LGA Link N Train

https://new.mta.info/document/98291#page=10

First Option Order (640 Cars) is anticipated to arrive between Feb 2025 and Dec 2026.

8 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Meanwhile if it takes you 2 hours to get home and 2 hours to get back to work half of your rest period is gone. Let that sink in.

I’ve had a similar case happen to me before but I work 2 jobs and one takes an hour and a half to get to. While my quarters takes me 35-45 minutes to get to from home on a good day. 
 

IDK how it is for RTO with T/O’s,  Conductors and whatnot. but MoW is allowed to refuse overtime if we can’t do it for whatever reason (although most people generally don’t).

10 hours ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

These men and women operate these trains moving millions and come to work on 2 hours of sleep.

Transit Emoloyee’s are required to have a minimum of an 8 hour rest period between tours for safety reasons.

I sometimes wonder who’s behind the process for GO’s cause some reroutes to avoid GO’s are straight up weird or confusing 

15 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Supposedly someone did a foil request and this gave us a surprise 

https://twitter.com/ndhapple/status/1579214749023490048?t=P_vWYEQgOFFZsirw96iQ0w&s=19

I shared this in the random thoughts thread…

Well a study on IRT Subway Capacity (from July 2020) dropped today. here’s a link to the tweet containing the link. Lot of good content here: 

52 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

Well let's look at the current G.O. now, the  is part suspended between Queensboro Plaza and Times Square, the  was running local between 57 St to Canal St, might as well run the  with the  to 96 St. There's no reason in delaying  trains by terminating the  early, why not just run that train to 96 St? The  was via the , might as well make sure service is running as smooth as possible along Broadway. Just because it wasn't on Broadway, doesn't mean that there's more leeway, Broadway trains are running local too.

They could've kept uptown  trains running express along 8 Av and CPW from Canal St to 145 St while uptown  trains ran local along CPW. Obviously, that would've sucked for those taking the , but at least there wouldn't be nearly as much delays for the  and  lines because of this one move.

I went to read the service changes myself and it was the first time I was genuinely confused. Who in the service planning department (or whatever the proper name for that department is) approved these service patterns!?!

1 hour ago, trainfan22 said:

Avoid riding the subway specifically the B div lines this weekend, drive or use Uber/Lyft if possible. This weekend was one of the most miserable experiences I ever had riding the subway. 

Every time I see a comment along these lines, I always think that G.O.’s could be better handled somehow so that they don’t hurt people as much on the weekends…

FASTRACK was a thing and something that would certainly consolidate a lot of projects.

but the real question is HOW would we go about changing the GO structure to make the system better?

Whats the reason that buses use Livingston when Fulton Mall (a busway) is only 1 block away?

2 hours ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

What does any one think the R211 SIR announcements will sound like? Subway style or LIRR/MNRR style?

Or a mix of both like PATH?

2 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

Ahhh - didn’t know that a feasibility study was already done to see if current SMEE cars could be retrofitted to SIR operations. But regardless, the R211 order will be a welcome need for the MTA B division that has suffered car shortages since 2010 (and have been amplified by service adjustments since then).

One crucial point brought up though is yard space. The yards ironically don’t have space for the current fleet despite its size reduction since the R160s came, and many trains are laid up on express tracks, elevated lines, and leave them exposed to vandals. Something should be done if possible to remedy this (more yards, more yard tracks)

Right Now, 36-38th Street yard is planned to get an upgrade to handle more trains in anticipation of the 2nd Avenue Subway. This was funded in the 2015-2019 Capital Program and Construction is supposedly set to start this November: http://web.mta.info/capitaldashboard/allframenew_head.html?PROJNUM=t7100441&PLTYPE=1&DISPLAYALL=Y

Thats all I can find on this topic. As for a new Yard, its high time that the  considers looking for a spot to place one. Although there aren't that many places within the city to place a new Rail Yard by.

1 minute ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

I doubt that once ALL r211's are in service that there will be enough NTT's to make the whole B division 100% NTT's.

There won't, but there will be enough to give at most half of the R-68/68A fleet shop time by the time both Option Orders Complete Delivery. Although due to the issues that have delayed the contract, I don't expect all R-211 cars to be on the property until at least 2029.

While we're on the topic of interlining and how routes go, I want to being up the Line as an example for a minute.

Astoria Riders have a preference for Express Service on Broadway, yet 49th Street ranks 70 in ridership (as of 2021 with 2,653,104 Riders; 7,410,041 pre-pandemic), all due in part of Astoria riders having the preference of wanting a Stop at 49th Street. The result we get (as you all know) is that flat junction merge outside of 34th Street-Herald Square, which not only delays riders, but also  Riders (going southbound), and  and Riders (going Northbound). As a result, we have a line on a trunk that isn't very good (with a 44% satisfactory rate as shown here: https://youtu.be/loY_i5ie7z8 1:38:25). Yet, the subway routes are designed for the benefit of the passangers. Likewise, Sea Beach/4th Avenue Riders want a direct Express Ride to Broadway so making the Local is an Automatic No-Go. While 96th Street/2nd Avenue may be able to handle a higher capacity of trains terminating than it currently does, Coney Island most certainly can't. So how do we streamline service while making sure the routes benefit the passengers?

