R211 Discussion Thread

[subwaycommuter1983]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

And that’s why there need to be additional option orders to provide enough R211s or other NTTs to retire the R68 series, the oldest of which will be 40 years old (maybe older) by the time the base R211 order is fully in service. Because if the MTA are expecting to keep the R68 series in service well beyond 40 years, then they will have to run somewhere. As time goes on and more of the B-Division gets converted to CBTC, they’re going to run out of lines where they can operate SMEE-era trains. They’re already banned from the Eastern Division routes because of their length. It is my hope that by the time they get to upgrading the Broadway Line in Manhattan, they have enough NTT cars to run on the ,  and . 

As for the , the current service plan in South Brooklyn facilitates keeping the  out of service on weekends. A different service plan might require it to run. But right now, the MTA aren’t interested in changing the service pattern, though that might be worth looking at if it’s going to be quite some time before the R68 series are retired.

That is the smartest thing thing that the MTA should. Look at all the headaches A, C, riders had to endure due to all the issues created by the r179's. These headaches would have been avoided if the MTA had added another option order for the r160's.

The MTA cannot continue to make these mistakes. They are already behind with the r262's.

If the MTA makes the dumb decision to do a separate car order for the r68's, then that means that this car order will be included in the 2025-2030 capital program, which means that these new trains won't be in  service until at least 2030. Whereas an additional option order of r211's would be in service sooner.

[Trainmaster5]

It never ceases to amaze me that some railfans ignore the monetary and production line issues with new car orders.  Neither NYCT nor the  determine the production timing of private rail car manufacturing. There are other agencies around the country and worldwide who also place orders with the dwindling number of railcar manufacturers. I can assure you that these companies are not going to prioritize any order from the almost bankrupt  while putting other agency's orders on the back burner. Come back to the real world sometimes. My opinion. Feel free to disagree if you like. Carry on.

[subwaycommuter1983]

The problem is that the MTA is upgrading the signal system with CBTC, but has a good chunk of subway cars that can't be retrofitted with CBTC due to their age.

Improving service on some lines, while worsening service on other lines is not how the subway system needs to be fixed. People who live and/or work near subway lines that are not getting CBTC are going to be screwed and these are people that pay the same fare as everyone else.

[Trainmaster5]

1 hour ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

The problem is that the MTA is upgrading the signal system with CBTC, but has a good chunk of subway cars that can't be retrofitted with CBTC due to their age.

Improving service on some lines, while worsening service on other lines is not how the subway system needs to be fixed. People who live and/or work near subway lines that are not getting CBTC are going to be screwed and these are people that pay the same fare as everyone else.

Most of us are well aware of the problem. How, exactly, do you propose to overcome the problems that I stated?  We're talking about a near bankrupt agency. Upgrading the signal system to CBTC was talked about 20+ years ago in RTO. That's why the and the were chosen as test beds for the CBTC systems. R143 and R142A/R188 cars. Even back then they knew that the signal system conversion would take over 25 years to complete and the chosen system would be outdated and need to be upgraded. The IRT was supposed to use CBTC too. Instead we got the ATS overlay and nothing else so far. It seems that the result will be a system of have and have not, a hybrid of old and new cars and signals for the foreseeable future. Just my take. Study the history of Transit in NYC and funding has always been the problem.  Carry on. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

On 5/12/2022 at 1:48 AM, Trainmaster5 said:

Most of us are well aware of the problem. How, exactly, do you propose to overcome the problems that I stated?  We're talking about a near bankrupt agency. Upgrading the signal system to CBTC was talked about 20+ years ago in RTO. That's why the and the were chosen as test beds for the CBTC systems. R143 and R142A/R188 cars. Even back then they knew that the signal system conversion would take over 25 years to complete and the chosen system would be outdated and need to be upgraded. The IRT was supposed to use CBTC too. Instead we got the ATS overlay and nothing else so far. It seems that the result will be a system of have and have not, a hybrid of old and new cars and signals for the foreseeable future. Just my take. Study the history of Transit in NYC and funding has always been the problem.  Carry on. 

