subwaycommuter1983

First clip courtesy of DJ Hammers I guess those r32's/r42's are going to the G.

The second clip is on the newest set of r179's being transferred to Pitkin.

6 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

So in other words there's a lack of R179s for service? I was wondering why they had the much older trains running on the .  That explains a lot.  Adding salt to the womb...

Actually, the r179's have been running on the J so far, but apparently they're all OOS.

4 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

Can we get back onto the topic of the R179s? This is an R179 thread, not an R179 & Random Subway Service Discussion thread. Discuss your service inquiries elsewhere.

From what I heard, all 3 in-service sets have been taken OOS. I'm not sure how true that is.

We are on topic. The C train mess is a reflection of the bad decisions made by the MTA in regards to the r179's.

And to top it off, all sets of r179's are OOS.

"Bravo" MTA and Bombardier.

59 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

FWIW the ran at 10 minute headways on Saturdays and 12 minutes on Sundays from 1982 onward. Is the implication being made that insufficient service being provided? The line is mirrored by the and the for most of it's route.  Is the train overcrowded from Utica to New Lots ? Just asking because if it's not then that argument is null and void. Looking at the line for a minute. The argument is that the trains run infrequently or aren't on schedule,  especially CPW territory. I believe that that schedule is similar to the line headways. 6 trains per hour.  I don't pretend to know what they do in the B2  but I'll ask my fellow posters.  Are there G.O.s working on weekends where the  or interact with the  and lines ? If so that may be a reason for the CPW delays.  I'm just speculating because if the overcrowding is that severe they would normally send an express down/up the local track.  Same thing would apply in Brooklyn.  Obviously management doesn't see a reason to do so.  Just my opinion.  Carry on. 

Good to know. And yes there has been many instances where some A or D trains run local on CPW due to the long headways.

18 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Weekend  service is already low at 10-12 minute headways like the . So I don’t know exactly what “logic” you’re going by.

The headways for the C is more than 12 minutes during the weekends, even though the timetables states its the opposite.

The MTA really blew it with the r179's. Like I said in the previous post, they should have ordered more 10 car r179's, enough to increase service on the C and to make the C full length.

6 hours ago, Fan Railer said:

And how does any of this have to do with the R179? 

The MTA decisions with the r179's have a lot to do with the mess that is going on with the C train. 

1. Using Bombardier to build the r179's. 

2. Not building enough 10 car r179's to make the C trains all full length trains and to increase service on the C.

As a result, we are seeing extremely long waits and overcrowding along CPW, especially during the weekends, when there is NO B service and where a lot of tourists get on and off to visit the museums. Also, ridership is growing in all Brooklyn stations served by the C.

27 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Speaking of 'something else,' you would see -- if you had taken the time to read my post -- that I was not advocating for cutting maintenance, but instead rationalizing the way we do it. 

In terms of maintenance and track work, It should be done ONLY during overnight and weekends. 

The reason I'm saying that is because the MTA is now during maintenance and track work during the evenings between 8pm and 11pm, which is a huge inconvenience for people  who are still coming out of work and school and the  trains  are still crowded during those times. One example,  I don't remember the last time Manhattan bound D trains ran express along 4th avenue in Brooklyn  after 8pm.

It seems that the MTA wants to cater to the 9 to 5 commuters by neglecting the off peak commuters who pay the same fare as everyone else. 

11 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

So? They're not gonna increase  service or run on the  on weekends just for Central Park West. The  can't always cater to riders' whims. The subway is a 24/7 operation and the tracks and signals, like the rolling stock itself, needs maintenance. That's when weekends or overnights come into play. Weekend ridership is lower than weekday ridership, period. How much more frequent do you want the  to be when it's just a part-time line? Usually, the part-time lines on weekends get the short end of the stick in favor of the full-time lines.

Stations along CPW are becoming more overcrowded due to the high number of tourists visiting the museums during the weekends.

The MTA needs to somehow increase service on those stations. How???

39 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Unless we're talking rush hour, whether a train is 480' or 600' is irrelevant. People care about frequency much more than they do about capacity. That's why, for example, Delta/American/United/SW/etc fly a zillion flights from NYC-CHI per day on small planes rather than a few on larger ones. People like options, and they don't like to wait. 

Frequency is a huge issue with the C during the weekends along CPW. There's been instances where selected A or D trains have run local along CPW to compensate service gaps on the C.

