R42N

Going back to my negative thoughts on Wikipedia, check out today’s edit on the  page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(New_York_City_Subway_service)

Quote

Beginning on Monday, November 6, 2017 during weekdays only, four limited rush hour service R trains originates and terminates at 96th Street in Upper East Side, Manhattan instead of 71st Avenue.

Even though we all know it’s just one. Additionally, there is no reference to it anywhere on the  Stations Guide. 

They really have to do a better job over there. 

4 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

For now:

What happens in 2019 when the shutdown happens and the gets pressed into MUCH heavier use?

Even at a heavier use, it won’t reach the level that the  or  reaches today, which are current R32 lines. 

On November 1, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Truckie said:

The chance of MNR getting M9's this time around are slim to none.  The M3's may need to be replaced, but they are still running.  There is rolling stock that is not running with no replacement parts available.

The M3a’s interiors are more than fine, and they are just now being outfitted with security cameras, so I doubt that they are on the replacement docket. 

The M3a was introduced roughly around the same time that the R68 was introduced, and they haven’t been refurbished. I understand that commuter trains and subways are two different animals, but MNRR’s M3a’s do not need to be replaced, invest that money into the LIRR replacement. 

6 minutes ago, RR503 said:

It takes about 4 minutes to fumingate, reverse, and recharge a train, then another to move it through the switch into the clear. Given that in a Manhattan Bridge closure situation you'd probably have at least a few trains from the  and  sharing Montague, you couldn't spare those 5 minutes. It'd make the situation all the more terrible. 

As R42N said, let these cars die in peace on the  

Yep, no harm in throwing them on the . The  never really gets too crowded, and is more of a controled line. Some of the R68’s on the  could be used on other lines. 

3 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

A lot can change between now and then, especially since the R179s keep on delaying theirselves.

 

Let's see what happens between now and the R211s before we can even speculate what the R32s will do and will not do.

Exactly. For all we know, the R211’s could beat the R179.

1 minute ago, P3F said:

To answer the Manhattan Bridge question from above, I believe at one point somebody said that the switch near Lawrence Street could be used to turn the train back.

Yeah, but in the pinch of rush hour, they’d rater run the train up Montague. I really think you shouldn’t inconvenience yourself over a once-in-a-year issue. But, what’s the harm of putting them on the  instead? That quiets the critics..... 

On November 2, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Lance said:

That would be dependent on how many additional and trains are added in lieu of the truncated  service. If I recall correctly, the Williamsburg Bridge limits the amount of trains that can run on the Jamaica line.

CBTC-enabled cars can run on non-CBTC tracks. It's the opposite that's the problem.

Exactly. Once CBTC turns on in Flushing, the Train of Many Colors won’t be operating on the  anymore. 

Back to the Canarise problem, I truly think that if you add a one-seat ride to Manhattan from east of Broadway Junction stops, you wouldn’t need to boost service, as no one would be transferring to the  .

What you could do is suspend the current day  route and turn all  trains into the Canarise/Williamsburg/6th Ave/SAS route. That would be service every 10 minutes, and would still serve 14th Street. (Call it the  or the .

19 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Whether or not you have concerns about Montague is inconsequential. The unsubjective reality is that the cars can't fit in there. 

Having R32s -- the system's most unreliable car type -- run on its longest line is just unwise. The havoc those cars could wreak on the flow of traffic scares me. I can almost guarantee 'trains with mechanical problems' every rush hour, causing delays that are sure to cascade across the B division. 

I ask you all once again: why can't we let these cars die in peace on the  or the shuttles? Seems like too much trouble to put them on busy, long, merge filled lines. 

Hold on. I understand that the cars can’t fit there, I said I have no worries of running the  there, as there won’t be any instances where it’ll have to go there in a pinch. 

And why would it be “unwise” to run em on the , if that’s exactly where some of them are running right now? 

Personally, I’d like to see them on the Rockaway  with a few sets remaining on the  , like there always has been (even in the summer). If you want to throw them on the  , go ahead. 

If you have no where to put them that needs them, just retire them, or throw 20 on the Rockaway Shuttle, and you’ll free 2 sets of R46’s, which is useful. 

