Coney Island Av Posted April 11, 2018 Share #5651 Posted April 11, 2018 I don't know why people are saying "the R179s are going downhill." Just because 3015-3019 were sent back is not indicative that not all cars will be on property. The 5-car and 4-car sets are completely separate entities from one another. The reason why the four-car sets entered service first was because they had the least amount of issues. 3058-3065 did have issues, but was in best status, hence being the first R179 to enter service. 3050-3057 on the other hand, had noticeable issues and probably haven't entered service because the issues were more major than the ones found in 3058-3065. 3010-3019 failed the most in OOS testing, so if you're saying that 207 St could iron out the issues in time to put all the 5-car sets in service, think again. 207 St isn't top notch as Bombardier in fixing the R179s, since that's not where they were originally manufactured. If they failed the most, only the professionals/designers have a fit for the job, and that's Bombardier. I'm sure they'll iron out all the issues more quicker than MTA could, and would probably only take about a month. Afterward, they'll resume testing, and I can say that the cars will wrap up burn-in testing in the Rockaways/Brighton much more quicker and faster than we saw previously. The cars were sent back to Bombardier for a good reason. Even though testing has currently halted for the 5-car sets, I guarantee that the time lost will be compensated with less issues and the extensive work currently being preformed. But for now, let's see what happens. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-BahnNYC Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5652 Posted April 12, 2018 22 hours ago, VIP said: The is fully NTT and its a shit show. I don't know what line you ride but the is consistently better than any other line. The only line I don't have to check mta.info before I step on. The only line that moves ever so smoothly between the stops like a REAL subway should. Yeah, I know, it's CBTC at work, but you cannot call the a shit show. At least by NYC standards, which, of course, are abysmally low. 22 hours ago, trainfan22 said: FACT that the is one of the most reliable lines in the system. It has the most reliable signal system. Correct. While the is not immune to sick passengers and investigations, having "signal problems" there is a VERY rare event. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jemorie Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5653 Posted April 12, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said: I don't know what line you ride but the is consistently better than any other line. The only line I don't have to check mta.info before I step on. The only line that moves ever so smoothly between the stops like a REAL subway should. Yeah, I know, it's CBTC at work, but you cannot call the a shit show. At least by NYC standards, which, of course, are abysmally low. Correct. While the is not immune to sick passengers and investigations, having "signal problems" there is a VERY rare event. If only that was the case on all the non-isolated lines with a brand new signaling system. Edited April 12, 2018 by Jemorie Typo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-BahnNYC Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5654 Posted April 12, 2018 22 hours ago, VIP said: Because a fan wants to see NTT’s on a line doesn’t justify unnecessary temporary swaps. It’s cost ineffective. An Increase in service with the surplus of 60 footers that we have now should suffice When did I ever say I want to see NTTs on a line just because? I'm stating as a regular 8th Ave/Fulton rider that the gets crushload in the AM hours, something that will only get worse during the Canarsie shutdown seeing as it meets the twice. 75 footers are very poorly built to handle crowds and it shows. Therefore, I'm suggesting, if more 60 footers (yes, even R32s, although their short grab bars and tiny doors aren't ideal) were to run on that line, crowding would at least be a bit more manageable. If you have a rebuttal for that, by all means, explain. I'd love to hear your logic for keeping 75 footers on a line that will be heavily impacted by the shutdown. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTK246 Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5655 Posted April 12, 2018 22 hours ago, VIP said: The is fully NTT and its a shit show. I never wait longer than 6 minutes for an train 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EphraimB Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5656 Posted April 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said: When did I ever say I want to see NTTs on a line just because? I'm stating as a regular 8th Ave/Fulton rider that the gets crushload in the AM hours, something that will only get worse during the Canarsie shutdown seeing as it meets the twice. 75 footers are very poorly built to handle crowds and it shows. Therefore, I'm suggesting, if more 60 footers (yes, even R32s, although their short grab bars and tiny doors aren't ideal) were to run on that line, crowding would at least be a bit more manageable. If you have a rebuttal for that, by all means, explain. I'd love to hear your logic for keeping 75 footers on a line that will be heavily impacted by the shutdown. 75-footers have more room. More room equals more people can fit in. That could equal to less crowding. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5657 Posted April 12, 2018 1 hour ago, EphraimB said: 75-footers have more room. More room equals more people can fit in. That could equal to less crowding. They have fewer doors, which is what matters in terms of keeping dwells in the reasonable range. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTK246 Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5658 Posted April 12, 2018 1 minute ago, EphraimB said: 75-footers have more room. More room equals more people can fit in. That could equal to less crowding. The doors are too far apart for commuters, so they usually end up localizing in two door areas which will lead to increased dwell times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jemorie Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5659 Posted April 12, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said: (yes, even R32s, although their short grab bars and tiny doors aren't ideal) You're right that the SMEEs' doors are a bit narrower than those on the NTTs. But 12 sets of R179s aren't really enough for the , so therefore some R32s need to continue to run on it. Like say 100/130 R32s and 90/120 R179s on the with the rest all R46s. 3 minutes ago, EphraimB said: 75-footers have more room. More room equals more people can fit in. That could equal to less crowding. Yet they only have 64 doors on one side compared to the 80 doors on the R32s and the NTTs. Less doors=more station dwelling time. Edited April 12, 2018 by Jemorie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EphraimB Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5660 Posted April 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jemorie said: You're right that the SMEEs' doors are a bit narrower than those on the NTTs. But 12 sets of R179s aren't really enough for the , so therefore some R32s need to continue to run on it. Like say 100/130 R32s and 90/120 R179s on the with the rest all R46s. Yet they only have 64 doors on one side compared to the 80 doors on the R32s and the NTTs. Less doors=more station dwelling time. People trying to fit in a very crowded train but can't also leads to more dwelling times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-BahnNYC Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5661 Posted April 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, EphraimB said: 75-footers have more room. More room equals more people can fit in Yes, but one 75-ft car has 4 doors and one 60-ft car also has 4 doors. 75/4 > 60/4, which means 60-ft cars have a shorter distance between doors. Shorter distance means easier exit and entry since people are more likely to be close to a door. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jemorie Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5662 Posted April 12, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, EphraimB said: People trying to fit in a very crowded train but can't also leads to more dwelling times. But it's not like 100% of the displaced Chelsea-bound train riders will pile onto the . so there you go. It's only those who need 8th Avenue-14th Street that will switch over from an to an or a at Broadway Junction coming northbound from Rockaway Parkway. Edited April 12, 2018 by Jemorie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwaycommuter1983 Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5663 Posted April 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, Jemorie said: You're right that the SMEEs' doors are a bit narrower than those on the NTTs. But 12 sets of R179s aren't really enough for the , so therefore some R32s need to continue to run on it. Like say 100/130 R32s and 90/120 R179s on the with the rest all R46s. Yet they only have 64 doors on one side compared to the 80 doors on the R32s and the NTTs. Less doors=more station dwelling time. I agree 100%. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-BahnNYC Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5664 Posted April 12, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jemorie said: It's only those who need 8th Avenue-14th Street that will switch over from an to an or a at Broadway Junction 8th Ave/14th St is the 19th busiest station in the system. Assuming half of its annual 14.5M riders come to/from the that's a LOT of riders. And small correction - they won't be taking a . People instinctively take the express, and in this case, the skips over 7 stops versus the local going from BJct to 14th, and in effect IS faster. Edited April 12, 2018 by U-BahnNYC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jemorie Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5665 Posted April 12, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said: 8th Ave/14th St is the 19th busiest station in the system. Assuming half of its annual 14.5M riders come to/from the that's a LOT of riders. People traveling from Rockaway Parkway already do that - changing from an to an at Broadway Junction for 8th Avenue-14th Street - even before the tunnel shutdown begins. I could be wrong though. But of course, there could also be Rockaway Parkaway-bound trains switching over for a Manhattan-bound when the tunnel shutdown begins. Edited April 12, 2018 by Jemorie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-BahnNYC Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5666 Posted April 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Jemorie said: But of course, there could also be Rockaway Parkaway-bound trains switching over for a Manhattan-bound when the tunnel shutdown begins. Yes, that's what I meant. All those hipsters past Bway-Jct going to 8th Ave now currently take the but will find the their best alternative. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3838 Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5667 Posted April 12, 2018 The R179 i was on earlier got taken oos as soon as i sat down due to some unknown issue at parsons. The was already late as it was. As soon as the R32 came in That's when the announcement was made that the next arriving train is the next to leave. Then on the intercom it said there were delays in service due to a train with mechanical issues at parsons (R179). And as soon as i got off a bway junction the train was right behind mine going to eny yard. So another unknown issue with one of the R179 sets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIP Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5668 Posted April 12, 2018 2 hours ago, U-BahnNYC said: When did I ever say I want to see NTTs on a line just because? I'm stating as a regular 8th Ave/Fulton rider that the gets crushload in the AM hours, something that will only get worse during the Canarsie shutdown seeing as it meets the twice. 75 footers are very poorly built to handle crowds and it shows. Therefore, I'm suggesting, if more 60 footers (yes, even R32s, although their short grab bars and tiny doors aren't ideal) were to run on that line, crowding would at least be a bit more manageable. If you have a rebuttal for that, by all means, explain. I'd love to hear your logic for keeping 75 footers on a line that will be heavily impacted by the shutdown. You really coming for me... the to hipster standards is below acceptable. Like you said, it’s an isolated line... the line should be at least 95% perfect in on-time performance! And my logic for keeping the with 75 footers is the same EXACT logic the MTA had/has for keeping those R46’s on the line. It’s about frequency not car class! Anything else?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U-BahnNYC Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5669 Posted April 12, 2018 1 hour ago, VIP said: You really coming for me... LOL, not for you, for your ideas... because that's what matters. And yes, I have more arguments to make, namely, how has the MTA's "logic" worked out so far? You've got to remember, it's only recently that the began seeing such growth along Fulton and Upper Manhattan. The "logic" from the past for using R46s was good in the 2000s, but realize that doesn't hold true today and certainly won't in the era of the Canarsie shut down. Also, do you know for sure the plans are to keep R46s? Everything we say here is speculation until it gets confirmed/denied. The as it is already has a relatively high frequency btw (whether they come on time is another issue) so your solution for this line really makes no sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jemorie Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5670 Posted April 12, 2018 7 hours ago, Jemorie said: But of course, there could also be Rockaway Parkaway-bound trains switching over for a Manhattan-bound when the tunnel shutdown begins. *Rockaway Parkway-bound train riders Correcting two typos I made. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5671 Posted April 12, 2018 12 hours ago, Jemorie said: You're right that the SMEEs' doors are a bit narrower than those on the NTTs. But 12 sets of R179s aren't really enough for the , so therefore some R32s need to continue to run on it. Like say 100/130 R32s and 90/120 R179s on the with the rest all R46s. Yet they only have 64 doors on one side compared to the 80 doors on the R32s and the NTTs. Less doors=more station dwelling time. The door width on almost all trains is 50 inches. The only exceptions: R110A (irrelevant): 63" R142/R142A/R188: 54" R211: 58" The doors only seem wider on the R143/R160/R179 because there is about an inch (two-three inches on the B-cars) between the end of the seat and the doorway that isn't there on the SMEEs. 9 hours ago, VIP said: You really coming for me... the to hipster standards is below acceptable. Like you said, it’s an isolated line... the line should be at least 95% perfect in on-time performance! And my logic for keeping the with 75 footers is the same EXACT logic the MTA had/has for keeping those R46’s on the line. It’s about frequency not car class! Anything else?? Frequency doesn't matter if there's a conga line of trains, which is inevitable for a line like the that is the longest in the system and has numerous switch points. To use another example, the suffers from bunching in the PM rush, and ever since they got the R68s that situation has only gotten worse. Frequency is important, but service can recover faster or not deteriorate as rapidly if a route has shorter dwell times made possible by using 60-foot cars. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwaycommuter1983 Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5672 Posted April 12, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Bosco said: The door width on almost all trains is 50 inches. The only exceptions: R110A (irrelevant): 63" R142/R142A/R188: 54" R211: 58" The doors only seem wider on the R143/R160/R179 because there is about an inch (two-three inches on the B-cars) between the end of the seat and the doorway that isn't there on the SMEEs. Frequency doesn't matter if there's a conga line of trains, which is inevitable for a line like the that is the longest in the system and has numerous switch points. To use another example, the suffers from bunching in the PM rush, and ever since they got the R68s that situation has only gotten worse. Frequency is important, but service can recover faster or not deteriorate as rapidly if a route has shorter dwell times made possible by using 60-foot cars. Here's an idea: The gets some of the 8 car r160's from the , while making the 50 r68's into full length trains. Then, the r32's intended for the can go to the displacing more full length r68's to the . Would that work?? It may help decrease bunching of the trains, which causes big delays going to the Bronx and causing overcrowding in the and trains. Edited April 12, 2018 by subwaycommuter1983 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5673 Posted April 12, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, subwaycommuter1983 said: Here's an idea: The gets some of the 8 car r160's from the , while making the 50 r68's into full length trains. Then, the r32's intended for the can go to the displacing more full length r68's to the . Would that work?? It may help decrease bunching of the trains, which causes big delays going to the Bronx and causing overcrowding in the and trains. The only way the and can be 'full length' (by each of their standards, so 600' and 480' respectively) is if the gets 4-car R160s. The for right now can't get much help besides the R32s; I was using it as an example comparing it to when the line ran R40s. The will have to be exclusively 480' cars, so that means no R68s. Also, the and have nothing to do with each other despite running parallel in the Bronx. The is crap because it runs on Lexington. Edited April 12, 2018 by Bosco 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIP Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5674 Posted April 12, 2018 16 minutes ago, Bosco said: The only way the and can be 'full length' (by each of their standards, so 600' and 480' respectively) is if the gets 4-car R160s. The for right now can't get much help besides the R32s; I was using it as an example comparing it to when the line ran R40s. The will have to be exclusively 480' cars, so that means no R68s. Also, the and have nothing to do with each other despite running parallel in the Bronx. The is crap because it runs on Lexington. I’ve been saying this for weeks! Why do you think East New York hasn’t gotten ANY of their R160’s from the ... those are going to the . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwaycommuter1983 Posted April 12, 2018 Share #5675 Posted April 12, 2018 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Bosco said: Also, the and have nothing to do with each other despite running parallel in the Bronx. The is crap because it runs on Lexington. Yes, but since the is so unreliable during pm rush hour, many people who live by Grand Concourse rather jam pack the to 149 then switch to the instead of taking the or they pack the to Tremont or Fordham and walk several blocks to take the (with unlimited Metrocard) instead of taking the . Edited April 12, 2018 by subwaycommuter1983 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.