Fleet Swap Discussion Thread

[R32 3838]

10 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Well, as long as the  and  go back to being mostly to completely NTTs (if the R160s come back from Jamaica to Coney Island), I’m fine.

I do agree that the  should be the first in line for the R211s though. And there will be enough R211s to cover the whole  fleet if the option order cars get paid sooner or later, meaning it would free up all of the 5-car R179s to go to the , which will continue to stay 300 feet long.

IMO, I don’t think the  should jump from 300 feet to 480 feet just yet for the foreseeable future.

nah the needs more cars, ridership was high pre pandemic. Those areas in brooklyn where the serves are high ridership areas due to the redevelopment of those areas.

yeah The is better off being 100% tech, The R46's are a disaster on all the lines due to a very low spare factor and the fact they don't want the R46's from the on the says alot on how dumb the people who are in charge are. The only reason why the is better off with the R46's and R160's for the time being is due to the digital signs which on the R46's are very unreliable now. But its the best option until the R211's comes in.

[biGC323232]

36 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

nah the needs more cars, ridership was high pre pandemic. Those areas in brooklyn where the serves are high ridership areas due to the redevelopment of those areas.

yeah The is better off being 100% tech, The R46's are a disaster on all the lines due to a very low spare factor and the fact they don't want the R46's from the on the says alot on how dumb the people who are in charge are. The only reason why the is better off with the R46's and R160's for the time being is due to the digital signs which on the R46's are very unreliable now. But its the best option until the R211's comes in.

I agree the  needs more than 300ft...Some of us tend to forget that before the  got sent thru 63 st tunnel the  was 6 cars long....The  didnt have a choice but to make the  4 cars cause of the  replacing the  along 53st...Basicly starting a fresh new line....Those areas you mention the  serve is totally different nowadays 

[Jemorie]

1 hour ago, R32 3838 said:

nah the needs more cars, ridership was high pre pandemic. Those areas in brooklyn where the serves are high ridership areas due to the redevelopment of those areas.

Don’t you think they should just run more service for the time being? Given that it only shares tracks with the  along a small portion of its run and has the Crosstown Line all to itself?

33 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

I agree the  needs more than 300ft...Some of us tend to forget that before the  got sent thru 63 st tunnel the  was 6 cars long....The  didnt have a choice but to make the  4 cars cause of the  replacing the  along 53st...Basicly starting a fresh new line....Those areas you mention the  serve is totally different nowadays 

I never forgot... 😑

Edited January 6, 2021 by Jemorie

[R32 3838]

now that the democrats basically won the the senate, i'm more optimistic that we would get more funding to get more r211's and etc. so the assignments for the base order aren't gonna matter now.

Edited January 7, 2021 by R32 3838

[Around the Horn]

8 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Don’t you think they should just run more service for the time being? Given that it only shares tracks with the  along a small portion of its run and has the Crosstown Line all to itself?

Court Square is the bottleneck in that scenario. That layup track as crossover really slows things down.

[Lex]

50 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Court Square is the bottleneck in that scenario. That layup track as crossover really slows things down.

From what I've seen, I don't get the impression that  riders are clamoring for a bump in frequency so much as they are for longer trains (sure, more trains would be great, but 6 cars of 75-footers or 8 cars of 60-footers at existing frequencies would be even better, to say nothing of 600' trains).

[R10 2952]

2 hours ago, Lex said:

From what I've seen, I don't get the impression that  riders are clamoring for a bump in frequency so much as they are for longer trains (sure, more trains would be great, but 6 cars of 75-footers or 8 cars of 60-footers at existing frequencies would be even better, to say nothing of 600' trains).

The 6-car R46s and 8-car R32s that ran on the  back in the '90s mostly carried air, but of course things were very different back then with those neighborhoods and the ridership.  Probably would make sense this time around to have the longer trains, though; the 300-foot trains have become a lot more crowded in the last few years.

Edited January 7, 2021 by R10 2952

[JayJay85]

23 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

600 feet would probably be a tall order simply on account of all the stations that have had exits closed, unused portions of the platforms narrowed to accommodate extra equipment rooms (Metropolitan Avenue being case in point), and so on.

I could see the old 450/480 foot standard work, though.  Since the mid-late 2000s things have changed so much that finding a seat on the Crosstown Line during rush hour has practically become like Russian roulette.  Unthinkable back in the '90s, when the 6-car R46 and 8-car R32 sets on the  mostly carried air, but things have definitely changed.

