W train coming back this fall

[Lance]

So when those R46's go to Jamaica, which line will it work on? The casual and or the ? The has operated R46's in the past.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

In order from most to least likely: .

[onthe1train]

Yeah, remember the 40 cars out of the 300 made in 5 per set. (Eight 5-per-units = 4 trains)

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

That's all? They probably should have assembled more in the 5 car sets.

 

So now eight R46 sets get sent to Jamaica, eight R160 sets get sent to CIY, the 64 R32s cars on the C get pushed to the J/Z and maybe add a couple R179 sets too, leaving 180 or so new cars being put on the J/M/Z. Retire the worst 100 or so R32s and that should work.

 

Having most of the cars assembled in 4 car sets only really helps Broadway Brooklyn in the end, which should be good for the L shutdown. But then you're still left with only 4 more trains in CIY, which if they put them all on the Q, only reduces headways by a minute or two.

[Metro CSW]

That's all? They probably should have assembled more in the 5 car sets.

 

So now eight R46 sets get sent to Jamaica, eight R160 sets get sent to CIY, the 64 R32s cars on the C get pushed to the J/Z and maybe add a couple R179 sets too, leaving 180 or so new cars being put on the J/M/Z. Retire the worst 100 or so R32s and that should work.

 

Having most of the cars assembled in 4 car sets only really helps Broadway Brooklyn in the end, which should be good for the L shutdown. But then you're still left with only 4 more trains in CIY, which if they put them all on the Q, only reduces headways by a minute or two.

It's all to increase the line fleet capacity for it's upcoming extension.

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[onthe1train]

It's all to increase the line fleet capacity for it's upcoming extension.

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

Right, but it just seems like it's so few. The is only getting 4 trains, max. With the 3-hour round trip, you can only really add 1 train per hour in each direction, so I suppose instead of the current peark headways of 6.25 minutes (~10 TPH), you'll reduce it to 6 minutes at 11 TPH.

 

Doesn't seem like much of an increase.

[Wallyhorse]

That's all? They probably should have assembled more in the 5 car sets.

 

So now eight R46 sets get sent to Jamaica, eight R160 sets get sent to CIY, the 64 R32s cars on the C get pushed to the J/Z and maybe add a couple R179 sets too, leaving 180 or so new cars being put on the J/M/Z. Retire the worst 100 or so R32s and that should work.

 

Having most of the cars assembled in 4 car sets only really helps Broadway Brooklyn in the end, which should be good for the L shutdown. But then you're still left with only 4 more trains in CIY, which if they put them all on the Q, only reduces headways by a minute or two.

What they really should do is costs be dammed and go back to two-car sets to provide much greater flexibility, at least until all Eastern Division platforms are lengthened so they could handle 10-car trains.  

[LTA1992]

What they really should do is costs be dammed and go back to two-car sets to provide much greater flexibility, at least until all Eastern Division platforms are lengthened so they could handle 10-car trains.  

 

You should never ever have a place in transport planning. At least in this city.

[Wallyhorse]

You should never ever have a place in transport planning. At least in this city.

Well to me, this is a case of penny-wise and dollar dumb.  Running four and five-car sets and if one goes out you can lose four or five cars (especially with a car shortage) is dollar dumb.

 

I would insist on some two-car sets at the very least for instance you can combine a five and a two-car set to run a seven-car train in the Eastern Division if you need extra trainsets beyond those specifically for that division for example.  Not that it would ever be needed, but you can't always predict what will be needed. 

[LTA1992]

Dude, it's about efficiency. When it comes to pairs, one car has one set of components, the other has the components the first lacks. Not much different from how 4 and 5-car sets work. Lastly, with the possibility of a large order of what will likely be R3xx cars in the future, reverting back to married pairs is not gonna happen.

 

Plus, it costs money to maintain unused motormans and conductor controls and components, so what's the point? Throw money out the window? IT could be better spent elsewhere.

[CenSin]

What they really should do is costs be dammed and go back to two-car sets to provide much greater flexibility, at least until all Eastern Division platforms are lengthened so they could handle 10-car trains.

I’m just curious about your methodology for determining the smallest number of cars for an independent unit. Why not just have every car be capable of independent functioning? That gives the maximum flexibility.

 

But if I were to take a guess, the common divisor between 10 and 8 (the most widely-used number of cars) is 2.

[Wallyhorse]

I’m just curious about your methodology for determining the smallest number of cars for an independent unit. Why not just have every car be capable of independent functioning? That gives the maximum flexibility.

 

But if I were to take a guess, the common divisor between 10 and 8 (the most widely-used number of cars) is 2.

True, tech does have a way of driving prices up.

 

Perhaps they should look at some three-car sets as well as four and five.  That would give more flexibility because you can virtually have any number of cars on a train between three and 10 as needed.  You also will eventually need some three-car sets anyway for the Franklin Shuttle line unless you want to consider extending those stations down the road.

[Trainmaster5]

What they really should do is costs be dammed and go back to two-car sets to provide much greater flexibility, at least until all Eastern Division platforms are lengthened so they could handle 10-car trains.  

That " costs be damned" way of thinking went the way of the Do-Do bird years ago. The very reason we have four and five car linked sets is to cut down on employee costs and the time spent making up trains for service. I'm delving into my history book now so bear with me. Let's say it's 1983 and I'm in 239th St yard (IRT). I'm the yardmaster  and I have three crews at my disposal. 9 am, 12 noon and 2pm.I have a ten car consist 7750-7759 with a problem car in 7754. With a married pair I must remove that car and it's mate and find another spare married pair and make a swap. Seems simple, right? Think again. At the same time this move is being made by my 9am crew my 12 noon crew is doing the same thing with another train except this train, 7800-7961, is a "bastard" married pair. That means the car numbers are not sequential in this 10 car consist. It will take at least twice as long to cut out one car and find a suitable mate to make up a train.I've got to find one compressor car (odd#) and one electrical unit (even#). At the same time these 2 moves are being made my 2pm crew is also on the move either in the barn or various yard tracks putting together my transfer to 207th St or putting together a transfer to another IRT yard by my 6pm crew.. I have deliberately left out the 8am crew and the 4pm crew because of the timing and track capacity. Now  let's move to 2005 in the same yard. Because I'm dealing with 5 car NTT units I can swap one five car unit with another one without all of the previous cutting and adding saving time Because I'm saving time I can eliminate 2 or 3 of the switching crews I mentioned earlier. Less payroll= less employee benefits and pensions. We used to do things the way you've proposed but that way, and I, have been relegated to the history books. It's all about the Benjamins. Carry on.

[Wallyhorse]

That " costs be damned" way of thinking went the way of the Do-Do bird years ago. The very reason we have four and five car linked sets is to cut down on employee costs and the time spent making up trains for service. I'm delving into my history book now so bear with me. Let's say it's 1983 and I'm in 239th St yard (IRT). I'm the yardmaster  and I have three crews at my disposal. 9 am, 12 noon and 2pm.I have a ten car consist 7750-7759 with a problem car in 7754. With a married pair I must remove that car and it's mate and find another spare married pair and make a swap. Seems simple, right? Think again. At the same time this move is being made by my 9am crew my 12 noon crew is doing the same thing with another train except this train, 7800-7961, is a "bastard" married pair. That means the car numbers are not sequential in this 10 car consist. It will take at least twice as long to cut out one car and find a suitable mate to make up a train.I've got to find one compressor car (odd#) and one electrical unit (even#). At the same time these 2 moves are being made my 2pm crew is also on the move either in the barn or various yard tracks putting together my transfer to 207th St or putting together a transfer to another IRT yard by my 6pm crew.. I have deliberately left out the 8am crew and the 4pm crew because of the timing and track capacity. Now  let's move to 2005 in the same yard. Because I'm dealing with 5 car NTT units I can swap one five car unit with another one without all of the previous cutting and adding saving time Because I'm saving time I can eliminate 2 or 3 of the switching crews I mentioned earlier. Less payroll= less employee benefits and pensions. We used to do things the way you've proposed but that way, and I, have been relegated to the history books. It's all about the Benjamins. Carry on.

