R179 Discussion Thread

[subwaycommuter1983]

11 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

So? They're not gonna increase  service or run on the  on weekends just for Central Park West. The  can't always cater to riders' whims. The subway is a 24/7 operation and the tracks and signals, like the rolling stock itself, needs maintenance. That's when weekends or overnights come into play. Weekend ridership is lower than weekday ridership, period. How much more frequent do you want the  to be when it's just a part-time line? Usually, the part-time lines on weekends get the short end of the stick in favor of the full-time lines.

Stations along CPW are becoming more overcrowded due to the high number of tourists visiting the museums during the weekends.

The MTA needs to somehow increase service on those stations. How???

[Jemorie]

RR503, you’re something else lol. I’m talking about weekend service, not rush hour service. Why are you honestly assuming I want the  or just any of the other part-time lines in general to be cut in terms of frequency? I’m talking about weekends, not weekdays.

EDIT: Okay, the less maintence on the tracks and signals, the more likely they will have problems during the workweek. Guess who’s to blame?

Edited March 20, 2018 by Jemorie

[RR503]

22 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

RR503, you’re something else lol. I’m talking about weekend service, not rush hour service. Why are you honestly assuming I want the  or just any of the other part-time lines in general to be cut in terms of frequency? I’m talking about weekends, not weekdays.

3

 

55 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

How much more frequent do you want the  to be when it's just a part-time line?

(the equivocation about weekends was added after I quoted)

And even on weekends, we can return to my example: you say part-time lines get the short end of the stick. I say they shouldn't. 

24 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

EDIT: Okay, the less maintence on the tracks and signals, the more likely they will have problems during the workweek. Guess who’s to blame?

Speaking of 'something else,' you would see -- if you had taken the time to read my post -- that I was not advocating for cutting maintenance, but instead rationalizing the way we do it. 

[P3F]

49 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

How much more frequent do you want the  to be when it's just a part-time line?

Frequent enough so that the trains don't remind me of the  during rush hours.

Its status as a part-time line is irrelevant considering it is the only line serving CPW and Fulton local stations on weekends. Like ok, imagine we eliminated the  on weekends and made the  serve those local stations. Then the discussion would be about a "full-time" line. So what? We would still consider the same statistics when making proposals.

[Jemorie]

7 minutes ago, P3F said:

Frequent enough so that the trains don't remind me of the  during rush hours.

Its status as a part-time line is irrelevant considering it is the only line serving CPW and Fulton local stations on weekends. Like ok, imagine we eliminated the  on weekends and made the  serve those local stations. Then the discussion would be about a "full-time" line. So what? We would still consider the same statistics when making proposals.

Trains are irregular which causes overcrowding on weekends because of track and signal workers. Common sense. 

[subwaycommuter1983]

27 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Speaking of 'something else,' you would see -- if you had taken the time to read my post -- that I was not advocating for cutting maintenance, but instead rationalizing the way we do it. 

In terms of maintenance and track work, It should be done ONLY during overnight and weekends. 

The reason I'm saying that is because the MTA is now during maintenance and track work during the evenings between 8pm and 11pm, which is a huge inconvenience for people  who are still coming out of work and school and the  trains  are still crowded during those times. One example,  I don't remember the last time Manhattan bound D trains ran express along 4th avenue in Brooklyn  after 8pm.

It seems that the MTA wants to cater to the 9 to 5 commuters by neglecting the off peak commuters who pay the same fare as everyone else. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by subwaycommuter1983

[Jemorie]

23 minutes ago, RR503 said:

 

(the equivocation about weekends was added after I quoted)

And even on weekends, we can return to my example: you say part-time lines get the short end of the stick. I say they shouldn't. 

Speaking of 'something else,' you would see -- if you had taken the time to read my post -- that I was not advocating for cutting maintenance, but instead rationalizing the way we do it. 

Yeah, speaking of ‘something else’, you say you want to rationalize it but don’t even bother to explain how. There’s no other way to run more frequent doggone service without causing even more delays and crowding due to the track and signal workers. And then you have the nerve to mock me by quoting something I said such as ‘whims’ and ‘something else’.