9 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

They are seriously considering this. They can't even do B reroutes that terminate at Whitehall anymore because of the (W). And when the  isn't running, the  isn't running. The  only runs on weekdays and has a long outdoor segment. The only other places you could put the R32s (which can't stay on the ) are the  and . They don't want to do the  because it is completely underground. The  has a long underground section and a really long route, which would make it less preferable.  The  has an outdoor segment, but it is smaller than that of the  and it runs 7 days a week. The  is a possibility, but it is possible that additional R68As are added.

How many R32’s are expected to last post R179 introduction? You could place 20 R32’s on the Rockaway , and the rest on the line in a case-by-case basis roll. 

I have no concerns about Montague, but I don’t see why they should go through the hassle of switching yards, when you can just keep them on the line. 

Yep, according to Niko G and Jason R (MTA Insiders, I think) the train will run from Houston Ave Lower East Side to 96street/2nd Avenue. 

I wonder how crowded the northbound railfan window will be this year......

1 hour ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Agreed. Many people are going to be reluctant to ride the buses. 

However, keep in mind that these buses should run as shuttle buses. If the MTA purchases the right number of articulated (accordion) buses and bus lanes are created,  then these buses should run efficiently and quick. Also, articulated buses can accommodate more people than regular buses.

 

Oh, 100%. The buses can get you there faster than the train if things work well, but still, if there is any inclement weather, if it’s too cold or too warm, or if it gets a reputation for being un-reliable or packed, you’ll still have the vast majority sticking with the subway. 

Heck even I wouldn’t want to enter the system, leave it, wait for a bus, and re-enter a wait some more twice a day. 

8 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I would just reroute some of the trains over Nassau to Midtown during tje 14th St shutdown to still give passengers a one seat ride to Manhattan, and elimnate the temporary during this time.

Yep, that’s an idea I brought up. You could cut  service by 40% out of Canarsie (to Bedford avenue), and add additional service (call it the  , probably) via Williamsburg Bridge, 6th Avenue and up to 96st/2ave. With similar hours to the  with 18 hours for 5 days a week. 

Of course, car shortage and passenger confusion will likely be cited as reasons on why this shouldn’t take place, but in a perfect system, this would be the best. 

On October 29, 2017 at 7:53 PM, subwaycommuter1983 said:

At this point we just have to wait and see what happens with the  r179's. As a backup plan,  the MTA should consider purchasing additional articulated  (accordion) buses to run parallel to the G train because there will be a car shortage if the r179's aren't delivered by April 2019 when the Canarsie tunnel shuts down.

Agreed. For all the issues with the subways, the bus fleet instillation has been pretty good, and can be purchased and in-service in months, not years. That being said, this should be a back up to the back up plan, no one is going to want to take the  go to street level because of overcrowding on the , wait for a bus, go slower, and the go back on the street and walk to the Court Square station, when you can do that in-house on the subway. 

19 hours ago, itmaybeokay said:

 

The trouble is if you "extract" one R train you could wind up with a headway of 20 minutes. 

Adding M trains doesn't help that much, considering I have to choose a broadway or 6th ave station before I board. 

The 46's don't deal with crowding super well - 8 less doors per train. The following QBL R is going to be crowded, and subsequently delayed. Further - if it's an R-46 set you're sending to 96 - harder to communicate to passengers its terminal. Yes there's always the PA - but it doesn't always work. 

None of this is the end of the world - I just think the change would hurt more than it helps. 

You do not need to extract any ’s. 

Bay Ridge-95th is not at capacity (barely), so you could run an additional up it’s normal route (help out some 4th ave local pax) and switch it over to the  at 34th. 

22 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Astoria's headways would remain unchanged.

What could be done if need be is shorten as needed the Bay Parkway  trains to 9th Avenue.  The idea is to do enough to supplement the  along 4th Avenue while eliminating crossovers as much as possible and streamlining the lines for more efficient service overall.

I get that Astoria’s headways would remain unchanged, that’s the problem. You would have to boost up  service to that of another line, which would create five broadway lines, which one can’t do under the current car constraints. 

The only thing you can do is pick and peel one more ,   or , that’s it. 

7 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Our regular riders knew our destination because as a crew we'd been together for over 10 years making that same interval dating back to the Redbird days.

An additional problem, Trainmaster, is that in this day and age, there are a lot of people that don’t listen to announcements. 

Many people have headphones on, see the  bullet as it pulls in, and grab a seat, never to look up at any signage, only to realize that things are wrong at Franklin Ave. This is why having the  northbound (even through SeaBeach) is a smart move. 

