Jump to content

Canarsie Shutdown fleet swap thread


LGA Link N Train

Recommended Posts

 

On 12/19/2017 at 2:56 PM, R32 3838 said:

The ta always changes their minds last minute. The (C) getting R46's was most likely a last minute decision. There are other people who also have very credible sources. You guys keep dickriding on one person giving information about the (B) and (G). Nothing is official yet. This is basically a proposal and nothing more. I bet a month from now they will change their mind. If there's still 222 R32's left in the system post R179's its better to split them. The (A) can handle them, 8 sets should be good enough. 

 

The R46 (C), while implemented very quickly and on short notice, was initially planned months beforehand.

 

On 12/20/2017 at 12:38 AM, R32 3838 said:

The R160/R46 swap could happen without the R179's. They been talking about this swap for two years now. I have no idea how long this will take place. It was supposed to happen last November.

2
2

I'm curious as to where you heard that. The swapping of R160s to Jamaica won't start until more R179s start arriving.

On 12/20/2017 at 12:54 AM, R32 3838 said:

Hopefully they change the R179 order (thats also a rumor.)

 

One major factor is that 207th st barn can't fit a full length 600 foot train. That's one major reason why they had all the R32's there post 2010 cuts. They were supposed to get R46's to replace the R32's but the R44 issue prevented that. 

3
20

1: That's a possibility. All I can say about that at the moment.

2: I am very familiar with operations at 207th St, and I can tell you that full 480 foot trains are rarely put into 207 barn as it is already. Having 600 foot trains there doesn't really pose any significant problems.

On 12/20/2017 at 8:04 AM, Bill from Maspeth said:

Yeah, just like the swap of Jamaica R46's and CI R160's that the insiders said was going to happen about 6 weeks ago which never did?

 

On 12/20/2017 at 8:09 AM, Bill from Maspeth said:

Which the insiders were wrong about!

I'm unsure what "insiders" said that this swap was supposed to occur 6 weeks ago, but this amorphous group of them doesn't include me! :) This swap is planned to only occur once sufficient R179s enter service. Of course, things are subject to change. There seems to be some sort of game of telephone ongoing in which information is being skewed as it is passed from person to person.

On 12/20/2017 at 9:40 AM, FlushingExpress said:

Hence I never believe any junk transit workers say. They are not psychics and cannot read the future. [1] Back in 2014, someone said Jamaica would be all R160s and Coney Island would have R46s. Guess what? That did not happen and R46s cannot make regular runs on Brighton anyway. [2]  Someone else that the first R160s would be retrofitted for CBTC in early 2015. Guess what, it is already almost 2018 and not even one car has been converted yet. [3] A perfect example would be another retired transit employee (will not name him) who keeps insisting that the (M) should go to Forest Hills 24/7 and that every single subway station should be ADA accessible.

N and W are not getting R46s, they are staying with the R160s and few R68/68As.

It makes me laugh that some people are dumb enough to think CBTC on Queens Boulevard would be ready before 2020. Just look at Flushing, it is not even fully converted after how many years [4] and we all know an R46/R160 swap between Jamaica and Coney Island will NOT happen considering that Jamaica actually has LESS R160s than it did in 2010-2011, having send 65 to Coney Island in 2011 when the (G) was transferred there and another 40 or so when the (W) was restored last year, which is why they are so many R46s on the (F) now when it was fully R160s before. By the time CBTC is ready in 2024-2025, there should be enough R211s to simply retire Jamaica's R46s or send them to Pitkin/207th Street to retire the R46s or R32s there. The R211s are planned to be CBTC equipped when built anyway and Sea Beach and Astoria riders love the R160s so much, they will fume if they get old fat junks in their place, just like how (6) riders have been fuming ever since they lost the R142As, hence I stopped riding that train to get to/from Hunter College. 

You know in that situation it is best to just sit the (B)s there in the Flatbush Avenue tunnel being that the Montague Street Tunnel can only hold three different services at a time, in your case it would be (D)(N)(R). The (Q) would not even be able to run in that situation either because of lack of room.

