Coney Island Av

Did 3100-3101 arrive at 207 yet?!

Im currently at 215 St.

7 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

I haven't paid to the R179 delivery in a while, so can someone tell me what sets have been delivered and where they currently are?

3010-3019- MIA

3050-3057- ENY

3058-3065- Currently on the  in passenger service

3086-3089- ENY

3066-3069-Currently on the  in passenger service

3090-3093-Currently on the  in passenger service

3094-3097- 207 St

3100-3101- Being delivered to 207 or ENY 

@Bosco beat me to it but forgot to include 3094-3097. And 3094-3097 will be transferred to ENY.

Nice! 3100 and 3101 are arriving tonight!  

I assume 3098-3099 or 3102-3103 will follow suit?

Did any of the 2 R179 sets displace any R32s from ENY to 207?

Bringing this over from the Culver Express thread:

36 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Anyways. I remember reading one of @vanshnookenraggen's plans on his website and on that proposal, he mentioned having the or running as a rush hour express between Jay street and Church Avenue then peak express from Church Avenue to Kings Highway under a scenario where the and / ran to west end and Brighton with the and replacing service with the being a Shuttle. I felt like this was a good proposal with logical reasoning behind it. 

I feel that this thread should be merged with the proposals thread.

Yes, we should talk about this in the proposals thread but this was his plan:

: BPB to Metropolitan Av

: Norwood-205 St to Broadway Jct

: 168 St to Jamaica Center

: Essex St to Broad St, extended to Jamaica via Fulton Local rush hrs

: Astoria-Ditmars to Euclid 

: Rockaway Park to Brighton Beach (2 Av) or to Coney Island via Culver (6 Av)

: 179 St to Coney Island (6 Av) or to Brighton Beach via West End (2 Av) 

: rerouted to 63 St (part of the /  swap map)

But this is what I think of his proposal:

He thinks that Phase 4 is pointless. Well firstly, Water St is a major office corridor, and there is more prevalent demand to connect it to Fulton than the Bridge. So foregoing Phase 4 is only asking for trouble. The  should go to Fulton, while the  should head over the Bridge.

Now as for rerouting the  to Metropolitan/Bway-Bklyn. This won't be good because everyone in South Brooklyn wants 6 Av, not SAS. The 's ridership will soar through the roof, since it's the only 6 Av service out of Coney Island.  ridership will also be congested. If he was to do it, though I am not advocating for this, it has to EITHER  OR , not both. And a lack of a connection to SAS is a BIG deal as Broadway-Lafayette and 2 Av will become overloaded. The  does fine as-is today. There is no need to have every single train to go to Midtown. 

The  should instead be reserved for South Brooklyn service. And I agree with the  becoming Fulton Exp, but it should go to Lefferts. I also agree with demolishing the segment between Broadway Jct and Cypress Hills.

There is also a lack of stops on the RBB in which the  runs through, defeating the purpose. 

Also, the  route is WAY TOO LONG. That's gonna be one long trip from Rockaway Park to Coney Island/Brighton Beach... 

If he plans to run the  on 6 Av (tho I would prefer 2nd), it should be local on Culver. And the SAS  should run via Bypass to 179 St, local east of 71 Av. 

Here are the R179 cars that haven't entered revenue service. 

3010-3019- MIA

3050-3057- Pitkin?

3086-3089- Pitkin?

3094-3097- 207 St?

4 minutes ago, Harry said:

@Coney Island Av Again, why?

What do you mean? The way I'm posting???

I'm trying to listen to @Cait Sith, but everyone just hazes me like I'm a mod. And I'm completely within rights to post my proposals, since a forum works that way. 

I'm really curious as to when 3010-3019 will enter revenue testing on the . 

I can't confirm the status of 3010-3019, however I could possibly confirm the status for 3050-3057.

One afternoon I was waiting for the  at 14 St. I got on the , but as soon as I got on, an R179 came in blaring through the station on the southbound express track. I could see one of the cars was 3053. However, before I could get my camera out, the R179 already left. 

