Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
6 Lexington Ave

Politics and car assignments

Recommended Posts

Do you really think that politics play an important role in car assignments, or does each line get the cars it deserves based on its needs? I think both play a role, but, ultimately, the needs of each line play a more important role. For example the Lex got NTTs, because of the overcrowding issues...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a good question to put out there. i think they do because the mta had neglected for years in the past. But the the politic boss won't give out more money to Mta. I seen post on here about how people complain about the A, C and G train a lot. The politic got involved somehow in there as well. I am gonna say at least 50 percent of politic play in the role because they are representing the community while the community complaining about fairness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you really think that politics play an important role in car assignments, or does each line get the cars it deserves based on its needs? I think both play a role, but, ultimately, the needs of each line play a more important role. For example the Lex got NTTs, because of the overcrowding issues...

 

The MTA is it's own boss ( or at least that's how they act )

 

Not sure that politics have to do with any car assignments. No, The Lex did not get NTT's because of overcrowding... If the R62A's are going back on the (6) and a small chance some on the (4) then how do you figure "politics" put NTT's on the Lex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The MTA is it's own boss ( or at least that's how they act )

 

Not sure that politics have to do with any car assignments. No, The Lex did not get NTT's because of overcrowding... If the R62A's are going back on the (6) and a small chance some on the (4) then how do you figure "politics" put NTT's on the Lex?

 

Well, I figured that was the reason they put them on the Lex, because they have better space arrangement, for example, the doors aren't exactly across the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The MTA is it's own boss ( or at least that's how they act )

 

Not sure that politics have to do with any car assignments. No, The Lex did not get NTT's because of overcrowding... If the R62A's are going back on the (6) and a small chance some on the (4) then how do you figure "politics" put NTT's on the Lex?

 

Word around the camp fire is the (6) got NTTs because Bloomberg rides the line on a regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest lance25

But the (6) started receiving the NTTs in 2000. Bloomberg was sworn in as mayor in '02.

 

As I mentioned previously, the original plan (from '01 mind you) was that the (2), (3), (5) and (6) lines were going to use either R142s or R142As exclusively. The (4) was to be split among the R62s, R62As and the remaining R142As, possibly including the ones from the supplemental order. Alas, that didn't happen and it's probably a good thing. Remember, this is before the (5) was extended to Flatbush during midday hours, so the (4) was the only Lexington Ave line running to Brooklyn after 9:30AM and those trains were still crowded. Bench seats and wider doors work better on the very demanding Lex than it would on 7th Ave, which has both of its express lines running to Brooklyn 19/7.

 

Answering the original question, car assignments are based on a variety of factors, including crowd control and whether the yard the cars are based in can handle the new trains. As you may remember, the (A) and (C) were slated to receive the R160s. Again, that didn't happen because the (E) needed them more. Imagine if the R32s were still on the (E) right now. And please do so without thinking as railfans. Those aging cars on such a demanding line, I doubt that even the stainless steel design wouldn't have kept those cars in service if they stayed on Queens Blvd.

 

Also, I'm sure there were ideas about the (7) getting the R142(a)s being tossed around when they first arrived. Of course, that was impossible at the time since Corona couldn't maintain the cars in 2000 so they wound up on the mainlines.

 

While politics may play a part in car assignments, I'm sure they don't play a major part. Yes, the first line the R160s showed up on was the (N), but that was mainly because that line previously ran the R40 slants and R42s as a quarter of its fleet. I already mentioned why the (4) got the R142s instead of the (3) or the (E) and (F) receiving R160s and not the (A) and (C), so I would delve into that again. If politics were important to car assignments, there would most likely be a variety of trains on every line, and while that may be good from a railfan's perspective, it doesn't really help move the masses.

Edited by lance25
added a thought (again)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soon the entire subway would be nothin but NTTs starting with R179s so it's nothing to really sweat about. I don't know if its true but the only reason why (A)(C) gets hand me downs is because 207th St Yard is where they retire subway cars.

 

Now you said that, it does make alot of sense why the (3) R142s went to the (4) instead. With that said im leaning more towards the (6) keeping NTT's swapping with the (4) or (5) R142s. The (6) is the only local train on the Eastside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest lance25

It's already been established that neither the (2) nor the (5) will receive Corona's R62As. Not only would such a move needlessly confuse riders since (2) and (5) trains swap trains quite regularly, there's also the inability for Unionport or 239th Street to maintain the R62As, should they be sent to either of these yards.

 

Without this becoming yet another R188 thread, it's also been established that Westchester's (and possibly Jerome's) R142As will be sent to the (7) line for the CBTC program. Whether or not that means that Jerome's R142s will be sent to the (6) has not been determined or disclosed as of yet. It is a certainty though that R62As will be back on Lexington Avenue when all is said and done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there's also the inability for Unionport or 239th Street to maintain the R62As, should they be sent to either of these yards.

 

Why would those yards have trouble maintaining the R62As? They did run on the (5) in the past, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's already been established that neither the (2) nor the (5) will receive Corona's R62As. Not only would such a move needlessly confuse riders since (2) and (5) trains swap trains quite regularly, there's also the inability for Unionport or 239th Street to maintain the R62As, should they be sent to either of these yards.

 

 

Before you say that, you must wait and see. Just because 2/5 swap cars, does not mean they will not get it. Heh if they wanna make it easy for swap cars, just replace ether the (4) or <5> diamond with a (2) sticker or something.

 

Unionport can pretty much handle R62As. Unionport got rebuilt around after 1999 and the R62As were on the (6).

 

While i agree with people saying it doesn't make sense. Maybe (5) it would, but to early. Same for those already saying where the R179s are being place.

 

Im pretty sure people on the (6) won't want the R62As back.. But thats another junk as well. Politics..!

 

We just wait and see ;)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of politics, all of us know that politics has a big role where lines serve which community. For instance the (2) can't be express in South Bronx cause they want westside access and people along Dyre Av wants eastside access so thats why the (5) goes up that way. Making the (2) a slow Bronx Local!:tdown::tdown:

 

Before I say what I'm about to ask, how often does the (2)(4)(5) trains go down to new lots av?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of politics, all of us know that politics has a big role where lines serve which community. For instance the (2) can't be express in South Bronx cause they want westside access and people along Dyre Av wants eastside access so thats why the (5) goes up that way. Making the (2) a slow Bronx Local!:tdown::tdown:

 

Before I say what I'm about to ask, how often does the (2)(4)(5) trains go down to new lots av?

 

1) post: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/25/nyregion/plan-to-shift-no-5-train-is-abandoned.html?scp=2&sq=Bronx+2+express+train&st=nyt

 

2) Leaving Franklin they head up the New Lots line ( (2)(5) peak periods and (4) Peak periods, late Nights and some evenings)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of politics, all of us know that politics has a big role where lines serve which community. For instance the (2) can't be express in South Bronx cause they want westside access and people along Dyre Av wants eastside access so thats why the (5) goes up that way. Making the (2) a slow Bronx Local!:tdown::tdown:

 

Before I say what I'm about to ask, how often does the (2)(4)(5) trains go down to new lots av?

 

Are you talking about reroutes due to GO's/emergencies, or scheduled runs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm shaking my head at the NY Times article.

 

@SubwayGuy... schedule runs?

 

Scheduled runs (under normal schedule with no service affecting GO's):

(2): 4 AM weekday trains to New Lots, and 4 PM weekday trains from New Lots.

(4): Goes to New Lots during late nights, there are also a handful of trains that go to Livonia Yard and lay up during the weekdays - I think only two actually go in service to New Lots though...the rest drop out at Utica and run light to the yard.

(5): A handful of AM and PM rush trains go to Utica. I think there's still the one that starts out of New Lots and goes uptown during the AM. Weekday evenings, the last 4 Brooklyn bound (5)'s of the night run to Utica Avenue, drop out, and run light to Livonia Yard where they lay up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people already had the idea of the (5) to 241st and express south of East 180 and the (2) to Dyre and local south of 180th but politics and community voices plays a big role in where train service go. Just like how Queens Blvd local trains don't run past Forest Hills.

 

I asked because I heard that Nostrand branch can't handle all (2)(5) trains and that's why they send some (2)(5) trains to New Lots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scheduled runs (under normal schedule with no service affecting GO's):

(2): 4 AM weekday trains to New Lots, and 4 PM weekday trains from New Lots.

(4): Goes to New Lots during late nights, there are also a handful of trains that go to Livonia Yard and lay up during the weekdays - I think only two actually go in service to New Lots though...the rest drop out at Utica and run light to the yard.

(5): A handful of AM and PM rush trains go to Utica. I think there's still the one that starts out of New Lots and goes uptown during the AM. Weekday evenings, the last 4 Brooklyn bound (5)'s of the night run to Utica Avenue, drop out, and run light to Livonia Yard where they lay up.