I don't follow all of this stuff too closely, as you know I am just a regular commuter, but where does the  stand now with all of these signal upgrades? Are they making any real progress? I feel like some years ago, some lines were seeing service changes every weekend, supposedly for signal upgrades, etc. Given their fiscal constraints, are they still pushing CBTC or are they looking at something else long-term? It seems like subway service is worsening and not improving, particularly the waits in between trains.

[subwaycommuter1983]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I don't follow all of this stuff too closely, as you know I am just a regular commuter, but where does the  stand now with all of these signal upgrades? Are they making any real progress? I feel like some years ago, some lines were seeing service changes every weekend, supposedly for signal upgrades, etc. Given their fiscal constraints, are they still pushing CBTC or are they looking at something else long-term? It seems like subway service is worsening and not improving, particularly the waits in between trains.

I am also a regular commuter and I don't work for the MTA.  I feel the same way and what's really annoying is that the MTA is slowing service during the weekdays as of 7pm to start track work at 9:30pm. A few years ago, overnight track work didn't start until 11pm or midnight. Too much track work and service is getting worse, especially during off peak. It's unacceptable to have subway lines running every 12-15 minutes during the middle of the day and in the evenings and even during rush hours, there are lines that have 15 minute wait times.

Ridership during off peak is increasing because 9 to 5 jobs are disappearing and more people are working evenings and weekends. There is even a political movement to pressure the MTA to run trains every 6 minutes from 6am to 11pm Monday to Saturday.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 5/11/2022 at 10:30 PM, subwaycommuter1983 said:

That is the smartest thing thing that the MTA should. Look at all the headaches A, C, riders had to endure due to all the issues created by the r179's. These headaches would have been avoided if the MTA had added another option order for the r160's.

The MTA cannot continue to make these mistakes. They are already behind with the r262's.

If the MTA makes the dumb decision to do a separate car order for the r68's, then that means that this car order will be included in the 2025-2030 capital program, which means that these new trains won't be in  service until at least 2030. Whereas an additional option order of r211's would be in service sooner.

But to be fair, it might be at least 2030 by the time we see newly added late-option order R211s. It likely wouldn’t be much sooner than that. 

On 5/11/2022 at 11:32 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

It never ceases to amaze me that some railfans ignore the monetary and production line issues with new car orders.  Neither NYCT nor the  determine the production timing of private rail car manufacturing. There are other agencies around the country and worldwide who also place orders with the dwindling number of railcar manufacturers. I can assure you that these companies are not going to prioritize any order from the almost bankrupt  while putting other agency's orders on the back burner. Come back to the real world sometimes. My opinion. Feel free to disagree if you like. Carry on.

I’m sorry, but I fail to see how how replacing old/old-tech subway cars and signals is not being “in the real world.” I see it as trying to keep the existing subway system up to date, so it can operate safely, reliably and dependably. We can’t just let the system go to shit “because we’re broke.” If you’re refrigerator or boiler breaks, do you say you’re just going to starve or shiver because you can’t afford a new refrigerator or boiler? No! You put money aside and you purchase a new refrigerator or boiler if repairing the old one becomes too expensive. 

It is necessary to upgrade and modernize if we ever want the system to get back to pre-Covid levels. Do you really want more reckless drivers in the City who could take the subway but choose not to because either they don’t feel safe on it or or it doesn’t come when they need it to? Cause I sure as hell don’t. I get it, the MTA has money problems and there are few rail car builders and they’re backlogged. But when hasn’t the MTA had money problems? Transit funding is a problem in this City and State even in good economic times. But when you have a system that’s too dependent on old technology it becomes extremely difficult and expensive to maintain it. Even if the old tech was reliable for much of its service life (as the R68 series cars have been). You end up with endless signal and mechanical problems, which can also be a drain on the budget. But the fault for that can be laid squarely on State pols who just don’t seem to care about how important a well funded transit system is to the State at large. 

