If the R110B/131 had 100 cars and was in long term service...

[NYCTNostalgia 49]

Which route(s) would you give it to?

 

In 1992

In 2001 during the Manhattan construction

After 2004

2009

 

1992-(S)Franklin

2001-(S)Franklin(S)Rockaway Pk

2004-Same as 2001

2009-Same as 2001

[LRG 216]

Which route(s) would you give it to?

 

In 1992

In 2001 during the Manhattan construction

After 2004

 

Well for one they cannot go onto the Eastern Division, even though the old BMT Els used 67' cars there were clearances placed on them that kept them barred. But if it were up to me I'd just keep them on the line where they were born on and the line that they basically died on, the and the .

[NYCTNostalgia 49]

Which Lines would you give it to?

 

since they were in the 238 St Yard

[LRG 216]

Which Lines would you give it to?

 

I'd like to see how they would do on the (7)/<7>.

[dustclee 0]

I think this should be under the fantasy forum?

But to answer the question, I think I'd give them to the because their NTT features (they do, right?) would help riders with the local/express confusion.

[NYCTNostalgia 49]

I agree.

They also could of ran on the (S)42 Street

[trainfan22 1,729]

The would get 50 cars while the would get the other half. :cool:

[MTR Admiralty 4]

I'd like to see how they would do on the (7)/<7>.

I think this should be under the fantasy forum?

But to answer the question, I think I'd give them to the because their NTT features (they do, right?) would help riders with the local/express confusion.

The R110As were built into 5 car sets. Had 100 of them been ordered, putting them on the will not maximise the line's full potential. The line accommodates 11 cars, putting trains with one less cars would mean more crowding on the 7. Not a good move.

I agree.

They also could of ran on the (S)42 Street

Make sense, especially if they were built into single sets.

[MTR Admiralty 4]

Train are built to 9 car sets. 3-3s. I'm not sure how a 3 car 67 foot train would work out on the Franklin shuttle being that the station lengths are substiantially shorter. Put them on the C, I'm sure riders would breathe a sigh of relief. They've been looking hungrily at the NTTs and want some of them for their commute. Hey, not everyone likes an older train.

[trainfan22 1,729]

The would have all 100 cars!

[KeystoneRegional 246]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[KeystoneRegional 246]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[R44 5278 0]

I wish that their seats would carry onto the R179 to increase versatility. But because overcrowding is such a tremendous problem on the QBL, I can see that the R179s are getting those light blue "back pain inducers" instead.

[MTR Admiralty 4]

The R110B order cannot be a hundred cars. They could be 99 cars but not a 100. Remember, these guys could only form 9-car trains.

[KeystoneRegional 246]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[R32 3348 10]

The , requiring that they extend the platforms and straighten the ones at Times Sq. After that I'd say the should get them.

[R32 3348 10]

, requiring platforms being lengthened

The rest would go on the , bumping the R44/46s to the .

[MTR Admiralty 4]

The , requiring that they extend the platforms and straighten the ones at Times Sq. After that I'd say the should get them.

I'm very sure we are talking about Division B, Mr Datta

[blkfire765 0]

R110 A division:

on the -8 full 11 car trains running on express exclusively... would benefit express riders.

 

on the - one 3 car set on the suttle

 

R110 B division:

All on the line with a rare on showing up on the line.

 

* these R110's would get new FIND feature and features of an R160...

[R110B 5]

1991-

1999- same as 91

2001-same as 91

2009-same routes with addition to for less use during the day.

that means each letter gets 33 cars.