Jump to content

SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Lex said:

Last I checked, 222 > 210, and we've already had serious issues with the R179s.

Moreover, it's been stated multiple times (including in official documents!) that the R32s are not to be retired before the R211s arrive and are plentiful enough to facilitate replacement.

1. Documents are not contracts. 2. (MTA) does Whatever they want. 3. The R179 isn’t your problem, it’s ours. We’ll handle those pieces of trash accordingly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 30.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Damn, y'all best get on some blood pressure medication because the amount of salt in here is too damn high.

Anyways, I made a... different MTA map, and I was wondering what y'all think. (Yes, stuff like wheelchair accessibility is missing, and there are some misspelled or misplaced station names, but I'll correct it when I correct it.

YWaiHhG.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Damn, y'all best get on some blood pressure medication because the amount of salt in here is too damn high.

Anyways, I made a... different MTA map, and I was wondering what y'all think. (Yes, stuff like wheelchair accessibility is missing, and there are some misspelled or misplaced station names, but I'll correct it when I correct it.

YWaiHhG.png

 

Well, it's definitely an abstract piece.

Even so, it feels wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, VIP said:

It’s funny how not a single transit worker cried about there being a car shortage if the R32’s retired, meanwhile many of you who don’t work in the yard (or for transit for that matter) are going ape shit about car shortage and “spare factors”... the 210 R179’s came in for Fulton Street/8 Av service and now there’s a car surplus with the R32’s... There’s more than enough R46’s to bless the (A) and (C) the R32’s are not needed and there’s never been a plan to keep X amount of R32 sets til R211’s arrived. I don’t Know where y’all got that from. 222 R32’s verses 210 R179’s huge difference in reliability and replacement. 

of course they don't care. the workers want them gone and could careless.

 

But as a passenger I want a train to show up and not a large gap in service because there isn't enough trains.

 

spare factors are important, 5 sets of 45 year old R46's is not enough to cover both the (A)(C) lines. what if you have to service 2-3 of those R46's in the inspection barn. now you have 2 sets and a pair of A-A R46's left. 2-3 R46's go down on the road, then those 2 go out and there's 1 less train meaning an ABD.

 the lower the spare factor, the higher the problems and less time spent on fixing cars to get them back out on the road.

that's why getting rid of all the R32's is stupid. they only need 40-70 cars on the road (110 cars in the fleet in total)

 

the R46's are now gonna be on 3 24/7 routes vs. 1 route now (A)(G)(N) lines are all gonna run their R46's 24/7 vs just the (A) so right there is a major reason to have higher spares.

 

and this oh we don't work here attitude doesn't help, I don't pay $127 a month for (MTA) to keep making the same bullshit mistakes that they been making for the past 50 years.  Im not paying more for less,  and don't tell me to take an uber or get a car because i bet you and the rest who have that attitude voted for the idiot who runs the city and the idiot up in Albany who are anti car

 

Edited by R32 3838
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deucey said:

Why don’t (1) train rollsigns say Van Cortlandt Park anymore?
 

[pic removed]

Those new rollsigns piss me off. They're barely more legible, they're inconsistent, and it's all that expense of information. No more "Van Cortlandt Park," no more borough designations for a lot of stops, it's just a needless waste of all the perfectly good original rolls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

Those new rollsigns piss me off. They're barely more legible, they're inconsistent, and it's all that expense of information. No more "Van Cortlandt Park," no more borough designations for a lot of stops, it's just a needless waste of all the perfectly good original rolls. 

Really? What transit decides to do with their funds and equipment has a direct emotional effect on you?! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VIP said:

That was a question. You added a question mark did you not?  You can also say my response was a random thought as well. 

Interestingly, my question mark solicited an answer instead of snark (see below).

It’s a subway/transit fan forum, and sometimes amidst gripes, some folks just ask “trivia” questions.It’s not that serious.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VIP said:

Really? What transit decides to do with their funds and equipment has a direct emotional effect on you?! 

What's good, guy? Yeah, when I see a clear waste of resources from an agency funded by your fares, my fares, and all of our tax dollars, I do get annoyed. But keep playing snide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VIP said:

Really? What transit decides to do with their funds and equipment has a direct emotional effect on you?! 

Really? What transit fans decide to post on a random thoughts thread  has a direct emotional effect on you?!

Because last I checked I don't remember there being specific rules for a random thought and you are the only one acting triggered by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lex said:

Last I checked, 222 > 210, and we've already had serious issues with the R179s.

Moreover, it's been stated multiple times (including in official documents!) that the R32s are not to be retired before the R211s arrive and are plentiful enough to facilitate replacement.

Check the latest board meeting and subway car roster.

There are no more than 100 R32s in revenue service, and during the board meeting that 2022 retirement date was acknowledged as an "error".

Edited by MysteriousBtrain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Check the latest board meeting and subway car roster.

There are no more than 100 R32s in revenue service, and during the board meeting that 2022 retirement date was acknowledged as an "error".

In other words, damage control...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Really? What transit fans decide to post on a random thoughts thread  has a direct emotional effect on you?!

Because last I checked I don't remember there being specific rules for a random thought and you are the only one acting triggered by it.

 

8 hours ago, Maxwell179 said:

I’m crying 😂 why have you all been so upset lately ?

I knowwww!!! XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Check the latest board meeting and subway car roster.

There are no more than 100 R32s in revenue service, and during the board meeting that 2022 retirement date was acknowledged as an "error".

wasn't an error, they were going to keep 100-110 cars with 40- 80 remaining in Q1 2022 (retirement year)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lex said:

In other words, damage control...

they always did damage control

thats why they said the R179's would replace all of the R32/42's not knowing in that half the R44 fleet never got replaced. those 13 R179's on the (A) imo are the true replacements of the remaining R44's.

they don't want people thinking they didn't order enough tech trains to completely retire all the SMEE's plus fleet growth. we all knew 40 10 car R179's weren't enough for 2nd ave expansion and (MTA) just wanted to be cheap but in the end it costed them more money. this is why to this day I always wished they ordered more 160's just enough to replace the remaining R42's and R44's. and have the R179's as a direct replacement of the R32's plus fleet growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

53:00-53:30.

 

I have a document stating that 2022 was the retirement date

 

they spent alot of money fixing up 110 r32's for this purpose.

what they are saying is just damage control, even if they retire them in the spring, they will still have a shortage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

they always did damage control

thats why they said the R179's would replace all of the R32/42's not knowing in that half the R44 fleet never got replaced. those 13 R179's on the (A) imo are the true replacements of the remaining R44's.

they don't want people thinking they didn't order enough tech trains to completely retire all the SMEE's plus fleet growth. we all knew 40 10 car R179's weren't enough for 2nd ave expansion and (MTA) just wanted to be cheap but in the end it costed them more money. this is why to this day I always wished they ordered more 160's just enough to replace the remaining R42's and R44's. and have the R179's as a direct replacement of the R32's plus fleet growth.

At that point when the R44’s were being retired wasn’t the R160 order close to being complete? I think it was too late, plus this was right before all those service cuts the (MTA) made system wide, so they definitely were not in a place to order some additional trains. Unfortunately it did take 7 years for more cars to arrive but I felt with the R179 order they should have ordered more cars. The (C) should have never received 8 car R179s with it instead having 10 car R179s. This would have allowed all cars to be swapped with the (A) whenever they need to be. I don’t know why the (MTA) is holding off with expanding the (C) and (G) lines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.