Home  Maps  About

Home > SubChat

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread | Next in Thread ]


view flat

Re: J train extended to Bay Parkway? The car assignments.

Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 17 10:05:10 2011, in response to Re: J train extended to Bay Parkway? The car assignments., posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sun Apr 17 09:48:06 2011.

In their justification, the rail fans/foamers start mentioning alleviating the shortage with cars not even ordered yet!

Obviously the cars in FP Yd, and the 10 allegedly in CIYD, are poor performers, not fit for service.

I know for a fact that I see certain R32's on the C for a very limited time, because they mess up and spend more time in the yard than on the road because they get knocked out for problem after problem after problem. 3792/93, 3912/13............

These cars have no business being everyday cars. There is a foam fest here only because of the RFW. The only thing that's saved them is their superior car bodies and the necessity of retiring the R44's. If we still had the old M and V we'd have a severe car shortage right now.

And I'm tired of hearing how superior the R32's are to the R46's due to MBDF. Those figures do not tell the story. Those who are not associated with the C line don't know that 90% of the time there are gap trains available at Euclid and 168 for when a train is ordered shopped upon arrival, another train is available. So a swap of trains is made for the next trip, without a terminal abandonment. Car equipment does not take a hit on MBDF. On the other hand, except at Dyckman St. and Lefferts during the non-rush, there is no place to have a gap train for the A, so a shop upon arrival becomes an abandonment for the next trip, hence a hit to the MBDF.


Post a New Response

Your Handle:

Your Password:

E-Mail Address:



Before posting.. think twice!

[ Return to the Message Index ]