Home  Maps  About

Home > SubChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

< Previous Page  

Page 7 of 7

 

(1151167)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 16 07:14:11 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by VictorM on Mon Apr 16 01:35:53 2012.

No one is denying that. But all Bill said at the beginning is that the M/V combo STILL provided for an overall car surplus allowing the R44's to be retired. That has not changed. The V's R46's became surplus after the M/V routes were combined, providing an overall increase in B division equipment. Those extra R46's allowed, when transferred to Pitkin, the R44's to be retired.
The R42's are around longer than they were expecting, and the R44's retired sooner than them, but there still is an overall surplus that allowed the R44's to be retired, which would not have been allowed to be done if not for the M/V combo. The M may have 6 extra trainsets, but the V had a lot more train sets than that that were transferred to Pitkin.

Post a New Response

(1151174)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Apr 16 07:54:10 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 16 07:14:11 2012.

Yeah, basically, the M fleet went a renamed and extended V, the V fleet went to the A, and the R44s just WENT!

Post a New Response

(1151179)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 16 08:08:35 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by MainR3664 on Mon Apr 16 07:54:10 2012.

Yup, exactly what happened.

Post a New Response

(G00GLE)

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av


(1151180)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Apr 16 08:08:35 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by HANDBRAKE on Sat Apr 7 10:55:16 2012.

The R, which I use quite a bit, is a lousy, slow, all underground, crappy route. No doubt.

Post a New Response

(1151181)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Apr 16 08:09:19 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by MainR3664 on Mon Apr 16 08:08:35 2012.

But as an addendum, it can be usefull for getting from the South Ferry area to Midtown. But it still sucks.

Post a New Response

(1151186)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Apr 16 08:35:12 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by randyo on Thu Apr 12 14:25:28 2012.

In recent years, I didn't notice any such procedure. I guess almost everybody just "knew" this was the end of the line...

Post a New Response

(1151190)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by grand concourse on Mon Apr 16 08:58:39 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 16 07:07:59 2012.

I don't understand why you have to make something simple as comparing the current number of M trains running vs before when the old M ran to southern Brooklyn.

No one is denying the canning of the V freed up R46s to send over to the a to retire more R44s. All that was asked is does the new M require more 60' car trains and by the links in that post, it seems like it does.

Post a New Response

(1151191)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by grand concourse on Mon Apr 16 08:59:23 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 16 07:07:59 2012.

I don't understand why you have to make something simple as comparing the current number of M trains running vs before when the old M ran to southern Brooklyn turn so complicated*.

No one is denying the canning of the V freed up R46s to send over to the a to retire more R44s. All that was asked is does the new M require more 60' car trains and by the links in that post, it seems like it does.

Post a New Response

(1151204)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 16 10:25:07 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by grand concourse on Mon Apr 16 08:59:23 2012.

I wasn't the one making it complicated. We were discussing the surplus B division equipment which allowed the R44's to be retired, which would NOT have been able to be done without the M/V combo, which freed up surplus B division equipment, and that was turned into this whole thing abotu the R160's. We know that they need more R160's, but that has nothing to do with what was being discussed which was the surplus equipment that allowed the R44's to be scrapped. I wasn't the one making this "complicated", you are talking to the wrong person. The original discussion which I was involved with had nothing to do with the R160's.

Post a New Response

(1151215)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by grand concourse on Mon Apr 16 11:23:37 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 16 10:25:07 2012.

Yes, R44s were retired thanks to freed up R46s going to the A.

However, the new M runs only 8 car R160s and this has caused the need for R42s to stay around longer on the J. So thus although there are no shortages, the r42s are here longer than they should because of the need for more 8 car 60' trains to fill the needs of the J/Z,L,M lines.

Post a New Response

(1151217)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Mon Apr 16 11:42:29 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by randyo on Sun Apr 15 17:18:16 2012.

True. I also don't know what the track switches in the Dekalb Av. area were at that time. If the track switches allowed it, it's possible that the N came via Broadway Exp., Manhattan Bridge, and entered the Dekalb Av. Station on Track 3 and switched to the local track before Pacific St., and that just behind it a T came and used the Dekalb bypass and then express track into Pacific St. If there was not such a switch, then the N must have gone via tunnel and Track 1.

