R46 SIR retrofit Discussion

[AndrewJC]

MTA logistics is well known for wanting crowded trains. A crowded train pays for that run.

 

The MTA has loading guidelines. Yes, they do call for fairly crowded trains: in the case of the R160's that run on the Astoria line, they call for 145 people per car. That's pretty crowded. And Astoria trains are already pretty close to that guideline.

 

Where were those replacement trains when the W was eliminated for service south of Canal? Thats lower manhattan. The business district.

 

That's nowhere near the peak load point, which was where the W crossed into Manhattan. Look at loads on the R today going southbound in the morning or northbound in the afternoon (the former peak direction for the W): there are still plenty of seats available below Canal.

 

Cutting the W on Lower Manhattan did not create a crowding problem. Cutting the W in Astoria would have created a serious crowding problem had it not been replaced with the Q. And cutting the Q in Astoria without replacing it with something else will create that same crowding problem (except that ridership will probably continue to grow, so it will be even worse by then).

 

They can and-dont be surprised if they do-eliminate those said ten trains. That is the cheapest and least car-insensive option. Saying cutting service isnt an option may show one is not learning from MTA history.

 

That would immediately leave Astoria with the most crowded trains in the system, by far - more crowded than Lex, more crowded than Canarsie - with people unable to fit on trains for hours. It's simply not an option.

 

That may be two hats for dinner? Lol

 

If, within the next two months, any SIR retrofit work is done on an R46 - thereby ensuring both a colossal waste of money (installing a new cab signal system on a car class a few years before retirement) and severe overcrowding on the Astoria line - I will gladly eat three hats.

 

But I'm really curious. Why are you so certain that R46's are going to be retrofitted for SIR? And have you told Aaron Stern, the head of the Office of Management & Budget, who authored the December 3 staff summary that I linked to above? Because he's under the impression that SIR will be holding onto its R44's until around 2020.

 

Should I share my hats with Mr. Stern?

[Far Rock Depot]

Your putting up a decent argument but...

More crowded than the Lex? Forget the factor of larger trains. That is an exaggeration. Crowded yes, ill give you that. But more crouded than the lex? No

 

And in all honesty, the Astoria line north of QBP is what, 7 stops? Ill eat those 3 hats myself if they make Astoria THAT much of a service priority when SAS opens.

[AndrewJC]

Your putting up a decent argument but...

More crowded than the Lex? Forget the factor of larger trains. That is an exaggeration. Crowded yes, ill give you that. But more crouded than the lex? No

 

 

I'm sorry, my friend, you're wrong. Let's look at the numbers.

 

Start with the 2009 Hub Bound Travel Report. (I'd use 2010, but there was clearly a major disruption in Lex service when the data was collected, so it isn't indicative of anything normal. And 2011 and 2012 haven't been released yet.) Search the pdf for "subway by location".

 

The peak hour is clearly the 8:00 hour. The first two columns are the Lex express and Lex local, respectively. The express had 25,893 riders on 24 trains, or 25,893 / 24 = 1079 riders per 10-car train. Since the guideline load of an IRT car is 110 (or 1100 for a 10-car train), the express runs at 1079 / 1100 = 98% of capacity. The local had 21,528 riders on 23 trains, or 21,528 / 23 = 936 riders per train, which translates to 85% of capacity.

 

Scroll down five pages until you see the 60th Street Tunnel column. Unfortunately, the R is lumped in with the N and W (yes, W - remember, this was 2009), but that's the best we have. (If I'm not mistaken, R trains are slightly less crowded than Astoria trains, so the crowding level for the Astoria line is a bit higher than what we come up with.) Here we have 24,060 / 23 = 1046 riders per train. Here the calculations get a bit complicated, because of the differing car lengths - an R46 has a guideline load of 175, while an R160 has a guideline load of 145. Fortunately, the numbers come out pretty close for a full train: 175 * 8 = 1400 for an 8-car train of R46's or 145 * 10 = 1450 for a 10-car train of R160's. So 1046 riders per train translates to somewhere between 1046 / 1450 = 72% and 1046 / 1400 = 74% of capacity.

