R179 Discussion Thread

[U-BahnNYC]

14 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

I understand what you're saying but I still doubt they'll assign most of the R179s to the unless they are five-car sets. Subway ridership grows yearly.

I was actually implying the more so than the , but regardless, 5-car sets can now be shared between the two.

[LTA1992]

4 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Coney Island Av, I never once stated that the R179s cannot go on the and lines. I said only the five-car sets can, but having the vast majority of trains as 480 feet long units is all honestly...I don't know...but this 2018 now, not 2008. We need full-length trains on the line and while the R46s and R32s are the oldest cars in the system that need replacing no matter what, the entire subway system's ridership will continue to grow for like what? The rest of our lives. Maybe a few full-length trains is a start, but just because the "promised" to have new cars on those two lines to displace the R32s doesn't necessarily mean it will happen. Far we know, they could just take most of Jamaica's R46s and put them on the or or use the Coney Island R160s instead. Who knows.

Problem you continue to forget. The MTA got 16 free cars from Bomb. These are going to expand the amount of 10-car trains from 4 to 12. 

 service generally runs 6-tph. That's a train every 10-minutes. 12 trains is just enough for the service. I'm likely wrong on that figure, but a few (3 or 4) 8-car trains can be sprinkled in if need be.

 

At this point, the  doesn't really need to share. Besides. Its fleet is a few years away.

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by LTA1992

[U-BahnNYC]

2 minutes ago, LTA1992 said:

I'm likely wrong on that figure, but a few (3 or 4) 8-car trains can be sprinkled in if need be.

 

At this point, the  doesn't really need to share. Besides. Its fleet is a few years away.

The will be full-length, all the way. That's been decided.

Also, I can't see the getting all the R179 5-car sets before the because the is waaay more crowded than the . People flock to the express because, psychologically, they think it will be faster (that's why the express, not the , was routed via 63rd street back in 2001 btw). That's just my logical take on it, but I'm open to constructive argument.

[Jemorie]

1 minute ago, U-BahnNYC said:

The will be full-length, all the way. That's been decided.

Also, I can't see the getting all the R179 5-car sets before the because the is waaay more crowded than the . People flock to the express because, psychologically, they think it will be faster (that's why the express, not the , was routed via 63rd street back in 2001 btw). That's just my logical take on it, but I'm open to constructive argument.

Coney Island keeps on whining that the R32s will head for Coney Island. But in a way, if they do, you can certainly see more NTTs to 207th Street for the and . I agree with you that the is not only just a full-time line, but also one of the system's most important core routes. It shouldn't be given secondary treatment compared to the .

[LTA1992]

4 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said:

The will be full-length, all the way. That's been decided.

Also, I can't see the getting all the R179 5-car sets before the because the is waaay more crowded than the . People flock to the express because, psychologically, they think it will be faster (that's why the express, not the , was routed via 63rd street back in 2001 btw). That's just my logical take on it, but I'm open to constructive argument.

Things always change. This IS the MTA. Nothing is ever truly decided.

Until we hear word from those who matter, none of this means a thing to me.

Edited January 24, 2018 by LTA1992

[Jemorie]

3 minutes ago, LTA1992 said:

Things always change. This IS the MTA. Nothing is ever truly decided.

Until we hear word from those who matter, none of this means a thing to me.

Oh, and why not? Because the has always been stuck with the oldest cars so therefore it should be given first priority? Sorry, you and I know damn well that the ain't a full-time here, bud. It is just a secondary supplemental local counterpart to the .

"Things always change"

You just contradicted yourself. Therefore, I can equally say that putting new cars on either line isn't truly decided either.

[LTA1992]

2 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Oh, and why not? Because the has always been stuck with the oldest cars so therefore it should be given first priority? Sorry, you and I know damn well that the ain't a full-time here, bud. It is just a secondary supplemental local counterpart to the .

"Things always change"

You just contradicted yourself. Therefore, I can equally say that putting new cars on either line isn't truly decided either.

The time of day the service runs does not dictate whether or not a service gets new cars. Because the Eastern Division is another area that generally always got older cars. Until the millennium generation arrived. That was a change of practice.

If the  primarily gets these cars, which it has been slated to for years, it too would be a change in practice. Besides, I can't see the  seeing these too much. It's a showcase service. 

The R211 is where it will shine.

[U-BahnNYC]

2 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Coney Island keeps on whining that the R32s will head for Coney Island. But in a way, if they do, you can certainly see more NTTs to 207th Street for the and . I agree with you that the is not only just a full-time line, but also one of the system's most important core routes. It shouldn't be given secondary treatment compared to the .

Yep, the also has a much longer run than the and also handles airport traffic. The is a part-time midget in comparison; I can see it getting at most half the R179s during peak hours should they go to Pitkin/207th.

[RR503]

You know, I think it says a lot about this forum that car assignments — one of the less important issues regarding the subway — is the one discussed the most. Classic missing the forest for the trees. 