23 hours ago, Lance said:

That Broadway service you suggested is way too confusing for the average rider. Transit does not want too many services with wildly different terminals, especially to the magnitude you're suggesting. For the handful of and  trains that run to New Lots Av or Utica Av respectively, riders always bail at Franklin Av despite the side signs and in-station PA/CIS displays showing the final termini for these trains, thus creating delays due to transferring. Now imagine that with half of a line running to Bay Ridge with the other to Bay Parkway. KISS principles are not just a suggestion in these instances. Riders need clear indication of where the trains are going, not a matter of some go here while others go there.

It’s also worth noting that while you are technically “splitting”  service, you are essentially adding an additional 5th line, as Astoria would need it’s headways maintained, and with the car shortage and no R179s coming up soon with the recent issues, that’s not a solution. 

Here are the five lines under your scenario that would need decent headways: 

 96st or Astoria to Sea Beach

 Astoria to Bay Ridge

 Astoria to Bay Parkway

 Forest Hills to Bay Ridge

 96st to Brighton

Unfortunately, the car shortage really does knock down most of these scenarios, which is why extracting one  from Queens Blvd is the best solution at the moment. 

15 hours ago, Lance said:

That Broadway service you suggested is way too confusing for the average rider. Transit does not want too many services with wildly different terminals, especially to the magnitude you're suggesting. For the handful of and  trains that run to New Lots Av or Utica Av respectively, riders always bail at Franklin Av despite the side signs and in-station PA/CIS displays showing the final termini for these trains, thus creating delays due to transferring. Now imagine that with half of a line running to Bay Ridge with the other to Bay Parkway. KISS principles are not just a suggestion in these instances. Riders need clear indication of where the trains are going, not a matter of some go here while others go there.

I feel like we’ve been through all of this before.

The Astoria-95th Street Late Night  isn’t really a  anymore, it’s a  in Queens and Manhattan and a in Brooklyn, and the designations would have different route patterns during different times of day. 

I know the argument is that it’s a “supplemental” route, but there is a reason why ’s are sent up SAS during midday GOs, and it’s because the  is more familiar along the Astoria Line and at Lex-5th/59th. When the MTA has the ability to do so, they will try to keep designations as familiar as possible, while it might be awesome for me or you to have a cool, changing 24/7  route, it would come off as sloppy in the eyes of the public. The current service pattern keeps things under control. 

------

And, to talk about the and  trains, I’m shocked they aren’t signed as  or  ’s going southbound. One of the major benefits of the rush hour  ’s is that they are signed as  ’s northbound, thus eliminating the need for constant manual announcements to transfer, only to have a bunch of riders (with headphones) realizing the train is on the express track at 57/7. 

10 hours ago, CenSin said:

or

• −2  to Astoria
• +2  to 2 Avenue
• −2  to Forest Hills
• +2  to Astoria
• +2  to Forest Hills

There isn’t any room to add additional  sets, and even if so, Whitehall couldn’t accommodate it. 

Adding an extra  is the most painless scenario. 

16 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

Personally, I hope they don’t. I’d much prefer they figure out a better option to run 1-2 extra rush hour trains to/from 2nd Ave. I just think crossing those northbound   trains from the local to the express before 57th St is going to jam up the line and vice versa with the southbound trains switching from the express.

Well, Astoria (with the booming LIC/Hoyt population) really needs more trains than it has (Even if it is at maximum TPH on the schedule, they often fall behind which leads to massive gaps in service during rush hours.

Queens Blvd, on the other hand, is doing quite well, and can spare an  or an  without much (any) issue. So, unless if you want to switch northern terminals to provide one extra train, the will be going up SAS. 

I really don’t see an issue with this. As long as it’s not a regular thing, one switch will not ruin the day. The Broadway Line is not the Lexington Avenue Line, it’s headways are not overwhelming to the point where merging isn’t feasible. 

30 minutes ago, Bosco said:

 

I doubt it.  The only train built to similar specs as our trains is the PA5s, and those are roughly IRT-spec so they would be useless for the current situation. 