Post a New Response

(1151221)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by rbseabeach on Mon Apr 16 12:25:52 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Michael549 on Sun Apr 15 05:17:30 2012.

It would take two days to give Rudy all the credit he deserves. Keep this in mind after we have a new mayor and police commissioner.
But to stick to transit..
Rudy was responsible for eliminating the Staten Island ferry fee, reducing the cost of the express busses and lets not forget who prevented a transit strike.

Post a New Response

(1151232)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 16 12:51:31 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by grand concourse on Mon Apr 16 11:23:37 2012.

The R42's are here longer, but the R44's are gone sooner. My god, what is so hard to understand about this? There still was a net surplus in total B division equipment.

Post a New Response

(1151290)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Joe V on Mon Apr 16 16:45:15 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 16 12:51:31 2012.

Had the M/V combo not happened, 50 R42 would be in the ocean, but 100 R44 (or whatever number of R46's were needed to run the V) would still be around since a further cascade of R46's could not have occurred. There is not net surplus because the roster has been down-sized.

Post a New Response

(1151328)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by VictorM on Mon Apr 16 18:47:06 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by rbseabeach on Mon Apr 16 12:25:52 2012.

He also was able to get the MTA to issue free bus-subway transfers.

Post a New Response

(1151331)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 16 18:54:11 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by VictorM on Mon Apr 16 18:47:06 2012.

Yeah, that's a biggie too.

Post a New Response

(1151332)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by rbseabeach on Mon Apr 16 18:59:12 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 16 18:54:11 2012.

let's also not forget the merger of the three police forces which helpped drop subway crime

Post a New Response

(1151338)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 16 19:21:31 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Joe V on Mon Apr 16 16:45:15 2012.

LOL. There is NOT a "net surplus" now, because the R44's were retired. All what we said is that the M/V combo CAUSED a net surplus in equipment, which caused the R44's to be retired. The R44's could not be retired had the M/V combo not taken place. So we got rid of 100 R44's, 100X75 equals 7500 length of trains. 50 R42's were not retired 50X60 equals 3000 length of trains. The M/V caused a surplus of equipment allowing them to retire the R44's (yes, that also meant that instead they kept some R42's). There is still a surplus that the M/V caused, in which they were able to retire 100 R44's, 4500 feet length of train more than if they retired the R42's instead.

Post a New Response

(1151343)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by grand concourse on Mon Apr 16 19:36:39 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Joe V on Mon Apr 16 16:45:15 2012.

The new M created an overall surplus because the 'V end' now has 8 car trains. But had the M just been cut back to Chambers 18/5, the R42s could've been retired sooner and some R44s would still stick around as the R46s would not have been transfered over.

Post a New Response

(1151346)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by randyo on Mon Apr 16 19:56:06 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Mon Apr 16 11:42:29 2012.

At the time you are talking about, the switch configuration between Dekalb and Pacific was the same as it is now, so it would have been possible for an N to operate via bridge and stop at Dekalb and come in on either the lcl or exp tk at Pacific. Once in the bypass, all trains have to operate into the exp tk at Pacific.

Post a New Response

(1151361)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 16 21:29:53 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by grand concourse on Mon Apr 16 19:36:39 2012.

And we would actually have more cars around if that happened. That was the point all along. But since the M combo caused a surplus, more cars were retired than had the M/V not happened. Based on the stats he posted, 4500 feet more of trains were retired than if the M/V combo not taken place.

Post a New Response

(1151366)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by grand concourse on Mon Apr 16 22:14:54 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 16 21:29:53 2012.

And I never doubted the point of the V's demise creating a surplus. The only thing it meant was the R42s became more needed to fill the need created by the new M. R44s were expendable.

Otoh, maybe had the V remained, the R42s could've stayed but instead of for the old M, they would've gone to the A to retire some of the R44s.

Post a New Response

(1151383)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by (4) Lexington Av Exp on Tue Apr 17 03:35:09 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by grand concourse on Mon Apr 16 22:14:54 2012.

the R42s could've stayed but instead of for the old M, they would've gone to the A to retire some of the R44s.

Or maybe even the C.

Oh wait.... they overcomplicated things last time they tried that.

I think the R42s and maybe even the R32s from the C wouldve went to the V and the R46s wouldve made it to the A and C anyway (while retiring the worst of the R44s also)

We'll never know what couldve been...

Post a New Response

(1151384)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Tue Apr 17 03:52:27 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by randyo on Mon Apr 16 19:56:06 2012.

Thanks for clearing that up. I am not a resident of the NYC metropolitan area and do not frequent the area often. We both know that MTA has a knack for taking out switches and options, one of the latest being the removal of the Culver Line switch near its Kings Highway station. So I could not make the assumption that nothing has changed, vis-a-vis Dekalb Av., since my days of frequently riding the subway, 1965-1977.

Post a New Response

(1151396)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by MainR3664 on Tue Apr 17 08:40:42 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by randyo on Thu Apr 12 14:32:21 2012.

Yeah, once you drop a "special service" once, it becomes easier and easier to do when the "need" arises. So the way to keep the special services alive is t never drop them, as in your experience.

But, simultanoeusly, everyone on here with memory of actual service still says that the actual appearance of a QB train was a noteworthy thing...

Post a New Response

(1151495)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Joe V on Tue Apr 17 17:37:20 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 16 08:08:35 2012.

And there is one other little merger that we are all forgetting: the Q/W

For cars in service, deduct the number of train sets the W used, add the number of train sets needed to extend most Q's to Astoria. Another surplus produced involving 5 car R160's and R68's.

But that is further clouded by the G takeover of CIY.
Some R160's were sent from Jamaica to CIY to backfill for R68's assigned to the G.
Some R46's were sent from the G to the F.

Now I hope someone can quantity all of the above.

Post a New Response

(1151496)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Joe V on Tue Apr 17 17:38:21 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by grand concourse on Mon Apr 16 08:58:39 2012.

Once thing is for sure: there is no going back to Brown M and Orange V - not enough equipment of any sort.

Post a New Response

(1151498)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Joe V on Tue Apr 17 17:44:40 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by VictorM on Sun Apr 15 21:37:47 2012.

Doesn't the the 5 cars sets of R160's have a tight shop margin ?

If they can stand reducing it a little, reduce some to 4 car sets temporarily, send to ENY, and retire some R42's.

Post a New Response

(1152133)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 20 11:59:10 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Joe V on Tue Apr 17 17:37:20 2012.

You mean something like this?

In equivalent of 60'cars:





M=136+V=150=286-MV combo=184surplus=102
Q=180+W=100=280-new Q =230surplus= 50


152-(number of retired R44 cars x 1.25)=???

The G uses 65 both in 2009 and 2011 but I don't know how many cars of what were sent from JAM to CNY.

I think I was in a better place pulling my hair out preparing my taxes those few days you guys were doing this. :p :p :p

<keyword (so I can easily google this in the future)>="car surplus 2009-2011, M/V Combo"</keyword>

Post a New Response

(1152179)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Joe V on Fri Apr 20 17:14:22 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Apr 20 11:59:10 2012.

I think it safe to assume that had the V/W cuts not occurred, 50 R42's would no longer be with us, but 152 R44 would be.

Post a New Response

(1152192)

view threaded

The M/V combo did not spell doom for the R44 (was: Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av)

Posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 18:03:11 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Joe V on Fri Apr 20 17:14:22 2012.

I pulled up the July 2009 car assignment, which have the V and W still running, and compared it to current fleet assignments. Here's the result:

The C, J/Z, L, and M (to Bay parkway) required 18, 19, 24 and 17 trains, bringing the total number of 480' trainsets required to 78, or 624 cars. Presently, there are 222 R32s, 50 R42s, 372 R160s and 212 R143s that can be utilized to make 480' sets. That's 856 total cars. That's roughly a 27% spare factor there, which is a lot more than you need (although the R32 is higher than that nowadays).

Throwing out the franklin shuttle, the rest of the B division needed the following number of trainsets:
A-38
B-25
D-30
E-26
F-45
G-6.5*
N-23
Q-18
R-29
V-15
W-10
Rock pk-1.5*

The grand total number of trains needed: 267.