I didn’t mean it like that when I said that lines like the  and  often get the short end of the stick btw. I meant that the  and  for example were chosen to run more frequently than the former two not only because they’re full time but also have relatively higher ridership than the other two lines in question. The  and  may be crowded, but like the  and .

Even the  admitted that the main reason for subway delays on weekends is because of the flagging, not necessarily because of the low frequencies on nearly every line themselves. They’re trying to maintain an average of 18 trains an hour or below on a two-track or four-track corridor on weekends. Otherwise, we’ll have even more delays and irregular service with they add more service on a line in question.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Jemorie

[Fan Railer]

And how does any of this have to do with the R179? 

[RR503]

9 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Yeah, speaking of ‘something else’, you say you want to rationalize it but don’t even bother to explain how. There’s no other way to run more frequent doggone service without causing even more delays and crowding due to the track and signal workers. And then you have the nerve to mock me by quoting something I said such as ‘whims’ and ‘something else’.

I did.... and if if you can't handle the heat, don't play with fire  

10 hours ago, RR503 said:

There are so many things wrong with the way the MTA does work. Piggybacking projects doesn't seem like a concept they understand. Their flagging rules are, frankly, medieval -- trains on adjacent tracks shouldn't have to go all the way down to 10. If you fix those issues, and still can't add 1.5 trains per hour to the  line, then we can talk. Until then, its time the MTA did its job -- catering to its riders 'whims.'

 

9 hours ago, Jemorie said:

I didn’t mean it like that when I said that lines like the  and  often get the short end of the stick btw. I meant that the  and  for example were chosen to run more frequently than the former two not only because they’re full time but also have relatively higher ridership than the other two lines in question. The  and  may be crowded, but like the  and .

You're not explaining why that's a good policy. Yes, the  has 2 southern terminals, but beyond that, I see no reason for it to run more than the . In fact, given that the  serves the core of the 's route and more, it should run more frequently than the  -- if we have limited TPH, we might as well serve as many people as possible with it. 

9 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Even the  admitted that the main reason for subway delays on weekends is because of the flagging, not necessarily because of the low frequencies on nearly every line themselves. They’re trying to maintain an average of 18 trains an hour or below on a two-track or four-track corridor on weekends. Otherwise, we’ll have even more delays and irregular service with they add more service on a line in question

You're justifying the status quo with itself. I'm not satisfied to throw my hands up in the air and declare "that's just the way it is" because this frankly isn't working. Maintenance is necessary, but the pursuit of it is killing us. We need to find a better equilibrium for riders, because we can't afford to lose half our track capacity every time rush hour ends. I've proposed some simple ways to change this, and would like to see them implemented before we decide that we can't reduce headways. Because in the end, the MTA serves me and you and the city, not itself. 

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

With all this pointless back-and-forth quarreling put aside, have there been any recent deliveries from the R179 order? This week, the R179s assigned to the / have been stuck at ENY for some reason. Does anyone know why? They seemed to be doing fine last week during the AM rush hour.

[subwaycommuter1983]

6 hours ago, Fan Railer said:

And how does any of this have to do with the R179? 

The MTA decisions with the r179's have a lot to do with the mess that is going on with the C train. 

1. Using Bombardier to build the r179's. 

2. Not building enough 10 car r179's to make the C trains all full length trains and to increase service on the C.

As a result, we are seeing extremely long waits and overcrowding along CPW, especially during the weekends, when there is NO B service and where a lot of tourists get on and off to visit the museums. Also, ridership is growing in all Brooklyn stations served by the C.

[Jemorie]

6 hours ago, RR503 said:

 

You're not explaining why that's a good policy. Yes, the  has 2 southern terminals, but beyond that, I see no reason for it to run more than the . In fact, given that the  serves the core of the 's route and more, it should run more frequently than the  -- if we have limited TPH, we might as well serve as many people as possible with it.