I assume the consist was transferred to Pitkin? 

EDIT: @Bill from Maspeth all this nonsense is unlikely to change at this point. We have no more options. If you see a document from transit that states "R32s are going to You-Know-Who" better start playing "Frolic" lol. 

43 minutes ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

You said you were away for a week, it was 5 days.  You say you cannot post anything pertaining to car assignments, you just did in a few post above this about one hour ago!

.

Uh Bill, I THOUGHT I couldn't post anymore because of those aforementioned reasons. 

But @Cait Sith said I could still post AFTER I posted what you quoted, however just keep it to a minimum. 

And I meant to say I was gone for ALMOST a week. 

I leave for a WEEK and I've ultimately am gonna share ONE FINAL THOUGHT on the "R32  and R179 nonsense."

And I am completely within rights to post this, because that's how forums work. And you better keep it to a minimum like @Cait Sith said, otherwise everyone's gonna get banned again. So please don't name call, mock, tease, or do any activity that is harmful to anyone here. 

With that being said, I will give ya'll a few reasons on WHY the R32s going to the  is UNLIKELY TO CHANGE. 

Firstly, we have maxed out all options on where the R32's will go during the shutdown. And the only ones that will cause less trouble are obviously, the  and . I'm now gonna take an instance as an example: when we all thought that the  shuttle was gonna have R32s, but ended up being R42s instead. This situation is different because there is a multitude of options in this case. So, they could've "theoretically" gone for 4-car R160s, or possibly R143s as well. They didn't have to choose JUST the R32s in this case. But this situation is inevitable since all options will have issues. 

A lot of you think the  is the perfect option for the R32's. You're basically saying, "Yes, the  is long, but that's just about it! Just put them there instead!" Well, the  will have more problems than the  and . Firstly, it is 20 MILES underground, all the way from Inwood to Grant. That's a length that's longer than the , and slightly longer than the 145 St ! Only 10-12 MILES are aboveground, from Grant to the Rockaways. And secondly, before the R46/R32  swap, the R32 s during rush hour usually ONLY RAN TO LEFFERTS. You wanna know why? Because line length is acutally a more severe issue than you think for the R32s. 

Third, there are MULTIPLE groups of insiders IN ADDITION TO our man, @Dj Hammers. He, himself, even hinted that one group of insiders, not him, were wrong! So anything posted could come from MULTIPLE insiders besides Dj. 

Finally, and this is something that me and @RR503 have been thinking about: the assignments are ALREADY finalized, and the MTA is just not revealing it. This is likely because we were first informed of the shutdown from as early as 2016, and during then and now, the MTA must've had a discussion, and the board members were like, "Okay. Plans are finalized! Let's not reveal it till the start of the Canarsie shutdown!" 

You may consider me new because of the date I joined but I observed/viewed this site regularly since early 2014 at best. 

But I'm now forced to take a break because of how I'm posting/reacting. Staying on here will only make other people view me negatively even more. 

This name-calling/ban threats/mocking needs to stop. As soon as I try to post, everyone just roasts me alive. 

From this point on, I cannot post anything pertaining to car assignments because of what @Cait Sith told me, and the huge controversy that will clog the toilet if I do. 

17 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Here's an idea. Build a yard past Astoria-Ditmars Blvd with provisions to LaGuardia Airport and send trains up there. (This would be under a post SAS timeline) trains will remain the same with trains being the new local in its place. This new local service would run via second Avenue with the . The and frequencies will be adjusted to accommodate this new service. The and under this plan will have a platform between 51st and 53rd Streets as part of the complex that connects the and . The remains unchanged and I'm not sure where to put the under this scenario. Unless it could be a reactivated or something like that. But sag if it were eliminated (again) then anyone wishing to access QB from Broadway and Vice versa then take the to transfer to the

What do you guys think?

Excuse me, triple post? 

But a few flaws with this:

1. Converting 51 St to an express stop isn't necessary. It already has connections to the  at Lex-59, plus the  at Grand Central.