To piggyback off of what Lance said, even if the MTA didn't get "scrap happy" with the 60' SMEEs, their retirement started 10 years ago.  It's highly unlikely that they would be usable in the future for the L train shutdown.  If usable at all, those R38s/R40s/R40Ms (even the best ones when they were retired) wouldn't be in much better shape than the few R42s we still have (which are on life support).

Out of curiosity, are the CQ310’s (from Atlanta) up to our specifications? They are retiring them and were built in the 1980s, they might be a quick stop gap measure (kind of like how the LIRR leased MARC cars this past summer). The only line that would need them would be the  (about 32 cars) just until the R179’s come through. 

Another (expensive) option is to rehab the R32s/42s to the point where they aren’t even the same car, almost a complete replacement. 

The only reason I’m throwing out these crazy ideas is because one has to face reality that the R179s are going to be significantly delayed. 

21 hours ago, S78 via Hylan said:

I’m very well aware that new cars need to be tested before being placed in service which is why I said that the MTA would work out the issues.

Another thing you forgot is that just   and  alone that will have increased service as the  will get a boost as well. Where are the cars going to come from without reducing spare factors for other lines? At least having the 179’s will offer that flexibility. We’re in a car shortage.

If push comes to shove the  will not get a boost. Relatively few Passengers will be transferring to the  as it doesn’t go to Manhattan, and the number of passengers taking the to the  or  will be few and far between, as the  or  is a one-time transfer, not two transfers with tons of staircases. 

The  will only need about 70% of it’s cars to run the limited service it will be providing, shifting those displaced cars over to the and  is more than what’s needed. 

The problem lies in the mean distance between failures of the R32’s and R42’s. Both of which are becoming alarmingly low, but that’s what happens when you have 50 year old cars in service. 

The most practical thing would be to re-open the R160 assembly line, but that would be admitting defeat, which would be to problematic for the MTA in their “The New - New York” campaign. They are probably going to wait it out on the R179’s or transfer them over to the R211’s. 

On October 18, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Lance said:

Tell that to the wiki nerds there. The mods for the NYC regional transit network are a bit anal regarding sources, which in this case is Joe Korman for car assignments. Unfortunately, since he's been out of commission for a while due to health-related problems and no one else gets the car assignment list changes, we have a stale assignment information.

See that’s exactly the problem. Unless if it’s the official site, I don’t get how Wikipedia doesn’t check their other sources to verify that their information is correct. It’s not just here, it happens on the aviation pages as well. 

As LGA was saying, we are drifting off topic (even though this is a good conversation). 

Any idea when those 1-2 trains are going to head up SAS? 

On October 23, 2017 at 11:54 AM, S78 via Hylan said:

A lot of you seem to forget that we have the Canarsie tube reconstruction coming as well as lines that need service increases. Without the 179s, this cannot happen. The aging 32’s and 42’s alone won’t be sufficient enough. At this point, the TA will have to accept the cars and work out the issues. 

It doesn’t work like that. The MTA can’t just say, “oh well, the seats can’t take wait, the computer keeps on glitching, and the lights are malfunctioning constantly,  but we need them in service, so let’s go!”

Nowadays, things go through rigorous acceptance testing, all of which gets heavily audited by the state and by the public. If word came out that MTA rushed in un-safe cars (which, they really couldn’t do considering the testing mandates) there would be so much negative press that it would be un-sufferable for the MTA. 

Yes, the MTA needs more, reliable cars, but they don’t need them for the Canarsie project. With the entire manhattan section of the closed, and the significantly decreased ridership due to commuters seeking alternatives, you will be able to move the 24 R160’s the has to the , and also take another 24 R143’s to either the  or the  , all without impacting the reduced crowds. 

Obviously, the R32s and R42s probably won’t be able to hold on longer than 2022, so they will need to be retired soon, but a postponement (or restructure) isn’t the worst case scenario. 

11 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

When push comes to shove and the stupid turnstile can't read my unlimited express bus Metrocard, I have just stepped right over or hopped over, so it's not that complicated at all.

Exactly, evading fare is so damn easy, and it’s the hardest in NYC. Take a vacation to a city like Toronto, where gates are left open and they have ten feet wide openings with ticket “choppers” that occasionally roam to the back without issue. 

In New York, I’d say the most famous case of fare evasion is when you report yourself. I always see people (typically older) go to the station agent complaining about why their expired insufficient metro card isn’t working, and the agent, seeing a growing line, waves them through the special entry to stop the complaining.