Presently, the rest of the B division has 752 R46s, 416 R68s, 200 R68As and 1,290 R160s available for 600' long trains (or 300' long trains). That's 300 trains. And while that means there's an 11% spare ratio for the 600' long consists, (far too low), the spare ratio for the whole fleet is just above 15%, which is only a little bit more ambitious than what the MTA would like to achieve.

The issues that led to the decision to scrap the R44s meant that they were on the way out, regardless of whether or not the M/V combo happened.

Post a New Response

(1152195)

view threaded

Re: The M/V combo did not spell doom for the R44 (was: Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av)

Posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 18:05:48 2012, in response to The M/V combo did not spell doom for the R44 (was: Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av), posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 18:03:11 2012.

Oh, I forgot:

*-:the G and Rock Shuttle requirements are shown as full length trainsets.

Post a New Response

(1152212)

view threaded

Re: The M/V combo did not spell doom for the R44 (was: Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av)

Posted by Joe V on Fri Apr 20 19:23:23 2012, in response to The M/V combo did not spell doom for the R44 (was: Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av), posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 18:03:11 2012.

So the R42 would have been sent to the A (and promptly would have fallen apart, as they did on the E)

Post a New Response

(1152265)

view threaded

Re: The M/V combo did not spell doom for the R44 (was: Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av)

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 21 06:40:40 2012, in response to The M/V combo did not spell doom for the R44 (was: Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av), posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 18:03:11 2012.

The problem with your analysis is using the 222 R32's in with the rest of the 60 foot cars, which were never planned to go into 8 car Eastern Division length trains, even though they could have, so you "spare factor" is wrong.

Post a New Response

(1152311)

view threaded

Re: The M/V combo did not spell doom for the R44 (was: Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av)

Posted by J trainloco on Sat Apr 21 14:08:49 2012, in response to Re: The M/V combo did not spell doom for the R44 (was: Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 21 06:40:40 2012.

I don't understand what you mean. The R32s were always intended to stay at 8 car consist lengths for the C.

Post a New Response

(1152323)

view threaded

Re: J TrainLoco, that is great news, the M/V combo did not spell doom for the R44.

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 21 15:40:16 2012, in response to The M/V combo did not spell doom for the R44 (was: Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av), posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 20 18:03:11 2012.

Certainly the best news I've heard of in a long time. (And there ain't too much good news on the ole Subchat these days.)

Post a New Response

(1152379)

view threaded

Re: J TrainLoco, that is great news, the M/V combo did not spell doom for the R44.

Posted by J trainloco on Sat Apr 21 18:48:50 2012, in response to Re: J TrainLoco, that is great news, the M/V combo did not spell doom for the R44., posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 21 15:40:16 2012.

Slow day?

Post a New Response

(1155069)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Mon May 7 10:31:09 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Apr 12 11:27:10 2012.

Granted, this was 25 years ago...but Bay Pky-bound Ms pretty much emptied out by 36th. There was still a handful or 2 of people in each car until 62nd. From there on it was a ghost town. AM northbound you had a steady buildup of pax all the way from Bay Pky to the point of being SRO by 9th Av, completely packed at 9th St. About 2/3 of the pax departed at Pacific. By Chambers, there were very few folks still on...judging from how most of them were dressed, they were headed to Essex for the F.

Post a New Response

(1155070)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon May 7 10:43:29 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Dyre Dan on Wed Apr 11 20:35:42 2012.

They didn't fumigate them quickly enough. I remember being on M trains that stopped between Fulton and Broad waiting for a J or Z train to be cleared out before the M could proceed. It happened many times.

Post a New Response

(1155097)

view threaded

Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av

Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 7 12:59:32 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Dyre Dan on Wed Apr 11 20:35:42 2012.

Not even. The previous M service was somewhat excessive. The schedule should be similar to the old diamond R train, where 6 trains ran at 10 minute headways between approx 7 and 8 AM.

Post a New Response

[1 2 3 4 5 6 7]

< Previous Page  

Page 7 of 7

 

[ Return to the Message Index ]