2. Where would the  go? And if this is post-SAS, the bypass would've defo began contruction, and send the  via the bypass instead.

3. Having the  be unchanged defeats the purpose of sending the  to Astoria, as Queens-bound trains would have to merge at 34 St. Send it via 63 St to replace  service on QBL. 

4. The  can be kept, and you could have the  serve QB,  2 Av, and  Astoria without interaction between the two. 

5. Don't reduce  service. Both are super packed during the AM rush, and it will only make QB riders' commutes seem like hell. 

And before you say, 63rd will become congested with the  all sharing it, you could swap the  to ease congestion. 

21 minutes ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

This thread has gone off topic too much lately, so let's put an end to it in this and the next few posts!

1. My thoughts: Im not having any preference over any transit worker, if a transit member that's not Hammers or Fan Railer notifies us on a topic, it's still a well supported statement in which we'll have to wait and see.

2. @Coney Island Av I understand why your opinions are challenged and they deserve to be settled professionally, but if youre being mocked, it's best to settle it personally or through PM, not argue an active forum. The website also has an ignore function that you can use, and even walking away is much better than complaining which will just get you the same mockers again.

3.No this is not Canarsie 2.0, it only becomes Canarsie 2.0 when we go against each other in these threads.

4. I realized my last post may have brought an off topic discussion with it, and i'll say im a little sorry, my only goal was to express my opinion to... well, an opinionated thread that was slowly falling apart, with that being said, can we actually talk about 179's from this point on. 

The thing I explicitly stated above was directly referring to R179's, it's just that everyone criticized it and the thread went overboard. 

But saying things like, "i hope you get banned" or just straight-up mocking is going way too far, and this is what brought the thread off topic. 

Getting back on topic, any new R179 production cars being delivered?

*sigh* people just continue to make fun of me everyday. I even try my best to follow forum guidelines, by not necroposting or harassing others. 

I want to just discuss about R179's, but whenever something gets brought up by someone, we have this ridiculous nonsense over and over again. And no, I don't want to rebel against a mod? You wanna know why? Because I don't want to get banned. 

And this thread has just gone of a cliff, and it'll get locked. All because of ppl making fun of me when I try to post one damn assignment. 

I guess I have to ignore others for the rest of my time on this forum... the only way to stop this arguing to have the thread be locked. 

12 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Since everyone was whining endlessly a few days ago that the and riders were "promised" by the to get R179s...

: 80 cars in service + 40 cars as spares = 120 cars total

: 144 cars in service + 52 cars as spares = 196 cars total

316 R179 cars total (196 in four-car sets and 120 in five-car sets).

This means the / will be 100% R160s like the with a few still serving the during the Canarsie Tube Shutdown. The rest of the 's fleet will be R46s (and later, replaced with the R211s in the 2020s era).

All other lines retain the same car assignments as they do today.

Simple.

EDIT: I forgot about the 222 R32s. About half of them will be retired and the rest will be sent to Coney Island to run on the and the only. Some of its R68/As will be moved over to the to make full-length 600 feet long trains for the Canarsie Tube Shutdown. The 50 R42s on the other hand will finally be retired as they would no longer be needed much. 

And that's about it.

You posted this in the wrong thread, Take this over to the R179 Discussion or R32 Fleet Swap Thread. 

EDIT: This is a FLEET ASSIGNMENT, not a proposal. A proposal is like an extension of an existing subway line. Like for example, we were talking about a  train extension to South Brooklyn, not fleet assignments. And that goes for every other post in this thread.  And why do you think everything is say makes me a mod?! Current members even say to stop necroposting, even tho they're not a mod. 

38 minutes ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

This thread has kinda been run to the ground, at this point, it's just full of fleet predictions, occasional news and (mostly) the extensive fleet predictions that come right from it. My opinion is: If there's nothing to add on to the thread but pure speculation on where the trains will go, it's best to just not post at all. R179's have already started service and it's wise to wait as other post's mentioned, Im not saying this thread should end but it should chill the h*ll out when it comes to fleet assignments, one topic ( in this case, pure predictions) aren't supposed to clutter a thread, nor is mocking/ making fun of  others for personal/disagreement reasons (which i've also seen on this thread).

