RR503

The  train runs around 200 cars. There are also around 200 R32s. If you’re leaving 68s, where are you gonna put the other 32s? Do you not see the economies of scale that come with keeping the fleet in one place? 

And even if you do leave 68s, the chance of a set of 32s getting stuck there — however low — is one that many would not be willing to take, especially given there are better alternatives. Give up. No 32s on the southern div. 

I would put them on the  — yes, it’s underground, but it’s a short route with only 1 merge, minimizing the 32s damage potential — something that putting them on the  or  would not do. 

What would you suggest the TA does? We’ve heard a lot of what you wouldn’t do.

Let’s assume R179s arrive by the time  shuts down. 

Sorry, the link in my previous post didn't work. Try this

http://www.mta.info/press-release/mta-headquarters/lirr-metro-north-railroad-break-ridership-records

Look, in general I'm with you all -- screw 1 seaters for throughput. However, in this case, I think the difficulty of the transfers that would replace 1 seat rides negates any gain that you make in throughput.

If you need more SAS capacity (given more cars), do the Broadway swap. Broadway express to SAS, and locals to queens. The  would absorb the  s astoria frequencies, and half of its trains would continue beyond Whitehall to some place in Brooklyn.  trains wouldn't run weekends, replaced by the  on sea beach. That (or something generally akin to it) is what I'd do. Also, aside from increasing SAS service, you get a significant tph bump on Broadway, and the elimination of the archaic switching pattern where  s cross from exp to local at 34. 

But decreases usability. Again, will we really save 4 mins by doing this? Because if we aren’t, we’re adding to many people’s commutes. 

Yes, this gets a crap load of trains through the interlocking, but we must consider at what cost. Queens Boulevard and Culver would see service increases if we pumped 30tph up crosstown, and made the manhattan services express, but that removes useful service from many. Throughput can’t always be the priority. 

That document is incorrect. APTA uses weird reporting metrics 

see:

And 

http://www.mta.info/news/2017/01/23/metro-north-railroad-breaks-ridership-record

45 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

is this the thread of the day or something? ???

?

Missed that. I stand corrected then! 

Thank you 

 still does, but  only went during GOs on the astoria line. They couldn’t suck more  s so they peeled 1 (Not 4, unless I’m mistaken) off. 

One station lighting system will do little in the grander scheme of MTA electric costs. Of all wasteful agency functions, power is waaay down on my list. Regenerative braking, led/fluorescent lighting, and better station design have done much do moderate consumption. Yes, the MTA is wasteful af, but this is a difficult battle with a small payoff. Why don’t you focus on union rules, overmanagement, siloing, etc. 

As for energy independence, we once had it — the IRT built its own power station. However, it was deemed more cost effective to draw power from the grid at large, something we do to this day. In this age, building new power stations is untenable politically, so that’s what we need to work with. 

1 minute ago, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

I do honestly wonder if that's happening elsewhere too?

 

The MTA wastes a lot of things. I hear their electric bill is unbelievable.

Yeah. No sh*t Sherlock. That’s what happens when you run trains...on electricity.

Take a look see through the last few pages of the SAS thread

It outlines the parameters of the order. 

Here's the latest update on the MNR half I could find:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140801140126/http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/140728_1200_CPOC.pdf

Interesting— I had heard they were getting cams because of M9 production delays not because they weren’t gonna be replaced. Do you know if that’s the case? 

13 minutes ago, Truckie said:

You are taking my quote out of context. 

You were talking about Metro North, as was I.  Now you are applying what I say about LIRR. 

I have no idea what LIRR needs or plans are so there is no basis for me to comment on them.

All press releases about the M9 allude to a MNR option order. Yes, this is not firm, and yes, MNR (correct me if I’m wrong) seems to be focusing more on diesel fleet issues, but the MNR M3As are not getting younger. Nothing about the M3s that MNR has makes them more resilient, so unless something has changed, I think they will be replaced with this order. 

http://www.mta.info/news/2013/09/19/new-railcars-lirr-metro-north-fleets

16 minutes ago, Truckie said:

Everything will need to be replaced in time.  M3's are not the priority at the moment.

If replacing M3s isn’t a priority, then why is that the stated goal of the M9 base order for LIRR?  

https://www.newsday.com/long-island/lirr-previews-new-train-cars-due-in-2017-1.6085375

40 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I'm not very convinced by the necessity of this. For 6th Avenue expresses, the use cases are covered. Headed Downtown? Take the at DeKalb. Need an express ride to Union Square? Take the (4)(5). Need to go to Midtown? Transfer at Herald.

