T to Dyre Avenue Posted January 6, 2023 Share #3301 Posted January 6, 2023 4 hours ago, Lawrence St said: Wasn't it because a fire took out the entire Grand Central Shuttle automated sets? That was in 1964. It shouldn’t have taken nearly 40 years before they started the automation process again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkstar8983 Posted January 6, 2023 Share #3302 Posted January 6, 2023 On 1/2/2023 at 10:07 PM, RandomRider0101 said: I Believe the 8-car trains (4-car sets) were included in option 2 to make the 8 cars. But if they decide to make the 10 cars instead, then there's no need to order any 4 car sets. Just about everyone agrees that the remaining 4-car R179s at 207th will head to East NY once enough R211s hit service. At that point, as many have stated, they will have more than enough cars to cover all service needs; including extra spares for CBTC. It really is a conundrum, since the could do well with 8-car trains (10-cars would be a waste of resources at this particular point in time but would be more logical long term), but then weekends and off peaks, it would be rough to switch between 8-car and 5-car trains because all the 8-car trains would need to go to the yard, and fresh 5-car trains brought in just for night and maybe weekend service, then switched back out in time for rush hour service with full consists. Unless you’d be okay with the running 240’ trains 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwaycommuter1983 Posted January 6, 2023 Share #3303 Posted January 6, 2023 3 hours ago, darkstar8983 said: It really is a conundrum, since the could do well with 8-car trains (10-cars would be a waste of resources at this particular point in time but would be more logical long term), but then weekends and off peaks, it would be rough to switch between 8-car and 5-car trains because all the 8-car trains would need to go to the yard, and fresh 5-car trains brought in just for night and maybe weekend service, then switched back out in time for rush hour service with full consists. Unless you’d be okay with the running 240’ trains Why would the G go back to 5 cars once it becomes full length?? Once the G goes full length, it is going to stay full length 24/7. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkstar8983 Posted January 6, 2023 Share #3304 Posted January 6, 2023 (edited) 38 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said: Why would the G go back to 5 cars once it becomes full length?? Once the G goes full length, it is going to stay full length 24/7. then expect headways to immediately go up to 12 minutes during weekends and rush hours, and midday headways about 15 minutes. I was going to say because on weekends (and I'm not sure if late nights too), the operates OPTO, which currently under MTA union rules cannot be done on consists longer than 300'. Edited January 6, 2023 by darkstar8983 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from Maspeth Posted January 6, 2023 Share #3305 Posted January 6, 2023 35 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said: then expect headways to immediately go up to 12 minutes during weekends and rush hours, and midday headways about 15 minutes. I was going to say because on weekends (and I'm not sure if late nights too), the operates OPTO, which currently under MTA union rules cannot be done on consists longer than 300'. The G operates OPTO on Saturday and Sunday schedules only. Therefore, you see late night G OPTO on Saturday and Sunday mornings after midnight. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkstar8983 Posted January 7, 2023 Share #3306 Posted January 7, 2023 6 hours ago, Bill from Maspeth said: The G operates OPTO on Saturday and Sunday schedules only. Therefore, you see late night G OPTO on Saturday and Sunday mornings after midnight. Ahh thanks for the clarification. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted January 7, 2023 Share #3307 Posted January 7, 2023 If the went to 8 cars, then they would just discontinue OPTO on the weekends the same way they did to the during the Canarsie Tubes project. Also there is no way they would ever schedule 12-15 minute frequencies on the . That would be political suicide. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkstar8983 Posted January 7, 2023 Share #3308 Posted January 7, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, Around the Horn said: If the went to 8 cars, then they would just discontinue OPTO on the weekends the same way they did to the during the Canarsie Tubes project. Also there is no way they would ever schedule 12-15 minute frequencies on the . That would be political suicide. Then get ready to see those trains carry air. I mean if the budget allowed for the hiring of conductors for the weekend then go for it, but otherwise it would be a waste which I guess is the justification to just go 10-cars so that way the OPTO weekend and maybe late night options are open. Those 10-car R179s could be used here and allow the and to buff up their space factor Edited January 7, 2023 by darkstar8983 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwaycommuter1983 Posted January 7, 2023 Share #3309 Posted January 7, 2023 12 hours ago, Around the Horn said: If the went to 8 cars, then they would just discontinue OPTO on the weekends the same way they did to the during the Canarsie Tubes project. Also there is no way they would ever schedule 12-15 minute frequencies on the . That would be political suicide. I agree. The G serves areas in Brooklyn that are gentrified and are experiencing enormous population growth. Therefore, ridership on the G will literally explode in any moment. The G needs full length trains full time. The issue is that there is not enough 10 car trains to make both the C and G full length, but there is a huge surplus of 8 car trains. That is why the G will get 8 car trains. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted January 8, 2023 Share #3310 Posted January 8, 2023 17 hours ago, darkstar8983 said: Then get ready to see those trains carry air. Three of the top ten "hottest" neighborhoods in NYC in terms of both housing searches and transactions (Red Hook, Gowanus & Fort Greene) are served by the . I doubt it would be empty for long. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted January 8, 2023 Share #3311 Posted January 8, 2023 19 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said: I agree. The G serves areas in Brooklyn that are gentrified and are experiencing enormous population growth. Therefore, ridership on the G will literally explode in any moment. The G needs full length trains full time. The issue is that there is not enough 10 car trains to make both the C and G full length, but there is a huge surplus of 8 car trains. That is why the G will get 8 car trains. In terms of priority, the needs to go full length first instead of the . The has been fine with 4 car trains for the past several years and can continue like that until the R211's come. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkstar8983 Posted January 8, 2023 Share #3312 Posted January 8, 2023 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Lawrence St said: In terms of priority, the needs to go full length first instead of the . The has been fine with 4 car trains for the past several years and can continue like that until the R211's come. The will go full length first with the R46s displaced from the . The R211s will fill up the and displace the R46s to the and likely move the R179s out to ENT. Then the R46s will be retired from the (minus a few sets that may be temporarily moved to Coney Island for the to buff up the spare factor and shift the excess R68s that CI had gotten from Concourse back to Concourse, then start scrapping those R46s either directly or indirectly. The related car moves can’t happen until the whole order is complete, since it will depend on how the Option order is done with regard to the increased service proposal on the , just use R160A cars 8377-8416, leaving 8417-8652/9943-9974 for the , with R179 cars 3050-3237 for the if the plan is to have no R211s as 8-car units. The could then take R179 cars that were previously assigned to the . if the plan is to order more 8-car sets, then instead of ordering just 32, order 200 cars so that way the and get all the R160A cars (192 cars for the , 96 cars for the and share a spare factor of 84 cars), uses R179s (plus some R143s from the , and the uses R143s + R211s) Edited January 8, 2023 by darkstar8983 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted January 8, 2023 Share #3313 Posted January 8, 2023 (edited) 10 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said: The will go full length first with the R46s displaced from the . The R211s will fill up the and displace the R46s to the and likely move the R179s out to ENT. Then the R46s will be retired from the (minus a few sets that may be temporarily moved to Coney Island for the to buff up the spare factor and shift the excess R68s that CI had gotten from Concourse back to Concourse, then start scrapping those R46s either directly or indirectly. The related car moves can’t happen until the whole order is complete, since it will depend on how the Option order is done with regard to the increased service proposal on the , just use R160A cars 8377-8416, leaving 8417-8652/9943-9974 for the , with R179 cars 3050-3237 for the if the plan is to have no R211s as 8-car units. The could then take R179 cars that were previously assigned to the . if the plan is to order more 8-car sets, then instead of ordering just 32, order 200 cars so that way the and get all the R160A cars (192 cars for the , 96 cars for the and share a spare factor of 84 cars), uses R179s (plus some R143s from the , and the uses R143s + R211s) But that's the problem, a lot of ENY and Jamiacas R160's can't be cross-compatible with certain CBTC active lines which greatly reduces the spare factor. This is why I think giving the CBTC is a waste of resources. I know it's because it has to be tied in with Culver, but still. Which is why I think should replace the entire fleet with 9-car R211 consists and push out the R143's to the , and . Edited January 8, 2023 by Lawrence St 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkstar8983 Posted January 8, 2023 Share #3314 Posted January 8, 2023 3 minutes ago, Lawrence St said: But that's the problem, a lot of ENY and Jamiacas R160's can't be cross-compatible with certain CBTC active lines which greatly reduces the spare factor. This is why I think giving the CBTC is a waste of resources. I know it's because it has to be tied in with Culver, but still. Yeah that’s the problem the has. The CBTC territory that the has to run through is because of the . The right now will (assuming Culver is finished) end up with two separated CBTC zones with a manual block via 6 Av and the upper part of Culver. And remember that the s signals, just like QBL and Flushing were original to their implementation when the line opened and were never replaced. as for CBTC cross compatibility, they’re gonna have to figure something out because otherwise CBTC installation and route restructuring will take forever to the point that once it’s implemented it will be obsolete. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomRider0101 Posted January 8, 2023 Share #3315 Posted January 8, 2023 On 1/6/2023 at 8:09 AM, darkstar8983 said: It really is a conundrum, since the could do well with 8-car trains (10-cars would be a waste of resources at this particular point in time but would be more logical long term), but then weekends and off peaks, it would be rough to switch between 8-car and 5-car trains because all the 8-car trains would need to go to the yard, and fresh 5-car trains brought in just for night and maybe weekend service, then switched back out in time for rush hour service with full consists. Unless you’d be okay with the running 240’ trains 20 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said: I agree. The G serves areas in Brooklyn that are gentrified and are experiencing enormous population growth. Therefore, ridership on the G will literally explode in any moment. The G needs full length trains full time. The issue is that there is not enough 10 car trains to make both the C and G full length, but there is a huge surplus of 8 car trains. That is why the G will get 8 car trains. 