 

I mean, as soon as insiders post classified info, everyone is caught up in an endless argument. I even stated that fleet assignments are the most controversial topic on this forum, and yet it ain't a problem for MTA or anyone working for them at all. 

We already have multiple production cars sitting on property, and it's only a matter of weeks until all of the production cars enter service. We only have to wait two more months to see what truly happens. By March/April, the  will have major changes in their rolling stock. 

@Dj Hammers and @Fan Railer both notify us of upcoming R179 deliveries, testing dates, and they will most likely inform us of when the 5-car sets will enter service, and when ALL production cars enter service. We already have two R179 sets in regular service, and more will follow suit in the coming weeks.

I also get mocked/made fun of for just posting the info listed above by one person. I cannot respect their opinion if they always make fun of me.

And if things change, then who cares? Not everything gets changed, it's only likely. That doesn't mean it will change.

And @NoHacksJustKhaks, is it best to lock this thread temporarily until the projected fleet assignments happen, since what you said above is true. 

*sigh* this is becoming Canarsie 2.0 already.  we're doomed....  

19 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said:

So that means the 10-car sets will end up on the and some other line(s)?

Since the order was modified there will be enough 10-car sets for BOTH the . Since Jamaica is gonna be 100% R160 some 46's will head to the , while most head to the . The R160's currently on the  will head to the , and some R68's might head to the . 

When you add the total amount of R46's from BOTH 207, Jamaica, and Pitkin, and the additional 10-car R179's, this will be enough to completely kick the R32's off the  so they can be transferred to- you already know the obvious contender. 

The 8-car sets will obviously go to the 100% NTT , and are rumored for the . 

And IDK about R179's on the . The  getting them is more likely since insiders have hinted at it. 

Nah, we were discussing the 179's this whole time. 

I beat you to it @Jemorie. 

@Jemorie can you stop bumping you're post counter to just name-call instead of actually contribute by saying, "Oh I have a suggestion about the R179s," instead of calling me "You’re so petulant and annoying lol." You mainly name-call more, and only sometimes you actually contribute to the discussion.

At the end of the day, the plans could be finalized, and either of us could be wrong. And why wouldn't the R179's go to the  if they were intended to be on those lines and displace the 32s. And there were additional 10-car sets added to the order, so of course it will be enough for the .

Look, I respect your opinion, but me, @Dj Hammers, @Union Tpke, @Around the Horn, @R42N, and many others gave you reason after reason about why it's already confirmed that all this Canarsie nonsense with R32s is basically confirmed. Yet you continue to ignore us despite what all of us told you.

I know I'm not a mod, but all that is irrelevant when I listed all that above.

Replies to all extensions in blue.

14 hours ago, ABOGbrooklyn said:

http://app.enmodal.co/?id=823ff4edc3411984

What do you guys think of my subway extension proposal, plenty of extensions in Queens, some in the Bronx and Brooklyn

In Queens

Extended the  to Floral Park, Little Neck Pkwy

End the extension at Springfield. Leave tail tracks with provisions to extend the line further east to LNP if ridership ever warranted it.

Extended the  to Queens Village, Hempstead Av via Liberty Av/Hollis Av

End the extension at Hollis. While many say the  is too slow, I disagree as it can have an express counterpart (the ), and could be rerouted down Jamaica Av instead of Fulton.

Extended the  to Rosedale, Francis Lewis Blvd running on the LIRR right of path

End it at Springfield. 

Extended the  to Cambria Heights via Linden Blvd

Too slow for riders to use, a stupid snail when compared to the . Cut this out. Extend the  over there instead.

Extended the  to Little Neck via Union Tpke, Utopia Pkwy and 47th Av

Worthless. Run it up the LIE, Jewel Av, or Union Turnpike. No one will take this foamy roundabout route to get to Manhattan.

Extended the  to Bayside via Roosevelt Av, and Crocheron Av.