Oh really? The  is the mainline of the Central Park West/8th Avenue/Fulton Street/Liberty Avenue/Rockaway side of town. The  is simply a local counterpart and supplemental line to the . Hence the term “part-time” line. People will switch over to the  at an express station at any given opportunity when there’s a across-platform connection. People are only on the  for a few stops and way less people change from an  to the . It isn’t as “busy as a bee” as you seem to think it is. Another thing is that people at the express stops take whatever comes first, with the vast majority going past Euclid Avenue and past 168th Street. Therefore, the  wins, not the , so the former gets absolute priority in terms of frequency and unplanned service changes.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Jemorie

[P3F]

4 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Oh really? The  is the mainline of the Central Park West/8th Avenue/Fulton Street/Liberty Avenue/Rockaway side of town. The  is simply a local counterpart and supplemental line to the . Hence the term “part-time” line. People will switch over to the  at an express station at any given opportunity when there’s a across-platform connection. People are only on the  for a few stops and way less people change from an  to the . It isn’t as “busy as a bee” as you seem to think it is.

You really keep pushing the part-time idea, even though it is irrelevant.

Service should be dictated by ridership and train loading guidelines, and not by some consideration of completely different times.

By your logic, since the regular  doesn't run to New Lots during nights, weekend  service should be low since the  is a part-time line in that area.

You can keep saying the same thing over and over again (and giving people positive reputation even though I don't think that's your intention), but it's less helpful than considering actual statistics such as weekend  crowding levels.

[Jemorie]

Weekend  service is already low at 10-12 minute headways like the . So I don’t know exactly what “logic” you’re going by.

[P3F]

8 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Weekend  service is already low at 10-12 minute headways like the . So I don’t know exactly what “logic” you’re going by.

That's not the point. Your reasoning is illogical; what a line does at night does not dictate its headways on weekends.

Go get some actual data about weekend ridership on CPW and use it to back your argument up, if you want to be part of a constructive discussion.

[subwaycommuter1983]

18 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Weekend  service is already low at 10-12 minute headways like the . So I don’t know exactly what “logic” you’re going by.

The headways for the C is more than 12 minutes during the weekends, even though the timetables states its the opposite.

The MTA really blew it with the r179's. Like I said in the previous post, they should have ordered more 10 car r179's, enough to increase service on the C and to make the C full length.

Edited March 20, 2018 by subwaycommuter1983

[Trainmaster5]

FWIW the ran at 10 minute headways on Saturdays and 12 minutes on Sundays from 1982 onward. Is the implication being made that insufficient service being provided? The line is mirrored by the and the for most of it's route.  Is the train overcrowded from Utica to New Lots ? Just asking because if it's not then that argument is null and void. Looking at the line for a minute. The argument is that the trains run infrequently or aren't on schedule,  especially CPW territory. I believe that that schedule is similar to the line headways. 6 trains per hour.  I don't pretend to know what they do in the B2  but I'll ask my fellow posters.  Are there G.O.s working on weekends where the  or interact with the  and lines ? If so that may be a reason for the CPW delays.  I'm just speculating because if the overcrowding is that severe they would normally send an express down/up the local track.  Same thing would apply in Brooklyn.  Obviously management doesn't see a reason to do so.  Just my opinion.  Carry on. 

[subwaycommuter1983]

59 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

FWIW the ran at 10 minute headways on Saturdays and 12 minutes on Sundays from 1982 onward. Is the implication being made that insufficient service being provided? The line is mirrored by the and the for most of it's route.  Is the train overcrowded from Utica to New Lots ? Just asking because if it's not then that argument is null and void. Looking at the line for a minute. The argument is that the trains run infrequently or aren't on schedule,  especially CPW territory. I believe that that schedule is similar to the line headways. 6 trains per hour.  I don't pretend to know what they do in the B2  but I'll ask my fellow posters.  Are there G.O.s working on weekends where the  or interact with the  and lines ? If so that may be a reason for the CPW delays.  I'm just speculating because if the overcrowding is that severe they would normally send an express down/up the local track.  Same thing would apply in Brooklyn.  Obviously management doesn't see a reason to do so.  Just my opinion.  Carry on. 

