Far Rock Depot Posted October 16, 2012 Share #176 Posted October 16, 2012 I honestly don't know why they threw the R44s out. The R38s got a minor overhaul, significantly less than the R32s, so that makes sense. I think the R44s could have lasted a couple more years. Think about it like this: how would you got out running everyday with rotting bones? That's why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted October 16, 2012 Share #177 Posted October 16, 2012 It is actually a substantial shortening of the Q! 96/2 to Coney Island is quite a bit shorter than Astoria to Coney Island, and will require fewer trains. What really takes up the trains is that the reinstated W will need 11-12 trains. The C will have to be R179 as only new tech cars are capable of running in 480 foot trains once the R32/R42 are retired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted October 16, 2012 Share #178 Posted October 16, 2012 You can believe what you want to, but the basic numbers are pretty clear. There are only enough cars on order to do two of the following four things- 1. Replace all R32/R42(requires 270), 2. Displace R46s to Staten Island(requires 80), 3. Open Second Avenue Subway (requires 70-80 by my estimates), 4. extend the C to full length (requires 40) 1 and 3 are certainly happening. That is 340-350 new cars required. 300 are on order. Grand Concourse's point that new cars will need fewer spares is valid, but you can see those savings are ALREADY USED. There is no ability to do 2 or 4 without more cars, and the options to get more cars have been cancelled. 1. I don't think they must retire all the R32s if it's within the current 5 years. Keeping some to cover the gaps from the SAS and the possible R46s to be sent to SI is ideal.2. I think the extension to 96th could get maybe 5-6 more trains. Unless it's to account for a few extra spares for the ? 3. Does the SIRT really need that many cars? They seem to do fine with the ~64 cars they have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted October 16, 2012 Share #179 Posted October 16, 2012 1. I agree with you, but there are no plans to keep R32s 2. The Q extension actually needs fewer trains than the Q has now. What requires the great addition of trains is the restoration of the W. 3. Yes! 80 60 foot cars would be needed to displace the 64 R46s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted October 16, 2012 Share #180 Posted October 16, 2012 :would click like, but hit my quota for day: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted October 16, 2012 Share #181 Posted October 16, 2012 1. I agree with you, but there are no plans to keep R32s 2. The Q extension actually needs fewer trains than the Q has now. What requires the great addition of trains is the restoration of the W. 3. Yes! 80 60 foot cars would be needed to displace the 64 R46s. If they're trying to cut back, then they just may well skip the in favor of an increased with a few rush hour local drop outs, which was the old service pattern, and the mid-90's plan before the was added and they were in cutback mode and trying to be as sparing as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted October 16, 2012 Share #182 Posted October 16, 2012 I forget who it was exactly, perhaps Bill Goodrich, but if not him, one of the people directly under him, said that the W is coming back upon opening of SAS. I don't think there is a better source than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted October 16, 2012 Share #183 Posted October 16, 2012 If the should come back, I would hope they just switch the over to the express at 57/7th and not bother with the double switching at 34th and Prince St. That would be the main good thing about the 's return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted October 16, 2012 Share #184 Posted October 16, 2012 If the should come back, I would hope they just switch the over to the express at 57/7th and not bother with the double switching at 34th and Prince St. That would be the main good thing about the 's return. Agreed. I really hated it when the took the trains place as the Broadway Express, but this is definitely the logical thing to do in the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTARegional Bus Posted October 16, 2012 Share #185 Posted October 16, 2012 Wait, I thought the 40 were the four car sets. And you can forget about 68s of any kind going to SI. Especially since the conversion of 46s to FRA specs has already been done with 10 mainline 44s years ago. Remember, the 44s and 46s are practically twins. not to mention the 68s are the heaviest in the fleet, and the westinghouse sets weren't well put together systems-wise. The kawasaki sets have better system integration. now as far as the 211s, wih the 179s taking as long as they are, they will need to take 64 existing cars. But SIR isn't connected to the international railroad system anymore and if I remember correctly the FRA restrictions expired in 1988, so I don't think the mods wouldn't be necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted October 16, 2012 Share #186 Posted October 16, 2012 It is actually a substantial shortening of the Q! 96/2 to Coney Island is quite a bit shorter than Astoria to Coney Island, and will require fewer trains. What really takes up the trains is that the reinstated W will need 11-12 trains. The C will have to be R179 as only new tech cars are capable of running in 480 foot trains once the R32/R42 are retired. Dude, seriously? The W? They can't even decide on a fare hike price and there's "talk" of the W? Which,btw, doesn't have to use NTTs. As