I’m not saying that the R68/R68A cars need to be retired tomorrow. That’s bad policy. But to expect them and the R62/R62A cars to last almost 60 years in service like the R32s were is even worse. To say, “Well, if the signals are broke, we’ll just fix ‘em,” and then later wonder why it’s such a drain on the budget and a hassle for riders is equally bad policy. 

 

Edited May 13, 2022 by T to Dyre Avenue

[BreeddekalbL]

our neighbors to the south in Washington DC would like a word with you in terms of a big order

[T to Dyre Avenue]

We’ve done big car orders before, like R142 and R160 orders. Wasn’t that long ago either. Can they not award option orders to the bidder that came in second? Can they not do an “A” order that goes to a different car maker (like they did with the R62A, R68A and R142A)?

Edited May 13, 2022 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Via Garibaldi 8]

36 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But to be fair, it might be at least 2030 by the time we see newly added late-option order R211s. It likely wouldn’t be much sooner than that. 

I’m sorry, but I fail to see how how replacing old/old-tech subway cars and signals is not being “in the real world.” I see it as trying to keep the existing subway system up to date, so it can operate safely, reliably and dependably. We can’t just let the system go to shit “because we’re broke.” If you’re refrigerator or boiler breaks, do you say you’re just going to starve or shiver because you can’t afford a new refrigerator or boiler? No! You put money aside and you purchase a new refrigerator or boiler if repairing the old one becomes too expensive. 

It is necessary to upgrade and modernize if we ever want the system to get back to pre-Covid levels. Do you really want more reckless drivers in the City who could take the subway but choose not to because either they don’t feel safe on it or or it doesn’t come when they need it to? Cause I sure as hell don’t. I get it, the MTA has money problems and there are few rail car builders and they’re backlogged. But when hasn’t the MTA had money problems? Transit funding is a problem in this City and State even in good economic times. But when you have a system that’s too dependent on old technology it becomes extremely difficult and expensive to maintain it. Even if the old tech was reliable for much of its service life (as the R68 series cars have been). You end up with endless signal and mechanical problems, which can also be a drain on the budget. But the fault for that can be laid squarely on State pols who just don’t seem to care about how important a well funded transit system is to the State at large. 

I’m not saying that the R68/R68A cars need to be retired tomorrow. That’s bad policy. But to expect them and the R62/R62A cars to last almost 60 years in service like the R32s were is even worse. To say, “Well, if the signals are broke, we’ll just fix ‘em,” and then later wonder why it’s such a drain on the budget and a hassle for riders is equally bad policy. 

 

Oh please. If you're talking about organizations like Riders Alliance, they will always scream and yell that the  needs more funding because they never get enough funding. No one ever talks about the incompetence that exists or the lack of oversight when it comes to ensuring that projects are completed on-time and on budget and cost overruns. I don't believe in throwing endless amounts of money to the  when they have not shown that they are using the current funding they receive responsibly as it is now. Bus and subway service sucks and ridership is nowhere near back to normal. They want more money? Let them show that they can provide RELIABLE service. They need to be held to standards and not just given money because it's the  . I mean, yes on the one hand, we need a transit system that works to power the region, but I'm not buying into this idea that the  doesn't waste a lot of money through poor oversight.

4 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

I am also a regular commuter and I don't work for the MTA.  I feel the same way and what's really annoying is that the MTA is slowing service during the weekdays as of 7pm to start track work at 9:30pm. A few years ago, overnight track work didn't start until 11pm or midnight. Too much track work and service is getting worse, especially during off peak. It's unacceptable to have subway lines running every 12-15 minutes during the middle of the day and in the evenings and even during rush hours, there are lines that have 15 minute wait times.

Ridership during off peak is increasing because 9 to 5 jobs are disappearing and more people are working evenings and weekends. There is even a political movement to pressure the MTA to run trains every 6 minutes from 6am to 11pm Monday to Saturday.

