Fleet Swap Discussion Thread

[MeeP15-9112]

If the  does a farewell ceremony for the R32s, would it be a good idea to have them run on one line each day? It seems fitting as they were all over the system, and would bring the 32s to places they have not been in service for years (or decades!).

[LGA Link N Train]

59 minutes ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

If the  does a farewell ceremony for the R32s, would it be a good idea to have them run on one line each day? It seems fitting as they were all over the system, and would bring the 32s to places they have not been in service for years (or decades!).

Except Montague Unfortunately.

Heck, I'll be surprised if a final R-32 run involved the train(s) departing GCT, though I might be foaming at this point.

[MeeP15-9112]

Just now, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Except Montague Unfortunately.

Heck, I'll be surprised if a final R-32 run involved the train(s) departing GCT, though I might be foaming at this point.

That restriction on the Montague sucks, but the  could bypass it by having the train go via Bridge then go local along 4 Av.

Imagine the final 32 trip was departing GCT along with a near-original consist (the 10 oldest 32s are on that train)!! Then the foamers will be foaming lmao

[MHV9218]

3 hours ago, Fan Railer said:

R32s are retired as of the new B division assignment effective 4/27/20.

Do we have any evidence that this is a permanent retirement, as opposed to the indefinite hold from service per equipment needs and Covid safety protocol? Seems natural that the suspension would be reflected in the division pick, which will be in effect for the next few months that are part of the lockdown.  

[RedLine]

Yes, some employees leaked documents to trainheads.

[Around the Horn]

56 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

Do we have any evidence that this is a permanent retirement, as opposed to the indefinite hold from service per equipment needs and Covid safety protocol? Seems natural that the suspension would be reflected in the division pick, which will be in effect for the next few months that are part of the lockdown.  

I was not originally going to post this memo but since you asked for proof:

[Around the Horn]

3 hours ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

That restriction on the Montague sucks, but the  could bypass it by having the train go via Bridge then go local along 4 Av.

Imagine the final 32 trip was departing GCT along with a near-original consist (the 10 oldest 32s are on that train)!! Then the foamers will be foaming lmao

We have FRA regulations now as opposed to 1964... They would never allow it.

[MHV9218]

2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I was not originally going to post this memo but since you asked for proof:

Word, just saw that myself. Very strange stuff. The interesting point in this document is the information about the peak requirements. S-700 is the coronavirus supplemental schedule, and the math they're doing here really makes sense only for covid equipment needs. You wouldn't allow for a 182-car decrease in fleet size under peak capacity, and it's completely bewildering to me that they think the fleet can run at peak capacity (once we're past this crisis) without the arrival of the R211 class. Particularly given the fact that the A's base fleet are a significant number of aging R46s reporting worse MBDF by the year. That was never in the cards, from my understanding – just the gradual phasing out of R32s until they were a hold fleet in the meantime. After the R42 fiasco, we have proof that nothing sticks until it sticks, and we'll have to see what happens in the coming months. Service requirements are unlikely to return to normal for at least another year, possibly longer, but the R211 delivery and scrap schedules are probably going to be in odd shape as well. We'll see if they actually strip or remove any R32s from the premises, but at this point even the formally retired R42s are yet to be stripped and are sitting in the yards. I'm starting to think the MTA is planning on diminished equipment needs for 12-14 months, and they're just thinking it'll roll into the arrival of the R211s. That would truly allow for the 32s retiring, because no other timeline adds up.

Edited April 25, 2020 by MHV9218

[R10 2952]

6 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Except Montague Unfortunately.

Heck, I'll be surprised if a final R-32 run involved the train(s) departing GCT, though I might be foaming at this point.

 

6 hours ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

That restriction on the Montague sucks, but the  could bypass it by having the train go via Bridge then go local along 4 Av.

Imagine the final 32 trip was departing GCT along with a near-original consist (the 10 oldest 32s are on that train)!! Then the foamers will be foaming lmao

They still haven't fixed the Montague clearance issue? Is there a source for that information? They really should have fixed this trivial clearance issue by now.

[R10 2952]

3 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I was not originally going to post this memo but since you asked for proof:

 

1 hour ago, MHV9218 said:

Word, just saw that myself. Very strange stuff. The interesting point in this document is the information about the peak requirements. S-700 is the coronavirus supplemental schedule, and the math they're doing here really makes sense only for covid equipment needs. You wouldn't allow for a 182-car decrease in fleet size under peak capacity, and it's completely bewildering to me that they think the fleet can run at peak capacity (once we're past this crisis) without the arrival of the R211 class. Particularly given the fact that the A's base fleet are a significant number of aging R46s reporting worse MBDF by the year. That was never in the cards, from my understanding – just the gradual phasing out of R32s until they were a hold fleet in the meantime. After the R42 fiasco, we have proof that nothing sticks until it sticks, and we'll have to see what happens in the coming months. Service requirements are unlikely to return to normal for at least another year, possibly longer, but the R211 delivery and scrap schedules are probably going to be in odd shape as well. We'll see if they actually strip or remove any R32s from the premises, but at this point even the formally retired R42s are yet to be stripped and are sitting in the yards. I'm starting to think the MTA is planning on diminished equipment needs for 12-14 months, and they're just thinking it'll roll into the arrival of the R211s. That would truly allow for the 32s retiring, because no other timeline adds up.