Some times in the 1990's the had 10 car R32's that was barrow from the and

Edited January 7, 2021 by JayJay85

[Maxwell179]

5 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

The 6-car R46s and 8-car R32s that ran on the  back in the '90s mostly carried air, but of course things were very different back then with those neighborhoods and the ridership.  Probably would make sense this time around to have the longer trains, though; the 300-foot trains have become a lot more crowded in the last few years.

The G crowding about 3-5yrs ago was no joke , I used to have to wait for 3 trains to pass before getting on one because that was how crowded the station and trains were. Sometimes the G went express from Myrtle-Willoughby to Metropolitan because of how packed it was and the delays the crowdedness was causing.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

21 hours ago, JayJay85 said:

Some times in the 1990's the had 10 car R32's that was barrow from the and

I remember seeing those 10-car  R32 trains. It was around 1993, early ‘94. They always ran full (600 foot) length R32 trains, yet always ran short (450 foot) R46 trains, which were the trains that usually ran on the  back then.

I still think they should send the R46 pairs to CI and run 6-car R46 trains on the  like they used to before they cut it back to Court Square full time. An equal number of 4-car R46 sets would be sent to Pitkin to make up for the loss of the pairs.

Edited January 8, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[darkstar8983]

7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I remember seeing those 10-car  R32 trains. It was around 1993, early ‘94. They always ran full (600 foot) length R32 trains, yet always ran short (450 foot) R46 trains, which were the trains that usually ran on the  back then.

I still think they should send the R46 pairs to CI and run 6-car R46 trains on the  like they used to before they cut it back to Court Square full time. An equal number of 4-car R46 sets would be sent to Pitkin to make up for the loss of the pairs.

Unfortunately that is not possible because you’ll end up with an even bigger shortage in spare trains. The only reason you even have the service levels you have now is because of the 4-car  trains.

 

also the R32s ran full length because they were the backbone of the  train fleet at the time, so it was cost effective to not cut two cars out of each R32 that appeared on the  just to run on the  and then put the cars back together to run on the . However  they did just that when the  and  kept switching off use of the R32s, but then again it’s the MTA so where is thr logic.

[RR503]

On 1/6/2021 at 10:24 PM, Lex said:

From what I've seen, I don't get the impression that  riders are clamoring for a bump in frequency so much as they are for longer trains (sure, more trains would be great, but 6 cars of 75-footers or 8 cars of 60-footers at existing frequencies would be even better, to say nothing of 600' trains).

Because of the >300'/two person crews rule, adding cars comes at a nontrivial cost (at least for weekend service). One important fact to keep in mind here is that  riders have the highest transfer propensity of any non-shuttle route, so wait times between trains matter disproportionately much. I'd strongly suggest starting with service increases because of this (and Court Square can handle 15tph, so not an issue for a while yet). 

[R32 3838]

13 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

Unfortunately that is not possible because you’ll end up with an even bigger shortage in spare trains. The only reason you even have the service levels you have now is because of the 4-car  trains.

 

also the R32s ran full length because they were the backbone of the  train fleet at the time, so it was cost effective to not cut two cars out of each R32 that appeared on the  just to run on the  and then put the cars back together to run on the . However  they did just that when the  and  kept switching off use of the R32s, but then again it’s the MTA so where is thr logic.

back then the R32's were shared between the so in the AM it could run as a but PM it would run as an and vise versa. the had 75% of the Jamaica's R32 fleet while the used the remaining R32's. then in 2001 which originally the was going to be R32's (changed to having them on the as rush hour put ins instead) is when they had the R32's on the and about 4 sets on the

 

 

pre pandemic the was packed, the needs longer cars. those neighborhoods blew up and the ridership blew up. We can't keep the same service pattern forever. within 4 or less years, ridership would go back or be even higher that it was pre March 2020.

Edited January 9, 2021 by R32 3838

[Lex]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Because of the >300'/two person crews rule, adding cars comes at a nontrivial cost (at least for weekend service). One important fact to keep in mind here is that  riders have the highest transfer propensity of any non-shuttle route, so wait times between trains matter disproportionately much. I'd strongly suggest starting with service increases because of this (and Court Square can handle 15tph, so not an issue for a while yet). 

That may be true, but as far as I can tell, frequency is a lower priority for riders than consistency and especially train length, both of which have a far greater impact on capacity and the passenger experience.

[R10 2952]

3 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

back then the R32's were shared between the so in the AM it could run as a but PM it would run as an and vise versa. the had 75% of the Jamaica's R32 fleet while the used the remaining R32's. then in 2001 which originally the was going to be R32's (changed to having them on the as rush hour put ins instead) is when they had the R32's on the and about 4 sets on the

 

 

pre pandemic the was packed, the needs longer cars. those neighborhoods blew up and the ridership blew up. We can't keep the same service pattern forever. within 4 or less years, ridership would go back or be even higher that it was pre March 2020.