for the Q, it doesn't go to Astoria 24/7 and as someone else said, the N can be increased. It's worked that way before. All the W was is a reinstated diamond N from the early 80s. The MTA said the Q was going up Second Ave. They didn't say anything about the W. Here's my overall question to you, what magic 8 ball have you been getting your answers from? When you start incorporating current fleets( like the other two 4-car set fleets-the R143 and the R160s) into the grand scheme of assumptions, then what you may may start to sound plausible. You can also arrange 75' cars into 6 car consists as they did with the G not long back for a similar length. That is an option they can do as well. And btw, you mentioned how you've seen SIR's 44s yourself inside and out. Do you work at Clifton? SIR? Are you an employee in any way? Please....enlighten me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted October 16, 2012 Share #187 Posted October 16, 2012 But SIR isn't connected to the international railroad system anymore and if I remember correctly the FRA restrictions expired in 1988, so I don't think the mods wouldn't be necessary.The connection was from the North Shore branch over the bridge to New Jersey. Is that totally abandoned? From Google maps, it looks like the bridge is still there, and the freight yard on the island is still in use, so was this disconnected from the SIRT somewhere inbetween? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted October 16, 2012 Share #188 Posted October 16, 2012 Far Rock Depot and Eric B, as said many times before, the BMT Sea Beach Line has low ridership. The entire line should not be increased just for the sake of the 's loss in Astoria. The is slighty busier and more demanding than the . Until, Sea Beach warrants frequent service, adding a few more trains to the will cost slight more than just restoring the which is cheaper and provides better service for Lower Manhattan, Broadway, and Astoria. The needs to run more frequently at rush hour, yes, but I doubt Sea Beach is gonna need more service during the off-peak. Astoria needs the service levels they already have now. The is the best option since it reduces the current levels and will run at about 10 minute headways, less frequent than the , , and , especially at rush hour. Anyways, until the decides to restore the 2004-2010 version of the Astoria/Broadway Line, everything being said now are just mute... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted October 16, 2012 Share #189 Posted October 16, 2012 I may be wrong as to the exact source, but I believe it was the Senior Vice President of Capital Construction who said in a public meeting within the last year that the W will return upon the opening of SAS. I don't think sources get better than that. With regards to SIR- The FRA features on the SI R44s were removed during GOH. (and at the same time, unmodified R46s were operated on the line.) The line has not been FRA governed since the late 1980s-early 1990s There are not enough R46s in pairs to serve the C, and 6 car R46s would be a substantial drop in capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted October 16, 2012 Share #190 Posted October 16, 2012 Far Rock Depot and Eric B, as said many times before, the BMT Sea Beach Line has low ridership. The entire line should not be increased just for the sake of the 's loss in Astoria. The is slighty busier and more demanding than the . Until, Sea Beach warrants frequent service, adding a few more trains to the will cost slight more than just restoring the which is cheaper and provides better service for Lower Manhattan, Broadway, and Astoria. The needs to run more frequently at rush hour, yes, but I doubt Sea Beach is gonna need more service during the off-peak. Astoria needs the service levels they already have now. The is the best option since it reduces the current levels and will run at about 10 minute headways, less frequent than the , , and , especially at rush hour. Anyways, until the decides to restore the 2004-2010 version of the Astoria/Broadway Line, everything being said now are just mute... Does Lefferts A ridership warrant increase in overall A service? No. Should sea beach riders decide that the entire N line not get increased service? I'm sure Astoria, Broadway and 4th ave riders will argue. But should, at the same time, Astoria ridership warrant a whole new subway route? Let's ask the MTA. I'm still shocked on how people will just ignore someone who not only works for the MTA, but sees more subway riders-and rider patterns in one week than most of us in a year, based on what? The fact is, you just posted an option that doesn't require the W, just increase rush hour N. And if you do increase service on the N overall, who's to say that sea beachs ridership wouldn't increase? If you build it, will they not come? Didn't this city expand AFTER the subway went there? Think about that for a second. I may be wrong as to the exact source, but I believe it was the Senior Vice President of Capital Construction who said in a public meeting within the last year that the W will return upon the opening of SAS. I don't think sources get better than that. With regards to SIR- The FRA features on the SI R44s were removed during GOH. (and at the same time, unmodified R46s were operated on the line.) The line has not been FRA governed since the late 1980s-early 1990s There are not enough R46s in pairs to serve the C, and 6 car R46s would be a substantial drop in capacity. Capital Construction? I know what would be a better source: Department of Subways, operations and planning. Also