I'm not sure how you can say that the 9-5 environment is disappearing. People still use public transit at rush hour, and the  recently confirmed this, although they did say that rush hour ridership isn't what it was, but it's still an important part of their ridership. In any event, the track work is endless and there never seems to be an improvement in service. I became fed up well before COVID with the subways, as I could never get anywhere on-time when I really needed the subway (especially during rush hour within Manhattan), so that ship sailed for me and my subway usage usage has declined considerably. 
That "political movement" you noted... LOL Please. That's some goofy campaign from the Riders Alliance about running subway service and local bus service every six minutes all day, which is never happening. The  can't even run the service it has now, so how in the hell are they going to run bus and train service every six minutes? Forget about funding it. They don't have enough bus and train operators as it is now, but Riders Alliance never talks about that. They live in lala land, not reality. Service is constantly being cancelled because of worker shortages.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Oh please. If you're talking about organizations like Riders Alliance, they will always scream and yell that the  needs more funding because they never get enough funding. No one ever talks about the incompetence that exists or the lack of oversight when it comes to ensuring that projects are completed on-time and on budget and cost overruns. I don't believe in throwing endless amounts of money to the  when they have not shown that they are using the current funding they receive responsibly as it is now. Bus and subway service sucks and ridership is nowhere near back to normal. They want more money? Let them show that they can provide RELIABLE service. They need to be held to standards and not just given money because it's the  . I mean, yes on the one hand, we need a transit system that works to power the region, but I'm not buying into this idea that the  doesn't waste a lot of money through poor oversight.

 

Oh please what?

Trust when I say the MTA needs to show they can run a reliable system and that I don’t think they have, both pre- and post-pandemic. Of course, I think their incompetence and lack of oversight on projects is a big problem. I’ve said as much in the past and I still believe it today. ESA, 2nd Ave and the ongoing CBTC project are perfect examples of their incompetence and lack of oversight.

But that’s a topic for another thread. The point I wanted to my previous post is about the need for the R211s and CBTC (since both go hand in hand) to be successful. Both have a big role in helping to make service more reliable. The MTA can’t afford to screw up either of them. They’ve got to get them right. We certainly should hold the MTA to standards. Shouldn’t those standards include modern, reliable equipment systemwide? 

Edited May 14, 2022 by T to Dyre Avenue

[subwaycommuter1983]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Oh please what?

Trust when I say the MTA needs to show they can run a reliable system and that I don’t think they have, both pre- and post-pandemic. Of course, I think their incompetence and lack of oversight on projects is a big problem. I’ve said as much in the past and I still believe it today. ESA, 2nd Ave and the ongoing CBTC project are perfect examples of their incompetence and lack of oversight.

But that’s a topic for another thread. The point I wanted to my previous post is about the need for the R211s and CBTC (since both go hand in hand) to be successful. Both have a big role in helping to make service more reliable. The MTA can’t afford to screw up either of them. They’ve got to get them right. We certainly should hold the MTA to standards. Shouldn’t those standards include modern, reliable equipment systemwide? 

I agree 100%.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

8 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Oh please what?

Trust when I say the MTA needs to show they can run a reliable system and that I don’t think they have, both pre- and post-pandemic. Of course, I think their incompetence and lack of oversight on projects is a big problem. I’ve said as much in the past and I still believe it today. ESA, 2nd Ave and the ongoing CBTC project are perfect examples of their incompetence and lack of oversight.

But that’s a topic for another thread. The point I wanted to my previous post is about the need for the R211s and CBTC (since both go hand in hand) to be successful. Both have a big role in helping to make service more reliable. The MTA can’t afford to screw up either of them. They’ve got to get them right. We certainly should hold the MTA to standards. Shouldn’t those standards include modern, reliable equipment systemwide? 

My oh please remark was in response to your comment...

Quote

But the fault for that can be laid squarely on State pols who just don’t seem to care about how important a well funded transit system is to the State at large. 

You can't have a well-funded transit system if the funds are squandered, so that can't just be dismissed. I'm definitely no expert on this whole CBTC project, but just as a regular commuter and from the little I have heard about it, I get the impression that this is something that is costly and time consuming, even in the best of situations. Then you have the issue of more funding being eaten up by debt that they must pay and the requirement of the  to have a balanced budget. A "well funded" ... That statement says a lot and requires a lot and because of that, I would be prepared for any sort of capital projects to be further drawn out and take much much longer.

