Bosco

For anyone who is interested in reading about the efWING: http://kawasakirailcar.com/EFWING

The justification for starting earlier is that it takes about an hour just to bring everything in and start construction. But from the looks of it and some of the photos (including one that was shared recently on here, where a bunch of MTA workers were standing around when that tile board fell at an train station), I wouldn't be surprised if a future audit says there was little or no difference in starting work earlier. It's not just the amount of time the MTA has to do work (which is limited), but how they use it.

It can also cause overcrowding especially on Friday nights, where many people are still trying to get home at 10. Thanks to that, what should've been a one-hour, one-seat commute home from the city a month ago for me was twice as long with transfers I shouldn't have had to make. What I'm curious about is if starting construction earlier actually makes a difference in the ability to get work done...

This happened along the B36 a few years ago. I don't condone this, but I also don't blame him since I have to deal with the B36 on the daily...

But then they wouldn't be true Cuomo trains because they wouldn't have physically removed any seats! At least it's only one or two benches that flip up instead of all 6. I also think the R211 is even better in that individual seats will be able to flip. I think there are LIRR codes on these trains too... in case these were to run on a railroad line in an emergency.

Even then, couldn't you put CBTC equipment on the R179? Surely they are CBTC ready (unless the MTA just wants to get them in service without it, which is understandable). Although they should install it soon either way because the 5-car sets on the will get them at some point for 8 Ave CBTC.

Yes, but under my idea, ENY would keep some non-CBTC R160A1s, and some R179s would go on the . There's no reason the and can't swap NTTs, especially once the Myrtle construction wraps up. Also, the R160A1s wouldn't be oddballs per se because Coney Island already has some R160A2s and a lot of R160Bs. The A1 and A2 classes are basically the same except for one extra B car.

Has the platform edge strip been replaced or does it look like it will be? At 145 St on the , they are replacing the platform edge strips and repaving the platform (albeit painfully slowly). If the trackbed looked any different, it could be that they vacuumed up there recently (I saw this at Broadway-Lafayette a few weeks ago) or a recent track replacement (if the parts are shiny).

That would leave 16.5 8-car trains for the or whatever other line(s) are slated to get them. Speaking of which, if the is to become 480' (since 600' is not happening until the R211s come in), would it make more sense to give ENY all R179 4-car sets and bump out some non-CBTC R160s to the to maintain uniformity?

Probably transferred to Pitkin from 207 St, since 3098-3099 should've been delivered yesterday, and 3100-3101 was delivered the day before. Since the will be gradually giving its R160A1 cars back to East New York, approximately how many sets of R179s should we expect at ENY once all is said and done?

Weren't 3050-3057 and 3058-3065 also considered test trains after a contract modification?

Suspicious how? The order has been having major problems and quality control issues, so as has been mentioned by @m2fwannabe, cars are delivered then placed into service as the issues are resolved. Also, 3010-3014 were the first R179s to be delivered and ostensibly came in with the most problems. Hell, 3015-3019 went missing for awhile due to the set losing power. It's not suspicious (nor surprising); just the result of the atrocious quality control (whatever QC there is) on Bombardier's part, and the MTA's need to put new trains into service yesterday.

Most of the unconverted R142As have received new door motors (the same ones as on the R188s). They're Vapors but the newer model. The unconverted R142As can't go to Corona. They have the trains they need; they just need to finish fixing the bugs with CBTC and the remaining R62As will be off. The only possibility (which isn't happening in the foreseeable future) is that 7591-7810 get converted to R188s, but even then those would be sent to Jerome if anywhere (as in the ones that aren't already there). Are you sure that isn't steel dust? And rusted where? At the seams or the middle of the sheet metal? I don't see this happening as the would have to merge with the and , which would create another bottleneck. It's easier to do on weekends because the headways are bigger, but during rush hour the and run 4-6 minutes and 6-8 minutes respectively, and both run 8 minute headways during the midday. Capacity would be too tight to allow for that.

But why was it added? I vaguely remember a few years ago when the used to fly into that station, so I'm guessing that timer is only a few years old (unless I never noticed). I think there's also one southbound approaching Prospect Park; it's either a timer or it's due to the steep gradient of that stretch of tunnel, because trains slow down well before entering the station.

3094-3097 are in at 207 St? That would be weird considering we all know they're not going on the ...

3010-3019: MIA, recently seen testing in the Flats, either at CI or Pitkin 3050-3057: Testing, at ENY 3058-3065: In service, at ENY 3066-3069, 3090-3093: In service, at ENY 3086-3089: Delivered, testing, at ENY 3100-3101: To be delivered tonight to ENY 3098-3099: Presumably to be delivered this week to ENY 3070-3085, 3094-3097: ??. Any reason why they're way out of order and they're delivering the first 31XXs before filling in that 16 car gap?