financial would have a better say. EDIT: to my comment above directed at Art, although DOS would be a better direct source, CC, unlike most of us here, myself included, is still a better source since it is within the MTA. I've become jaded into looking into the logic of some posts here for obvious reasons ofcourse. I'm not one here who claims to "know everything", but I like to find someone's logic behind their posts.It's not a form of disrespect, but a way of finding out if it's plausible or not. "a wise man asks all the questions" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted October 16, 2012 Share #191 Posted October 16, 2012 Does Lefferts A ridership warrant increase in overall A service? No. Should sea beach riders decide that the entire N line not get increased service? I'm sure Astoria, Broadway and 4th ave riders will argue. But should, at the same time, Astoria ridership warrant a whole new subway route? Let's ask the MTA. Wow, I never said that riders should decide...I guess you didn't get what I was saying. Anyway, I don't care since this has nothing to do with this thread and the SAS won't even open anytime soon until the construction of Phase I is completed......... Whatever, carry on....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vistausss Posted October 16, 2012 Share #192 Posted October 16, 2012 @Art: Then please give us a link to that source because all you do now is call names of MTA people. That's very easy to do. I can say that I've heard from Bill Goodrich that they wanna sent the to Lefferts instead of the current but that doesn't make me very legit, does it? So please, even IF you heard it from someone from the MTA then give us a link to that source or get it confirmed by a credible source like ENY, Eric B or Snowblock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted October 16, 2012 Share #193 Posted October 16, 2012 You damn users are really gonna argue with this? Far Rock Depot, I bet you don't even know that the increased service will comprise the since both trains would still be sharing tracks once SAS opens. I honestly couldn't careless of what you, Vistausss, and a few others think here. I don't see any point of what you guys are making here. I'm with Andrew and Art. And before the thread turns into a flame war, I expect the mods to close or we all just leave it alone... Geez, re-read my post again or I'll give you the links to the past posts in the past threads, then maybe you'll understand. Seriously, how the bloodly living hell said that riders decide and not the in this thread?! I aint gonna spend my damn time bitching you or anyone else who disagreed with me, Andrew, and Art. I got more important things to worry about. I don't care how much likes you get sir. Forgive me for reply to your previous posts about the . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted October 16, 2012 Share #194 Posted October 16, 2012 I still don't want the back. You guys have great points. I re-read and re-read the post, and I just can't see why giving more cars to the would not work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted October 16, 2012 Share #195 Posted October 16, 2012 I don't even know how this discussion came back up again...but besides, it doesn't really matter who started this...I just disagreed. Yes, I was at first in favor of increased service back then but now I changed my mind and agreed with Andrew and Art...Not that I was flip-flopping or anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted October 16, 2012 Share #196 Posted October 16, 2012 Wow, I never said that riders should decide...I guess you didn't get what I was saying. Anyway, I don't care since this has nothing to do with this thread and the SAS won't even open anytime soon until the construction of Phase I is completed......... Whatever, carry on....... There's an "autocorrect" error in my post. I mentioned to say sea beach ridership. Although I did indeed get what you were saying, you also may have to factor in that with any operation change to a line, it's counterparts will have to be adjusted to. forums are for reference sake of debate and exchange of ideas and opinions. And for the sake of debate, wouldn't reinstating the W bring up team same track sharing issues you just brought up? In a system as vast as ours, when you look at the grand scale theres really only 2 lines who's schedules won't be affected by other lines changes and those two are shuttles. @Art: Then please give us a link to that source because all you do now is call names of MTA people. That's very easy to do. I can say that I've heard from Bill Goodrich that they wanna sent the to Lefferts instead of the current but that doesn't make me very legit, does it? So please, even IF you heard it from someone from the MTA then give us a link to that source or get it confirmed by a credible source like ENY, Eric B or Snowblock. Although I'm one for linking sources, sometimes one can't, or for obvious reasons, won't. Maybe Art knows something we don't. Maybe ENY, Eric or Snowblock are tired. Maybe they don't know yet. As repeated over and over here, only time will tell, and no one here, myself included, will receive a bignreward for being right. You damn users are really gonna argue with this? Far Rock Depot, I bet you don't even know that the increased service will comprise the since both trains would still be sharing tracks once SAS opens. I honestly couldn't careless of what you, Vistausss, and a few others think here. I don't see any point of what you guys are making here. I'm with Andrew and Art. And before the thread turns into a flame