Run it on Northern instead. This improves connections with local buses. 

Created a new (8) line Willets Pt spur to Whitestone/College Point via College Pt Blvd & 20th Av

Again, completely worthless. It reduces important TPH on the , which would lead to severe congestion. Extend the  over there instead via 10 Av/86 St into Queens via Northern. 

Extended the  to Laguardia via Con Ed property

Agree, though you could have a yard on ConEd to swap the  and .

Re did the  line to Rockaway Park via LIRR Rockaway Branch ROW and connect with QBL at Woodhaven Blvd and connect with 2nd Av line via 63rd tunnel

Worthless. Uses up TPH through 63rd that could INSTEAD be used for the QBL Bypass.

Re did the  line as well to JFK airport via LIRR ROW to LIC and connect with 2nd Ave line via new tunnel at 48th St Manhattan/46th Rd Queens

SAS won't have enough TPH, and riders wouldn't even justify its existence. Remove. 

Also extend the  back to 71st Av

Not enough capacity unless you branched off one of the QBL locals to the RBB or LIE/Jewel/Union Tpke. 

 

Brooklyn

Extended the  to Sheepshead Bay- Voorhies Av

Agreed.

Extended the  to Kings Plaza going down Rochester Ave and turning down E New York Av to go back on Utica Av

Send the  over there instead of the . And FYI, the Utica Av station is NOT located on the latter street because of space for the extension. The bellmouths are located on UTICA and also only branch off the local tracks instead of express. 

Extended the  one stop to Av L

Riders wouldn't justify. The B42 does fine in that area. Remove.

Extended the  to Queens

See above with the  and . 

Extended the  via new tunnel below Old Slip in Lower Manhattan and go to Red Hook and extend to Staten Island via new tunnel at 65th Street

Completely worthless, and is a much better use of resources to connect SAS to Fulton so the  could go express.

Extended the  to meet with the  at Bedford Nostrand

Agree

Put the brown  back on The West End to Bay Pkwy

Riders in Ridgewood/Middle Village would throw a fit if you got rid of the 6 Av . Your  ridership would drop like a rock, and trains would be running empty along the West End.

Extended the  to Bay Ridge

No yard access unless the yard I listed above was built. Send it to Bay Pkwy.

Manhattan

New  via Second Av

See above- not enough capacity.

Extended the  via 125th to Broadway, if possible

Of course it's possible. Agree. 

Bronx

 line to Throggs Neck

Again, see above with not enough capacity. I would leave provisions after the 161 St station on the 3 Av-SAS Extension for such a route.  

Extend the  to Fordham Rd vis 3rd Av

Have it go all the way to Gun Hill Rd to connect with the . 

Extend the  to Co-Op City via E Gun Hill Rd

Agree.

Extended the  to North Riverdale 

North Riverdale isn't dense enough to warrant that kind of service. Remove. Metro-North does fine and most in Riverdale are rich and drive by car. 

Staten Island

 to Mariners Harbor

See above about why this is useless. Also, the North Shore Extension is more viable/feasible than this.

Extended the (SIR) to Mariners Harbor via its old ROW on the North Shore

Agreed. 

All boroughs

the Triboro RX Now called the (X) line will span all boroughs, starting at Staten Island at SI Mall, up Victory Blvd and meet with the  and go up 65th St Tunnel

Cut it back to St. George. Also, this is too expensive, too overkill, and riders won't warrant YOUR (X). Instead, it should run from 145 St to St. George. 

then continue through LIRR Bay Ridge Branch ROW until Astoria where it will go up 30th Av and up 9th St to Randalls Island and then proceed below Amtrak ROW meeting with the  and then turn on Tremont Av and go up Dykman St in Manhattan to go back up Henry Hudson Pkwy to connect with Western Riverdale to terminate at 261st St.

 

Would appreciate constructive feedback! 

Overall, this map is WAY TOO FOAMY, albeit most extensions unnecessary. You need to start thinking realistically when constructing these maps. 

Thanks!

