Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.


Senior Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

201 Excellent

About Bosco

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Brighton Line & KRC, Yonkers

Recent Profile Visitors

596 profile views
  1. Bosco

    R179 Discussion Thread

    From one of the Facebook groups, 3085 was spotted testing a few days ago.
  2. Bosco

    R179 Discussion Thread

    Coupled to a set that's already been in service or a new set?
  3. Bosco

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    Lexington is obviously faster if you need a straight shot between the Bronx and Brooklyn, but on average, the Lexington Line is far worse. The reason is that both the and are long, unreliable expresses. Express service on 7 Avenue is a little better because the is a bit more reliable (going to Brooklyn), and the headways are longer which means less service, but less bunching if anything goes wrong. Also, having CPW is a big help north of 59 St. The WTC area is probably the only crowded area and one of the few open places in Lower Manhattan. Many stores aren't open at all on weekends (or are open Saturday but close pretty early). The area is virtually dead on weekends as far as regular users are concerned.
  4. Bosco

    R179 Discussion Thread

    How come 3070-3086 have the original spec if 3058-3069 are in service? I'm just wondering, it wouldn't surprise me given how far out of number order the deliveries have been. 3010 and 3011, from the video above, are missing them. What's wrong with them? Is it a software issue or hardware issue? The signs look basically the same as the R160 signs but with a longer line of text.
  5. Bosco

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    I could see that being doable, but how would they turn the trains at 57 St? IMO, it would make more sense to run those few trips to 96 St. Something that some proposers seem to forget is how much construction takes place on the overnights. Even if you had redundant services ( to Manhattan for example), trains would be suspended/rerouted/flagged so often that the differences in the scheduled service patterns wouldn't even matter.
  6. Bosco

    R179 Discussion Thread

    A post actually about the R179s on the R179 Discussion Thread! With things back to where they were a month ago, is there any timeline for when deliveries will resume (next week, first week of May)? There's over 200 cars to de delivered so even if they resume one car per day next week, it's cutting it very, very close.
  7. Bosco

    M-9 Discussion

    I haven't heard anything about them coming to Yonkers, which means we're still a few months away from seeing them on TA property. The production cars are expected to arrive at Yonkers for final assembly/testing around June/July. https://tenor.com/view/fake-news-news-donald-donald-trump-trump-gif-7676808
  8. Bosco

    R179 Discussion Thread

    I am not suggesting the MTA make the same mistake they made with the R160s, which in part contributed to the R179 situation. What I am suggesting is that replacements for the R62s and R68s come sooner, but that the trains that are still in good shape are kept as a reserve/spare fleet. There were plenty of R32s that at the very least could've been saved for a rainy day. No, but the R179s have provisions for CBTC, so once the rest of the issues are ironed out, I'd expect CBTC installation/testing to commence shortly after. I also wonder if the interface is any different given the advances in technology between the R160 and R179 awards. Good news. Are any of the other delivered sets doing burn-in testing or is it just the three sets that were in service before the e-brake handle issue?
  9. Bosco

    R179 Discussion Thread

    Cars don't have to be replaced in order. If the next R68 SMS is forgone to accelerate retirement, that has nothing to do with the R62 situation. I will say though that for CBTC purposes, they should do the same type of treatment for the R62s, and keep them as either spares or work trains. The work trains we have know are starting to get old too. And honestly, knowing how the MTA is about logical planning, I wouldn't be surprised if there's still a few R68s in service after 2030. While there have been some good ideas in the past (and yes, some really BAD ones), I'm not holding my breath that the MTA planners would listen...
  10. Bosco