Honestly, I cannot think of another "B" Division train besides the B that the R32s can run on without trouble. A, F and D are too long and have little outdoor portions (the latter two may also get rerouted via Montague Street Tunnel), E and G are all or mostly underground (Jamaica would not want them anyway), J/Z will not need them once the R179s enter, and no roll signs available for the M.

Don't forget the only reason the R32s are still here was because the R44s had to retire due to structural issues (I am so glad they did because they are the biggest failures in NYCS history and I avoided them at all costs) [5]  and running on the J/Z because it is a mostly outdoor route, so it puts less strain on the R32s' struggling A/C system. I wonder why the M shuttle got R42s instead of R32s instead. Riders there hate the rusted tin cans so much they will not even ride the shuttle, preferring to take a bus or walk to the L. I do not blame them, the only thing that keeps me from going insane on an r42 is laughing at the miserable look on everyone else's faces.

9

1: Well on behalf of myself and all other NYCT workers, I am truly sorry for trying to be friendly and talking about what I know about this incredibly interesting system. Sorry about that..

2: R46s are not "banned" from the Brighton Line at all anymore. This "ban" is a rumor that has no basis in fact that keeps getting repeated over and over again for no reason. 

3: R160s are indeed being retrofitted for QBL CBTC. As they cycle through the Coney Island Shop, they're being retrofitted with CBTC equipment. Take a close look at the undercar equipment of Coney Island and Jamaica's R160s next time you get a chance, you'll see OSMES cables and transponder interrogators on the trucks.

4: Flushing CBTC isn't ready yet, but notice that the R188 fleet was in place, with the R142A/R62A swap mostly completed by 2016, a whole two years before full CBTC cutover. A similar scenerio occurred with the R143 cars. The same can occur with the R160s and R46s.

5: You probably lost more travel time avoiding R44s than however much time you saved from not riding them in case one you rode broke down. The marginal benefits of "avoiding the R44s at all costs" were definitely less than the marginal costs.

On 12/22/2017 at 8:22 PM, FlushingExpress said:

They will be retired well before the shutdown begins in April 2019, there are only 50 of those rusted tin cans, so it would not take too long for the R179s to replace them all. I say by this time next year, they will finally be put out of their misery.

 

On 12/23/2017 at 12:20 AM, R32 3838 said:

Its rumored the R42's might stay and would go where the R32's are going

No plans to retire the R42s yet until after Canarsie. Overall fleet requirements will increase during the shutdown.

On 12/23/2017 at 10:46 PM, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

Not sure, even if some are removed, quite a few will stay on the (A), I predict more than before. This is since many R46's from the A will go to the (C) and that lines R160's to the (J) while mostly all R32's and some 46's go to the (A). Saying R32's are temporary on the (A) makes little sense since getting rid of them would also revert them back to their previous lines, including the entirely NTT (J) which im not sure the (MTA) wants to do.

 

11

The (J) will be entirely NTT for the shutdown. 

On 12/24/2017 at 4:11 AM, R32 3838 said:

Its all up to car equipment, if all 222 R32's stay, I see them being split between 207th and CIY. With the (A) and (C) sharing them and CI ones being on mainly the (G) and 1-2 sets on the (B) as gap trains.

 

The (B) doesn't regularly use gap trains. There are very few instances, especially in the B division, where gap trains are regularly scheduled. 

On 12/24/2017 at 7:45 PM, R32 3838 said:

Like i said its all up to car equipment,  like you said you are showing what is planned not approved . If car equipment approves then so be it. You took all this time to reply to every single post i made shows that you must have alot of time on your hands.

On 12/24/2017 at 8:30 PM, Bill from Maspeth said:

The folks in Operations Planning is just one department that is part of the final decision.  Car Equipment has a bigger stake  and nobody here has inside information about how they feel about w which cars go to which yard.

It's not just up to car equipment. Ops Planning, Service Delivery (RTO) and Senior NYCT management also have a say in this. The whims of one department do not outweigh the overall needs and requirements of the system. If car equipment has an issue, reasonable accommodation is made to meet their concerns. For example, car equipment wanted to assign the R62As from the (7) to the (4). There were other operational issues with that, and car equipment's desires were overruled, and the R62As went to the (6)

Also, decisions don't just happen in a vacuum. People talk to each other. I have an especially detailed understanding about what car equipment thinks about all of this. 