Of all the Queens Boulevard lines, I'd say it was hardest to catch the R32s on the  LOL.  After 2000, I only saw them show up on the G twice.

[RR503]

2 hours ago, Lex said:

That may be true, but as far as I can tell, frequency is a lower priority for riders than consistency and especially train length, both of which have a far greater impact on capacity and the passenger experience.

The overwhelming majority of research on transit demand shows frequency being hugely more determinative of ridership than the size or shape of transit vehicles. Reliability is indeed important, but the  is a generally well-run route, and its schedule could actually become much more regular if it ran at frequencies closer to those of the ; the 8tph of peak  service has to be slotted in between 11-12tph of , making for uneven scheduled headways. 

[Jemorie]

On 1/9/2021 at 1:29 AM, RR503 said:

 the  is a generally well-run route

That’s why it should stay 300 feet long for the foreseeable future and put all the 5-car R179s (all 130 cars) on the line. The  currently runs 13 sets of trains during rush hours. Mathematically, that would be 65 cars total of R179s to make service, leaving the other 65 cars as spares.

So 65 + 65 = 130 R179s total (5-cars). However, given that the  has to mesh with the ‘s 4 minute headways during rush hours, they would need some more than just 65 cars for the . If anything, they can short turn some trains at either Bedford-Nostrand Avs or have some more  trains run express south of Jay to avoid the  fumigation at Church Av.

All of the R179s from the  are clearly enough to fully cover the  fleet while concurrently increasing service on the line and staying 300 feet long.

Dunno what everyone else’s excuses are other than the typical cliche “tHe  nEeDs LoNgEr TrAiNs” schmuck.

Edited January 16, 2021 by Jemorie

[Storm]

When  the r211's do come in, I think the , ,  would be back to its original state, covered by r160's.

Jamaica Yard would probably send back a good chunk of the r160's to C.I for the r211's, CBTC installed for possible Astoria CBTC ahead.

Also @Jemorie you are right,  ridership isnt as high as ,  or any other line in the system, so the  line should stick with 4 cars per train. 

The future r211's would go to the , , , , while the , ,  would be once again almost fully r160.

[Jemorie]

2 hours ago, Stormxx said:

When  the r211's do come in, I think the , ,  would be back to its original state, covered by r160's.

Jamaica Yard would probably send back a good chunk of the r160's to C.I for the r211's, CBTC installed for possible Astoria CBTC ahead.

Also @Jemorie you are right,  ridership isnt as high as ,  or any other line in the system, so the  line should stick with 4 cars per train. 

The future r211's would go to the , , , , while the , ,  would be once again almost fully r160.

The  can't use the R211s since most of the fleet will be five-cars, meaning two five-car trains make up a full ten-car train.

If the R211s go to Jamaica, it should only be for the  and .

[Storm]

1 minute ago, Jemorie said:

The  can't use the R211s since most of the fleet will be five-cars, meaning two five-car trains make up a full ten-car train.

If the R211s go to Jamaica, it should only be for the  and .

If the second option is exercised, then we could see some r211's going to the .

[R32 3838]

20 minutes ago, Stormxx said:

If the second option is exercised, then we could see some r211's going to the .

They're only for the . There's gonna only be a small amount of 8 car R211's anyway for addtional carnarsie service.

[Storm]

Who agrees. Choose option A or B.

A). The R160's go back to the  in exchange for the r211's on the

B). The R211's go to C.I and the R160's stay in Jamaica.

[Vulturious]

1 hour ago, Stormxx said:

Who agrees. Choose option A or B.

A). The R160's go back to the  in exchange for the r211's on the

B). The R211's go to C.I and the R160's stay in Jamaica.

That is if there is enough for  trains to get R160's in the first place and if Concourse is willing to have a swap or not. The only way for  trains and also  trains to get NTTs is if 6 Av is getting CBTC right after 8 Av. The  has been changing their minds so often so we don't truly know which line is getting CBTC after or at least I do not know because of how often. As much as I would love for  trains to get some NTT's, their chances of getting them are much lower than the .

[T J Trainman]

I agree with option B.

[Storm]

Yes, but if the base order of r211's do go to coney, then they should go straight to the . All im saying is, the base order isnt enough cars. Remember, the r211's (base order) are supposed to go to the . We can only see r211's going to Jamaica if both orders are exercised. If you want coney's portion of the r211's to go to Jamaica, then coney deserves a lot of their r160's back.

Conclusion: the  NEEDS to exercise if we want to see r160's back on the