I would argue that State pols have been doing more to create a dedicated funding source to the , and even that won't be enough according to what I have read recently, so I just wanted to clarify that point. If anything, they may find themselves looking more to the Feds to try to address these budget shortfalls. Aside from the budget issues, there is also the fact that construction costs here in NYC are some of the most expensive around, so that also puts a cap on what can be accomplished.

[trainfan22]

SIR short on equipment and the SI 211s are several years away. Hopefully the SMS the SI R44 they are currently getting will help with their reliability.  As someone who likes the old stuff more than the NTT I'm happy the SIR R44 will hit the 50 years of service mark. Second St Louis Car co car class to do so (with the other being the R42s) . The SIR R44 been around longer than the cars they replaced. 

 

Reliability aside those SIR R44s are rockets and can outrun all of the remaining SMEEs in the subway. They are an fun ride.

Edited May 18, 2022 by trainfan22

[R32 3838]

2 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

SIR short on equipment and the SI 211s are several years away. Hopefully the SMS the SI R44 they are currently getting will help with their reliability.  As someone who likes the old stuff more than the NTT I'm happy the SIR R44 will hit the 50 years of service mark. Second St Louis Car co car class to do so (with the other being the R42s) . The SIR R44 been around longer than the cars they replaced. 

 

Reliability aside those SIR R44s are rockets and can outrun all of the remaining SMEEs in the subway. They are an fun ride.

 

 

I really hope you are joking

 

They have rotting frames and run like complete garbage and are still here because they have had no replacements up until the R211 order. 64 R46's were supposed to go to SI in the 2010's until they decided not to. And the only reason why they are faster than the SMEE's is due to the SMEE's being slowed down in 1995. Prew 1995 the SMEE's were just as fast as those SIRT cars.

Edited May 18, 2022 by R32 3838

[Amiri the subway guy]

Here’s my prediction 

The R211s are definitely going to the trains thats a guarantee.   

People are saying that the R211s should also go to the trains well I could see why people are saying this. It cause they have R46s. However I believe that it’s more likely that the trains will receive the R211s and the R160s will return to the N/Q/W trains.       

People might call the swaps dumb and unnecessary but it would actually be justified reason. A subway line having the oldest train car fleet doesn’t immediately guarantee that they will receive the newest train car fleet right away. 

What’s determines the train car fleet assignments. 

CBTC 

Crowding

What fleet in the worst condition. 

The R46s are getting old yes. But see the MTA will likely want the newest train car fleet operating on Queens Blvd right away to allow for the Queens Blvd CBTC system to be more effective. The N/Q/W are crowded but that’s nothing compared to the E/F/R trains. 

Queens blvd is extremely busy especially during rush hours so the Queens Blvd line will need all of the extra capacity the R211s will offer. And if the MTA approves of the open gangway train car, they will definitely go to the most overcrowded train routes with are the A E and F trains. At least 50%-70% of the R160s currently operating the Queens Blvd line will be reassigned I personally believe that the Siemens sets will be the first few R160s to leave queens blvd. 

But don’t be sad N/Q/W train riders. Cause the R160s will then return to the Coney Island yard to replace the R46s heck if there enough R160s then maybe they could also replace the R68s R68As and operate on the trains.   

If they approve of a special 4 car R211 order. I believe it would go the L train and while the R143s and R160s get reassigned to the train.   will be needing extra trains to run more service as they are pretty packed and would definitely benefit from the wider doors and maybe open gangway. 

The G train will likely get the displaced R179s from the A/C trains. 

The and    trains are extremely unlikely to receive the R211s 

I say there is a high probability of R211's going to Jamaica yard because QBL has a pretty high ridership and could benefit from the wider doors and open gangway.

Rockway shuttle and SIR R211s definitely 

Franklin Avenue shuttle Either R160 or R211
For the R262s

The 6 train and 42nd street shuttle getting the R262s is a guarantee. The MTA would want the newest train fleet operating on the Lexington Avenue line for the CBTC project it’s very likely that the entire R142/A fleet from the 4 train and at least 50%-60% of the R142 fleet from the 2/5 trains will be reassigned to the 1 and 3 trains. 

The R142s and R142As on the 4 train would be sent to the 3 train 

The R142s on the 2/5 train would be sent to the 1 train. 

4/6 are fully R262s. The 2/5 are mostly R262s but some R142s would remain there to save money. 

I mean the R262s are replacing the R62/As right. But again the newest doesn’t always necessarily directly replace the oldest train fleet. 

And the 2/5 is the most heavily used train route in the Bronx so again needs the extra capacity that larger doors and open gangway offers. 

Or maybe something like this the IRT expresses get the R262s  are all heavily used and crowded and the MTA would likely want the newest and hopefully most reliable train cars operating there. The displaced R142s and R142As would go the Mainline IRT locals the  
Maybe the could get some to allow for more trains per hour but it’s very unlikely the R188s are doing excellent on the 7 train.  

And the reason for these swaps is to better address the needs of each route per subway line based off of ridership and CBTC projects. So the swaps would’ve be stupid. The R142s and R160s delivery caused a whole bunch of fleet swaps 
So the same is likely to happen with the R211s/R262s

 

 

[R32 3838]

4 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Here’s my prediction 

The R211s are definitely going to the trains thats a guarantee.   

People are saying that the R211s should also go to the trains well I could see why people are saying this. It cause they have R46s. However I believe that it’s more likely that the trains will receive the R211s and the R160s will return to the N/Q/W trains.       

People might call the swaps dumb and unnecessary but it would actually be justified reason. A subway line having the oldest train car fleet doesn’t immediately guarantee that they will receive the newest train car fleet right away. 

What’s determines the train car fleet assignments. 

CBTC 

Crowding

What fleet in the worst condition. 

The R46s are getting old yes. But see the MTA will likely want the newest train car fleet operating on Queens Blvd right away to allow for the Queens Blvd CBTC system to be more effective. The N/Q/W are crowded but that’s nothing compared to the E/F/R trains. 

Queens blvd is extremely busy especially during rush hours so the Queens Blvd line will need all of the extra capacity the R211s will offer. And if the MTA approves of the open gangway train car, they will definitely go to the most overcrowded train routes with are the A E and F trains. At least 50%-70% of the R160s currently operating the Queens Blvd line will be reassigned I personally believe that the Siemens sets will be the first few R160s to leave queens blvd. 

But don’t be sad N/Q/W train riders. Cause the R160s will then return to the Coney Island yard to replace the R46s heck if there enough R160s then maybe they could also replace the R68s R68As and operate on the trains.   

If they approve of a special 4 car R211 order. I believe it would go the L train and while the R143s and R160s get reassigned to the train.   will be needing extra trains to run more service as they are pretty packed and would definitely benefit from the wider doors and maybe open gangway. 

The G train will likely get the displaced R179s from the A/C trains. 

The and    trains are extremely unlikely to receive the R211s 

I say there is a high probability of R211's going to Jamaica yard because QBL has a pretty high ridership and could benefit from the wider doors and open gangway.

Rockway shuttle and SIR R211s definitely 

Franklin Avenue shuttle Either R160 or R211
For the R262s

The 6 train and 42nd street shuttle getting the R262s is a guarantee. The MTA would want the newest train fleet operating on the Lexington Avenue line for the CBTC project it’s very likely that the entire R142/A fleet from the 4 train and at least 50%-60% of the R142 fleet from the 2/5 trains will be reassigned to the 1 and 3 trains. 

The R142s and R142As on the 4 train would be sent to the 3 train 

The R142s on the 2/5 train would be sent to the 1 train. 

4/6 are fully R262s. The 2/5 are mostly R262s but some R142s would remain there to save money. 

I mean the R262s are replacing the R62/As right. But again the newest doesn’t always necessarily directly replace the oldest train fleet. 

And the 2/5 is the most heavily used train route in the Bronx so again needs the extra capacity that larger doors and open gangway offers. 

Or maybe something like this the IRT expresses get the R262s  are all heavily used and crowded and the MTA would likely want the newest and hopefully most reliable train cars operating there. The displaced R142s and R142As would go the Mainline IRT locals the  
Maybe the could get some to allow for more trains per hour but it’s very unlikely the R188s are doing excellent on the 7 train.  

And the reason for these swaps is to better address the needs of each route per subway line based off of ridership and CBTC projects. So the swaps would’ve be stupid. The R142s and R160s delivery caused a whole bunch of fleet swaps 
So the same is likely to happen with the R211s/R262s

 

 

 

 

Again, The R179s are staying where they are at. the Only R179s I see moving are the ones at Pitkin yard that would be transferred to 207th st yard. ENY will have the 8 car fleet while those R160A-1s would go to the . This Move would reduce the R179s from being in 3 yards to 2 yards and it would save money.

 

It makes no sense to have the R179s at Jamaica or Coney Island if the were to go back to CI. The R179s will have CBTC so they can run on the displacing some of those R160s.

 

You guys aren't seeing the Clear picture. The entire IND has to be tech trains by at least 2026 due to CBTC. CI would get R160's for the while the remaining could be for the  

 

The is rumored to get a piece of the R211 order to displace the R68's to Coney Island.

[subwaycommuter1983]

17 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Here’s my prediction 

The R211s are definitely going to the trains thats a guarantee.   

People are saying that the R211s should also go to the trains well I could see why people are saying this. It cause they have R46s. However I believe that it’s more likely that the trains will receive the R211s and the R160s will return to the N/Q/W trains.       

People might call the swaps dumb and unnecessary but it would actually be justified reason. A subway line having the oldest train car fleet doesn’t immediately guarantee that they will receive the newest train car fleet right away. 

What’s determines the train car fleet assignments. 

CBTC 

Crowding

What fleet in the worst condition. 

The R46s are getting old yes. But see the MTA will likely want the newest train car fleet operating on Queens Blvd right away to allow for the Queens Blvd CBTC system to be more effective. The N/Q/W are crowded but that’s nothing compared to the E/F/R trains. 

Queens blvd is extremely busy especially during rush hours so the Queens Blvd line will need all of the extra capacity the R211s will offer. And if the MTA approves of the open gangway train car, they will definitely go to the most overcrowded train routes with are the A E and F trains. At least 50%-70% of the R160s currently operating the Queens Blvd line will be reassigned I personally believe that the Siemens sets will be the first few R160s to leave queens blvd. 

But don’t be sad N/Q/W train riders. Cause the R160s will then return to the Coney Island yard to replace the R46s heck if there enough R160s then maybe they could also replace the R68s R68As and operate on the trains.   

If they approve of a special 4 car R211 order. I believe it would go the L train and while the R143s and R160s get reassigned to the train.   will be needing extra trains to run more service as they are pretty packed and would definitely benefit from the wider doors and maybe open gangway. 

The G train will likely get the displaced R179s from the A/C trains. 

The and    trains are extremely unlikely to receive the R211s 

I say there is a high probability of R211's going to Jamaica yard because QBL has a pretty high ridership and could benefit from the wider doors and open gangway.

Rockway shuttle and SIR R211s definitely 

Franklin Avenue shuttle Either R160 or R211
For the R262s

The 6 train and 42nd street shuttle getting the R262s is a guarantee. The MTA would want the newest train fleet operating on the Lexington Avenue line for the CBTC project it’s very likely that the entire R142/A fleet from the 4 train and at least 50%-60% of the R142 fleet from the 2/5 trains will be reassigned to the 1 and 3 trains. 

The R142s and R142As on the 4 train would be sent to the 3 train 

The R142s on the 2/5 train would be sent to the 1 train. 

4/6 are fully R262s. The 2/5 are mostly R262s but some R142s would remain there to save money. 