 

The rumor from January said they'd be gone by April, and what a surprise, they're gone.  I guess Junior Cuomo got what he wanted; talk about a man obsessed with appearances and PR as opposed to real issues.

If service rebounds and car shortages appear due to a low spare factor, you'll know exactly who to thank folks... 

Edited April 25, 2020 by R10 2952

[R32 3838]

I don't think things will be normal for awhile. Not enough man power since thousands of ta workers are out in quarantine and over 70 have passed away.

 

This is probably why the just said screw it and retire the cars. IMO they should have been sidelined as reserve fleet until they're sure that they'll have enough service without the useage of these cars. 

But if the city reopens you will see a high amount of people using the subway, the unemployed would be going out looking for jobs plus people returning to work. 

But there will be issues due to the lack of manpower for the system. I doubt may 15th the city would slowly reopen. 

[Coney Island Av]

honestly even though the R32s are likely retired they probably won't be getting scrapped anytime soon because A) some people have stated that the MTA doesn't officially have a scrap contract out yet and B) even if they do, it's gonna be delayed for a long while due to the coronavirus. i really am not sure how they can get away with this given this only makes sense with the current service needs during the pandemic. when the city reopens this will only get worse now that we have less cars to use. 

[JeremiahC99]

10 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

Word, just saw that myself. Very strange stuff. The interesting point in this document is the information about the peak requirements. S-700 is the coronavirus supplemental schedule, and the math they're doing here really makes sense only for covid equipment needs. You wouldn't allow for a 182-car decrease in fleet size under peak capacity, and it's completely bewildering to me that they think the fleet can run at peak capacity (once we're past this crisis) without the arrival of the R211 class. Particularly given the fact that the A's base fleet are a significant number of aging R46s reporting worse MBDF by the year. That was never in the cards, from my understanding – just the gradual phasing out of R32s until they were a hold fleet in the meantime. After the R42 fiasco, we have proof that nothing sticks until it sticks, and we'll have to see what happens in the coming months. Service requirements are unlikely to return to normal for at least another year, possibly longer, but the R211 delivery and scrap schedules are probably going to be in odd shape as well. We'll see if they actually strip or remove any R32s from the premises, but at this point even the formally retired R42s are yet to be stripped and are sitting in the yards. I'm starting to think the MTA is planning on diminished equipment needs for 12-14 months, and they're just thinking it'll roll into the arrival of the R211s. That would truly allow for the 32s retiring, because no other timeline adds up.

Speaking of the R211's, has that delivery order been delayed from the July 2020 date due to the CoronaVirus?

[Calvin]

Wonder how the  will maintain service with 2 trains they lost to C.I (2768-2783 or more). With the swap at C.I with the 46s, the 68s moved over as well. 

[Bill from Maspeth]

21 hours ago, B22viaAtlanticAv said:

Just to clarify, I never said they should consider this option, I was just simply pointing over the lack of flexible with the R179 order over all. That's why I said if they really needed to they could...

I still can't get "really needed" since there is plenty of idle equipment around and the very line these cars are used on is one of those idle lines. 

 

[Bill from Maspeth]

16 hours ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

That restriction on the Montague sucks, but the  could bypass it by having the train go via Bridge then go local along 4 Av.

Imagine the final 32 trip was departing GCT along with a near-original consist (the 10 oldest 32s are on that train)!! Then the foamers will be foaming lmao

Not happening.  Murphy's law at NYCT tells us just when the R32 is at the point of no return something bad happens on the bridge and all service would have to go via the Montague, and now they have a big problem.

[MHV9218]

10 minutes ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

I still can't get "really needed" since there is plenty of idle equipment around and the very line these cars are used on is one of those idle lines. 

You're right, but when the  does eventually return down the line, complete dependency on the 4-car 179 fleet does make things a little complicated. Short of the CBTC lines (188 contract, 143 contract), every other A- and B-division line has at least some flexibility in the event of crisis when it comes to rolling stock. At least the R46 fleet kept married pairs in 62xx series, singles on the 62As, etc. In the past, the company has tried to avoid absolute reliance on a single type of rolling stock (without a major spare factor), and you would know this better than I would, but my understanding is that every example of a dedicated fleet has had a share of problems (R11 contract, automatic cars on the shuttle, etc.). Insisting on the 8-car  and limiting the fleet to 4-car sets of 179s (now that all the other 60-footers are retired) is a new approach.

Edited April 25, 2020 by MHV9218

[Bill from Maspeth]

10 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

 

They still haven't fixed the Montague clearance issue? Is there a source for that information? They really should have fixed this trivial clearance issue by now.