On 12/24/2017 at 8:58 PM, Union Tpke said:

The T/Os from Astoria are being retrained as we speak.

While you've been on-point so far, this doesn't seem right. All B division crews are qualified on R46 equipment. However, I'm sure line supervision will ensure that the changeover to R46s on other lines will be smooth, just like they did for the C line.

 

 

Whew, that was a long post. Should clear a couple things up. :D There's so much more I'd love to say but I can't really. I still did my best to be as objective and pragmatic as possible.

 

And to that one person who really enjoys upvoting everything that even slightly disagrees with what I say, I'm not going to name you, but your irrational and obsessive hatred of me is quite concerning. Karma doesn't take kindly to that sort of thing. I'm aware that others have also called you out on this. Spend less effort hating other people and spend more effort focusing on your own personal growth. It's not worth the effort. And if it really is worth the effort to you, I encourage you to message me personally so things can be worked out maturely instead of passive-aggressively on an internet forum. You're a grown adult now, please act like it. Thanks! :) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Those R160's do have those things under the trucks and i pointed this out on facebook so that right there is clear evidence that the R46/160 swap is happening. But i don't know why they need to wait for the R179's to come in but I think i know why now they want to wait now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/2/2018 at 6:28 PM, CDTA said:

Just realized I forgot to account for spares before, so here's a new one using current spare ratios.

(J)/(Z): 15 R179s, 5 R160s

(G): 13 R179s

(B): 13 R32s, 4 R42s, and 8 R68s

(N)/(W): 5 R46s, 23 R68s, 5 R179s

(Q): 3 R68s, 18 R160s

(C): R46

(E)/(F)/(R): All R160

This would leave 3 eight car R32s, and 9 8 car R160s which could both be added to the (G) depending on how much they want to up service. (The (G) uses 13 trains now, the scenario above assumes they don't add any new trains, just make them all eight cars (Adding all of them would allow for double the current service))

Also there should be 7 or so trains taken off of the (L), and those can be put on the (J)(M)(Z) since if I recall correctly you can put one or two more trains over the Willy B.

Actually the R160s that are on the (Q) would be on the (N) and (W) due to Astoria having the line swap at the terminal, and if the rumors about additional R179 5-car sets are true, then all those 5-car R179s will also be on the (N) and the (Q) would have all R68As. The (N) and (W) would still be all NTT and the (Q) would have one car class

The R46s would be on the (G)(A) and (C) with some on the (B) 

 

(A) - 304 R46 + 56 spares = 360

(C) - 144 R46 + 40 spares = 184

(G) - 56 R46 (4-car sets) or 144 R46 (8-car trains during sandy shutdown of the (L) line

(N) / (W) - 180 R179 + 120 R160 + 32 R68s + spares

(B) - 150 R32 + 40 R46 + 40 R68

(Q) - 168 R68A + 40 spares

 

remaining R46 on the Rockaway shuttle

remaining R68s on the (B)(D)(N)(Q)(W) 

all 5-car R179s on the (N) to displace R160s to Jamaica 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

Actually the R160s that are on the (Q) would be on the (N) and (W) due to Astoria having the line swap at the terminal, and if the rumors about additional R179 5-car sets are true, then all those 5-car R179s will also be on the (N) and the (Q) would have all R68As. The (N) and (W) would still be all NTT and the (Q) would have one car class

The R46s would be on the (G)(A) and (C) with some on the (B) 

 

(A) - 304 R46 + 56 spares = 360

(C) - 144 R46 + 40 spares = 184

(G) - 56 R46 (4-car sets) or 144 R46 (8-car trains during sandy shutdown of the (L) line

(N) / (W) - 180 R179 + 120 R160 + 32 R68s + spares

(B) - 150 R32 + 40 R46 + 40 R68

(Q) - 168 R68A + 40 spares

 

remaining R46 on the Rockaway shuttle

remaining R68s on the (B)(D)(N)(Q)(W) 

all 5-car R179s on the (N) to displace R160s to Jamaica 

All the train crews have to do on the R46s is just change the rollsigns on the front, middle, and back sides. R46s on the (N) and (W) isn't really far off at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

Those R160's do have those things under the trucks and i pointed this out on facebook so that right there is clear evidence that the R46/160 swap is happening. But i don't know why they need to wait for the R179's to come in but I think i know why now they want to wait now.