I mean the R262s are replacing the R62/As right. But again the newest doesn’t always necessarily directly replace the oldest train fleet. 

And the 2/5 is the most heavily used train route in the Bronx so again needs the extra capacity that larger doors and open gangway offers. 

Or maybe something like this the IRT expresses get the R262s  are all heavily used and crowded and the MTA would likely want the newest and hopefully most reliable train cars operating there. The displaced R142s and R142As would go the Mainline IRT locals the  
Maybe the could get some to allow for more trains per hour but it’s very unlikely the R188s are doing excellent on the 7 train.  

And the reason for these swaps is to better address the needs of each route per subway line based off of ridership and CBTC projects. So the swaps would’ve be stupid. The R142s and R160s delivery caused a whole bunch of fleet swaps 
So the same is likely to happen with the R211s/R262s

 

 

The B and D will get NTTs before the NQW.

R68's cannot stay on the B and D due to 8th Avenue and 6th Avenue getting CBTC. Plus, they have higher ridership than NQW. 

I'm so glad that commuters in the Bronx and upper Manhattan are finally getting new trains and hopefully better service thanks to CBTC. People who live in the Bronx and upper Manhattan pay the same fare as the people in Astoria. Therefore, the MTA should not be catering only to commuters who lives in good neighborhoods.

[Amiri the subway guy]

4 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

The B and D will get NTTs before the NQW.

R68's cannot stay on the B and D due to 8th Avenue and 6th Avenue getting CBTC. Plus, they have higher ridership than NQW. 

I'm so glad that commuters in the Bronx and upper Manhattan are finally getting new trains and hopefully better service thanks to CBTC. People who live in the Bronx and upper Manhattan pay the same fare as the people in Astoria. Therefore, the MTA should not be catering only to commuters who lives in good neighborhoods.

Makes sense to scrap the R68s R68As they are pass their prime. We need 100% NTT

[NBTA]

1 hour ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Makes sense to scrap the R68s R68As they are pass their prime. We need 100% NTT

They aren’t getting scrapped, they’re just moving to the .

[Amiri the subway guy]

On the Wiki it says that they will remain in service until 2025–2030

[subwaycommuter1983]

11 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

On the Wiki it says that they will remain in service until 2025–2030

2025?? I don't think so. I wouldn't be surprised if there are still a few r46's in service during that year.

2030?? Most likely yes.

[Bill from Maspeth]

17 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

On the Wiki it says that they will remain in service until 2025–2030

Information on "the Wiki"is only as accurate as the person whose information is posted.

 

It should not be considered 100% accurate.

[Bill from Maspeth]

On 5/22/2022 at 12:54 AM, subwaycommuter1983 said:

The B and D will get NTTs before the NQW.

R68's cannot stay on the B and D due to 8th Avenue and 6th Avenue getting CBTC. Plus, they have higher ridership than NQW. 

I'm so glad that commuters in the Bronx and upper Manhattan are finally getting new trains and hopefully better service thanks to CBTC. People who live in the Bronx and upper Manhattan pay the same fare as the people in Astoria. Therefore, the MTA should not be catering only to commuters who lives in good neighborhoods.

Ask the passengers and crews on the Queens Blvd. IND if CBTC is providing better service.  The answer may surprise you!

[darkstar8983]

9 hours ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

Ask the passengers and crews on the Queens Blvd. IND if CBTC is providing better service.  The answer may surprise you!

CBTC cannot provide better service in ANY corridor until the entire line is upgraded. Meaning Queens Blvd CBTC cannot provide better service to the until

1.  - 8th Av is finished

2. - 63 St / 6 Av, and Culver/Crosstown is finished

3. - 6th Av, Broadway Brooklyn, and Myrtle Av is finished

4.  - Broadway and 4th Av are finished

 

Because until this is done, what happens is that you have CBTC routes running in non-CBTC territories and subjected to the  delays of intermingling with non-CBTC trains. In other words, we are screwed until the entire B Division is finished because of the interlining between 8th Av, 6th Av, and Broadway trains.