone who knows each and everything about the MTA. If you want to look the other way, please do.

I should say, this information is as of a few days ago so if there were any other problems in the last 48-72 hours, then it might already be pushed back. I’m going to stick with her information, and let it sit, but it would be nice if someone with more concrete MTA info could shed some light.

Again, I take absolutely no offense if you don’t believe me. None, absolutely none.

Again, you have every right to be suspicious, I would be to if I was in your shoes, and there is every chance it won’t happen if things don’t go according to plan. It would help if someone credible came out to confirm or outright deny the claim, as it’s not my information (and it’s not some TA employee, it’s a corporate partner at the front office of the TTC in Toronto, who’s in constant chat with her MTA friends.) Either way, I stand behind her, but it is contingent on a good week of burn-in, etc.

We all go by an alias here....

I take no offense, and you have every right to be skeptical. The current schedule is for a Saturday commencement of the 30-day test. That's obviously subject to change, but that's that.

Ok, we have our first in service date! Should things go to plan, the R179's will start their 30 day passenger test this upcoming Saturday, the 18th of November, on the line.

I agree here. I know you’ll still claim “the is the supplemental service”, but there is a reason that the switches over to SAS and the switches over to the local/Astoria whenever there are IRROPS, and that’s because the is the primary, and thus more familiar. As someone who grew up in the 80s and 90s, the 24/7 local train to Astoria is the , is the . The seems to be Broadway’s extra line. Running down to Bay Ridge when need be, up to SAS during Astoria construction or whatever else is needed. Of course, until the necessary cars arrive (maybe the R211’s, but probably the car after that) this cannot happen, as doing the “Broadway Swap” is essentially creating a fifth line with consistent headways, which is not possible today.

Exactly, I’m just talking about how we have exhausted all options, and the SIR was the only line that was never discussed. So, while it might be un-popular, the or the , while problematic, might be the least of the bad options. Otherwise, if the R32’s really are a circle in a triangle hole, and can’t fit anywhere you put them, then you have to retire them, but here’s the thing, they aren’t a circle, they are usable cars, that until the 211’s, will need to be in use.

I think the issue is here is that it becomes a process of elimination. Here are the cited issues with all the lines when the R179s come in: : Too “packed” : Montague a potential re-route (A possibility to some) : Not outdoors enough, will get more displaced pax at Broadway Junction, R179s will be added. : Montague a potential re-route : Not Outdoors; too packed for SMEE. : Too Packed for SMEE. : Plausible, but OPTO and overcrowding could be an issue / : No SMEE on Jamaica during Canarsie shutdown. : No SMEE on Jamaica/Bridge during Canarsie. / : Montague in-schedule : Montague a potential re-route : Montague in-schedule : Franklin is OPTO, Rockaway is plausible, but won’t use up fleet Frankly, the only route that hasn’t been discussed is the Staten Island Railway, or (SIR). Which would work, but it would need modification and then you’d have displaced R44’s on your hands.

So that we keep this thread SAS oriented, I’ll respond to this on the R32 Fleet Thread.

Is that sarcasm? Haha. Anyway, let’s just all try to be more accepting of the varying levels of knowledge. All the best.

This is the hesitation I have to placing the R46’s on the / . I know it’s faster to have the c/r set the signs over rolling all the signs, but with just 32 cars on the / , you can place two sets on the and two on the (usually 3 and 1 nowadays) and you’ll never have a problem at Astoria. The R46’s are so glitchy with their rollings, that you’d have problems in Manhattan with people trying to figure out if it’s an or a . Of course, you could place the R68 on the , but I guess they don’t want old tech on the SAS.

There is nothing wrong with a little bit of sarcasm, I do it all the time, but dismissing people’s thoughts through insults and angry remarks is anything but sarcasm. I think what we all have to realize collectively (as Lance eloquently alluded to) as a forum is that not everyone has the same knowledge as everyone else. Some people know the ins and outs without blinking, but others are new to transit, and might only know their line from their daily commute, and want to learn more. Of course, when experts are matched with newbies, it’s only natural for the experts to correct the inaccuracies, but in a general/open forum geared towards ANYONE who wants to talk about the topic of discussion, we should all respond with courtesy. I’m not saying we can’t joke or give “tough love” to the posters you’ve talked to for years, but there are a lot of newbies with few posts who are trying to dip their feet in the water, only to quickly retreat after receiving heavy criticism for an idea, that, with their limited knowledge of transit, thought was good. It is frustrating when, as you say, the same unworkable ideas get presented, but some people don’t understand what “Montague”, “CBTC” or “OPTO” mean, so we all (myself included) have to have patience. Anyway, as Lance said, it’s time to get back to discussion, but if we could try to just be a little more calm and understanding, it would go a long way.

So, why are they outfitting them with expensive security cameras, adding new and updated signage, re-paining the outside and keeping the interiors pristine, if the plan is to scrap them in 5 years?

Bill, I respect your position and all, but do you have to be so nasty about suggestions that are made? No one forgot about the SAS , and you certainly weren’t the first and only voice that was talking about this. The R32 problem is starting to become a process of elimination. Certain factors eliminate possibilities, so members on the forum are trying to see where they can fit, and your responses of no, no, no; and not adding another thoughts other than “Transit will decide” is demoralizing to members trying to have what the forum strives to do, have a “discussion”. Not to mention the sarcastic remarks questioning peoples intelligence like “or do we?” Take a look at Bill’s posts, and you’ll see him responding to thoughts with “Most of this recent discussion is ridiculous.”, “ I have explained in the past why there will be no R32’s EVER AGAIN on the B and I will have to explain it again.”, “So much for your reliable sources!”, "The purpose of all this? Just for entertainment for a bunch of BUFFS. Yes, BUFFS, not railfans. The froth for these worn out poor performing R32's is simply nauseating. This idea is for YOUR ENTERTAINMENT only. A buff is a foamer. A railfan is somebody who thinks things out as it pertains to the entire railroad.”, All on the First Page of his posts. And now, since this is NY Transit Forums, the mods will come yelling at me saying that I should respect Bill. Sure, some of the ideas proposed have flaws, that you did point out well, like OPTO and the air conditioning issue, but, as I said, it’s process of elimination at this point, and there is every chance that each members thought could be considered. Again, I know you have spent a lot of time with NYCT, but as have others, and to the members that haven’t, their thoughts should not be shot down. Maybe the personalities on here don’t align with the type of people I deal with, but if anyone shot down an idea with a complete bombardment of negativity, the would be dismissed from my company immediately. No need to take a power trip on a forum meant for DISCUSSION.

Ok, but you think that the M3’s are the biggest problem that Metro-North has? There are so many more pressing issues that would be better than replacing good railcars.