 

20 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

Those R160's do have those things under the trucks and i pointed this out on facebook so that right there is clear evidence that the R46/160 swap is happening. But i don't know why they need to wait for the R179's to come in but I think i know why now they want to wait now.

Have you seen any R46's on a southern division line yet?  Don't count the R46 that comes from the R line at 96/2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2018 at 9:27 PM, Jemorie said:

All the train crews have to do on the R46s is just change the rollsigns on the front, middle, and back sides. R46s on the (N) and (W) isn't really far off at all.

Just likely that there wont be as many R46s assigned to the (N)(W) as some people are thinking. Probably just enough for the weekday (W) service and have the (N) all R160/R179 (assignment on paper at least, but in practice, just a mesh) because most R46s will likely be assigned to the (A) and (C) and the increased spare factor due to the now incoming R179s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to my previous post I realize that you could probably change the (N)/(W) to be all R68, and move the R179s to the (B) and (Q) and the R46s and the other R68 to the (B), just for simplicity sake. (Although worth noting while this would simplify the (N)/(W) to just one fleet, and the (Q) to all NTT, this would make the (B) have five separate, very different fleets (Fanning on the Brighton would give you access to every B-division fleet except the R143!))

This would change it to

(B): 13 R32s, 4 R42s, 5 R46s, 1 R68, and 2 R179s

(N)/(W): 33 R68s

(Q): 3 R179s, 18 R160s

Could go either way though

On 1/2/2018 at 4:57 PM, LGA Link N train said:

@CDTA Well you didint mention the (M)

(M) isn't affected, because as I said, any extra cars it has would come from the (L), but if between all three lines you needed more than the 7 trains provided you could poach them from the (G)'s extra R160s.

 

On 1/3/2018 at 9:20 PM, darkstar8983 said:

Actually the R160s that are on the (Q) would be on the (N) and (W) due to Astoria having the line swap at the terminal, and if the rumors about additional R179 5-car sets are true, then all those 5-car R179s will also be on the (N) and the (Q) would have all R68As. The (N) and (W) would still be all NTT and the (Q) would have one car class

If I was making the rules that's how I'd set it up personally, but right now there are R68s assigned to the (N)/(W), and not the (Q), plus if what DJ Hammers hinted at a while ago is still accurate, the (N)/(W) is the one losing their R160s, which is what this is based off of.

 

On 1/2/2018 at 10:04 PM, Dj Hammers said:

It's not just up to car equipment. Ops Planning, Service Delivery (RTO) and Senior NYCT management also have a say in this. The whims of one department do not outweigh the overall needs and requirements of the system. If car equipment has an issue, reasonable accommodation is made to meet their concerns. For example, car equipment wanted to assign the R62As from the (7) to the (4). There were other operational issues with that, and car equipment's desires were overruled, and the R62As went to the (6).

If you're allowed to talk about it, why did Car Equipment want them to go to the (4), and why did they end up going to the (6) instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t be ridiculous CDTA. Your proposal is unlikely to happen. R68s and R68As would create rollsign issues on the (N) and (W) and the (B) does not necessarily need to have a whole bunch of a variety of different fleets. And the R32s are likely going to stay on the (A) and (C) lines specifically because of what Bill has been trying to tell us all along for months on end now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Don’t be ridiculous CDTA. Your proposal is unlikely to happen. R68s and R68As would create rollsign issues on the (N) and (W) and the (B) does not necessarily need to have a whole bunch of a variety of different fleets. And the R32s are likely going to stay on the (A) and (C) lines specifically because of what Bill has been trying to tell us all along for months on end now.

Like I said before, I would personally (possibly) put them on the (Q), but for whatever reason management is now, and has historically been keen on keeping them on the Astoria Line. Even with that aside, if the various swaps go through as proposed, there wouldn't even be enough R160s at CI to cover them.

As for the (B), it may seem crazy having all those one offs, but that's because I'm accounting for every currently assigned set. If you wanted all the spares to be R179s, you could probably just have it be 32s, 42s, and 46s, but that's not they way it's set up right now.