war, I expect the mods to close or just leave it alone... Geez, re-read my post again or I'll give you the links to the past posts in the past threads, then maybe you'll understand. Seriously, how the bloodly living hell said that riders decide and not the in this thread?! I aint gonna spend my damn time bitching you or anyone else who disagreed with me, Andrew, and Art. I got more important things to worry about. I don't care how much likes you get sir. Forgive me for reply to your previous posts about the . read my reply just above. And don't assume what I know and don't know. I have 35 yrs of NYC under my belt and have "worked inside". Back in the day. There's always logic behind my posts and thinking. And did you really bring up "likes"? Really? What is this? Facebook? Dude, serious, calm down, woo-sah, and take a chill pill as they said in my day. People disagree with me all the time? Have I come out like you justbdid out of frustration right now because there wasn't an agreement? I just pointed out how your argument of sharing tracks can be also an issue with bringing back the W. Should I expect a hostile response to that as well? A frustration-fueled "whatever"? Even I now can see where there may indeed be some unknown-by-me logic as to 179s going mostly 4-car sets in the last few minutes due to how itnwas approached to me. All you have done right now is show me a emotion-driven response to something I saw flaws in. Am I wrong for doing so? Last time I checked, this was a forum. Look its definition up. That's what this Site is here for. "i ain't gonna spend my damn time bitching you or anyone else who disagrees with me, Andrew and Art. I got more important things to worry about" 1) you could fooled me after that sentence. 2)Those two have an Extremely better way at showing their logic after my posts than you just did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted October 16, 2012 Share #197 Posted October 16, 2012 You're the one who brought this B'way Line thing up... Oh, and me could have fooled you? By how? I've explain why I'm now against the increased service. But since Astoria needs more frequent service, have the run twice every ten minutes and see how much less frequent 's and 's their riders will get. The has to stay frequent for the aforementioned reasons. Even the needs more service on weekends than the does. The shares tracks with the and , so do you think people will use those lines if the didn't came first and that will get off at the same stops the serves? All but Sea Beach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted October 17, 2012 Share #198 Posted October 17, 2012 Ok that is enough. Drop the . The countless threads and discussions we have had on this . I don't want it back. And I hope it is that way, but I have to understand that many others do. Here's an idea; All this discussion about the ? Let's put it out of commission and hopefully never see it again, just like the . We have no say. We have beat the crap out of this topic. Why don't we just wait and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJC Posted October 17, 2012 Share #199 Posted October 17, 2012 If the should come back, I would hope they just switch the over to the express at 57/7th and not bother with the double switching at 34th and Prince St. That would be the main good thing about the 's return. Most likely the stopping pattern will be exactly what it was before 2010: Q full express, N express south of 34th, R and W full local. No matter what, the N has to share trackage with the R and W north of 57th and with the Q south of 34th, so there's going to be a merge somewhere. It might as well be where it would be most useful to riders: at 34th. I realize that many railfans love expresses and hate locals, but Astoria ridership to 49th is quite heavy (it being the closest station to Roosevelt Island reachable from Astoria), and crossing the N to the express at 57th would hurt more than it would help. Dude, seriously? The W? They can't even decide on a fare hike price and there's "talk" of the W? The Astoria line needs all the service is currently gets. If you insist, all of those trains can run to Coney Island, but isn't it cheaper (and less car-intensive) to send half of them only as far as Whitehall? From the Astoria perspective, it makes no difference if the service has one letter or two letters or ten letters, as long as service is as frequent as it is now. Running all of those trains as N's is a lot more expensive than running half of them as W's. Which,btw, doesn't have to use NTTs. It makes no difference what car class it uses. I still don't want the back. You guys have great points. I re-read and re-read the post, and I just can't see why giving more cars to the would not work. It would wok, but running the W is much cheaper and requires many fewer cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted October 17, 2012 Share #200 Posted October 17, 2012 The issue with regards to expanding the N is that the N interacts with 3 other routes along its run, and the southern end has substantially less ridership than the northern end. To minimize this issue, they created a short turn N train which ended at whitehall, and ran local in Manhattan, which they designated . This designation was confusing, so they renamed it the W. (Which coincidentally happened to be a designation which was used towards the end of the Manhattan bridge construction which suspended the <N>/(W) for about 12 years) To briefly summarize, the W trains are those extra N trains that you are proposing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.