Weekend local A and D trains on CPW is not the solution. 

Either the MTA adds more trains on the C or have the B run during the weekends to 145.

28 minutes ago, Lance said:

Not to drag this any more off-topic, but since this keeps being brought up, I might as well answer the query.

While it looks good on paper to extend the to Lefferts and sent all trains to the Rockaways, it will likely not work as intended. As per the MTA, such an extension will require more trains for the line. It will also double the amount of service along the Rockaways branch. While that may sound good (more service = happier customers), the Rockaways stations have the absolute lowest ridership of any station in present use. The eastern Pitkin stations don't fare much better. Is it a good use of resources to run all of these potentially empty trains when the present setup, while not perfect, is a better alternative than the proposed idea?

As for off-hours service, unless that route is short-turning somewhere, you are going to need serious justification along not only Central Park West, but 6th Avenue and the Brighton as well for the doubled service over present levels. It's a lot easier to justify adding more and trains to the schedule. It's much harder to justify an entirely different service.

We're not going completely off topic. Service needs to be improved, especially in CPW and in Concourse/Jerome. How?? The MTA needs to figure this out. All we know is that the r179's, the r211's and the car replacements for the r68's will play a key role in these improvements.

Also, at this point the MTA should already be working on car orders to replace the r62's and r68's considering how long it's been taking for new subway cars to be tested and delivered and the r179's are a huge example of that.

3 hours ago, biGC323232 said:

I was just throwing my opinion on they question....And the main reason is to why most of yall here thinks its not gonna work is because ppl dont want to lose they precious 1 seat express...Im the last 1 here that looks at paper and think things is gonna work....Quit frankly i could care less.......And by the way i wonder if the  looked into crews,merges,fleet,and budgeting When the  got extended to SF late nights  to church full time  to fulton wkends  to serve 6 av...You probably was the main 1 saying that wasnt gonna work...Now back to the R179 topic 

I know many people in ozone park may not be happy about losing express service. However, they will have a less confusing commute if the C is extended to Ozone park, which is only a few stops after Euclid. Remember, the C used to run past Euclid years ago.

A train riders will also have a less confusing commute if all A trains go to the Rockaways and if all 5 car r179's go to the A train in addition to the r211's.

I think this will work, especially, after the Canarsie tunnel work is complete and once the r211's are delivered. 

I also, think that running the B to the Bronx during the weekdays and running the B to 145 during the WEEKENDS will work as well. I already explained my reasons in this previous post:

On 3/18/2018 at 12:53 PM, subwaycommuter1983 said:

These long weekend headways on CPW causes overcrowding on the 1 train. Also, there's overcrowding on 81st street due to those long headways.

Also, more service in the Bronx, reducing overcrowding on the 4 train.

Running the B to the Bronx all day during the weekdays would reduce bottleneck on 145th street and eliminate confusion on B train riders that are unsure whether the train is going to the Bronx or not.

33 minutes ago, S78 via Hylan said:

It’s been discussed numerous times why this wouldn’t work. Most people here think about what looks good on paper, but don’t take available fleets, assignments, crews, merges, and budgeting  into consideration.

Didn't know that this was discussed in previous posts. 

The C in the past has run past Euclid. 

Also, it is confusing to take the A past Euclid avenue,  especially if the conductors don't make the announcement and many times the yellow screens on the r46 don't show where it's going. That's another reason why the 5 car r179's should run on the A.

5 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

CPW does have ridiculous headways on weekends.

And these long headways causes overcrowding on the 1 train. Also, there's overcrowding on 81st street due to those long headways.

27 minutes ago, P3F said:

More service on CPW, 6th Av, and Brighton. 

I agree. Also, more service in the Bronx, reduce overcrowding on the 4 train.

1 hour ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

The  and  serve the same stations between Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center and 145th Street during weekday non-rush hours, with the exception of  trains serving local stations along CPW. Unless passengers boarding along the Brighton are seeking the Grand Concourse, I'm not sure what else would reasonceably justify that.

Running the B to the Bronx all day during the weekdays would reduce bottleneck on 145th street and eliminate confusion on B train riders that are unsure whether the train is going to the Bronx or not.