Keep in mind this proposal:

Gives every yard except for ENY and Coney Island one unified fleet

Gives every line outside of the eastern division a unified fleet except the (B), (Q),  and possibly the (N)/(W) and (G).

Keeps the R32 and R42 to a line that goes outdoors where they'll see plenty of rest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, CDTA said:

Going back to my previous post I realize that you could probably change the (N)/(W) to be all R68, and move the R179s to the (B) and (Q) and the R46s and the other R68 to the (B), just for simplicity sake. (Although worth noting while this would simplify the (N)/(W) to just one fleet, and the (Q) to all NTT, this would make the (B) have five separate, very different fleets (Fanning on the Brighton would give you access to every B-division fleet except the R143!))

This would change it to

(B): 13 R32s, 4 R42s, 5 R46s, 1 R68, and 2 R179s

(N)/(W): 33 R68s

(Q): 3 R179s, 18 R160s

Could go either way though

(M) isn't affected, because as I said, any extra cars it has would come from the (L), but if between all three lines you needed more than the 7 trains provided you could poach them from the (G)'s extra R160s.

 

If I was making the rules that's how I'd set it up personally, but right now there are R68s assigned to the (N)/(W), and not the (Q), plus if what DJ Hammers hinted at a while ago is still accurate, the (N)/(W) is the one losing their R160s, which is what this is based off of.

 

If you're allowed to talk about it, why did Car Equipment want them to go to the (4), and why did they end up going to the (6) instead

They wanted them on the (4) due to simply signage. The (6) has 2 northern terminals vs. The (4) which has one. The main reason why the (4) stayed with NTT's vs. The (6) is because the R142's have wider doors and it decreases dwell time and improve passenger flow vs the R62A's with standard doors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

They wanted them on the (4) due to simply signage. The (6) has 2 northern terminals vs. The (4) which has one. The main reason why the (4) stayed with NTT's vs. The (6) is because the R142's have wider doors and it decreases dwell time and improve passenger flow vs the R62A's with standard doors. 

But that's not the only reason. Another reason was because if it had used R62As instead of the (6) using them, it would have also negatively impacted (5) service as well due to dwelling time at each express station, whereas the (6) alone wouldn't really matter too much since it does not share trackage with any other line along its run. Hence the R62As went to that line instead. R62As still causes dwelling delays and irregular service on the entire (6) line though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Would it make sense to swap (2) and (6) fleets to speed up dwell times on Lex?

The (2) already has OTP of about 30%, and the most stops of any route, and overcrowding problems of its own. So no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2018 at 7:56 PM, CDTA said:

If you're allowed to talk about it, why did Car Equipment want them to go to the (4), and why did they end up going to the (6) instead?

1

 

6 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

They wanted them on the (4) due to simply signage. The (6) has 2 northern terminals vs. The (4) which has one. The main reason why the (4) stayed with NTT's vs. The (6) is because the R142's have wider doors and it decreases dwell time and improve passenger flow vs the R62A's with standard doors. 

6

Car equipment preferred having the R62As on the (4), because it would Mosholu barn to be 100% R62A, while Westchester would be all NTT. This would be more efficient for the barns. 

However, the operational impact of having half of the Lexington Ave Express made up of R62As, which have been proven to have worse dwell times than NTTs at heavily crowded stations, would be significant. Hence, R62As were put on the (6).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

I updated my thoughts for the (L) shutdown assignments.

(A)- R46*/R179

(B)- R32/R42**/R68

(C)- R46

(D)- R68

(E)- R160

(F)- R160

(G)- R32/R68/R179

(J)(Z)- R160/R179

(M)- R160

(N)(W)- R46/R68

(Q)(R)- R160

(H)(S)- R46/R68

* @Dj Hammers and @Union Tpke, both of whom are credible insiders, have said multiple times the 32s on the (A) are temporary. 

**If R42s stay.

 

Sounds pretty good, except it would be more likely that the R179s (10’car trains) and R160s left over from the Queens Blvd Line CBTC get assigned to the (N)(W) to not deal with poor roll signs. Otherwise you’d have mass confusion on the Broadway Line and an On Time percentage of about 0% for the (N)(W) considering the huge interchange in cars when the trains arrive at Ditmars Blvd (and the huge number of trains that show up late on a daily basis). (Q) will have all R68As

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, D to 96 St said:

I updated my thoughts for the (L) shutdown assignments.