It's a little bit more complicated for the Broadway expresses, since everyone would need to either walk or take the to get to a 6th Avenue train. On a side note, I've always thought that they should connect Prince St with Bway-Lafayette.

All of your 6th->broadway options save for the  require walking. Right now, it’s all cross-platform. That is a time sink, an inconvenience, and is sure to cause stair crowding. 

As for broadway->6, it is indeed a bit more complicated. We’re going from painless cross platforms to long hauls through intermediaries or passageways. And while I also support prince -> Bway laffayette, it doesn’t help anyone going from the  to  — prince is a local stop. 

Tell me about it...

9 minutes ago, jamesman8 said:

Thats the only thing I'm saying. The M9 was designed with a shoe specifically for the LIRR, it doesnt have the dual shoe like the M8. Unless the MTA is proposing another design for the M9 for MNRR I don't believe that MNRR is going to get M9's at all The ridership difference is almost 20 million more passengers per year difference between MNRR and LIRR. LIRR needs new units more desperately.

The difference is more like 2 million, which, broken down over the course of a year, is negligable.

I can all but guarantee you MNR will get M9s -- they too have M3s to replace. 

7 hours ago, quadcorder said:

That was the convention in the past. It's not the convention anymore. It's not simpler or clearer to continue with the old system because the old system is not accurate. M9A cars and M9 cars will both run on both systems (assuming they do run on the MNRR). Any other claim is not clearer or simpler, just plain wrong.

Unless there has been some change order for dual shoes, and cab signal interoperability (one which I would be delighted to hear about), they physically can not. The LIRR has different 3rd rail design, and a different cab signal system. 

As I said above, the designation in the order has changed. What I am saying now is that for the sake of clarity and brevity, until otherwise proven, it is easier to continue to refer to the different subtypes as _ and /A

17 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Brighton:

 local part time express

4th Av:

local Sea Beach West End

Cross platform transfer available at DeKalb.

Issue with that is unless you send  local on 4th (which you can't do because of issues with capacity on the wall track at DeKalb), no easy xfers will be available between the  and . Atlantic Barclays is a lot of walking. I would actually posit that the time you save in switching delays is eaten up and more by walking/additional xfer time.

9 hours ago, jamesman8 said:

Please stop saying MNRR is getting M9A's. M9A's do not refer to the variant that Metro North would get. M9A's are M9's that are federally funded, which are identical to the M9's. The LIRR has both M9's and M9A's.

Standard MTA convention dictates that regardless of funding source, LIRR cares are always the base version, and MNR ones always have the /A attached. 

While you’re right that at times ppl have said that the A distinction has to do with funding (though I heard the as were ESA cars), for the sake of simplicity and brevity, I think it’s better if we continue with the old system. 

1 hour ago, BDNQ2345 said:

Today is an anniversary of the train came back

First day, first train, first stop: 

(this was back before I really knew how to use a camera) 

6 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

I know its possibly never gonna happened...But Let say they did closed the manhattan bridge for whatever reason..Whats the odds of all these B train clogging service...Why cant they turn a few if not a couple of sets back at jay st if it got that far..most likely train that didnt leave brighton will be suspended..The way delays been going on lately how long would it really take a motorman to the other end to clear track from bklyn bound trains...And the overcrowed thing you do have the  upstairs for 6 ave as well as   for cpw...

9 hours ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

You (and others) may not have any worries about R32's running on the B line but NYCT certainly does.  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.

Any route in the southern division that goes thru DeKalb Ave. has a chance to be rerouted thru the Montague Tube.  If there is a police action on the Manhattan Bridge (and it HAS happened) all trains already enroute must go thru the Montague Tube.  If an R32 B train from Brighton Beach has already left Prospect Park, bound for 7th Ave., Atlantic/Barclays, or DeKalb what happens now?  Please don't tell me turn it between Metro Tech and Court St. because the one route to Manhattan (via Montague) must be kept moving.  Those trains will be jammed and they can't delay things any further by dealing with an R32 B train.

The only reason the so called railfans want R32's on the B is for photo opportunities on the Brighton Line.  Pure and simple.  Period.

 

7 minutes ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

R32's will not go to the Rock Park shuttle because the line is OPTO.  Adding conductors increases labor costs.

This is all well and good, but where do you propose putting the R32s? Also if the  goes to 8 cars, won’t it not be OPTO anyway?