One of us could write a long, well informed post on agency structure or signals or crowd control or system expansion or funding or anything, really, but a comment on how someone’s best friends uncles doctors cousin said R32s would be on the  would generate exponentially more discussion. 

[subwaycommuter1983]

3 minutes ago, LTA1992 said:

The time of day the service runs does not dictate whether or not a service gets new cars. Because the Eastern Division is another area that generally always got older cars. Until the millennium generation arrived. That was a change of practice.

If the  primarily gets these cars, which it has been slated to for years, it too would be a change in practice. Besides, I can't see the  seeing these too much. It's a showcase service. 

The R211 is where it will shine.

 I agree. The W is a part time line and it has NTT. 

History has proven to us that the MTA has the tendency of dumping the oldest and most unreliable fleet to the A and C.

I think it's time that the MTA show some love toward A and C train riders, who pay the same fare as everyone else, by putting these 12 10 car trains on one or both lines.

 

 

[U-BahnNYC]

Just now, RR503 said:

One of us could write a long, well informed post on agency structure or signals or crowd control or system expansion or funding or anything, really, but a comment on how someone’s best friends uncles doctors cousin said R32s would be on the  would generate exponentially more discussion. 

Liking gossip is human nature

[Jemorie]

Just now, subwaycommuter1983 said:

 I agree. The W is a part time line and it has NTT. 

History has proven to us that the MTA has the tendency of dumping the oldest and most unreliable fleet to the A and C.

I think it's time that the MTA show some love toward A and C train riders, who pay the same fare as everyone else, by putting these 12 10 car trains on one or both lines.

 

 

Huh? The and share the same yard and northern terminal. That's why the latter has NTTs. 

[RR503]

1 minute ago, U-BahnNYC said:

Liking gossip is human nature

So is lying, self aggrandizing, two-timing, and cheating. If we don’t strive to better ourselves, we’ll end up howler monkeys with smartphones. 

Edited January 24, 2018 by RR503

[LGA Link N Train]

@RR503 you make a good point when you mentioned car assignments. Yet I'm surprised that this makes up a majority of the discussion here

[subwaycommuter1983]

5 minutes ago, RR503 said:

You know, I think it says a lot about this forum that car assignments — one of the less important issues regarding the subway — is the one discussed the most. Classic missing the forest for the trees. 

One of us could write a long, well informed post on agency structure or signals or crowd control or system expansion or funding or anything, really, but a comment on how someone’s best friends uncles doctors cousin said R32s would be on the  would generate exponentially more discussion. 

Yes, although I did mention in a previous post now that there's a surplus of trains, that the MTA should consider adding trains to the B. It doesn't matter the fleet. 

Edited January 24, 2018 by subwaycommuter1983

[LGA Link N Train]

Now I don't wanna see this thread end up like Canarsie so back to the R179's

[LGA Link N Train]

Just now, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Yes, although I did mention in a previous post now that there's a surplus of trains, that the MTA should consider adding trains to the B.

Can't up vote at the moment but I agree with this statement.

But with 12  10 car R179's for the

 

........ why do I feel that there's still a surplus in 4 car R160's? Is it possible to displace a few 68's from the in favor for R32's and 4 car R160's and place these 68's on the

[Coney Island Av]

Nah, we were discussing the 179's this whole time. 

I beat you to it @Jemorie. 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by Coney Island Av

[LGA Link N Train]

Just now, Coney Island Av said:

Nah, we were discussing the 179's this whole time. 

 

Well, the thread was "HOT" so I kinda got scared for a moment 

[Jemorie]

1 minute ago, LGA Link N train said:

Well, the thread was "HOT" so I kinda got scared for a moment 

But we actually were talking about the 179s this whole time though... 

[LGA Link N Train]

Just now, Jemorie said:

But we actually were talking about the 179s this whole time though... 

But the thread is hot. So I kinda got scared cause of last time a thread was "HOT". It ended up getting locked even though it was brought back on topic

[LGA Link N Train]

Anyways. Conclusion. 

6-8 R179's should go on the

4-6 R179's should go on the

I wouldn't be surprised if  altered this or combined it from time to time 

[subwaycommuter1983]

5 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Can't up vote at the moment but I agree with this statement.

But with 12  10 car R179's for the

 

........ why do I feel that there's still a surplus in 4 car R160's? Is it possible to displace a few 68's from the in favor for R32's and 4 car R160's and place these 68's on the

I think it's possible and the most logical option. And with the 12 10 car r179's on the A/C, it will most likely work. 

[LGA Link N Train]

1 minute ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

I think it's possible and the most logical option. And with the 12 10 car r179's on the A/C, it will most likely work. 

Ok thanks

Can't react at the moment BTW 

Edited January 24, 2018 by LGA Link N train

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

5 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Anyways. Conclusion. 

6-8 R179's should go on the

4-6 R179's should go on the

I wouldn't be surprised if  altered this or combined it from time to time 

agreed, it's the MTA so changes happen anyways

3 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Ok thanks

Can't react at the moment BTW 

Off topic, but why?

Edited January 24, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks