Jump to content

R211 Discussion Thread


East New York

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Comrade96 said:

trust me and kamen rider, itll be wayyyy more headache than its worth 

You buffs dont know squat

Excuse me, but I’ve been riding the subway for the better part of the past 45 years. I think I know a hell of a lot more than “squat” about the system when I show interest in it. And I really don’t think making a suggestion to add more capacity to the (C) line should be dismissed as being a “buff who don’t know squat!” You see, this agency (and its predecessors) has a history of saying “no can do” to suggestions made by the riding public, even when other transit agencies prove successful with the exact same suggestions. At least give me a real reason why 9-car 179 trains would be more trouble than it’s worth to operate. Instead of saying I know squat. Is that really too much to ask?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 7.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
16 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Excuse me, but I’ve been riding the subway for the better part of the past 45 years. I think I know a hell of a lot more than “squat” about the system when I show interest in it. And I really don’t think making a suggestion to add more capacity to the (C) line should be dismissed as being a “buff who don’t know squat!” You see, this agency (and its predecessors) has a history of saying “no can do” to suggestions made by the riding public, even when other transit agencies prove successful with the exact same suggestions. At least give me a real reason why 9-car 179 trains would be more trouble than it’s worth to operate. Instead of saying I know squat. Is that really too much to ask?

riding the subway for an x amount of time = / = working down here

Kamen rider has already explained why it wouldnt work, read a few posts above

the whole 9 car notion doesnt make sense, just make the C full length instead of a cursed 9 car non standard monstrosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

Because I can’t leave you children alone for hardly 10 seconds…

 

the 211T set at Jamaica is for CBTC integration testing. See how well the train behaves while under CBTC operation.

it is not there for passenger service. Not yet at least.

Someone else on a discord (who claims to be in RTO) was making this claim over the weekend, which is where I think the poster got it from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Someone else on a discord (who claims to be in RTO) was making this claim over the weekend, which is where I think the poster got it from.

I'm going to assume the person you're referring to when you say "poster" is me. If so, you could always just call me out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only suggested the 9 car train thing as a temporary answer to the mixed length (C) operation. Obviously in the long run, it makes more sense to make the (C) 100% full length. The 9 car train operation would've just been a stopgap solution in the interim (if it were possible).

In my opinion, it makes sense to keep a chunk of R46s at Pitkin yard until the R211 option 1 order, so that the (C) can go full length while they're still at Pitkin. An MTA document released months ago seemed to suggest this is exactly what would happen.

With all the talk of how terrible the r46s are & how they should be retired immediately, it's very hard to tell just how things will play out. I know the r46s have lots of issues and they definitely need to be retired. But are they really that bad to the point that they can't at least hang on until we have a full length (C) train?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Excuse me, but I’ve been riding the subway for the better part of the past 45 years. I think I know a hell of a lot more than “squat” about the system when I show interest in it. And I really don’t think making a suggestion to add more capacity to the (C) line should be dismissed as being a “buff who don’t know squat!” You see, this agency (and its predecessors) has a history of saying “no can do” to suggestions made by the riding public, even when other transit agencies prove successful with the exact same suggestions. At least give me a real reason why 9-car 179 trains would be more trouble than it’s worth to operate. Instead of saying I know squat. Is that really too much to ask?

I did…

the B division CBTC control software is not designed to recognize a nine car train.

the other problem is the possibility of the train getting looped around, leaving it backwards to the way it should be.

the washes at 207 and Jamaica are on the loop tracks, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Comrade96 said:

No, because the A would still need part of option 1. then the C would get r211s as well

In terms of numbers, the base order will be enough to displace all Pitkins r46's.

Option 1 would be used to displace all 8 car r179's off the C and to make the B, D mostly or fully NTTs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

In terms of numbers, the base order will be enough to displace all Pitkins r46's.

Option 1 would be used to displace all 8 car r179's off the C and to make the B, D mostly or fully NTTs.

are you factoring in the r32 deficit in that as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Comrade96 said:

are you factoring in the r32 deficit in that as well?

I doubt that the base order would solve the subway car shortage on the B division.

Let's not forget that 8th CBTC will be done by 2025, which means that A, B, C, D trains will need to be fully NTTs before 8th Avenue CBTC is active.

This also means that the C will most likely become 100% NTTs with mixed length trains before becoming 100% full length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

I doubt that the base order would solve the subway car shortage on the B division.

Let's not forget that 8th CBTC will be done by 2025, which means that A, B, C, D trains will need to be fully NTTs before 8th Avenue CBTC is active.

This also means that the C will most likely become 100% NTTs with mixed length trains before becoming 100% full length.

youre right, I mentioned the r32s because the A will need an extra 100 or so 211s to make up for the hasty retirement of them

base and option orders will give us a 1 for 1 replacement of both the r46 and r32s, with a few extra, but not much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rbrome said:

Huh? Makes less sense to me. I assumed it was a typo and you meant "droves". 

Nah.Philly slang. We don’t use it much but we still use it. I hear a lot of Philly peeps say it. I did forget what it meant until the man told me.

Edited by Ale188
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.