SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[randomnewyorker23]

Just realized the R179 display is different from the R160s, notice the E

[Kamen Rider]

I’ve said it before.

the older new techs were all an original design built from the ground up

 

the R179 is a Bombardier Movia Metro car that someone hit with a sledgehammer till it resembled the older NTTs.

 

No, seriously, they’re actually Movia cars. 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

16 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

I’ve said it before.

the older new techs were all an original design built from the ground up

 

the R179 is a Bombardier Movia Metro car that someone hit with a sledgehammer till it resembled the older NTTs.

 

No, seriously, they’re actually Movia cars. 

R179s really feel like a scam; a last minute attempt to just produce cars so the R32s and 42s could be replaced. In terms of practical benefits to the user, they offer next to nothing new over the R160.

I do think they got a bit too much criticism for failing testing early on and stuff, especially since they are pretty reliable. The bigger flaw imo is it seems there was a lack of effort to touch up smaller details like making the station countdown boards clearer or fixing the tiny route bullet on the front of the train. I understand the R179 was never meant to be revolutionary, but small improvements like that would've been nice to see.

[Lex]

2 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

R179s really feel like a scam; a last minute attempt to just produce cars so the R32s and 42s could be replaced. In terms of practical benefits to the user, they offer next to nothing new over the R160.

I do think they got a bit too much criticism for failing testing early on and stuff, especially since they are pretty reliable. The bigger flaw imo is it seems there was a lack of effort to touch up smaller details like making the station countdown boards clearer or fixing the tiny route bullet on the front of the train. I understand the R179 was never meant to be revolutionary, but small improvements like that would've been nice to see.

That's a weird assessment, particularly since the R179s weren't even intended to replace 60-foot SMEEs.

The R179s don't show too much improvement over the R160s because they were never supposed to.

Production issues plagued the order for years, and even after the first cars finally arrived for testing, problems continued to crop up. The worst of them, however, were the high-profile incidents back in 2020, well after all cars had been delivered and many or all had formally entered revenue service. Their reliability may not be a serious issue now, but the continued issues that ultimately led to the MTA disqualifying Bombardier from bidding on the R211 contract left a real black mark on their reputation. It's telling that only about half a year after the link bar incident caused all cars to be grounded and a reactivation of the R32s, Bombardier sold off the division that built the R179s.

[Calvin]

There is a  train that's made up of single units as one train, majority were on the 42 St Shuttle before. 

(1921-1937-1910-1930-1925) mated with (1931-1927-1923-1952-1940). 1921, 1925, 1910 and 1923 have somewhat of a Local/Express switch on the rollsigns while others don't. 

Although, it happened way back: there was a R62A on the  made up of 11 single units only. 

 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Calvin
underlined means ex. 42 St Shuttle cars

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

1 hour ago, Calvin said:

There is a  train that's made up of single units as one train, majority were on the 42 St Shuttle before. 

(1921-1937-1910-1930-1925) mated with (1931-1927-1923-1952-1940). 1921, 1925, 1910 and 1923 have somewhat of a Local/Express switch on the rollsigns while others don't. 

Although, it happened way back: there was a R62A on the  made up of 11 single units only. 

 

From here on out,  should just get it's own fleet with cars specifically built for it (though in theory could run on other IRT lines).  train being 11 cars is always going to make grouping the sets somewhat awkward, especially if your trying to trade between mainline IRT and the . Also transferring the  fleet to anywhere else on the IRT is an annoying process so having a fleet that Corona Yard is specialized for saves logistical time and money. Ig this is already sort of the case with the R188.

The  is also unique on the IRT that people don't generally ride it for very long journeys (and it's generally a shorter line), so having a design that favors capacity over comfort makes sense, whereas on a line like the  or  barely having any seating would be cruel for someone coming into the city from Wakefield. Sure, a lot of folks get on at Flushing and ride into the city, but most of those riders use the  which is pretty fast from my experience and those who don't may transfer at Roosevelt Av to the IND. Whenever there starts to be talk around replacing the R142, R142a and R188, I think the MTA should commission 2 similar but slightly different cars for the mainline IRT fleet and the . That's still very far off in the future though.

Ig it's simillar to how the 42nd street shuttle R62s were retrofitted to mostly not have seats because people aren't going to be on it for more than a few minutes.

Edited June 18, 2023 by ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ

[Chris89292]

1 hour ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

From here on out,  should just get it's own fleet with cars specifically built for it (though in theory could run on other IRT lines).  train being 11 cars is always going to make grouping the sets somewhat awkward, especially if your trying to trade between mainline IRT and the . Also transferring the  fleet to anywhere else on the IRT is an annoying process so having a fleet that Corona Yard is specialized for saves logistical time and money. Ig this is already sort of the case with the R188.

The  is also unique on the IRT that people don't generally ride it for very long journeys (and it's generally a shorter line), so having a design that favors capacity over comfort makes sense, whereas on a line like the  or  barely having any seating would be cruel for someone coming into the city from Wakefield. Sure, a lot of folks get on at Flushing and ride into the city, but most of those riders use the  which is pretty fast from my experience and those who don't may transfer at Roosevelt Av to the IND. Whenever there starts to be talk around replacing the R142, R142a and R188, I think the MTA should commission 2 similar but slightly different cars for the mainline IRT fleet and the . That's still very far off in the future though.

Ig it's simillar to how the 42nd street shuttle R62s were retrofitted to mostly not have seats because people aren't going to be on it for more than a few minutes.

 Nah I think the  should just run as a 10 car set to avoid these type of problems, especially since NTT’s aren’t capable to do this random number input like the R62A’s, doesn’t matter if the community disagrees, it’s a way to save money like I said in the past in another thread post, every other subway line has crowding issues as well, but the MTA doesn’t add extra cars for it, so why the ? 

[MTA Dude]

12 hours ago, Chris89292 said:

 Nah I think the  should just run as a 10 car set to avoid these type of problems, especially since NTT’s aren’t capable to do this random number input like the R62A’s, doesn’t matter if the community disagrees, it’s a way to save money like I said in the past in another thread post, every other subway line has crowding issues as well, but the MTA doesn’t add extra cars for it, so why the ? 

...because the  is the most frequent yet one of the most crowded subway lines in the entire system. Unlike other IRT lines, the  has the platforms to accommodate 11 car trains, so there is no good reason not to give it 11 car trains.

[Chris89292]

29 minutes ago, MTA Dude said:

...because the  is the most frequent yet one of the most crowded subway lines in the entire system. Unlike other IRT lines, the  has the platforms to accommodate 11 car trains, so there is no good reason not to give it 11 car trains.

 Other subway lines are crowded too, I don’t see why the  should run 11 cars, the platforms don’t need to be removed, they could stay there, but a 10 car  would save money when ordering future fleets, I don’t get the confusion here, it’s simple, the 11 car set was designed for the worlds fair only, but the IRT if it existed at the time, decided to leave it as a permanent feature

Edited June 18, 2023 by Chris89292

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

29 minutes ago, MTA Dude said:

...because the  is the most frequent yet one of the most crowded subway lines in the entire system. Unlike other IRT lines, the  has the platforms to accommodate 11 car trains, so there is no good reason not to give it 11 car trains.

Also  is basically separate from the rest of the subway system. It doesn't have any direct track connections to the rest of the IRT, and while it does have a connection to the 60th St tunnel, it's trains are too narrow to run revenue service through it. In a lot of subway systems worldwide where each line is Independent, different lines will have different specs and different rolling stocks based on when the line was built and it's busyness level. For all intensive purposes, the  is it's own separate thing and MTA should prioritize doing what's best for the , even if it makes it incompatible with the rest of the IRT.

[Trainmaster5]

3 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Also  is basically separate from the rest of the subway system. It doesn't have any direct track connections to the rest of the IRT, and while it does have a connection to the 60th St tunnel, it's trains are too narrow to run revenue service through it. In a lot of subway systems worldwide where each line is Independent, different lines will have different specs and different rolling stocks based on when the line was built and it's busyness level. For all intents and purposes, the  is it's own separate thing and MTA should prioritize doing what's best for the , even if it makes it incompatible with the rest of the IRT.

Correct me if I’m missing something here. Are you suggesting that the  run a specialized fleet of equipment ? You do realize that every piece of equipment on the  has historically been used on other lines ? What it appears that you are proposing is to create a fleet of doorstops, IMO.

[Lawrence St]

Why does 59th St  even have a watch the gap announcement? The gap looks exactly the same size as every other station in the A divison,

[Theli11]

4 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Also  is basically separate from the rest of the subway system. It doesn't have any direct track connections to the rest of the IRT, and while it does have a connection to the 60th St tunnel, it's trains are too narrow to run revenue service through it. In a lot of subway systems worldwide where each line is Independent, different lines will have different specs and different rolling stocks based on when the line was built and it's busyness level. For all intensive purposes, the  is it's own separate thing and MTA should prioritize doing what's best for the , even if it makes it incompatible with the rest of the IRT.

This would actually be more expensive. It's easier to have 2 divisions of trains rather than 3. 

 

4 hours ago, Chris89292 said:

 Other subway lines are crowded too, I don’t see why the  should run 11 cars, the platforms don’t need to be removed, they could stay there, but a 10 car  would save money when ordering future fleets, I don’t get the confusion here, it’s simple, the 11 car set was designed for the worlds fair only, but the IRT if it existed at the time, decided to leave it as a permanent feature

11-Car line alleviates the congestion on the line. Removing it and making the entire line 10 cars would mean the train would carry roughly 170-180 less people per train. Seeing as how crowded the line is compared to other lines (it being the only line that goes to Flushing and has one of the most crowded terminus, and unlike other stadiums, the only subway to serve Mets Stadium. 11-Cars is very justifiable and costs can't be that bad that they'd screw up the line. Yes it was designed for the worlds fair but now it has other purposes like making the crowding on the line better. If the Flushing line was built with to do 12-cars, I'd push for it. 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

23 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

This would actually be more expensive. It's easier to have 2 divisions of trains rather than 3. 

 

11-Car line alleviates the congestion on the line. Removing it and making the entire line 10 cars would mean the train would carry roughly 170-180 less people per train. Seeing as how crowded the line is compared to other lines (it being the only line that goes to Flushing and has one of the most crowded terminus, and unlike other stadiums, the only subway to serve Mets Stadium. 11-Cars is very justifiable and costs can't be that bad that they'd screw up the line. Yes it was designed for the worlds fair but now it has other purposes like making the crowding on the line better. If the Flushing line was built with to do 12-cars, I'd push for it. 

Outside ordering and maintaining a specialized fleet, would there be any real cost to having the  being it's own separate "division"? The MTA already sort of did this with the R188s which aren't really meant to be switched back to mainline IRT anytime in the future.

I do agree though getting rid of 11 car trains would just make crowding worse. An extra 10% capacity can mean the difference between someone being able to squeeze onto the first train and having to wait through several trains to board. Not that it matters a ton, but it's also nice at Queensboro plaza how the A-division  is almost as long as the B-division  for the cross-platform transfer.

[MTA Dude]

18 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

11-Car line alleviates the congestion on the line. Removing it and making the entire line 10 cars would mean the train would carry roughly 170-180 less people per train. Seeing as how crowded the line is compared to other lines (it being the only line that goes to Flushing and has one of the most crowded terminus, and unlike other stadiums, the only subway to serve Mets Stadium. 11-Cars is very justifiable and costs can't be that bad that they'd screw up the line. Yes it was designed for the worlds fair but now it has other purposes like making the crowding on the line better. If the Flushing line was built with to do 12-cars, I'd push for it. 

This 100%.

I've taken the  semi-regularly pre-pandemic, and you literally had to fight and push your way onto trains at Queensboro Plaza and 74th-Broadway. What @Chris89292 is proposing is to cut capacity by 9% just for the sake of slightly more compatibility with the rest of the IRT, compatibility that is already lacking to begin with because of the lack of track connections.

If there's really a legitimate concern of 6-car sets being limited to the , then you could order singles to make those 11 car trains. That way you could take it out to run on other IRT lines in a pinch.

[Theli11]

2 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Outside ordering and maintaining a specialized fleet, would there be any real cost to having the  being it's own separate "division"? The MTA already sort of did this with the R188s which aren't really meant to be switched back to mainline IRT anytime in the future.

 

But.. why? There's no real point to doing this and the fact that the and the rest of the IRT are in the same division makes things easier. They can swap cars if need be, whenever new cars come in for the IRT, you won't have to make a separate set for the that'd require a whole new fleet of trains (and probably a completely different bid/train all together). It's just easier to keep it the same division than to spend money making it a new division for no reason. The cost would be the fact that we've already spent time putting CBTC for the current subway cars and line and you're spending money for no reason. Ordering and maintaining a specialize fleet is a significant amount of money the MTA can't be wasting on an issue that is as frivolous and unimportant as this.

[Kamen Rider]

I think we need a new advertising campaign 

“please do not touch employees without their consent, for any reason.”

I would think that would be a gimme in this day and age but I just had a old man grab my arm from behind* to get my attention, while I was off duty waiting for my train home.

The reason? to ask me a question I had already answered for him a minute prior.

 

* for the record I have hated being touched from behind for most of my life.

[CenSin]

2 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

* for the record I have hated being touched from behind for most of my life.

* for most of life

Not reacting favorably to being surprise-touched from behind has been the product of a half billion years of evolution.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

17 hours ago, Theli11 said:

But.. why? There's no real point to doing this and the fact that the and the rest of the IRT are in the same division makes things easier. They can swap cars if need be, whenever new cars come in for the IRT, you won't have to make a separate set for the that'd require a whole new fleet of trains (and probably a completely different bid/train all together). It's just easier to keep it the same division than to spend money making it a new division for no reason. The cost would be the fact that we've already spent time putting CBTC for the current subway cars and line and you're spending money for no reason. Ordering and maintaining a specialize fleet is a significant amount of money the MTA can't be wasting on an issue that is as frivolous and unimportant as this.

I think it would just be easier, less time-consuming and not put extra miles on trains by giving the  its own fleet that can take advantage of its longer platforms. And yes, I think they really should consider a rail car that is slightly longer than the standard 51 feet. I’m sure it’s not impossible to do a 56-foot car with four side entry doors per side. And it’ll fit right into all of the  line platforms without having to lengthen any of them.

When the Flushing Line had a connection to the rest of the IRT via the Queensboro Bridge and the 2nd Ave El, it was clearly easier to have the same size trains as the rest of the IRT. But when they demolished the El, that connection was cut, leaving the Flushing Line in relative isolation (save for the Astoria Line crossover east of QBP). There was also far more flexibility when single and paired cars were the standard. They lost that when they switched to perma-linked multi-car sets, especially after they sent the R62As back to the . Because back then you had more options for train length that you just don’t have now with the perma-linked sets. You certainly have very few other options for 6-car R188 sets outside of Flushing. The Grand Central  doesn’t need that many 6-car trains.

20 hours ago, MTA Dude said:

This 100%.

I've taken the  semi-regularly pre-pandemic, and you literally had to fight and push your way onto trains at Queensboro Plaza and 74th-Broadway. What @Chris89292 is proposing is to cut capacity by 9% just for the sake of slightly more compatibility with the rest of the IRT, compatibility that is already lacking to begin with because of the lack of track connections.

If there's really a legitimate concern of 6-car sets being limited to the , then you could order singles to make those 11 car trains. That way you could take it out to run on other IRT lines in a pinch.

They’d likely have to go back to buying some single cars to keep the flexibility of moving Flushing cars to the other IRT lines and vice versa. Which must be a huge pain in the ass to do, given how many trains are required to run the  services. I honestly think it would be easier if they didn’t have to do that, given how Flushing A-Division trains have to travel what seems like half the entire system just to get them to another A-Division yard. They clearly don’t have a lot of options for where to transfer the 6-car R188 sets.

Edited June 19, 2023 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Vulturious]

Not my photo, but R42 4801 got yellow pentographs. 

[Trainmaster5]

Seems to me that everyone posting about the  line equipment, or any equipment, should realize that the cars are connected by link bars. The bars replaced the original couplers. They can be removed by CED at any time. There’s nothing permanent about the link bars so they can reconfigure the consists of the trains any time they want. Link bars are semi permanent. Carry on.

[Wallyhorse]

16 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

I think we need a new advertising campaign 

“please do not touch employees without their consent, for any reason.”

I would think that would be a gimme in this day and age but I just had a old man grab my arm from behind* to get my attention, while I was off duty waiting for my train home.

The reason? to ask me a question I had already answered for him a minute prior.

 

* for the record I have hated being touched from behind for most of my life.

People have to realize you can't do that anymore.  

[Lawrence St]

All stations on the should have fare collection in my opinion.

[Chris89292]

16 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

All stations on the should have fare collection in my opinion.

There was a plan to add turnstiles on all  stations back in 2010, the MTA didn’t stick with the plan for much longer, possibly community opposition 

[Lawrence St]

13 minutes ago, Chris89292 said:

There was a plan to add turnstiles on all  stations back in 2010, the MTA didn’t stick with the plan for much longer, possibly community opposition 

SIR loses the most money, they need to. Stop with this "community" opposition crap. The buses aren't free, why are the trains?