Cancelled trips used to be another problem (on the Brooklyn side, going into the city). Sometimes there are drivers who will ask if anyone is going downtown to save time. I'm also not surprised that some buses bypass 5 Avenue... could be a last-minute detour or just laziness. Deteriorating bus service I feel is more responsible for the rise of Ubers than deteriorating subway service, since buses are a more localized form of transportation.

I was on a BM3 last week that ran super late and drove slow down 5 Av, then bypassed downtown all together (even though this was the first bus scheduled to make all stops after the rush hour). Driver consistency is a huge problem (for trains too) and better training needs to be done.

The is only a true express between 145 St and Tremont Av. North of there, it is express, but like a 6 Av express (only a few stops are skipped). Having it run local would only add about 5-6 minutes to travel time but provide much better service for Bronx riders, especially since there's about 1.5 trains to every 1 . In the afternoon, it would be a huge since during the spring and summer afternoons, the frequently stops at 161 St anyway. Just having it run local all the way preempts the from having to switch to the local and back. 30 trains on the ? 44 trains on the ? There are a handful of people who will readily contest this. However, IIRC, there are 25 trains in the AM, but 23 in the PM. Bunching/gapping is a huge problem and creates the illusion that there are less trains than there actually are.

As someone who relies on the regularly, the train is susceptible to bunching during rush hour. It's especially bad in the PM rush, where trains are still scheduled every 8-10 minutes (as opposed to 6-8 minutes northbound in the AM). The train comes across multiple merges with the and and those lines usually get priority. It's not that uncommon for there to be no southbound trains at Sheepshead for 15 minutes, and then 3 come one right after the other. I highly doubt the will see R179s. If Coney Island were to get the 5-car sets, those would be better on the to handle SAS crowds. At the same time, I sincerely hope the and get them as they were supposed to all along. The has gone far too long without 60' cars, and it needs them badly.

I would say no, but the big thing is efficiency (so timers would be rendered obsolete since CBTC can ensure the trains are as close together as possible but still safe to avoid a collision). Unnecessary slowdowns could be eliminated. As for a greater top speed, even if it were allowed, how many stretches exceed 55 as it is? Besides the flats, some of the tunnels hit pretty close to that (60 St), but that's in part due to gravity helping out. There aren't that many express stretches otherwise that could handle above 55. For reference, I've been on southbound and trains that get close to 50 mph at around 50 St before slowing down for Times Sq.

This entire thing. The Alstom is slower to get up to speed, but it brakes and takes off more smoothly. With all the timers in place throughout the system, on most stretches it's rare for NTTs to get close to even their governed top speed. Hopefully, as the technology has been advancing, a package will be available that optimizes speed and ride quality. I'm also curious to see if there will be more than one propulsion package (and, as I think Fan Railer has mentioned, if PMSMs are a possibility).

April 31, 1932. In all seriousness, even if CBTC installation is complete by 2024 (which I'll take with a grain of salt), people seem to forget that any train can run along the line as long as the system itself is offline. Also, I think it's safe to say that future CBTC projects will follow the same formula as the Flushing Line CBTC, where the wayside infrastructure is left untouched or at least upgraded, as a failsafe. Expediting the retirement of the R68s might help expedite the process of installing CBTC, but let's just wait on that. As it is, when the R211 was initially planned out, the second option order was dedicated for SAS Phases 2 and 3. Now the R211 has been awarded, and there is precious little information as to when Phase 2 will be online, let alone the introduced. I will be surprised if Phase 2 is open by 2030, and the last R211 is supposed to be delivered by 2026 (for now).

Between the fact that the isn't happening for a LONG time (at least at the current rate of things), and the need for more trains for CBTC installation on existing lines, I doubt that the R68s would be touched with the current setup. Doing the math, and assuming 160 R32s remain after the shutdown, 160 + 940 (for the R46s) = 1100, leaving 512 expansion cars. Remember, the goal is to expand the current fleet to allow for a better spare factor, and to keep up with service requirements. I doubt the will go back to OPTO even after the shutdown, and I wouldn't be surprised if the frequencies on the aren't reduced by much one the train is restored. So it's safe to say every line will see more trains in some way. Even if you wanted to replace the R68s, you would need 625 • (5/4) or 782 more cars, ignoring additions. While it is something that should be considered in the future, we are a ways from there and a lot can change in terms of technology and requirements.

IIMN, as part of SAS Phase 3, 36th-38th St Yard would be expanded to accommodate the . Remember, as it is the extra R211 cars are designed to supplement SAS (although it's not likely that even Phase 2 will be online by the time this order wraps up). Any higher number is pure speculation ATM, but additional options would/could be added in the event that the R68s retire at the tail end of the second option order. The MTA will be issuing an RFP at that point anyway, so it would make sense just to do it in one shot instead of going through the whole bidding process again.