Jump to content

R179 Discussion Thread

East New York

By East New York,
in New York City Subway

 Share

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 10.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Bosco

Bosco

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 7/6/2018 at 12:38 AM, Around the Horn said:

The R142/As don't have storage space for CBTC equipment since that's where the R143/160/179 has the flag and MTA logo on the bonnet, and on the R142/As that's a window, hence the gigantic cabinet on the right hand side of an R188.

The R142/As also never had provisions for CBTC, at least not initially.  That's why the R142As needed the extensive rebuild to become R188s, and why the original TOD is only one screen.

On 7/6/2018 at 3:45 PM, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

As per the specifications of the R179 design, all units measure 60 1/5 feet. Will all future subway car orders be 60 feet? 

Yes, all future B-division cars will be 60 feet.  The R211s will also be 60 feet.

Edited by Bosco
2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
U-BahnNYC

U-BahnNYC

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Thoughts??????

My initial reaction was maybe this is footage from a while ago? But that's unlikely since people are dressed like it's summer and I some whole foods bags (more people shop there after the Amazon takeover)

1 hour ago, R179 8258 said:

Have a feeling the (G) is getting R46s. It’s just a thought 

It *could* be a possibility if the (N)(W) were to get R46s from Jamaica, but I wouldn't count on it. IIRC, the MTA never specified if full length (G) trains means 480 ft or 600ft.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VIP

VIP

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

The R46 (G) is temporary. I highly doubt they'll last into September even -- the GO they're here for ends mid August. 

The (G) will be 480' for the shutdown, so think 32s and 160A-1s. 

The (G) is going to be all R160A-1’s after the shutdown. Since there’s gonna be a 4-car surplus. (Thanks to The jacked up R179 Order).

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MysteriousBtrain

MysteriousBtrain

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

Can we confirm if any new cars have been delivered? It's been a couple of weeks already...

Can we be patient if no new cars are delivered? Maybe something happened......

 

Anyways disregarding the impatience, the next set in testing should be 3074-3077+3116-3119 but I'm not 100% sure.

4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
IAlam

IAlam

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, RR503 said:

The R46 (G) is temporary. I highly doubt they'll last into September even -- the GO they're here for ends mid August. 

The (G) will be 480' for the shutdown, so think 32s and 160A-1s. 

What is the reason behind the extra (G) trains from Bedford to Court SQ?

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RailRunRob

RailRunRob

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, IAlam said:

What is the reason behind the extra (G) trains from Bedford to Court SQ?

Wouldnt that make sense to funnel riders from the (L)  to Court SQ (E)(M)(7) and in the other direction to the (J)(M)(Z) at Broadway? Why send your Assets all the way to Church spill over riders aren't going that far down unless they're going to Lower Manhattan directly. From a dynamics standpoint that makes sense to keep people moving and get them to alternate routes as quickly as possible. Water flowing around a rock.  The 14th street tubes being the rock.

Edit:   upcoming shutdown to @125thstreet point.

Edited by RailRunRob
0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RR503

RR503

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, IAlam said:

What is the reason behind the extra (G) trains from Bedford to Court SQ?

They’re removing the moving walkways in the (E)(M)<>(G) passage, which is constricting its capacity. They thus want to limit exit surges, so they’re adding more trains.  

3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LGA Link N Train

LGA Link N Train

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, RR503 said:

They’re removing the moving walkways in the (E)(M)<>(G) passage, which is constricting its capacity. They thus want to limit exit surges, so they’re adding more trains.  

I went to Court Square today and they already removed the first walkway 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jz4zi3kt8k5k2fy/20180712_164945.jpg?dl=0

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RailRunRob

RailRunRob

Posted
Posted
On 7/12/2018 at 10:50 AM, RR503 said:

They’re removing the moving walkways in the (E)(M)<>(G) passage, which is constricting its capacity. They thus want to limit exit surges, so they’re adding more trains.  

Gotcha. So it is just load balancing and spreading out riders abit. Didn't know it was that much of an issue this far out before the shutdown?

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
subwaycommuter1983

subwaycommuter1983

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

What if they simply extended the (G)(M)(R) to 179th Street for the (L) shutdown?

Why?? If the people who are going to take the (G) to Court Square during the shutdown are going to transfer to the (E)(M)(7) to Manhattan.

As for the shutdown overall, I think the people in Brooklyn are going to be fine during the shutdown.  There's plenty of options for them to get to Manhattan. It's the people who live in Manhattan who are going to suffer, especially those who live in alphabet city and jam pack the (L) to get to the west side of Manhattan and it's the only line that serves the area. Plus, the (L) is one of the few lines that has a huge number of commuters who use the line to travel Crosstown Manhattan.

Edited by subwaycommuter1983
2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RR503

RR503

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

Gotcha. So it is just load balancing and spreading out riders abit. Didn't know it was that much of an issue this far out before the shutdown?

