Jump to content

Enjineer

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    460
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Enjineer

  1. 2 minutes ago, LTA1992 said:

    Hmm. I had an idea way back when the R211 came about that the MTA may be using the first digit of the contract number to denote generations.

    Well remember, there are orders in between these contracts, so I think they generally just go up as they get more railcar-related contracts. Not all of them are even things like new work equipment, sometimes there are R contracts for stuff like HVAC systems. It would make sense though that the "generations" of cars would fall into different numbers (R1XX, etc.) 

  2. 2 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

    When they was last on the (A) they ran on the rush hour only Rock Park specials. If they limit the 42s to those runs that would be a great place to put them.

    Oooh, good point. It'd be interesting for the (A) to have 32s, 42s, 46s, and 179s to top it all off. 

  3. Just now, Around the Horn said:

    If we're going to add service on weekends, the (M) makes much more sense than the (G).

    I'd also think riders would prefer more weekend service into Manhattan, not a weekend-only additional service between Brooklyn and Queens. If riders want to use the (G), it's already available to transfer from the (E) and (7) (if someone decided to transfer at 74 St for some reason) at Court Square. 

  4. 7 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

    As for the G becoming 100% full length this year?? I still see that happening.

    I do too. I remember Byford said even with the Canarsie shutdown up in the air he still wanted to see service improvements like full-length G trains happen regardless. 

  5. 2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

    I’m kinda confused on this quote. What is it exactly you’re trying to summarize here?

    If I can offer my guess, it'd be that LTA was referring to how Ferrer and the pro-Cuomo-L-plan brass pretty much danced around every question from the skeptical board members (like Polly Trottenberg, who went hard grilling Ferrer), and offered little to no answers to the questions they were asked. Despite this clear lack of concrete info and plans regarding the new Canarsie plans, they (Ferrer and co.) still were putting their support behind the new plan as if, to quote one of the board members asking about any cons to the new plan, "you're saying it's Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed all rolled into one." 

  6. 29 minutes ago, V886132 said:

    Just amateur speculation on my end, but I wouldn't be surprised if the (C) is staying at 480' after all, with the 4-car R179s.

    My understanding was that the R32s being moved to the (A), as well as the incoming 5-car R179 sets (to make 10-car trains on the (A)) would push R46s to the (C) for supplemental 600' service, but that the (C) would still have a mix of both 480' and 600' trains. If the R32s and the 10-car R179s can push enough R46s to the (C) from the (A), that would make sense, but I'm not sure whether or not the numbers would work out in that case. 

  7. 51 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

    Their was one set in service on the (C) line today.

    Ah, thanks for the info. Any idea if the 179s will be assigned permanently to the C, or if they'll move back to ENY once these kinks are worked out. Additionally, any timeframe for when the pulled cars will go back into service? 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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