(A)- R46*/R179

(B)- R32/R42**/R68

(C)- R46

(D)- R68

(E)- R160

(F)- R160

(G)- R32/R68/R179

(J)(Z)- R160/R179

(M)- R160

(N)(W)- R46/R68

(Q)(R)- R160

(H)(S)- R46/R68

* @Dj Hammers and @Union Tpke, both of whom are credible insiders, have said multiple times the 32s on the (A) are temporary. 

**If R42s stay.

 

R32's on the (A) being temporary I understand but I have my own opinions on that issue.

It's unlikely that R42's stay but if you're gonna keep 'em then leave 'em on the (A)(C)

If the (G) is getting both R32's and R179's then there's no reason to keep the R68's there. Put 'em on the (C)

(N)(W) riders would throw fits if they lost all of their 160's 

Wouldn't there still be a surplus of 4 car R160's in your scenario 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

R42's are staying, and the (Q) would have all the R160's with R68A's. The (N) and (W) would be mostly R46's with R68's.

 

The (G) will likely have the majority of the R32's that would be at CI yard. There's no telling where the R179's will be at with the exception of the (A)(J)(Z) lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

I updated my thoughts for the (L) shutdown assignments.

(A)- R46*/R179

(B)- R32/R42**/R68

(C)- R46

(D)- R68

(E)- R160

(F)- R160

(G)- R32/R68/R179

(J)(Z)- R160/R179

(M)- R160

(N)(W)- R46/R68

(Q)(R)- R160

(H)(S)- R46/R68

* @Dj Hammers and @Union Tpke, both of whom are credible insiders, have said multiple times the 32s on the (A) are temporary. 

**If R42s stay.

 

R32s on the (A) are not temporary. So stop acting like it. Why would R32s go on the (G) if it's almost entirely underground anyway? That causes air-conditioning issues. Same with why they never once ran on the (M) despite being maintained at ENY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

R32s on the (A) are not temporary. So stop acting like it. Why would R32s go on the (G) if it's almost entirely underground anyway? That causes air-conditioning issues. Same with why they never once ran on the (M) despite being maintained at ENY.

So if that’s the case they might as well just left all the R32s and in the (J)(Z) and when the construction is over go back to the original plan which is having R179s on the (A)(C)(J)(Z) trains. Beggers can’t be choicer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, R179 8258 said:

So if that’s the case they might as well just left all the R32s and in the (J)(Z) and when the construction is over go back to the original plan which is having R179s on the (A)(C)(J)(Z) trains 

They want the (J)(Z) 100% NTTs because of the upcoming displaced (L) riders and it's been said that the R160s have less running times over the Willy B than the R32s and R42s do. This will certainly be the case with the (G) as well. It's also why they choose to have R46s on the (C) in the first place, to make that line full-length for the displaced Canarsie riders. The R32s and R42s are only good at handling crowds but not too good at speeding through the Willy B on the Jamaica Line, which could potentionally increase overall running time/waiting time for the (J)(Z) line entirely in both directions.

EDIT: I don't see the point in going back to short-length (C) trains after the Canarsie Tunnel repairs are finish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

They want the (J)(Z) 100% NTTs because of the upcoming displaced (L) riders and it's been said that the R160s have less running times over the Willy B than the R32s and R42s do. This will certainly be the case with the (G) as well. It's also why they choose to have R46s on the (C) in the first place, to make that line full-length for the displaced Canarsie riders. The R32s and R42s are only good at handling crowds but not too good at speeding through the Willy B on the Jamaica Line.

Understandable. But the way the MTAis thinking isn’t logically at. The the (L) riders will most likely use the (A)(C) and (G) trains because they meet the (L) especially 14 st-8 Ave so shouldn’t the (A)(C) and (G) should get more trains. The (M) could get a little as well to since the Viduact should be finish being constructed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t Know why anyone posting in regards to this thread is some type of upset or bothered by what machine on rails runs on a particular line... it’s getting kind of ridiculous. Just get your pics, enjoy being surprised, and carry on being respectful. All this is not that serious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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