 

Now, you are claiming that the MTA will cut service in half (by removing the Q and not replacing it with anything else). If ridership stays constant, trains will be twice as crowded: between 144% and 148% of capacity. That's much more crowded than the Lex (98% on the express and 85% on the local). Even if ridership drops by, say, 20% (some riders will be scared off by the crowds or by the relative infrequency), we're still looking at 115%-118% of capacity.

 

And in all honesty, the Astoria line north of QBP is what, 7 stops? Ill eat those 3 hats myself if they make Astoria THAT much of a service priority when SAS opens.

 

 

The Astoria line has five stops in a dense, highly built-up setting, plus a major transfer point from the Flushing line. It carries a lot of people. This has nothing to do with service priorities and everything to do with the basic goal of providing adequate service with respect to established loading guidelines. The R179 order includes enough cars to maintain adequate service to Astoria while opening SAS.

 

Enjoy your hats. Do you prefer them with ketchup?

[Vistausss]

"Now, you are claiming that the MTA will cut service in half (by removing the Q and not replacing it with anything else). If ridership stays constant, trains will be twice as crowded: between 144% and 148% of capacity. That's much more crowded than the Lex (98% on the express and 85% on the local). Even if ridership drops by, say, 20% (some riders will be scared off by the crowds or by the relative infrequency), we're still looking at 115%-118% of capacity."

 

Wrong. We'd have to get 2011 or 2012 report for that to compare. Maybe the Lex will be over capacity too nowadays. A lot can change in 3 years.

[AndrewJC]

"Now, you are claiming that the MTA will cut service in half (by removing the Q and not replacing it with anything else). If ridership stays constant, trains will be twice as crowded: between 144% and 148% of capacity. That's much more crowded than the Lex (98% on the express and 85% on the local). Even if ridership drops by, say, 20% (some riders will be scared off by the crowds or by the relative infrequency), we're still looking at 115%-118% of capacity."

 

Wrong. We'd have to get 2011 or 2012 report for that to compare. Maybe the Lex will be over capacity too nowadays. A lot can change in 3 years.

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that Lex ridership has grown by 20% in the past three years while Astoria ridership has remained stagnant?

 

Why do you think the MTA would go against its own ridership counts and loading guidelines and slash service to the point of inducing severe overcrowding? It's not like there's a track capacity constraint or a car shortage forcing the issue.

[RollOver]

Well, three to five minute headways on the Astoria Line at rush hour do cause backups beyond 30th Avenue...The matter is the headway that the runs at rush hour, the amount of trains between the Astoria corridor/60th-59th Street tube and the 34th Street-Herald Square station including between Prince and Canal Streets...That's why I believe five minute headway or five to ten minute headway is a pretty wide range...

[R32 3838]

i don't know why you guys are thinking the R46's are being sent to SI soon, because their not being sent soon, if they were then the TA will be short 8 trainsets,or have less spares, and those R44's aren't gonna make it until 2020, hence why the MTA wants the R46's out there, those R44's are done, theymay look good on the outside but the frame is done, and the MTA isn't gonna SMS the R44's again, that would be a big total waste of money, they just finished fixing them up back in 2008-10, so that i don't beleve, that MTA person may have been talking about the R46's since the converstion can BE done at the CI shops, it makes sense bacause the R46's are slated to retire in 2020-2024

[Far Rock Depot]

@AndrewJC You can throw out all the numbers you want. When its all said and done, The MTA will do what the MTA will do come 2016-2018. Car stortage or not wont be a factor. If they do have that issue, the priority will be to SAS and not Astoria. As R32 3838 stated, the R46 move isnt happening soon. They still have to award the refit and perform said refit. By the time the potential move is gonna be made, numbers WILL be different in either direction. And the priority will still be towards SAS.

if the number of available railcars dont change, and the ridership stays even There will be no car shortage. The MTA will most likely just cut Astoria and adjust the headways to make the impact on ridership slightly less stressful. Numbers involve logic. When has the MTA ever been logical. Think like the MTA.