The issue (not trivial at all) WILL NOT be fixed as it will cause service disruptions and expense.  As noted on this site many times, there is a bulletin that no equipment form R1/9 to R42 is allowed in the Montague.  This is because of a clearance issue with the lighting and the conduits.  Somebody or some bunch of so called engineers messed up and did not take into account the roof lines of the older equipment.  There is no reason at this point to repair it based on the active roster.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Bill from Maspeth

[Bill from Maspeth]

10 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

 

 

The rumor from January said they'd be gone by April, and what a surprise, they're gone.  I guess Junior Cuomo got what he wanted; talk about a man obsessed with appearances and PR as opposed to real issues.

If service rebounds and car shortages appear due to a low spare factor, you'll know exactly who to thank folks... 

It really wasn't a rumor from January.  At an MTA Board meeting (well before this pandemic, they said that the R32's would be retired by the end of the first quarter of 2020.  Lots of folks in the railfan community did not believe it.  Well here we are.

[Bill from Maspeth]

33 minutes ago, Calvin said:

Wonder how the  will maintain service with 2 trains they lost to C.I (2768-2783 or more). With the swap at C.I with the 46s, the 68s moved over as well. 

By having fewer cars sitting in the yard waiting for repair.  They will get into the barn sooner.  This goes for all barns.  They can get by. 

It will take YEARS for ridership to rebound.  There are lots of people saying that when things start getting back to normal, there is no way they are getting on the germ filled crowded subway.  Look for higher and higher Uber type demand, no matter what the cost to the rider.  People have learned how to tele-commute who can. 

[Bill from Maspeth]

23 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

You're right, but when the  does eventually return down the line, complete dependency on the 4-car 179 fleet does make things a little complicated. Short of the CBTC lines (188 contract, 143 contract), every other A- and B-division line has at least some flexibility in the event of crisis when it comes to rolling stock. At least the R46 fleet kept married pairs in 62xx series, singles on the 62As, etc. In the past, the company has tried to avoid absolute reliance on a single type of rolling stock (without a major spare factor), and you would know this better than I would, but my understanding is that every example of a dedicated fleet has had a share of problems (R11 contract, automatic cars on the shuttle, etc.). Insisting on the 8-car  and limiting the fleet to 4-car sets of 179s (now that all the other 60-footers are retired) is a new approach.

Before the C was suspended due to the pandemic, there was one day when the line had a mixture of R46's and R179's.  No R32's at all.  Other days there was only 1 or 2 trains of R32's running. 

So the line does not have a complete dependency on 88 R179's.

[MHV9218]

2 minutes ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

Before the C was suspended due to the pandemic, there was one day when the line had a mixture of R46's and R179's.  No R32's at all.  Other days there was only 1 or 2 trains of R32's running. 

So the line does not have a complete dependency on 88 R179's.

Right, but my understanding was that that was a desperate effort to get the 32s off for C/R safety. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression they were trying to avoid mixed-length consists on the line, and similarly disinclined to run the 46s because of the multiple crews needed at terminals. Of course the whole thing is much easier if they run a mixture of 46s and 179s, or allow for more regular full-length service. Maybe that will be their solution. Locals and politicians have been clamoring for that for ages, anyway. 

[RedLine]

88 R179s replaced 88 cars directly, 85 R179s replaced 85 cars indirectly.

Edited April 25, 2020 by RedLine

[Trainmaster5]

5 hours ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

By having fewer cars sitting in the yard waiting for repair.  They will get into the barn sooner.  This goes for all barns.  They can get by. 

It will take YEARS for ridership to rebound.  There are lots of people saying that when things start getting back to normal, there is no way they are getting on the germ filled crowded subway.  Look for higher and higher Uber type demand, no matter what the cost to the rider.  People have learned how to tele-commute who can. 

Just had this conversation with some of my friends and coworkers and we figured on a 12-18 month timeframe to get some of the businesses up and running again. The telecommuting folks probably have no reason to be on buses or rails five days a week anymore. The Theater District isn’t going to be up and active again any time soon. Radio City, MSG, Barclays, the whole nightlife scene isn’t coming back any time soon as far as we can see. The whole social distancing idea pretty much precludes any imminent reopening. Not to mention the small businesses that will never reopen.  Our primary focus was on the school situation in the metropolitan area. We have no idea what will happen with the upcoming school year ,especially transportation wise.. BTW, it’s our belief that the phase 2 of the SAS is a goner because the money won’t be there.  The state, city, and the  are/ will be broke when this is over. If anything ESA and the LIRR Third Track project are probably the final expenditures for the  . That’s our opinion in these dire times. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Carry on.

[Trainmaster5]

Quick questions  for everyone. Is the Empire State Building observation deck open or closed ? I promised my youngest nephews that I’d take them on a LIRR trip to visit there and Macy’s Herald Square this summer. I made the promise Christmas Day. I think the 12 year old might understand but the 10 year old is a tough customer. He’s actually angry that his school is closed. He misses his classmates.