Far Rock Depot

actually, the track map for a full length second ave(the most recent one right before its current construction) provided within the sas pages of mta.info not only shows this provision, but the layup track to be placed there until ever decided to continue north into the bronx.

rumor has it that the C car is in Corona's barn. Can anyone confirm this please? I like facts. LOL

i grew up along this corridor. there are 4 tracks- 2 amtrak, 2 freight(one used more than the other). theres room for 2 more tracks. FRA regulations do not have to be a factor as long as the subway tracks do not at anytime connect to the national network and the subway trains never share tracks with the railroad. this route imo would be the best, cost-effective, high ridership potential in the boro. the sas would then truly do what it was ment to: relieve crowding on the Lex. now as far as the points of neighborhoods, incomes, crime etc, if anyone knows their subway history, the 1920's Second System plan was to make sure everyone in the boros would be approx. half a mile away from a subway. remember how this city grew. the subway was built, then the people followed. the current phase 2 plan for sas is one that can help relieve crowding on the lex in the short term: having it on 125th to park/lex with a provision for bronx service. this provision, if still on the board, also allows for trains to lay up just north of 125th on 2nd ave. but ofcourse, we will all have to wait till phase 3 to see what may be needed/planned. the future is never written in stone.

if i remember the pdfs ive read on the 179s, they were also to replace the 44s if they didnt get retired early. as knowing the mta's lack of common sense, theyll probably push back the next contract after 179

i agree. as much as i love the 32s, theyve been around about half a century. a testament to its design and construction. i say 6 years is even stretchin it. PATCO is currently rebuilding their fleet which is around the same age if not older. but they have the capital to pay for a complete rebuilt.

my apologies to Trainguy.

please dont take the following personally. it based on fact. you have stated that you have seen the 188s with alstom propulsion. fanrailer stated that it may be installed next year. so honestly whats there to believe? its current NOT installed. "i have heard and have seen" in bold letters. your words.

they can but not often if at all. the propulsion, although different vendors, have he same trainline functions. hence why i used 143s and 160s as an example. even then, both 160s all have the same basic features as in the FINDs and doors. dont expect FINDs on the c cars. if theyre not on the conversions, they wont be on the c cars.

then wheres the compatability with the conversion sets? past operations (the practice of mix n match consists up untill the 1980s) have lead the mta to run sets of the same specs. you never see 160s linked with 143s. if they have C cars built with FINDs, or even LED signs opposed to the current lcd signs, then the conversion carsmust have them too. and as we've seen from pics of the first 188 conversion set, that isnt the case. otherwise, the set that arrived woulda had the new specs, FINDs and all.

this is true. but theyve already clearance tested and the difference between 142 and 188 is the cbtc equipment, most of which is inside the car. remember, 142s were designed and built with provisions for cbtc equipment. given how reports of that recent set spotted at Mets with cables hangin out only tells me they are testing a new component that may not be cbtc related. i remember them using a set of 38s thru broad channel to test the nyct-designed ONIX propulsion system now in use on Alsthom 160s during '97.

why would there be a size difference? why is it suppose to come back looking different? why is the propulsion suppose to be different? the 188 contract was to install cbtc and extra cars of the same specs and exteriors. why spend more money for a different look when this was the plan since the 142s were first designed?. people see a new contract number and expect a new look. well people, welcome to the next generation. only changes made between contracts are minor things. remember the many redbird orders of yesteryear? only minor differences between looks. same situation here.

if you look at East New York's post at the beginning of the last page, it was clarified that some of the 179 option order that may not get used till 2014 would most likely got to SI. the current plan is to use 46s and possibly some 179s. i consider ENY a major reliable source of correct info. lets focus on the 179 contract before we jump to 211s which hasnt even been put on the planning table yet. 211 is just a contract number that for now is reserved for a revenue fleet. and if we all remember,179s were to replace the 44s if the 44s were to last. because they were already retired, heres now a gap which cause them, as well as it being cheaper, to plan to use 46s.

someone's late to the party. lol if you go to earlier pages of this thread, youll find links to pdf's of mta procurement and capital budget documents from as far back as around 09 where the plans for 179s includes a few for SIR. it has gone from a definate, to a no, to an option. and as far as your timeline for NTTs in SI, i personally find that unrealistic as im sure residents and commuters will as always cause an upraor about no new trains. those 46s althought still a good fleet (im actually on one right now passing JFK), will be 40 when a few get retrofitted for SIR. which will make them 50. Theyre not R32s. i expect the 179 option to go thru.

planning, yes. when, though, is not known. i seriously doubt theyre going to upgrade the 62s before placement on whatever line they put them on. idk where it was stated that the 4 and 6 was a sure thing. its all been rumor as far as i know until something concrete appears.

because those are Z trains and it does indeed fun skip stop in peak direction only. and they are scheduled to start there after coming from the yard.

sounds like i may go to the old hood and take some pics this week!

so theres a slight chance that SIR will run 2 types of cars in the furture?

So if option 2 is slated for SIR ( which if i remember correctly, a good chunk of the original R179 plan was to be for SIR), are they still planning to refit 64 R46s for SIR? nope. it would look like a Bombardier-built R160. NYCT designs their fleets. part of them "spending money wisely" (yeah right! LOL) would logically to unify the fleet so to spea, as far as design. Its an R160 with added minor features and/or upgrades like the interior LED lighting.

well i guess it depends on a) whether enginneers removed equipment from the cars that are now technically 'b' cars now since they were converted to 4 car units so there may be space throughout the set and b)if they decide to place all the new equipment to the corner cabs on the #2 end or even under the seats. I wonder how much weight all this is going to add to cars that are bacically the heaviest in the fleet already?

there was a news report before the end of the summer on PIX that stated the 62s were gonna get the tech upgrads as well as the 68s. Makes sence since these cars are only 22-27 years old roughly.

if youre talking about the R160 Facebook page, that was me but i did give credit to you for the Photoshop and stated someone else(who i didnt know at the time either) took the photo.

sweet work! may i please have: Nova LFSA MTA Bus Q22 Mott Ave Far Rockaway Far Rockaway Depot Surprise me with Bus # Thank you in advance!

I hope youre still taking requests. I like the work. Is it still possible to request? Thanks in advance Nova LFSA MTA Bus Q22 Mott Ave Far Rockaway Far Rockaway Depot Surprise me with Bus #

i too remember how bad it looked in the 80s. And personally, those full wrap ads look bad too. Now since when its not done unlawfully, and its tasteful, Graffiti can be an art. Its falls under the Urban Art category. Now maybe, and i know this would almost never happen, The MTA, to draw in more money, can allow a "Arts for Transit"-type program that, for a price, allow the display of graffiti that could be pre-approved for content and supervised application of the piece to be displayed for a period of time. Does everyone want to see a big red Target logo? No. Does everyone want to see tasteful graffiti? No. But think about a nice piece i saw on a 6 train in the 80s that took up the entire side of a car that was a tropical lagoon at sunset compared to a fully brown wrap for Snickers. Just a thought.

are you refering to the abandoned tracks about a block away from 180th st station or the stub end of the el heading northe toward the Bx Zoo?