Ima throw out an Open Ended question for you all. What Rolling Stock Speculations between 2018 and now have we gotten correct and which ones have we missed?

ima move this topic over from the R-211 thread
 

@RandomRider0101 In order to do a Full Peak Express on the , Myrtle Junction needs to be addressed in addition to the curves on both ends on the Bridge including speeding the Bridge up (while maintaining a safe distance) 

I’m noticing Multiple factors in play.

The  and DOT wants to push Congestion Pricing as a way to charge drivers to come into Manhattan. But they’re not incentivizing anyone to take Public Transit, and by cutting service over the years, incentivizing people to drive. Meanwhile, Multiple DOT projects have been pushed into fruition with Bike Lanes and Open Streets, which makes driving unbearable in some areas so that they can advocate for better transit, yet Bus Lanes are not enforced….

Meanwhile, Gateway isn’t even finished yet which would deal with NY-NJ Congestion (even if only by a small margin) 

What kind of Backwards Logic is that?!?

1 hour ago, trainfan22 said:

 

 

 

........Yes, for some odd reason the NY Post photoshopped an  onto an R62. Link to article which is just as bizarre (women... or are they Alien Orions from Star Trek? out here robbing people)

 

https://nypost.com/2022/10/02/thieves-wearing-neon-green-snatch-teens-purse-at-nyc-subway/

 

 

Link to video the article is about...

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/xu3sh4/large_group_of_women_in_green_suits_fighting_with/

Been seeing that image floating around for some time now. Baffling that NY Post would use it

47 minutes ago, ActiveCity said:

The only way I can see trains going to Lefferts Blvd is if  trains run local on Fulton St in both directions. Passengers will backlash against the removal of express service.

I can see this happening for the installation of Fulton CBTC. But as a permanent thing, you’d need a new East River Tube to feed onto the Fulton Local. Wether through Whitehall or SAS-4, doesn’t really matter to me

4 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

The J needs to be adjusted. It can be done by eliminating the Z and the skip-stop service. The Z is a useless line just like the 9. Ridership on the J is not as high in comparison to the L and G.

Used to commute on the  back in High School and while I’m not a fan of Skip Stop service, the main issue with it is that the duration in which it runs is not long enough. This applies for both the AM and PM Rush Hours. As for the , while ridership has been increasing on that line for the past Several Years now, I don’t think we should screw over one rider base in favor of another.

17 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

 would be better for that cue. Apparently having  go there means that it must skip 50 St, along with  thus no line serves 50 St (upper level). With  vía 8 Av/Fulton St Exp to Lefferts Blvd it can stop at 50 St (lower level) then merge with the  going to 42 St PABT.

Best Choice for Lefferts Blvd Service is to leave the Fulton Line alone. Having the  skipping 50th Street would mean that you need to De-Interline CPW which as annoying as that Bottleneck can be, its better off being left alone for the time being. Having the  go to Fulton with the  instead of the  will be a good way to remove that annoying merge by Canal Street, but that means increasing  Service and the  and ‘s reliability might be hindered as now the ‘s length is being increased. Although IDK if things would be different if 8th Avenue and Fulton CBTC were active. 

17 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

How about  via Culver? Going south of W 4 it can switch to go via Delancey while  terminates at WTC.

Could this allow for  via Culver to go Express between Jay St - Church Av, then peak direction express to Avenue X?

For what reason? And how many TPH would the  be running. The current setup with 8th and 6th Local Below West 4th is fine as is IMO.

20 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

… I hate “de-interlineing”. It actively makes the system worse.

Here’s the thing about the subway…

IT WAS BUILT TO BE INTERLINED.

That’s what it was designed to be., designed to do.

Yes and No. Most areas of the Subway System were built with interlining in mind whereas others weren’t. The IND as a whole is a good testament as to where it was intended to interline. However, Rogers Junction under its current layout, is not. 

20 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

The through put of a line is controlled by its terminals. Having different terminals branching off a core trunk allows said trunk to have a HIGHER TPH than otherwise would be possible, because otherwise the terminals would limit the core capacity.

Yes although it isn’t the only thing affects the TPH of a subway Line. (Pretty sure you know this mentioning the fact that you said you’ve worked on the and Lines). Merges and the Design of the Infrastructure that routes run through also play into effect of how many TPH they get. Although the former is where most people tend to reason their support for Deinterlining in. I know I used to although I’ll come back to that in a bit.

20 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

the other thing I never liked about the concept it that it doesn’t take the wants of the ridership into account.

You know why the A is still split at Rockaway Blvd?