Good to know. And yes there has been many instances where some A or D trains run local on CPW due to the long headways.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

FWIW the ran at 10 minute headways on Saturdays and 12 minutes on Sundays from 1982 onward. Is the implication being made that insufficient service being provided? The line is mirrored by the and the for most of it's route.  Is the train overcrowded from Utica to New Lots ? Just asking because if it's not then that argument is null and void. Looking at the line for a minute. The argument is that the trains run infrequently or aren't on schedule,  especially CPW territory. I believe that that schedule is similar to the line headways. 6 trains per hour.  I don't pretend to know what they do in the B2  but I'll ask my fellow posters.  Are there G.O.s working on weekends where the  or interact with the  and lines ? If so that may be a reason for the CPW delays.  I'm just speculating because if the overcrowding is that severe they would normally send an express down/up the local track.  Same thing would apply in Brooklyn.  Obviously management doesn't see a reason to do so.  Just my opinion.  Carry on. 

Service shouldn't be added just because of overcrowding.  It's pathetic that service levels on some lines haven't changed in years.  The  train runs horrendously on weekends. The waits are far too long, and on top of waiting 12+ minutes for a train, then the train is delayed and so on. I gave myself about 45 minutes the other day to go from Bryant Park to Washington Heights.  After switching from a for the  at 59th street, I waited for an eternity for the . Then it went express the entire time, skipping the local stop I needed, forcing me to have to backtrack to get it.   On top of that the FIND was a mess, confusing just about all of the riders, holding up service as they got off and on the damn train, and the conductor did absolutely nothing to resolve the problem.  Turn off the friggin' FIND if it's broken.  It kept repeating the same stops over and over again and the crew made no correction or attempt to help riders.  And this is why they should be paid more... Right...

All of that took almost an hour for what should be maybe a 30 minute ride tops with the transfer, making me late for my meeting. They need to run the  on weekends to provide more service because just having the  is not cutting it.  It's not just about overcrowding. These are the kinds of things that deter ridership and add to congestion on weekends.  Weekends, in some areas, the congestion is like rush hour traffic.  

The fact that such short trips take so long on the subway should be alarming to the board.  I'd like to know how many of them besides Byford use the system because there's no way in hell they get anywhere on time with how abysmal subway service is.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Cait Sith]

Can we get back onto the topic of the R179s? This is an R179 thread, not an R179 & Random Subway Service Discussion thread. Discuss your service inquiries elsewhere.

From what I heard, all 3 in-service sets have been taken OOS. I'm not sure how true that is.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Cait Sith

[subwaycommuter1983]

4 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

Can we get back onto the topic of the R179s? This is an R179 thread, not an R179 & Random Subway Service Discussion thread. Discuss your service inquiries elsewhere.

From what I heard, all 3 in-service sets have been taken OOS. I'm not sure how true that is.

We are on topic. The C train mess is a reflection of the bad decisions made by the MTA in regards to the r179's.

And to top it off, all sets of r179's are OOS.

"Bravo" MTA and Bombardier.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

3 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

We are on topic. The C train mess is a reflection of the bad decisions made by the MTA in regards to the r179's.

And to top it off, all sets of r179's are OOS.

"Bravo" MTA and Bombardier.

So in other words there's a lack of R179s for service? I was wondering why they had the much older trains running on the .  That explains a lot.  Adding salt to the womb...

Edited March 20, 2018 by Via Garibaldi 8

[subwaycommuter1983]

6 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

So in other words there's a lack of R179s for service? I was wondering why they had the much older trains running on the .  That explains a lot.  Adding salt to the womb...

Actually, the r179's have been running on the J so far, but apparently they're all OOS.

[R32 3838]

Bruh all 3 sets of R179's are oos? Its probably for an inspection or some teething issue

[VIP]

1 hour ago, R32 3838 said:

Bruh all 3 sets of R179's are oos? Its probably for an inspection or some teething issue

No wonder there’s so many R143’s on the