Not really an issue of increased ridership, exactly. Current (G) AM loads are high enough to produce quite the surge at Court Square. With half of the transfer passage blocked, that surge may turn into a jam, hence the additional service. 

39 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

What if they simply extended the (G)(M)(R) to 179th Street for the (L) shutdown?

Beyond the fact that such a pattern earns you nothing in flexibility, 179 would become Forest Hills. 

FH currently fumigates 20 trains per hour on one track. 179 has two tracks, which means its theoretical capacity should be around 40 trains per hour. The (G)(M)(R) would 30tph combined, which, added to 14tph of (F), gets you 44tph to fumigate under Hillside. That's 22 per track, or more than Forest Hills. In short, if it makes you feel better to complicate service patterns and increase costs just so you can stop watching conga lines at FHills, just remember that riders on Hillside will now have to suffer instead. (No hard feelings towards you, N6, just *really* tired of hearing this proposal). 

5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
N6 Limited

N6 Limited

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Why?? If the people who are going to take the (G) to Court Square during the shutdown are going to transfer to the (E)(M)(7) to Manhattan.

As for the shutdown overall, I think the people in Brooklyn are going to be fine during the shutdown.  There's plenty of options for them to get to Manhattan. It's the people who live in Manhattan who are going to suffer, especially those who live in alphabet city and jam pack the (L) to get to the west side of Manhattan and it's the only line that serves the area. Plus, the (L) is one of the few lines that has a huge number of commuters who use the line to travel Crosstown Manhattan.

To allow for easier transfer at Queens Plaza

14th St is one of the wider streets, had the Houston street line been extended into BK it would have been used a lot as well for intra Manhattan Trips, the subways are quicker and the buses are slow as hell.

4 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Beyond the fact that such a pattern earns you nothing in flexibility, 179 would become Forest Hills. 

FH currently fumigates 20 trains per hour on one track. 179 has two tracks, which means its theoretical capacity should be around 40 trains per hour. The (G)(M)(R) would 30tph combined, which, added to 14tph of (F), gets you 44tph to fumigate under Hillside. That's 22 per track, or more than Forest Hills. In short, if it makes you feel better to complicate service patterns and increase costs just so you can stop watching conga lines at FHills, just remember that riders on Hillside will now have to suffer instead. (No hard feelings towards you, N6, just *really* tired of hearing this proposal). 

179th used to have (E) and (F) service, the idea was to allow better transfers at Queens Plaza, allow connections to the Broadway Line and extend the termination further out to reduce the conga. One of the lines (G) could be turned at Forest Hills to mitigate fumigation at both terminals.

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
subwaycommuter1983

subwaycommuter1983

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, N6 Limited said:

The subways are quicker and the buses are slow as hell.

I agree. Even if 14th street is only open to buses, the buses still won't move as fast as the train. And from 14th street to the Houston St train station is a very long walk especially during the winter.

Brooklynites are making a big deal out of the shutdown, but at least they can still take the (3)(A)(C)(G)(J)(M)(Z), and with additional service to these lines, they will be fine.

Quote

 

 

0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RR503

RR503

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, N6 Limited said:

To allow for easier transfer at Queens Plaza

14th St is one of the wider streets, had the Houston street line been extended into BK it would have been used a lot as well for intra Manhattan Trips, the subways are quicker and the buses are slow as hell.

179th used to have (E) and (F) service, the idea was to allow better transfers at Queens Plaza, allow connections to the Broadway Line and extend the termination further out to reduce the conga. One of the lines (G) could be turned at Forest Hills to mitigate fumigation at both terminals.

You're penalizing the rest of Queens to save some people a transfer passage. 

See, all these (G) to QB fap sessions are predicated on the idea that if we extend some or all QB local service to 179, we'll have less terminal congestion and therefore more capacity. While I'm sure there is a 'golden ratio' of trains to FH and 179 that'll get you 30tph on QBLcl, why use that for the (G)? If we can cram more trains onto those tracks, we should be using that space to create Manhattan-bound capacity in the form of increased (M) and (R) service rather than adding merges to reintroduce a rather useless tangential line. In fact, extending the (G) to QB doesn't even increase the core-bound throughput (L) riders will have access to. With the (G) at 15tph, they'll either have 30tph of (E)(M) at Court Square, or 30tph of (E)(M)(R) at QP -- the (G) having restricted core-bound (M)(R) capacity to 15tph. This proposal is thus nothing but one of convenience -- something that I actually question.

You see, it takes about a minute and a half to go to/from QP from Court Square on the (E)(M), and used to take about the same on the (G). Add in the up-and-over, and (assuming everything is working perfectly, even with all your merges) you're easily at five minutes. Transiting the Court Square transfer passage rarely takes more than three minutes, so except for some step savings for the painfully lazy, your QP xfer is adding nothing but time to peoples' commutes. 

5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept