Home  Maps  About

Home > SubChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

< Previous Page  

Page 6 of 7

Next Page >  

(1150943)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Michael549 on Sun Apr 15 05:17:30 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 21:24:38 2012.

As a part of the 1970's fiscal crisis and subway service cuts - the #4 train became a midnight hour all-local train through the Bronx, Manhattan and Brooklyn. And the #6 train became a Bronx shuttle between 125th Street and Pelham Bay Park for about 20 years. Making the #4 train the sole full-length eastside service, and a very crowded train.

In one of the only actions that I give Mayor Rudy G. credit for during a very cold winter in the mid-1990's, he got the MTA to restore the #6 train to its full length during the midnight hours. He did this by saying that riders for the upper eastside had to wait a long time for service in the cold weather as compared to riders on the westside of Manhattan. At the time, the idea that Bronx riders of the #6 line would benefit by the removal of the hated #6 Bronx shuttle did not seem to occur to the decision makers at the time. Anyway the restoration of the midnight service on the #6 line is again one of the few things that I give Mayor Rudy G. credit for.

Mike



(1150950)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sun Apr 15 06:54:36 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by randyo on Sun Apr 15 04:30:42 2012.

I couldn't say. But the mere fact that the N came in on the local track and the T nearly simultaneously on the express track at Pacific St. suggests to me that the T came from the bypass track at Dekalb, which in turn would mean that it came via the Manhattan Bridge.

(1150952)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Joe V on Sun Apr 15 07:38:59 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 21:12:27 2012.

M/V merger netted an extra 90-100 or so R46's, which were sent to the "A", and permitted a mass execution of R44's over the next couple of weeks.

Orange M uses 4 or 5 more train sets than Brown M due to V intervals.

(1150953)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Joe V on Sun Apr 15 07:40:06 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Apr 14 21:18:03 2012.

I think you meant to say the R42 would have been retired - that was the purpose of the last 32 R160's that were sent to ENY.

(1151007)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by 3-9 on Sun Apr 15 13:42:28 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Joe V on Sun Apr 15 07:40:06 2012.

I think there are still R42's at ENY, they were still running on the J many months after the elimination of the V.

(1151040)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 15 16:48:08 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sun Apr 15 04:01:02 2012.

Schedules are not padded. Lines I've worked, including the line I presently work on, don't have enough running time, unless you speed. Grade timers are being added without a compensating increase of the running time.

Could it be actual arrival times at terminals are being "fudged"? What time does a train actually arrive at a terminal? Is it when it hits the head of the station? Or is it when the doors open to let the passengers off? There is a difference since many trains crawl into the terminals.

(1151043)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 15 16:51:04 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Joe V on Sun Apr 15 07:40:06 2012.

Certainly, but needless to say the number of 8 car R160's ordered was based on what was need for the M from Bay Pky. to Met.

Naturally the equation was changed with the M/V merger. Hence the left over R42's.

(1151045)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Joe V on Sun Apr 15 16:56:34 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by 3-9 on Sun Apr 15 13:42:28 2012.

Of course there are: the Orange M requires 4 or 5 more train sets than the Brown M. They stole R160's from the J/Z, hence back-filled by retained R42's.

Having over-scrapped R32's, their next "out" was to cherry-pick 48 R44's for "C" service, and send 48 R32's to the Z to kill off the R42. Those R44's and R32's could have been for rush-hour only use. The R32's have bad compressors, and are all stainless, so belong running outside anyway.

The TA just will not learn from mistakes dating from the over-zealous scrapping of the last 40 GOH R30's while the L train ridership was about to take off, which again should have been left on the Z, or mixed with R42's.

(1151051)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by randyo on Sun Apr 15 17:18:16 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sun Apr 15 06:54:36 2012.

If the N came in on the lcl tk at that time of day, then there must have been some sort of a service disruption since Ns would normally be on the exp tk at that time of day.

(1151052)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 15 17:20:05 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Joe V on Sun Apr 15 16:56:34 2012.

You don't understand politics when it comes to the R30's.

MTA suits are put into their positions by politicians.

The R30 SMS'ed redbirds had plenty of life left in them............but they lacked air conditioning. Having an all air conditioned fleet on such a large system = bragging rights.

(1151053)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 15 17:21:32 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Apr 14 21:18:03 2012.

I don't understand: there are more trainsets available now then there were prior to the arrival of the R160s. Why would it be necessary to combine the M/V to get rid of the R44s?

(1151055)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by randyo on Sun Apr 15 17:24:57 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 15 16:48:08 2012.

You can thank the former senior director of schedules, Alex Friedlander for that. When anther sched mgr and I were asked to do a running time check between Nevins and Franklin we came up with a proper running time of 7 min if I recall, out of all the intervals we checked, maybe 1 or 2 made it in either 6 or 61/2 min. Despite the fact that the T/Os on those trains might have been running a bit recklessly and the norm should have been the higher number, Friedlander decided to use the lowest number for the running time on the schedules that were being prepared.

(1151056)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 15 17:24:58 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 15 16:48:08 2012.

Grade timers are being added without a compensating increase of the running time.

Signals engineering believes that If they install a GT30, trains will travel through it at 30mph.

(1151059)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by randyo on Sun Apr 15 17:31:44 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 15 17:24:58 2012.

The problem is that signals that are supposed to be set at 30 MPH (or any speed for that matter) are often set much lower than the posted speed. A former senior director of service planning recommended that the speed at which the GTs cleared should be about 2 or 3 MPH HIGHER than the posted speed so that the trains would actually operate at that speed, a technique which he claimed was used in Chicago. I have seen many locations on the IND with the old signaling which was supposed to be accurate where the speed was often 5 MPH or more under what was posted. In the old days before trains had speedometers, it wasn't necessarily so obvious but now with most of not all the equipment having speedometers the discrepancy is very obvious.

(1151080)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Joe V on Sun Apr 15 19:02:08 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 15 17:20:05 2012.

Well, there was the R33S-WF. There an equipment shortage and 10 car trains would not have been tolerated year-round. Reality set in.

I thought the J line constituency was rather politically impotent anyway, at least back in 1993.

What are "air-coolers" ? Would they have had any application in a subway car ?

(1151081)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Joe V on Sun Apr 15 19:04:01 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 15 17:21:32 2012.

I don't know about more trainsets available, but they are barely enough to make requirements for 480' long trains.

They could have busted down some cherry-picked R44 sets to be 3 cars, then run 7 car "C".

(1151087)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 20:05:43 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Joe V on Sun Apr 15 16:56:34 2012.

Of course there are: the Orange M requires 4 or 5 more train sets than the Brown M. They stole R160's from the J/Z, hence back-filled by retained R42's.

Where do you get that the Orange M requires more trainsets? The Orange M made a train surplus, not a shortage.
-Between Forest Hills and Essex St, Whatever the V ran, the M still runs in terms of headways, but for every train, we have the equivelant of 2 60 foot cars left over for every 75 foot car train of V converted to 60 foot cars of M.
-Between Essex St and Bay Parkway, every M train that ran between those two points at any given time are now surplus.

(1151104)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Apr 15 21:03:19 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 15 17:20:05 2012.

why do you think they never put A/C in those R30's?

someone said that the TA was worried that the added weight to those cars could damage the Williamsburg Bridge and the structure along Fulton.

(1151106)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 15 21:07:28 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Apr 15 21:03:19 2012.

I know.

(1151111)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by 3-9 on Sun Apr 15 21:18:28 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Apr 14 19:40:35 2012.

I've also seen them use it when something is occupying the middle track, like an out-of-service train or a work train.

(1151116)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by VictorM on Sun Apr 15 21:28:43 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 20:05:43 2012.

You can't magically turn 75 foot cars into 60 foot cars. The M requires two 4 car R160 units per train. The brown M ran only 6 trains per hour in the AM rush, the orange M requires 10 TPH. That caused the shortage of 4 car R160 units.

(1151117)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Apr 15 21:33:24 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 15 21:07:28 2012.

I was asking because I was not sure but figure you would know.

(1151119)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by VictorM on Sun Apr 15 21:37:47 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 15 17:21:32 2012.

There are plenty of 5 car R160 units; there's a shortage of 4 car R160 units. The M/V combo was to save money, not get rid of R44 cars.

(1151120)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 21:38:55 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by VictorM on Sun Apr 15 21:28:43 2012.

LOL. Yes, they were "magically" converted from 75 foot car trains to 60 foot trains. For every 75 foot V train of R46 trains (the equivalent of 10 car trains of 60 footers), it was transferred an 8 car trainset of 60 foot R160's (8 car trains of 60 footers). That left 2 extra 60 foot cars for EVERY Trainset of 75 foot cars from the v left over.

Second, the Essex St to Forest Hills portion of the line remains COMPLETELY unchanged in terms of headways, yet for EVERY one of those Orange M trains that runs there, it has two cars left over from every V that ran there. That leaves surplus.

Third, EVERY train that once handled the Brown M between Essex St and Bay Parkway is SURPLUS.

Fourth, the only spot where headways have changed is between Essex St and Metropolitan. How many trainsets run between Essex St and Metropolitan Ave? That's the ONLY spot where headways have slightly decreased.

The net change as a result of the M/V combo is SURPLUS, you completely ignored the surplus equipment between Essex and Bay Parkway of the old Brown M, as well as the surplus equivalent equipment left over from converting the longer 75 foot trains to 60 foot, shorter overall trains on the former V portion, and where no change in headways have taken place.

(1151121)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 21:45:19 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by VictorM on Sun Apr 15 21:37:47 2012.

No one said it was done to "get rid of the R44's", however, the surplus equipment that was the result of the M/V combo allowed the R44's to be retired. The V train was made up of R46 trains, which were transferred to Pitkin which allowed the R44's to be retired.

(1151122)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by VictorM on Sun Apr 15 21:51:48 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 21:45:19 2012.

Retaining the 222 R32's as well as elimining the V allowed the R44's to be retired.

(1151123)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 15 21:54:21 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by VictorM on Sun Apr 15 21:37:47 2012.

"Getting rid" of the R44 cars caused the fleet to be reduced therby saving money.

Originally the idea was to retire the R32's, but it was decided by the highest levels of NYCT that the R44's were in bad shape structurally.

I don't think the merge of the M/V happened only to get rid of cars, but it turned out to be a side benefit as fewer cars would be needed B Division wide for full service.

(1151124)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 15 22:04:31 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 21:38:55 2012.

LOL. Yes,they were "magically" converted from 75 foot car trains to 60 foot trains. For every 75 foot V train of R46 trains (the equivalent of 10 car trains of 60 footers),it was transferred an 8 car trainset of 60 foot R160's (8 car trains of 60 footers). That left 2 extra 60 foot cars for EVERY Trainset of 75 foot cars from the v left over.

I think the point VictorM is making is that the orange M required many more trainsests which could only be 60' cars, but eliminating the V only made 75' trainsets available. Hence, there was a shortage of 60', 4 car trainsets.



(1151125)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 22:05:31 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by VictorM on Sun Apr 15 21:51:48 2012.

Again, LOL..."eliminating" the V is called the M/V combo, the Orange M, which is exactly what we have been saying. The "V" was NOT eliminated, it was just given shorter trains, and name changed and called "the M". The entire V line is still in operation with the exception of one station, 2nd Ave, is called the M, and with the same amount of trains, but shorter trains. The old V trainsets were the equivalent of 10 car 60 foor trains, which when transferred and traded now operates with 8 car 60 foot trains. For every V train that ran, an M train now runs with a shorter train, allowing the equivalent of 2 60 foot cars to become surplus.
And again, that doesn't include all the surplus equipment that was left over from the old Brown M between Essex St and Bay Parkway.

(1151126)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by VictorM on Sun Apr 15 22:08:50 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 21:38:55 2012.

You don't seem to get it. There are DEFINITELY more trains per hour now than when the M ran to Bay Parkway. The running time between Metro and Forest Hills is about the same as was the time between Metro and Bay Parkway. Running more trains per hour means you need more cars. It's as simple as that. I didn't say there was an overall shoetage of cars, only that there's a shortage of 4 car R160 units. That's why the J had to retain 50 R42 cars.

(1151129)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 22:18:34 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by VictorM on Sun Apr 15 22:08:50 2012.

You don't seem to get it. There are DEFINITELY more trains per hour now than when the M ran to Bay Parkway.

And YOU don't seem to get it. The V train is COMPLETELY intact. All the trainsets that were used for the V are STILL THERE, except converted to shorter Eastern Division lengths, and now called "M", and the equivalent of 2 extra 60 foot cars are left from every one of those former V trainsets that ran there once converted to the Eastern Divsion 8 car of 60 foot trains. Nothing else has changed, the headways there are THE SAME. The headways may have changed between Essex St and Metropolitan, but THAT's IT, and it's only 1/3 of the line. How many trainsets did they add between Metropolitan and Essex St, that's the ONLY place where headways have slightly decreased. And then you STILL have all the surplus equipment of all the trains that once ran between Essex St and Bay Parkway. That's a large part of the old M line.

(1151131)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by VictorM on Sun Apr 15 22:21:17 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 15 22:04:31 2012.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks.

(1151134)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 22:34:07 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 15 22:04:31 2012.

But both of you are forgetting all the extra M trainsets that were no longer needed between Essex St and Bay Parkway. Those were all sent to the former V route to replace all the 75 foot cars the V once used. Those R46's the V used to use then in turn allowed the R44's to be retired as the former V's R46's replaced the R44's. Also, the over all length of the trains are shorter along the old V route.
While, yes, they haven't been able to replace the R42's, they were also around yet before the M and V were combined.

(1151135)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 22:35:50 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 22:34:07 2012.

In summary, the R44's would not have been able to be retired if not for the surplus M equipment between Essex St and Bay Parkway replacing the R46's along the old V route, which pushed out the R44's.

(1151136)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by VictorM on Sun Apr 15 22:43:11 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 22:18:34 2012.

When the M ran Bay Parkway only about 6 Trains per hour left both Metropolitan Av and Bay Parkway in the AM rush; now the same 6 TPH leave Metro, but 10 trains per hour leave Forest Hills. That's why they needed more R160 cars than they anticipated when the M ran to Bay Parkway. They borrowed those extra R160's from the J/Z. That's why the J/Z had to retain the R42's.

(1151137)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 22:49:29 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by VictorM on Sun Apr 15 22:43:11 2012.

But the R42's never left the J, they were there already when the M was still on Nassau. The answer to this would be how many train cars the M had as a Brown M or as an Orange M.

In any event, original point still remains, which was that the M/V still left a surplus of equipment when the R160's took over the old V route, allowing all the former R46's to knock out the R44's. That was Bill's original point before this tangent.

(1151138)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by VictorM on Sun Apr 15 23:05:53 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 22:49:29 2012.

I agree. It's interesting that the last of the R160's (I think it was a 4 car unit) arrived just about the same time as the M change (June 2010). They should have ordered more 4 car units. Now they have to squeeze 3 or 4 more years out of the R42's until the R179's arrive. At least ENY shop has plenty of experience maintaining them.

(1151139)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by grand concourse on Sun Apr 15 23:22:39 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 15 21:54:21 2012.

+1

(1151140)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by grand concourse on Sun Apr 15 23:29:50 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by VictorM on Sun Apr 15 21:28:43 2012.

Or put it in another way: if the V was all 10-car R160s, this new M has basically freed up an extra 2 cars per train on the line from Layfayete to 71st-continental.

And then you add the extra trains freed up now that the M no longer goes to southern Brooklyn and you get even more extra trains to push out the R44s.

(1151141)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by grand concourse on Sun Apr 15 23:33:50 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 15 22:04:31 2012.

If that's the point, then that somewhat clears it up. The new M does require more 60'car trains and thus why the R42s are still around.

Technically if they could have some M trains run 10 car trains and end at 2nd av, there would be no need for the R42s, but that would probably complicate and confuse things.

(1151142)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by grand concourse on Sun Apr 15 23:35:30 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by VictorM on Sun Apr 15 23:05:53 2012.

with all the trains that were reefed, isn't there a surplus of parts to use?

(1151143)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by grand concourse on Sun Apr 15 23:37:54 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 22:34:07 2012.

I think what they mean is that when the M was shifted from Bay Pkwy to 71st-continental, the new M required extra trains. Queens and Midtown needs more service than what the old M to southern Brooklyn required. I think that's their point.

(1151144)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by grand concourse on Sun Apr 15 23:39:34 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by grand concourse on Sun Apr 15 23:37:54 2012.

Basically, yes R46s for the V was freed up to retire some R44s, but they are talking about the amount of trains the old M ran vs the amount needed for the new M.

(1151146)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 23:51:20 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by grand concourse on Sun Apr 15 23:39:34 2012.

And they are still forgetting all the M's between Essex and Bay Parkway.

(1151149)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Michael549 on Mon Apr 16 01:00:38 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by grand concourse on Sun Apr 15 23:37:54 2012.

In previous times, the TA provided a listing of the amount of cars and types of cars assigned to particular lines for a given year.

Could not this year's listing (with the amounts of Orange M trains/cars assigned) be compared with the listing from say 2008 or 2009 when the Brown-M was still running?

Just wondering.
Mike



(1151152)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 16 01:35:42 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 21:38:55 2012.

actually..its pretty much a wash..with a few more sets thrown in.
the problem is the lack of 4 car sets..
a direct result of the unitizing problem.

Married pairs would have been more practical.

(1151153)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by VictorM on Mon Apr 16 01:35:53 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Michael549 on Mon Apr 16 01:00:38 2012.

Joe Korman has the information we're all looking for:
Sept 2009 BMT IND car assignments
Dec 2011 BMT IND car assignments
As you can see in the AM 17 M trains were needed back in 2009, but now 23 trains are needed. That explains the 4 car R160 unit shortage.

(1151154)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Apr 16 01:50:19 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 15 21:54:21 2012.

Eliminating the V also cut a job at 2nd Avenue.

(1151155)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by grand concourse on Mon Apr 16 02:03:43 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 15 23:51:20 2012.

How are they forgetting? It's Metropolitan to Bay Pkwy vs Metropolitan to 71st-continental. If that's what they mean, then what's all the confusion about?

(1151165)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 16 07:07:59 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by grand concourse on Mon Apr 16 02:03:43 2012.

Dear god....what is so hard to understand here. The headways on the Forest Hills to Essex Broadway-Lafayette portion of the line has unchanged. All the trains on that portion of the line have been converted from 75 foot cars to 60 foot cars, and the trains shortened. That leaves a 2 car surplus for every train converted to R160's on that part of the line. Every single train that ran between Essex St and Bay Parkway on the old Brown M is surplus. Those surplus 60 foot cars went to convert the longer V trains made up of 75 foot cars to shorter trains of 60 foot cars, allowing the V's R46's to replace the R44's when they went to Pitkin. That leaves the Metro to Essex portion of the line, which had headways decreased a bit to allow for the headways on the old V portion of the line.

[1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

< Previous Page  

Page 6 of 7

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]