Lex

Metra recently announced a contract awarded to Stadler for new battery-powered trains. While the press release doesn't directly refer to the sets as FLIRTs, the phrasing of the last paragraph and Stadler's own video on the topic indicate that they are indeed FLIRTs.

I mean, have you seen the 20 years leading up to COVID smacking us in the face?

I noticed there's an entry for the Canarsie-bound platform's closure for Friday night through Saturday morning. I'm guessing that's to install the barriers.

Was there an incident along the LIE?

Great. That shuttle uses rolling stock like the M35 uses buses. It's not officially an artic route, but artics work just fine on it.

Exactly how much do you know about the ?

Why don't you read what I said more carefully and think about what my word choice is hinting at?

delete

The solution is to run the on its truncated route as a local outside of Midtown. Then run it to Forest Hills.

Is it, though? Honestly, how many routes would even use them, and to what degree? The 3 sees respectable ridership between White Plains and 242nd Street, yet it tends to use the same buses as most routes despite its long express segment. Routes 1X, 43, and 62 are express variants of routes 1C, 40, and 60, so they'd be better off using the same buses as their local counterparts. How long routes 17, 28 (BxM4C), and 77 will last is a huge question mark, and the same can be said for route 10. Regular coach buses are far more likely to run into clearance issues, which means they can really only run on a single route (28), while buses with a single doorway and/or a high floor increase dwell times at bus stops.

Ah, yes, a bayside yard with relatively little storage space (if any exists), a maintenance facility that would likely need an expansion to handle the demands of North Shore service in addition to the existing service, and no real room to expand (because it's a bayside yard). Do you plan to demolish all but two platforms for this? For that matter, how are you so certain that was never a consideration for current operations, to say nothing of what you're suggesting?

The R211Ts were built as part of a larger order. Unless something forces the other R211s into absurdly early retirement, it's highly unlikely these will be.

That sounds like the route is padded to hell along Ocean Avenue.

I'm pretty sure that was meant more to prep JFK for its own artics than anything else. I think the highlighted 4 was supposed to be a 6. Touch screen shenanigans, perhaps?

And it was plagued with problems, much like Ventra.

I tried to give you a chance (against my better judgment), but you're just too far up your own ass.

First, we literally do not have the rolling stock to sideline the 75-footers. Second, the R211Ts make it easier for smoke to travel between cars within sets.

The railroads tend to see a mix of high and low platforms with little tangible effort in changing that to a single standard. The trains are high-floor. I think that should tell you everything you need to know.

Regarding the Greenpoint Avenue leg of the current B24/proposed B53, is there any impression that people want to go to Woodside/Jackson Heights? I haven't used the B24 at all, so I have to ask.

The proposed B27 is largely a portion of the old B75.

If they lean that heavily into it now, it'll bite them hard in the ass later. The R62/As don't have door positions consistent with existing IRT NTTs and there's good reason to believe the will get R142s when the R262s finally have significant presence. In addition, R142s could find their way over there now (they have before). If you want to argue that it wasn't the smartest move to try them there, I'd agree, but there's not a lot of good places to test them before making any firm plans, especially since it'll be some time before we even begin to see the R262s (which, last I checked, don't even have a builder yet).

Depending on the circumstances, there could technically be a bit of leeway (not that this is meant to happen in practice). The barriers eat into that leeway so much that even being just a couple of meters off means people may not be able to get on/off without having to reposition the train entirely. The differences in rolling stock will only exacerbate the issue (75-footers have fewer doorways in different positions relative to 60-footers, IRT NTT B/C cars have offset doors, unlike the SMEEs and NTT A cars). This also makes emergency egress far more difficult.

That would certainly be interesting to see.

You realize you can just theoretically revert the to the old / and send the back to Brooklyn, right? Even then, I wouldn't be so quick to do that, as Jamaica already has two high-mileage routes with notable rolling stock demands and another route that further eats into spares, among other issues.

That doesn't begin to address the logistical issues she brought up.