[Vistausss]

 

 

The only thing that you didn't answer yet is: you say they won't SMS the R46's because they're about to retire? Then why would they SMS the R44's instead? Those things are even older and rustier than the R46's. It takes about as much money to SMS old, rusty equipment (R44) as to install a new system on newer equipment (R46).

 

I fully agree Far Rock Depot.

[Art Vandelay]

Nobody is saying they won't SMS the R46s. R46s will continue to go through SMS, as will the R44s. Both will require SMS as they are both now expected to last until around 2020.

[AndrewJC]

@AndrewJC You can throw out all the numbers you want. When its all said and done, The MTA will do what the MTA will do come 2016-2018. Car stortage or not wont be a factor. If they do have that issue, the priority will be to SAS and not Astoria. As R32 3838 stated, the R46 move isnt happening soon. They still have to award the refit and perform said refit. By the time the potential move is gonna be made, numbers WILL be different in either direction. And the priority will still be towards SAS.

 

 

These decisions are made years in advance. The decision of whether or not to send R46's to SIR had to be made before deciding how many R179's to order. With only 40 cars in 5 car units, the decision was clearly not to send the R46's to SIR, since sending 64 R46's to SIR would have required 80 additional R179's to replace them.

 

if the number of available railcars dont change, and the ridership stays even There will be no car shortage. The MTA will most likely just cut Astoria and adjust the headways to make the impact on ridership slightly less stressful. Numbers involve logic. When has the MTA ever been logical. Think like the MTA.

 

 

You are correct that there will be no car shortage - because no current subway cars will be moving to SIR, and the R179 order is large enough to cover the increased requirements for SAS.

 

Perhaps this will come as a news flash to some, but the MTA, like virtually every other major transit agency, has loading guidelines that determine how frequently trains (and buses) are scheduled to run. The goal is always to run enough service on each line to keep loads within those guidelines. (That's why most picks include a few slight schedule changes: to increase or decrease frequency in response to ridership ups or downs.) In some cases that might not be possible, either because there isn't enough track or signal capacity to increase service or because there aren't enough cars available to increase service. You are proposing that the MTA generate a car shortage by unnecessarily getting rid of 64 cars (i.e., sending them to SIR, where they are of no use to the subway system proper), thereby forcing a service cut that would raise loads on Astoria line trains well above what the guidelines call for.

 

I've asked several times, and I'll ask again: Why on earth do you think any R46's will be going to SIR at this point? It would be a colossal waste of money, the R179 numbers don't support it, and the head of the Office of Management & Budget says that the R44's will be around until 2020.

 

The only thing that you didn't answer yet is: you say they won't SMS the R46's because they're about to retire? Then why would they SMS the R44's instead? Those things are even older and rustier than the R46's. It takes about as much money to SMS old, rusty equipment (R44) as to install a new system on newer equipment (R46).

 

 

Who said anything about SMS? SMS is a general maintenance program that replaces components before they fail. Any car class remaining until 2020 will most likely go through another SMS cycle, since SMS takes place every 7 years or so. But independent of any SMS work done, any existing cars moved to Staten Island will need to have a new cab signal system installed. It makes no sense to spend that sort of money on cars less than a decade away from retirement.

[Vistausss]

I meant SMS for SI.

 

But even so: why wouldn't it make sense? Why would it make sense to SMS those R44s on SI which are even older and more rusty?

[RollOver]

If I'm not mistaken, East New York said in a few pages back that those 64 R46s aren't leaving anytime soon and are set to still be in service on the SIR after the retrofit and the R211's delivery.

[Vistausss]

Indeed.

#155

 

And that was even after that staff statement was made which Andrew was talking about. So the plan seems to be still on.