 

 

http://app.enmodal.co/?id=823ff4edc3411984

 

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

http://app.enmodal.co/?id=b3167f046fbbf360 new map!

 and  are extended to LaGuardia Airport. is currently discontinued at the moment until I can figure something out.

You don't need to have both. Send the  to QBL via 63rd if you plan to send the  to LGA. This will prevent any merging between Broadway expresses and locals, plus it allows the  to  be kept.

extended to 179 St

People will bail at Parsons, Union Tpke, and 71 Av for the express . Leave it at 71 Av, or divert down RBB if ridership really warranted it. 

is extended under 125 St

Agree.

SAS  train runs local from Jamaica/179 St - Hanover Square

Worthless when a better use of funds would be to send it via the QBL Bypass. 

 runs express to Chambers, then Continues local until Euclid Avenue; it's also extended to Laurelton

Necessitates a merge with the  and is worthless. Leave it at WTC, but I do agree with the Laurelton Extension. 

terminates at WTC. I might switch Northern Terminals with the  

Leave the  alone. Extend it to Cambria Heights. 

 is extended to Braddock Avenue

Agree.

is extended to 3 Av up until Burke Av with the  and  

The  and  should be extended to Gun Hill because of the multiple bus transfers. 

Rush Hour  trains terminate at Bay Ridge

Only issue is line length, otherwise I partially agree.

 terminates at New Lots with the  running down Utica Avenue

I agree with most of this EXCEPT, extend the (4) to Spring Creek.

is extended in two sections; South to 9 Av - 14 St and North to Bell Blvd

I agree with the Bayside extension, but not the 14 St one. Extend the (L) up 10 Av instead. 

Note: I don't advocate every extension, I built it just for the fun of it.

 

 

The only reason why these people even want the QueensWay is to continue having illegal backyards. 

When ya'll bring up the QueensWay, it makes the part of my body that actually agrees on building it more superior than the other, which doesn't want to build RBB. 

But so far, Koslowitz and her supporters are currently losing. The study would be carried out eventually, and knowing the MTA, would list subway as an option for reactivation. If our mayor leans our way, the subway side would prevail.

26 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Look at this on the board material in public speaking

http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/180122_1030_Transit.pdf

2 points from some david dude

Complains of and delays construction also says should be short turned at queens plaza 

And this dude says the  and the train should be elimnated (but why tho) 

 

To debunk this dude's ideal fantasy of subways:

 trains cannot terminate at Queens Plaza without severely delaying  and  service. 

He probably wants to eliminate those lines because they're both part-time. Don't eliminate the  and . It will slow service for people coming from the Rockaways. Also, the  will become jammed at the loss of  service. Apparently this dude wants to have R32  trains and R62  and  trains...

The only benefits of RBB, if built, would be:

-reducing the conga line at 71 Av

-allowing the  to be reextended to 71 Av

-crosstown line

I'm sort of conflicted over whether to build the line or not. 

Ya'll have to remember that the R179's were always intended to look like R160 clones, or twins, because they were intended to finish what the R160's have started. In other words, they were meant to do what the 160's could not- replace the R32 and R42. 

And of course, since there's been multiple delays and the  shutdown, they won't retire the remaining SMEES until after Canarsie. 

P.S. A little off topic, but I changed my name to @Coney Island Av because my old name, D to 96 St was a little too "generic." 

I've come to the point that RBB is not worth it at all at this point. I mean, Q52/53 bus service is 20 minutes to the . And the  also would take another 20 mins to get to Manhattan. So you'd end up with 40 min- the same amount of time these hipsters expect to get to Midtown. The homes are no more than 10 min walking distance from the subway.

But JFK had good subway access with a slew of buses and the , plus the AirTrain. LGA doesn't have this. Why don't we extend the  over there rather than serve some folks that ain't thankful for the , plus the Q52/53 SBS. If this isn't enough, then why not increase bus service. 

Unless the Rockaways suddenly explodes in population and there is heavy demand, I don't think we should build it. 

Let's not argue and rehash the same thing over and over again. There are many more places in Eastern Queens that need subway access.