Why the Q is the Brighton Local?

the F still rarely goes express in Brooklyn?

it’s because that’s how the riding public wants them to be.

Ozone Park WANTS an express

Brighton line Passengers WANT Broadway.

Carol Gardens/Gowanus/ Prospect Park area Culver Line passengers don’t want to transfer twice or ride backwards.

This is what the public wants, so this is what they get.

Ridership Preference’s are important to take into account yes, but when they hamper the reliability of service, then there’s an issue that needs to be solved. (Although to comment on the proposal of sending  trains to Lefferts Blvd, that would be an example of MORE interlining, just wanted to clear that up for that specific example). The Express rarely running is most likely due to the limitations of other parts of its route (Merge at Broadway-Lafayette, Rockefeller, 36th Street and 75th Avenue. Only one of which is really problematic) so the capacity to increase Express Service while maintaining the same frequency for  Local Service just isn’t there rn unless you decide to alter the current  or another route. For Brighton I have no objections to it but I think the reason people propose a  Swap (in spite of that being against the consensus of what Brighton and West End Riders want) is to keep the Weekend and Late Night Schedule Consistent with 6th Avenue and Broadway while also attempting to cut Operating costs. 

I tried not to repeat the same things that @T to Dyre Avenue said as they said their point much better than I could’ve said it but I think the point that’s trying to be made here is that De-Interlining is not a Black and White issue as many people (both Supporters and Opponents) have made it out to be. At the end of the day, Transit is meant to Serve the passengers and giving them what they want, but serving the riding public shouldn’t come at the cost of providing reliable and frequent service. And another thing to consider is that Ridership Patterns are not static.
 

I used to be Pro De-interlining but have stepped back and taken a more neutral stance on the topic given that I’ve learned more about NYCT over the past 5 years, but This is all just food for thought at the end of the day.

On 9/30/2022 at 1:35 PM, Bill from Maspeth said:

Yes, internally (inside the agency), I have heard the  term "Service Delivery".  Keep in mind the agency pays a lot of money to those individuals who think of these fancy terminologies!

Not Surprising there. Although having joined the Signals Department (as a helper) not too long ago, I've only heard my maintainers and supervisors still refer to RTO as such whenever they're mentioned.

...although coming to think of it, I think I've heard some of 'em say "Service Delivery" once or twice...

18 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

Not really enough cars if you factor in the line with half of it still being 8 cars. It'll be dumb to still run mixed length trains on the with R179s and 10 car R211s.

Unfortanately thats a problem that we'll just have to leave be for the time being. As far as I'm concerned, 8th Avenue will have mostly NTT's by that point so there would be no reason to delay 8th Avenue and Fulton CBTC any further than what already has been done.

13 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

By my (rough) calculations, the would require the first 115 cars of option 1 to become 100% ten car trains. The remainder of option 1 and option 2 can then displace R68s on the to the and R160s on the to the (to then move over its R68/As), with additional cars for fleet expansion at all 3 yards. The R179s from the and the 4 car R211 sets in option 2 can then bolster the fleet.

I'm interested as to how you did the math for the getting 10 car trains, but working off of that, you'd need at least 335-350 R-211's from the first Option Order to displace the R-68's currently assigned to Concourse. That'd leave you with about 175-190 cars left from the first Option order (580-595 cars from the 2nd Option Order not counting the 4 car sets meant for ENY) to place where ever the deems where they're needed most. 

1 hour ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Also I did not mean to derail the hole topic, lets get back to discussing the R211.

Lemme help with that. 460 R-211’s (46 Trains) from the base order is enough to replace all 356 of Pitkin’s R-46’s. (356/8 = 44 1/2 Trains). The other 75 obviously going to Staten Island. Once the Base order is complete, 8th Avenue CBTC can continue onwards in addition to making things easier to getting work started on Fulton CBTC.

7 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

that being said, I am not going to come down on Texas for not connecting the dots about the fact I’m RTO (I am NEVER going to call it “Service Delivery” thank you very much”), they’re human. It happens. 

service delivery…. 
 

thats the first time I hear/see someone call it that

3 hours ago, HSRR said:

Why is the MTA only considering third rail for conventional rail option? caternary help would solve their width issue. I also don't understand why conventional rail can't share some of the tunnels with freight (since freight is only moved a night) since these would be FRA compliant rail cars. Caternary would also make the trains compatible with metro north/amtrak trackage and could be sent to the bronx stopping at the soon to be built metro north penn access stations providing the bronx for the first time ever a direct link to queens. Conventional Rail hits too many low hanging fruit to be ignored while light rail is a complete dead end. 

I won't be able to answser every question in this post as of this moment as I lack the answers to do so, but on the topic of freight, it seems that has no interest in working with CSX. On top of that, CSX has been known to be hostile to the idea of sharing their tracks/corridors with Rapid Transit Services in spite of running infrequent freight trains, which I think sheds light on a much larger issue.