VIP Posted March 24, 2018 Share #5426 Posted March 24, 2018 Are these official assignments? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted March 24, 2018 Share #5427 Posted March 24, 2018 Nothing is official until it ACTUALLY happens 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIP Posted March 24, 2018 Share #5428 Posted March 24, 2018 4 minutes ago, Fan Railer said: Nothing is official until it ACTUALLY happens I was playing coy. 😉 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B46 via Utica Posted March 24, 2018 Share #5429 Posted March 24, 2018 The 42s could possibly go to C.I as well aren't the 42s very frowned upon(possibly banned) from 207 st yard. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwaycommuter1983 Posted March 24, 2018 Share #5430 Posted March 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Fan Railer said: Nothing is official until it ACTUALLY happens True, also, keep in mind that the G currently doesn't have that many subway cars, very few actually, so if the r68s are displaced from the G , they'll probably be used to add service to other lines, not to displace other cars from other lines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3838 Posted March 24, 2018 Share #5431 Posted March 24, 2018 23 minutes ago, B46 via Utica said: The 42s could possibly go to C.I as well aren't the 42s very frowned upon(possibly banned) from 207 st yard. The R42's aren't banned from 207th st, they just can't run 8 car R42 C trains no more. If CIY gets em they can only run on the (B). The if it were to be 10 cars 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-BahnNYC Posted March 24, 2018 Share #5432 Posted March 24, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, R32 3838 said: The R42's will likely go to the as well. Why? Just to make the longest line a rolling stock mess like the is now with 5 different types? Not if is really trying to be as uniform as possible. R32s on the along with 10-car R179s and remaining R46s is reasonable, but throwing in 4 derelict and dilapidated R42s that will just break down non-stop seems more like a railfan fantasy than a logical move. In fact, if I remember reading correctly, R42s have a lower MDBF than even the older R32s, not to mention those rusty and leaking roofs. 43 minutes ago, R32 3838 said: If CIY gets em they can only run on the (B). The if it were to be 10 cars What do you mean? Last I checked, 42s run in married pairs and can easily be 8 or 10 car trains. Edited March 24, 2018 by U-BahnNYC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwaycommuter1983 Posted March 24, 2018 Share #5433 Posted March 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said: Why? Just to make the longest line a rolling stock mess like the is now with 5 different types? Not if is really trying to be as uniform as possible. R32s on the along with 10-car R179s and remaining R46s is reasonable, but throwing in 4 derelict and dilapidated R42s that will just break down non-stop seems more like a railfan fantasy than a logical move. In fact, if I remember reading correctly, R42s have a lower MDBF than even the older R32s, not to mention those rusty and leaking roofs. What do you mean? Last I checked, 42s run in married pairs and can easily be 8 or 10 car trains. If the r42s do stay for the tunnel closure it will only run most likely during rush hour, on the lines that may see the biggest overcrowding. It may go to the G, or may stay on the J,Z. We just have to wait and see in that aspect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jemorie Posted March 24, 2018 Share #5434 Posted March 24, 2018 13 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said: Why? Just to make the longest line a rolling stock mess like the is now with 5 different types? Not if is really trying to be as uniform as possible. R32s on the along with 10-car R179s and remaining R46s is reasonable, but throwing in 4 derelict and dilapidated R42s that will just break down non-stop seems more like a railfan fantasy than a logical move. In fact, if I remember reading correctly, R42s have a lower MDBF than even the older R32s, not to mention those rusty and leaking roofs. What do you mean? Last I checked, 42s run in married pairs and can easily be 8 or 10 car trains. I agree with this completely, especially the first sentence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted March 24, 2018 Share #5435 Posted March 24, 2018 40 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said: Why? Just to make the longest line a rolling stock mess like the is now with 5 different types? Not if is really trying to be as uniform as possible. R32s on the along with 10-car R179s and remaining R46s is reasonable, but throwing in 4 derelict and dilapidated R42s that will just break down non-stop seems more like a railfan fantasy than a logical move. In fact, if I remember reading correctly, R42s have a lower MDBF than even the older R32s, not to mention those rusty and leaking roofs. They're gonna have to use the R42s somewhere... We're gonna be short without them until Canarsie is over. 41 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said: What do you mean? Last I checked, 42s run in married pairs and can easily be 8 or 10 car trains. The conductor boards won't line up with where the conductor's controls are on the 42s. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIP Posted March 24, 2018 Share #5436 Posted March 24, 2018 7 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said: True, also, keep in mind that the G currently doesn't have that many subway cars, very few actually, so if the r68s are displaced from the G , they'll probably be used to add service to other lines, not to displace other cars from other lines. Wouldn’t be funny if the just stayed assigned with R68’s/A’s just arranged in 8 car sets... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIP Posted March 24, 2018 Share #5437 Posted March 24, 2018 7 hours ago, B46 via Utica said: The 42s could possibly go to C.I as well aren't the 42s very frowned upon(possibly banned) from 207 st yard. Coney Island is not getting odd ball spares. Those pieces of trash are likely to be 207th’s problem... the same why they dumped the R40’s on the in 2009-2010. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwaycommuter1983 Posted March 24, 2018 Share #5438 Posted March 24, 2018 7 minutes ago, VIP said: Coney Island is not getting odd ball spares. Those pieces of trash are likely to be 207th’s problem... the same why they dumped the R40’s on the in 2009-2010. I doubt it, but let's see what happens. All final assignments will depends on how many r179's are delivered by the time the tunnel work begins. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3838 Posted March 25, 2018 Share #5439 Posted March 25, 2018 The R32's going to the and R46's going to the is a result of the R179's coming in. The only line that we should watch out for is the 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-BahnNYC Posted March 25, 2018 Share #5440 Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, VIP said: Coney Island is not getting odd ball spares. Those pieces of trash are likely to be 207th’s problem... It bewilders me, though, how the largest and best equipped yard can't deal with "pieces of trash." Surely it's the best yard for those "pieces of trash" since they'll constantly need maintenance, no? Edited March 25, 2018 by U-BahnNYC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIP Posted March 25, 2018 Share #5441 Posted March 25, 2018 35 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said: It bewilders me, though, how the largest and best equipped yard can't deal with "pieces of trash." Surely it's the best yard for those "pieces of trash" since they'll constantly need maintenance, no? Never said it wasn’t the best yard. I just said the remaining 50 R42’s look like trash. How they run has nothing to do with cosmetic depletion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-BahnNYC Posted March 25, 2018 Share #5442 Posted March 25, 2018 13 hours ago, VIP said: I just said the remaining 50 R42’s look like trash They do. And they run like trash. Which is why I can't see a monetary or practical benefit to keeping 50 cars around when we'll have a surplus once the R179 order is complete... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted March 25, 2018 Share #5443 Posted March 25, 2018 20 hours ago, VIP said: Wouldn’t be funny if the just stayed assigned with R68’s/A’s just arranged in 8 car sets... There aren't enough R68/As to go around for that. Remember, it's full-length trains plus a bump in service. The only way they can do that along with accommodating everything else is to use 480' trains. To bring the discussion back to the R179s specifically, is there any reason there haven't been any additional 5-car deliveries? If we established that the R42s likely aren't going anywhere until after the shutdown--and considering that even then, there are a good amount of 4-car R179s that have been delivered already--how come we haven't seen any 5-car deliveries? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S78 via Hylan Posted March 25, 2018 Share #5444 Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bosco said: To bring the discussion back to the R179s specifically, is there any reason there haven't been any additional 5-car deliveries? If we established that the R42s likely aren't going anywhere until after the shutdown--and considering that even then, there are a good amount of 4-car R179s that have been delivered already--how come we haven't seen any 5-car deliveries? If I had to guess, they probably want to completely iron out the issues with 3010-3019 before accepting more 5-car sets. Edited March 25, 2018 by S78 via Hylan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwaycommuter1983 Posted March 25, 2018 Share #5445 Posted March 25, 2018 It seems that the r42s will be preserved for Canarsie as a backup plan. If all r179's are delivered before construction begins and ridership is lower than expected, then those r42s won't be needed at all. There will still be a surplus of trains once all r179's are are delivered. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m7zanr160s Posted March 25, 2018 Share #5446 Posted March 25, 2018 It's hard for me to believe that 3010-3019 are still have issues when they're the 179's with the most milage; IINM, they were delivered first. My theory is that they're being used to conduct a wide range of test... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted March 25, 2018 Share #5447 Posted March 25, 2018 1 hour ago, m7zanr160s said: It's hard for me to believe that 3010-3019 are still have issues when they're the 179's with the most milage; IINM, they were delivered first. My theory is that they're being used to conduct a wide range of test... Per some people here, they have been doing additional testing on that set, but the fact of the matter is 3010-3019 and 3050-3057 were noticeably different from the rest of the cars when they first arrived. One of the ways Bombardier agreed to do damage control was to start building the production sets even before 3010-3019 entered service (which as of this posting, is not happening in the foreseeable future). As issues came up with that set, they were taken into account while the production sets were built, and some modifications were made even after they were delivered to 207 St. The only 'test' train that was good enough for revenue testing was 3058-3065, and even that set had noticeable issues while testing. This should explain why 3010-3019 and 3050-3057 are still testing, why 3058-3065 was the first set to enter service, and why the production sets entered service so shortly after the 30-day test concluded. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted March 26, 2018 Share #5448 Posted March 26, 2018 I thought they were rebuilding the TOD system on 3010 regarding that door issue, was this not the case? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwaycommuter1983 Posted March 26, 2018 Share #5449 Posted March 26, 2018 (edited) I have an impression that they'regoing to deliver all the 8 car r179's first and I wouldn't be surprised if 3050-3057 enters service before 3010-3019. Since we're getting extra 10 car trains, I think more testing and tweeking needs to be done on 3010-3019. Edited March 26, 2018 by subwaycommuter1983 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coney Island Av Posted March 26, 2018 Share #5450 Posted March 26, 2018 I think that the reason why no 5-car sets have been delivered yet is because the will be fully NTT for the shutdown. The on the other hand, won't. After all 4-car sets are in service on the , that's when production/deliveries of the 5-car sets will most likely start. As of now, no assignments have occured between CI and 207 St. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.