Which is why in a subsequent post I noted the idea of adding some three-car sets.  There likely will be the need for such at some point on the Franklin Shuttle anyway, and that, coupled with the four and five-car sets provide almost the same kind of flexibility I mentioned as two-car sets since having a mix of such allows for almost any configuration of three to 10 cars depending on needs. 

[ttcsubwayfan]

And what happens if all the 3 car sets are in use, and the only ones left behind are 4 or 5 car sets? Now you've got no train.

 

Stop trying to overcomplicate things.

[Fresh Pond]

Which is why in a subsequent post I noted the idea of adding some three-car sets. There likely will be the need for such at some point on the Franklin Shuttle anyway, and that, coupled with the four and five-car sets provide almost the same kind of flexibility I mentioned as two-car sets since having a mix of such allows for almost any configuration of three to 10 cars depending on needs.

If you have odd numbered hybrid sets running around, then you gonna need new conductor boards and new train stopping positions.

 

Simplicity and uniformity is key...

[R32 3838]

Making tech trains in pairs will increase the weight of the full length train. If a 5 car set of R160's with each car being 84,000 B cars and 85,000 A cars, A pair of A-A cars will be atleast 95,000 pounds due to all the computer equipment under the train.

[onthe1train]

True, tech does have a way of driving prices up.

 

Perhaps they should look at some three-car sets as well as four and five.  That would give more flexibility because you can virtually have any number of cars on a train between three and 10 as needed.  You also will eventually need some three-car sets anyway for the Franklin Shuttle line unless you want to consider extending those stations down the road.

 

Having just three and four car sets would have the most flexibility. The only concern is moving the C/O boards.

 

For the shuttles, use three car sets

For eight-car trains, use 4-4

For ten-car trains, use 3-4-3 or 3-3-4

For eleven-car trains, use 4-3-4 or 4-4-3

 

But then you have more A cars in the system, which drives up the price a bit, I would think. And in the end, it'll all be moot as CBTC takes over and eliminates T/Os and C/Os.

[Lance]

Which is why in a subsequent post I noted the idea of adding some three-car sets.  There likely will be the need for such at some point on the Franklin Shuttle anyway, and that, coupled with the four and five-car sets provide almost the same kind of flexibility I mentioned as two-car sets since having a mix of such allows for almost any configuration of three to 10 cars depending on needs. 

Having just three and four car sets would have the most flexibility. The only concern is moving the C/O boards.

 

For the shuttles, use three car sets

For eight-car trains, use 4-4

For ten-car trains, use 3-4-3 or 3-3-4

For eleven-car trains, use 4-3-4 or 4-4-3

 

But then you have more A cars in the system, which drives up the price a bit, I would think. And in the end, it'll all be moot as CBTC takes over and eliminates T/Os and C/Os.

There's a reason why most of the system uses the same number of cars per set. Doing otherwise requires the cars and trains to be in the same position all the time. The Flushing line is the exception to the rule by sheer necessity. If the MTA could get away with running ten cars of two five-car sets, they would.

 

Also, having three- and four-car sets like that would mean the conductor is farther away from the middle of the train than (s)he currently is. Depending on consist setup, they'd be stationed in the fourth car from the front, the third car from the back (under the 3-4-3 setup), or fourth from the rear (under the 3-3-4 setup). Either way, you moved them from the middle of the train at the sixth car facing forward.

 

If you have odd numbered hybrid sets running around, then you gonna need new conductor boards and new train stopping positions.