14 hours ago, biGC323232 said:

Sending  trains to ozone park is not that bad of an idea...As a matter of fact they should look further into sending the  there...Most of the time .  don't even meet at the 2 bottlenecks...And how is the  going to fulton...What about 2 av

Good to know that others agree with this.

What about the other idea of running the B to the Bronx during the weekdays and running the B to 145th Street during the weekends, without making changes on the D train?

1 hour ago, Jemorie said:

To elorbrate further on what S78 via Hylan said, the  is the longest line in the system, merges with two other lines along its run, and has three different branches. So the longer the line, the more irregular it is. It all just depends on how many passengers are at each of the line’s station during the day or night, and how much time the passengers spend getting in and out of the train at each station.

Has the MTA considered running all the A trains to both sides of the Rockaways, eliminating the shuttle, and extending the C to Ozone Park?

How about running the B to the Bronx during the weekdays and running the B to 145 during the weekends, but leaving the D as it is?

With those extra r179's and the r211's, this is something that we need to think about. It will increase reliability and decrease confusion on both A and B trains.

2 hours ago, EphraimB said:

So the 5-car R179s will temporarily be on the  until the R211s come and when the R211s come to the , then the  will get the 5-car R179s?

That's just a possible scenario. The testing and delivery of the r211s are a few years away.

1 hour ago, EphraimB said:

So when the R211s come into service, will the  only have R179s and R211s? Will the majority of the  fleet be R179s or R211s?

It's soon to tell, but I have a feeling that the 5 car r179's will all go to the C once the r211s are delivered. Those 5 car r179's cover most of the C fleet.

19 minutes ago, Fan Railer said:

No, the  runs 38-39 trains during the peak hours. That is the equivalent of 380-390 60-foot cars. 

12 trains is not a "vast majority" of 38 trains, nor is it even "roughly half", and that's before you even consider the fact that at least 2 of the 12 trains will be out of service at any given time as part of the spare factor.

Also keep in mind that the A will only give up about half of the 46s to the C, meaning that the A will still keep a lot of its r46s in addition to the 5 car 179s.

3 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

How many 5-car R179s will there be? How many trains would that equal to?

Enough to cover at least half of the A fleet. The rest will most likely be r46s and some r32s. 

2 hours ago, VIP said:

I hear that the  will have very few sets of R46’s from the  shutdown til retirement, meaning the  will have mostly 60ft equipment in service. 

In other words, the A will get all 5 car r179's.

Possible car distribution

A: 5 car r179's, r32's, r46's

C: r46's

G: r32's, 4 car r179's and/or 4 car r160's

J/Z: r143's, 4 car r179's and/or 4 car r160's

7 minutes ago, CTK246 said:

As a what? I don’t see anything.

G train

Saw  it in a  notification.

3 hours ago, R179 8258 said:

Well the 10 ten cars is at Pitkin right now. Just saw it in the yard

It's definitely going to the A train if not the C.

1 hour ago, Dj Hammers said:

The operation with 3050-53 yesterday wasn’t burn-in testing. It was a power consumption test. 

It makes sense. Why would a 4 car set burn test on a line that has 10 car trains??

It seems that more testing needs to be done on sets 3010-3019 and 3050-3057 before entering service.

2 hours ago, Art Vandelay said:

I'd be somewhat surprised if the C ends up getting any R179s. 

Yes, the R160s on the C are almost certainly going to return to the J, but that does not mean that the J is getting more added service than the G. 

I wouldn't be surprised. The 5 car sets of r179's will most likely go to the A and/or C.

As for the r160s on the C, I have a feeling that they will go to the G, while the J and Z keeps most if not all of 8 cars sets of r179's.  Remember that there will be a surplus of trains within the next few months. 

On 2/5/2018 at 2:08 PM, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Are they testing any trains on the Brighton line??

According to the MTA website southbound B trains are running local in Brooklyn due to equipment testing. 

Maybe it's set 3010-3019 that came out of the shadow????

It's happening again. For those who are wondering about set 3010-3019, I suggest that you hop on the B, or Q trains to Brooklyn during the afternoons before the pm rush hour.  

Based on the MTA website,  you might bump into set 3010-3019.

On 2/3/2018 at 11:33 AM, Coney Island Av said:

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

3010-3019- MIA

3050-3057- Pitkin?

3086-3089- Pitkin?

3094-3097- 207 St?

3010-3019- Testing at Brighton???