 

4AM only to New Lots for the (2)? Or 4AM onwards? There are some (2)s during the AM rush that head to New Lots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scheduled runs (under normal schedule with no service affecting GO's):

(2): 4 AM weekday trains to New Lots, and 4 PM weekday trains from New Lots.

(4): Goes to New Lots during late nights, there are also a handful of trains that go to Livonia Yard and lay up during the weekdays - I think only two actually go in service to New Lots though...the rest drop out at Utica and run light to the yard.

(5): A handful of AM and PM rush trains go to Utica. I think there's still the one that starts out of New Lots and goes uptown during the AM. Weekday evenings, the last 4 Brooklyn bound (5)'s of the night run to Utica Avenue, drop out, and run light to Livonia Yard where they lay up.

 

4AM only to New Lots for the (2)? Or 4AM onwards? There are some (2)s during the AM rush that head to New Lots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if its true but the only reason why (A)(C) gets hand me downs is because 207th St Yard is where they retire subway cars.

 

 

 

 

That's false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if its true but the only reason why (A)(C) gets hand me downs is because 207th St Yard is where they retire subway cars.

 

 

 

 

That's false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people already had the idea of the (5) to 241st and express south of East 180 and the (2) to Dyre and local south of 180th but politics and community voices plays a big role in where train service go. Just like how Queens Blvd local trains don't run past Forest Hills.

 

I asked because I heard that Nostrand branch can't handle all (2)(5) trains and that's why they send some (2)(5) trains to New Lots.

 

The (2) and (5) trains that end up at New Lots Av go there primarily to lay up, not because of traffic at Flatbush. However, the (5) trains go to Utica and back to the Bronx do do so because of congestion at Flatbush.

 

Before you say that, you must wait and see. Just because 2/5 swap cars, does not mean they will not get it. Heh if they wanna make it easy for swap cars, just replace ether the (4) or <5> diamond with a (2) sticker or something.

 

How would that alleviate the issue at all? Regardless, crew members would still have to change 22 rollsigns each swap (including the front and back of the train). Forget the fact that it's time-consuming and would probably aggravate delays, nobody plain wants to do it.

 

Sure, it wouldn't be the end of the world if it happened, but there's reason why the TA should return to that.

 

As for the (A) and (C) getting the oldest cars, there's not really any politics to it, it's just that other lines need cars first for various, legitimate reasons. Sucks that those two get the older cars, but what are we going to do about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people already had the idea of the (5) to 241st and express south of East 180 and the (2) to Dyre and local south of 180th but politics and community voices plays a big role in where train service go. Just like how Queens Blvd local trains don't run past Forest Hills.

 

I asked because I heard that Nostrand branch can't handle all (2)(5) trains and that's why they send some (2)(5) trains to New Lots.

 

The (2) and (5) trains that end up at New Lots Av go there primarily to lay up, not because of traffic at Flatbush. However, the (5) trains go to Utica and back to the Bronx do do so because of congestion at Flatbush.

 

Before you say that, you must wait and see. Just because 2/5 swap cars, does not mean they will not get it. Heh if they wanna make it easy for swap cars, just replace ether the (4) or <5> diamond with a (2) sticker or something.

 

How would that alleviate the issue at all? Regardless, crew members would still have to change 22 rollsigns each swap (including the front and back of the train). Forget the fact that it's time-consuming and would probably aggravate delays, nobody plain wants to do it.

 

Sure, it wouldn't be the end of the world if it happened, but there's reason why the TA should return to that.

 

As for the (A) and (C) getting the oldest cars, there's not really any politics to it, it's just that other lines need cars first for various, legitimate reasons. Sucks that those two get the older cars, but what are we going to do about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The (2) and (5) trains that end up at New Lots Av go there primarily to lay up, not because of traffic at Flatbush. However, the (5) trains go to Utica and back to the Bronx do do so because of congestion at Flatbush.
Which is my point "congestion". Even with R142s on the (2)(5) there's still gonna be congestion on Flatbush. I wonder if sending the (4) to New Lots, the (5) to Utica and select <5> to Flatbush was ever thought of to ease congestion on Flatbush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The (2) and (5) trains that end up at New Lots Av go there primarily to lay up, not because of traffic at Flatbush. However, the (5) trains go to Utica and back to the Bronx do do so because of congestion at Flatbush.
Which is my point "congestion". Even with R142s on the (2)(5) there's still gonna be congestion on Flatbush. I wonder if sending the (4) to New Lots, the (5) to Utica and select <5> to Flatbush was ever thought of to ease congestion on Flatbush.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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