49 minutes ago, Lawrence St said: In terms of priority, the needs to go full length first instead of the . The has been fine with 4 car trains for the past several years and can continue like that until the R211's come. 10 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said: The will go full length first with the R46s displaced from the . The R211s will fill up the and displace the R46s to the and likely move the R179s out to ENT. Then the R46s will be retired from the (minus a few sets that may be temporarily moved to Coney Island for the to buff up the spare factor and shift the excess R68s that CI had gotten from Concourse back to Concourse, then start scrapping those R46s either directly or indirectly. The related car moves can’t happen until the whole order is complete, since it will depend on how the Option order is done with regard to the increased service proposal on the , just use R160A cars 8377-8416, leaving 8417-8652/9943-9974 for the , with R179 cars 3050-3237 for the if the plan is to have no R211s as 8-car units. The could then take R179 cars that were previously assigned to the . if the plan is to order more 8-car sets, then instead of ordering just 32, order 200 cars so that way the and get all the R160A cars (192 cars for the , 96 cars for the and share a spare factor of 84 cars), uses R179s (plus some R143s from the , and the uses R143s + R211s) I agree that the would definitely be priority for 10-car trains. If the plan is to go with 10-car trains as well, they would have enough cars to do both depending on how option 2 plays out. I also agree that ridership on the will continue to grow as it has already, since it runs through heavily gentrified areas in Brooklyn. But I don't think they need 10 car trains just yet; they've been able to run 5-car (300-ft.) trains throughout this whole time; 8-car trains (480 feet length) would be a very good upgrade. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted January 8, 2023 Share #3316 Posted January 8, 2023 2 hours ago, Lawrence St said: This is why I think giving the CBTC is a waste of resources. I know it's because it has to be tied in with Culver, but still. To be fair, Crosstown is Sandwhiched between not only Culver but also Queens Blvd, so I can see why the would want to get that out of the way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted January 8, 2023 Share #3317 Posted January 8, 2023 11 minutes ago, LGA Link N Train said: To be fair, Crosstown is Sandwhiched between not only Culver but also Queens Blvd, so I can see why the would want to get that out of the way. Culver yes, Queens Blvd not so much since Court Sq isn’t *technically* apart of the QBL line. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subwaycommuter1983 Posted January 8, 2023 Share #3318 Posted January 8, 2023 1 hour ago, Lawrence St said: Culver yes, Queens Blvd not so much since Court Sq isn’t *technically* apart of the QBL line. True, but the G currently uses r160's from Jamaica. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkstar8983 Posted January 8, 2023 Share #3319 Posted January 8, 2023 1 hour ago, subwaycommuter1983 said: True, but the G currently uses r160's from Jamaica. Now they do, but before the used R68s from Coney Island (from 2011-2021) and it’s current R160s were on the . Since it was assigned for that decade to Coney Island, the deadhead trips on the needed to travel thru Culver 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted January 8, 2023 Share #3320 Posted January 8, 2023 3 hours ago, Lawrence St said: Culver yes, Queens Blvd not so much since Court Sq isn’t *technically* apart of the QBL line. Perhaps you've somehow already forgotten, but Queens Boulevard's local tracks feed directly into Crosstown. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted January 9, 2023 Share #3321 Posted January 9, 2023 On 1/8/2023 at 12:24 PM, Lawrence St said: Culver yes, Queens Blvd not so much since Court Sq isn’t *technically* apart of the QBL line. As @Lex said. Tracks E1/E2 immediately become tracks D1/D2 (the QBL Local Tracks) north of Court Square. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted January 10, 2023 Share #3322 Posted January 10, 2023 (edited) On 1/8/2023 at 12:25 AM, Around the Horn said: Three of the top ten "hottest" neighborhoods in NYC in terms of both housing searches and transactions (Red Hook, Gowanus & Fort Greene) are served by the . I doubt it would be empty for long. I feel like these and other areas near the and the BQE/Gowanus Expwy would benefit tremendously from a more frequent , which together with an extended might be a way to entice drivers off the expressway. This would be especially helpful if the city ever put forward a real plan to address the future of the BQE, instead of repeatedly kicking the can down the road. Edited January 10, 2023 by T to Dyre Avenue 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texassubwayfan555 Posted January 10, 2023 Share #3323 Posted January 10, 2023 On 1/3/2023 at 8:21 PM, U-BahnNYC said: It doesn't. We could have fully automatic trains with 21st century technology. But the transit unions will get very touchy if anyone dares suggest even having OPTO, always pitching the same tired old line about "safety" and how "unique" the NYC system is. The R211 order could be the perfect opportunity to start implementing OPTO system wide. The TA should have used the current staff shortage as a reason to convince the union to allow systemwide OPTO On 1/3/2023 at 10:18 PM, R32 3838 said: platform conductors Some systems outside of the U.S. have them. They answer questions and guide passengers during rush hour. And on the MTR, platform conductors even control the doors instead of the driver during peak times. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLX9304 Posted January 10, 2023 Share #3324 Posted January 10, 2023 On 1/5/2023 at 6:41 PM, Lawrence St said: Wasn't it because a fire took out the entire Grand Central Shuttle automated sets? Yes. The R17/22s were victims of the fire 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLX9304 Posted January 10, 2023 Share #3325 Posted January 10, 2023 Ok. So the primary order for R211As are 4060-4499. The R211T are 4040-4049 (with another 10 to be delivered as 4050-4059). Since the TA exercised option number 1, what are the numbers for those? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.