[Art Vandelay]

It makes sense to SMS the R44SI as they are and will remain needed for service. There are not enough R179s to replace both the R32s and R44s. Those R46s which would be moved will still be needed on the mainline B division. Installing cab signalling on R46s would not be a cheap or easy proposition.

 

SI will never run more than one fleet outside of times of transition. The fleet is too small as it is.

 

The staff statement is certainly still in effect. The R44s will stay in SI until R211 era cars replace them around 2020.

[Grand Concourse]

When are the R179s set to arrive? Unless it's 5 years from now, I still doubt they'd retire all the R32s. If anything they should keep some R32s around as spares to allow all the R44s to be retired.

Assuming the (shortsighted) plan is for more 4 car sets, then the would have those while they could put R32s on the and allow some R46s to be freed up.

[Art Vandelay]

The main purpose of the R179 order is to replace the R32s. Of course things could change, but at this point I don't see the R46s or any newer car being in substantially worse shape than the R32s to justify the R32s remaining instead. The R44s can't be retired until SIR compatible cars come in. Conversion for SI service is not cheap, and the R44s on SI just got a very heavy overhaul.

[Grand Concourse]

Well if si can get by with the R44s there, then so be it. I just hope those frames holds up for that much longer....

[ttcsubwayfan]

Assuming the (shortsighted) plan is for more 4 car sets, then the would have those while they could put R32s on the and allow some R46s to be freed up.

 

 

Someone will have a fit if they do that...

[Vistausss]

The main purpose of the R179 order is to replace the R32s. Of course things could change, but at this point I don't see the R46s or any newer car being in substantially worse shape than the R32s to justify the R32s remaining instead. The R44s can't be retired until SIR compatible cars come in. Conversion for SI service is not cheap, and the R44s on SI just got a very heavy overhaul.

 

 

So the R32s are in worse shape than the R46s? Then why are they still running even though they were supposed to be put out of service? I'll tell you: because even though they're old, they're still in good shape.

The R46s need a little bit of an SMS and a cab signal system. The R44s, however, are not in a good shape. The frames are starting to rust and detoriate. And you call that good shape? Under what rock are you living? To overhaul the R44s for 7 more years of service=just as expensive as installing a cab signal system on the better shaped R46s.

[RollOver]

SMS would still solve the problem, at least a bit. While the SIR R44s may not be in good shape, they are still relatively reliable than the NYCT ones that were retired early.

[Far Rock Depot]

SMS only covers so much. You have to see what engineers see. If your bones were deteriorating, a skin graph wont save you. And to repair the frame of a rail car, one must strip it down, tent to the frame, and put it back together. Thats basically a full rebuild of a railcar.

[East New York]

I don't think so.

 

 

Let me clear up what I meant. The contract is supposed to be awarded in or around February, not car retrofit.

 

As of a staff summary dated December 3, 2012: "The current fleet is comprised of 63 cars now forty years old, which is considered to be the full useful life of these vehicles. It is currently estimated that the replacement of this fleet won’t occur until around 2020. In order to maintain this fleet in a state of good repair to be able to operate safely and reliably, it will be necessary for this fleet to undergo a full maintenance program to be performed mostly at MTA New York City Transit’s subway’s facilities. This program requires three years (2014-2016) of maintenance with an estimated cost of $12.900 million ($4.300 million and 21 cars per year)."

 

http://www.mta.info/...n_Materials.pdf

 

 

The details of this "overhaul" plan will fill in all the pieces to the puzzle as we see exactly what unfolds.

[Art Vandelay]

Actually the cost of the R44 SMS is only forecasted to be 200K per car. Quite reasonable.

[Vistausss]

Actually the cost of the R44 SMS is only forecasted to be 200K per car. Quite reasonable.

 

 

Nice finding! Too bad you can't tell us in contrast to the R46 overhaul for SI. If we don't know how much that'll cost then I'm still staying by the points in my last post.

 

Btw, funny that you didn't respond to ENY this time.