R211 Discussion Thread

[T to Dyre Avenue]

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.  

[darkstar8983]

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 

[subwaycommuter1983]

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.

[darkstar8983]

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

[Bill from Maspeth]

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.

[darkstar8983]

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. 

[Around the Horn]

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.

[darkstar8983]

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

[subwaycommuter1983]

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.

[Around the Horn]

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.

[Lawrence St]

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.

[darkstar8983]

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

[Lawrence St]

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

[darkstar8983]

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.

[RandomRider0101]

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.

 

[LGA Link N Train]

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.

[Lawrence St]

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.

[subwaycommuter1983]

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.

[darkstar8983]

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

[Lex]

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.

[LGA Link N Train]

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. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

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

[texassubwayfan555]

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.

[FLX9304]

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

[FLX9304]

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?