 

Simplicity and uniformity is key...

 

You should know by now that simplicity and Wallyhorse are oxymorons. If there is a simple way of fixing something, Wallyhorse will go out of his way to find the absolute most complicated way possible.

[Around the Horn]

So Lance, when it comes time to replace the Franklin Shuttle's R68's, what would you do? (2 75' cars is almost the length of 3 60' cars)

 

I personally would extend the platforms and run 4 car sets.

[Lance]

That is a conundrum, isn't it? I doubt the MTA was thinking that far ahead when they rebuilt the platforms at Franklin Av-Fulton St and Park Place. If they don't extend the platforms, I can see them ordering a couple of two- or three-car sets depending on car length specifically for the Franklin Ave shuttle. They'll likely have to do the same for the 42nd Street shuttle if the platforms at Times Square aren't extended. However, these cases all fall into the category of "sheer necessity" and shouldn't be the reason behind ordering two- and three-car sets for mainline services.

[Wallyhorse]

That is a conundrum, isn't it? I doubt the MTA was thinking that far ahead when they rebuilt the platforms at Franklin Av-Fulton St and Park Place. If they don't extend the platforms, I can see them ordering a couple of two- or three-car sets depending on car length specifically for the Franklin Ave shuttle. They'll likely have to do the same for the 42nd Street shuttle if the platforms at Times Square aren't extended. However, these cases all fall into the category of "sheer necessity" and shouldn't be the reason behind ordering two- and three-car sets for mainline services.

Certainly not in 1995, especially since at that time it mostly was still two-car sets.

 

Obviously, the need for tech has changed things dramatically in recent years and forced the need for four and five-car sets even if there is the risk of one car going out and losing a four or five-car set as a result.  

[P3F]

That is a conundrum, isn't it? I doubt the MTA was thinking that far ahead when they rebuilt the platforms at Franklin Av-Fulton St and Park Place. If they don't extend the platforms, I can see them ordering a couple of two- or three-car sets depending on car length specifically for the Franklin Ave shuttle. They'll likely have to do the same for the 42nd Street shuttle if the platforms at Times Square aren't extended. However, these cases all fall into the category of "sheer necessity" and shouldn't be the reason behind ordering two- and three-car sets for mainline services.

Regarding Times Square, why is there only enough space on Track 4 for the last car to only open half of its last door? Why couldn't the extend that platform literally 2 feet?

[TheNewYorkElevated]

Regarding Times Square, why is there only enough space on Track 4 for the last car to only open half of its last door? Why couldn't the extend that platform literally 2 feet?

Looks too difficult to do. But I don't know the exact reason. 

[Lance]

Regarding Times Square, why is there only enough space on Track 4 for the last car to only open half of its last door? Why couldn't the extend that platform literally 2 feet?

Looks too difficult to do. But I don't know the exact reason. 

The station is already on a curve. Any extension, which really isn't possible due to a lack of space in either direction, would exacerbate that curvature problem. That's why there are plans to abandon track 4 at Times Square at some point.

[Wallyhorse]

The station is already on a curve. Any extension, which really isn't possible due to a lack of space in either direction, would exacerbate that curvature problem. That's why there are plans to abandon track 4 at Times Square at some point.

And part of the problem was when it was built as part of the original subway, they didn't realize how much Times Square (then called Longacre Square) would grow in just the first years after the subway opened.   It likely would have been built as an express station had they known how much the area would grow.

 

Not sure if they can completely abandon track 4 since they likely still need it for operational moves.

[Lance]

Yes, hindsight is 20-20. We know that. When the city financed the construction of the IRT subway, most of the population was concentrated on the southern end of the island.

 

As for keeping track 4 for operational purposes, what operational purposes? Track 4 of the shuttle only connects to the northbound 7th Avenue local track. Removing it from passenger service eliminates the need for the shuttle moves from there. It isn't as though there isn't another connection on the eastern end of the shuttle.