Art Vandelay

I can vouch for that early on the R143 certainly did only have L and M.

People are making a big assumption that it ever was going to happen. (At least in any significant numbers)

One of the main points of assigning classes to shops is to MINIMIZE mixing of cartypes between shops. It makes little sense to make Mosholu even more of a mixed shop than it is today.

Most R160s cannot run on the L. There will be no big swap involving the R143s leaving the L. Probably not until the R143 fleet is retired will we see any different cars assigned to the L. The M requires cars with a conductor position at 4/4. R160s obviously work for this. R143s and R32s also work for this. R42s do not. R42s cannot run on the M without conductor boards added. Perhaps I am being presumptuous, but I don't think one has to go far out on a limb to say that C/R boards will not be added for R42 Ms.

Actually, having more 4 car units is what really brings versatility. Think of the service pattern after 9/11. Such would be impossible with the original R179 configuration. With the new configuration, one could just take the C's R179s and put them on the J and M, while anything could be placed on the C to backfill. Furthermore, since the eastern division is one of the fastest growing parts of the system, it is essential that there be more cars available for the eastern division than are currently assigned. Look at recent history- the growth of the eastern division has outpaced the new cars built for it on 4 occasions in the last 15 years! (R143, R160A Base, R160A Option 2, and the original R179 configuration) On a per car basis, yes, but it results in a cheaper per train cost, as well as a lower overall cost.

260 in 4 car sets(65 sets). 40 in 5 car sets(8 sets).

Once the R179 order comes in, the C and J will be nearly filled with NTTs, if not entirely so. The R32s will need to run somewhere. If the Montague tunnel clearance issues are fixed by then, there is no reason not to put them at Coney Island. My point is that constraints of yesterday and today are not the constraints of tomorrow. Furthermore, even if the tube clearance issues are not fixed, if the need arises, they can still be assigned to the B/D. They just could not be routed through Montague. Either way, I suspect that they will end their service lives on a line besides the A/C/J.

My point was that just because cars are prohibited from a section of line due to a clearance issue at one point in time does not mean that they always will be or for that matter that they still are. When GOs or bulletins are superceded or rescinded such is not automatically posted here. If there is determined to be a need to assign the R32 fleet to the B or D, such will happen, especially if the clearance issues in the Montague tunnel have been fixed.

IINM They aren't. Are they even still banned from Montague?

The point of the CBTC installation on the Culver is for the interoperability tests. Proof of that is that it is only being installed on express tracks.

The Cutoff point will be around Jay Street. Culver will not be CBTC between Jay and Church for normal operations in the reasonably near future.

Pitkin had green paint lying around.

F tops out at about 15 TPH. Was 18 TPH prior to 63rd opening IINM.

There is no way to turn G trains at Hoyt. No way to turn F trains at York/Jay that could have handled even 1/3rd of the F.

York could not handle close to what the F would be running, and would not provide a transfer for riders to continue to South Brooklyn. Split service is inevitable when a line as frequent as the F craps out in the middle of rush hour. The N had to be sent via Tunnel to handle the large number of riders from the transfer at Jay. Furthermore, the diverted Ns through Montague clear up Gold Street for the diverted Fs to fit through. I don't think there is a better way to handle what happened. If there was, said better way would have been what was done.

http://www.alamys.org/media/61869/26_metrorail.pdf is a good presentation to look at. Canarsie CBTC cars require modification before they will work on the new system. Nowhere is there a requirement that the new equipment be made backwards compatible with existing lines- only that future lines keep the new standards. Queens CBTC RFP: web.mta.info/nyct/procure/contracts/77319sol.pdf Culver CBTC RFP: http://web.mta.info/nyct/procure/contracts/74075sol.pdf

Canarsie uses Siemens, Flushing uses Thales. The rest of the system will be to different specifications which are being developed now by NYCT, Siemens, and Thales. Neither Canarsie nor Flushing will be compatible with the rest of the system.

Canarsie CBTC is a different system than will be put in place systemwide. I doubt the R143s and current CBTC R160s will ever be shifted off the L in any significant way.

Coney Island would be the obvious destination. Concourse could also be a possibility.

CBTC could certainly be turned on prior to the retirement of the R46s. You just need to make Jamaica all R160 or newer, and equip enough ENY cars with the new CBTC for the M. Personally, I don't see R179s ending up on the L. If the L ends up needing more trains, I'd expect them to come from the R160 fleet. I don't see it making much sense to have three fleets equipped with a nonstandard signalling system.

It is still 300 feet on weekdays. Can't do 300 feet with R32s.

The C is not empty on weekends by any means. IIRC the weekend C has the highest loads on the CPW IND, carrying more than either the A or the D, so I wouldn't use the C as an example of low ridership.

The mere threat of an el would spur Albany towards not taking seriously whatever agency is disconnected from reality enough to propose such.

Underground trains are running to the closest semblance of normal service possible.

A few points to make here. 1. The subways do have a reserve fleet. Hundreds of cars in reserve. 2. There were never any real plans to retire the R32s around 2000. No real plans were made until the R160s were ordered. 3. There are no current options on any order able to be taken.