    R179 Discussion Thread

    There was speculation that the R179s would make that service on the , but it makes no sense since Coney Island as of now is not planned to get any R179s and ENY will have the bulk of them anyway. Plus, Coney Island already has the R160s, so it makes sense for fleet uniformity. service isn't great right now (what line is?), but unfortunately, nothing can be really done about improving service (except perhaps not suspending it anytime it snows an inch) for now. The and see more ridership and are a lot less reliable. Also, if you're coming from the Bronx, Lexington is the fastest, most direct way to Brooklyn (hence the traffic on the and ). In terms of fleet, if the MTA is smart, they will consider another option of R211s to retire the R68s sooner and also accelerate fleet uniformity and potentially PSDs. If there are R68s that are still in good shape, they can be kept either as a reserve fleet or as work trains for the mainline B division.
  11. Bosco

    R179 Discussion Thread

    The only way the and can be 'full length' (by each of their standards, so 600' and 480' respectively) is if the gets 4-car R160s. The for right now can't get much help besides the R32s; I was using it as an example comparing it to when the line ran R40s. The will have to be exclusively 480' cars, so that means no R68s. Also, the and have nothing to do with each other despite running parallel in the Bronx. The is crap because it runs on Lexington.
  12. Bosco

    R179 Discussion Thread

    The door width on almost all trains is 50 inches. The only exceptions: R110A (irrelevant): 63" R142/R142A/R188: 54" R211: 58" The doors only seem wider on the R143/R160/R179 because there is about an inch (two-three inches on the B-cars) between the end of the seat and the doorway that isn't there on the SMEEs. Frequency doesn't matter if there's a conga line of trains, which is inevitable for a line like the that is the longest in the system and has numerous switch points. To use another example, the suffers from bunching in the PM rush, and ever since they got the R68s that situation has only gotten worse. Frequency is important, but service can recover faster or not deteriorate as rapidly if a route has shorter dwell times made possible by using 60-foot cars.
  13. Bosco

    R179 Discussion Thread

    Particularly, it was used at the joints. There are a few pictures floating around showing the steel rotting between the lower side panel and the floor panel. The R46s used stainless steel there, but even those aren't aging too well. No one is questioning the structural integrity of the R32s. Hell, with a good enough overhaul, the MTA could probably get another 20 years out of them if they wanted to (which obviously won't happen for reasons). The R42s, on the other hand, have shown rust on the roof and near the bonnet similar to the R38s/R40s. Not nearly as dire as the R44 situation, but enough that the R42s required a much more extensive SMS than the R32s the last time around. Fortunately, CI did a great job repairing them.
  14. Bosco

    R179 Discussion Thread

    As DJ Hammers said, this really isn't a setback. It would still be awhile before they enter service on the anyway. Remember, 3010-3019 and 3050-3057 have numerous differences from the rest of the fleet. They just decided to do it on Bombardier's facility instead because we don't have the resources currently to bring them up to spec. This would be like saying the R188s being converted in Yonkers instead of 207 St caused delays there. If anything, this move could actually speed things up a little (which is why they did it this way). They're long lines with numerous switches and chokepoints. The isn't much better either. Most lines that run in more than 2 boroughs are usually pretty bad by rule of thumb, regardless of fleet. It's not about people wanting NTTs one place or another. We saw this with the R188 contract. The MTA couldn't care less about what foamers think. CBTC is being installed on Queens Blvd (even if very glacially) as we speak. The , frankly, is just overloaded. (Side note: even with CBTC, it isn't running at true capacity because there isn't enough juice to power the line at capacity. This is why the Canarsie work includes adding another substation.) The is overcrowded, has terminal constraints on both ends, and runs on fixed-block signaling and has to merge 3 times along its route (which is a lot considering its length). Installing CBTC will alleviate some of those delays, which is why there is a good chance the R160s will go to Jamaica. The only question that's up for debate (that I understand) is if it's too early to do a swap, considering it's only the first phase that will be online in a few years and the R211s will be here long before the rest of the line is done. But they are preparing the R160s for CBTC on Queens Blvd either way, and a swap could still happen. If anything, it's the R46s that could potentially show structural issues...
  15. Bosco

    R179 Discussion Thread

    While he's not wrong that some people would probably be annoyed if the and went from R160s to R46s, if the MTA does go ahead with this swap, rider complaints won't stop it (as we saw with the and swap).


Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.