MHV9218

42 minutes ago, Lance said:

Slowly but surely getting back to normal. Or something resembling it.

Shifting back to the 53rd Street/63rd Street switcheroo for a minute, does anyone know if the riders in the area affected were informed of this planned service change? For 63rd Street riders, switching the F and M is a significant service cut, especially at the increasingly popular Lexington Av station. On the same vein, wouldn't switching the two routes create a bit of a line imbalance between the two tunnels? Right now, the combined output of the E and M through 53rd Street is roughly 23 trains per hour at the height of the rush with the F running 15 through 63rd Street. If this switch were to be put into effect, that'd be 30 trains through 53rd Street and at most, eight running across 63rd Street. Really makes an already under-utilized tunnel even more under-utilized. That's why I'm a little hesitant to take this as a finalized and permanent service change, but rather a possible pilot program to see if it's a viable solution.

Yeah, this is a little strange to me. I have to think Roosevelt Island would stage a coup if faced with the  as its only service. I also wonder about the 8-car restriction. Suddenly we're talking 1/2 the frequency, and on shorter trains to boot? That could lead to some impressive crowding. 

Personally, I think the only change here should be making the to 96/2nd permanent, but nobody seems to agree with me on that one...

48 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Here are the differences:

1) Terror attacks are not exactly frequent, and are easier to “get over” - to use a poor cliche. Contagions aren’t, since while COVID-19 is an exceptional illness/pandemic, flus, colds, legionnaires, etc, are fairly regular and amplified by density whether airborne or in a localized water source (legionnaires). That factors into peoples’ thinking.

2) For 60 days at least now, people have been working remotely. When you add that to #1, if the fear of contagion spread outweighs “New York is awesome”, why would people stay in the boroughs when they could lower risk and pocket money by living outside the boroughs and still be as productive via Slack than in Midtown?

 If it makes you feel better regarding your position, I’ve had an uptick in inquiries about the UES apartment I’ve been the agent of record on since February, so there are still people looking to move to Manhattan despite all this. But that may not translate to 6 million people riding the subway daily again by May 15, 2021.

The kind of exodus-by-choice you're talking about, I see that as possible at the very high end (people with second houses, Hampton houses, etc. stay there more often), but like we were talking about earlier, working remotely is an only an option for a tiny sliver of jobs in New York City, and a great number of people don't have the wealth or resources to pick up their lives and go. Anybody in the service industry, trades, etc., remote work is not an option. Just looking at the top 5 largest employers in NYC: the City, the DOE, the MTA, the US Government (federal employees), and HHC, essentially none of those are conducive to remote work. Schools, hospitals, those are the major companies in NYC. I count 2/10 employers on that list (both banks) that could feasibly switch a significant portion of their employees remote work.

If we have no vaccine on this for a really long time, I think you're very right. But if we have a vaccine within a year (plus a few months), I don't think people are going to leave New York. I actually think there's an argument that a terror attack is more likely to make people flee, just since there's no proven remedy like a vaccine, and it inspires fear and neurosis that can't be pacified. If there's a functional vaccine, I don't think that will be there. 

2021, subway ridership will absolutely be down, particularly if we have a serious second bout over the winter season. Ridership could be down for the whole year. But 2022, 2023?

20 minutes ago, Lex said:

General technological differences between then and now aside, terrorist attacks are not infectious or contagious.

Viruses are, and with this one being particularly nasty, people will be far less inclined to get up close and personal with others, especially before we have a certified treatment/vaccine. (This is only exacerbated by the potential for a longer incubation period, during which the person is a carrier and can spread the virus, but is asymptomatic.)

In other words, the reactions between the two will be considerably different on their faces, and when taking the economic and technological situations into account, there's no way in hell that comparison will work. Hell, the virus has already been even more disruptive than 9/11 ever was.

Life will be totally upside-down for the period until there's a vaccine, absolutely. Summer ridership will be minimal, and much of 2021 will be down significantly. But there are suggestions here that years from now, even with a vaccine in widespread use, that we'd still see collapsed subway ridership. LTA's post was about the "psychological" effects of the virus, which he was suggesting would carry on for years after a vaccine, further depressing ridership. That's the sort of rhetoric that went around about 9/11, which is why I made the comparison. It didn't pan out then, and I have doubts about it panning out now. I see ridership down from a general recession and from telecommuting, not from the abstract psychological fear of the subway even with a vaccine in place.

59 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Given that there are 8-car 179's not being used because service is suspended, how feasible would it be to run a 9 car set on the (or any other line)?

Not very unless new markers and/or boards were installed. If you think about it, the 5-car set would be on the north end in one direction and the south end in another. [Unless you turned on a loop like South Ferry inner or outer, but that's not happening in the B-Division.] So, you'd be fine with the C/R position when the 5-car set was at the front of the train (stop at the 10 car marker, C/R at the usual board 5 cars down the platform). But when the 4-car set was at the front of the train, if you made a stop at the 10-car marker the C/R would be in the middle of nowhere. You could stop at 8-car marker (the C/R would be at the 4-car position, and the cars would just fit, since you the extra 60-feet at the rear would fill the platform), but then you'd have to vary stopping points for the direction of travel. It'd be a little weird and prone to T/O or C/R confusion. When 9-car operation was common in the past (the until quite recently), there were always appropriate markers on the platform. A lot of those are left up on the IRT, but that's it.

30 minutes ago, LTA1992 said:

That's nearly a third. The 32s being gone won't affect social distancing. That's 222 cars out of a fleet of over 6400. Well, the current count without them is 6413 iirc.

An approx. 3% reduction of the total fleet is of no concern when ridership is projected to be 30% lower once things are restarted.

Let's think critically here.

 

As I tried to stress earlier, the relevant math is not about the overall A/B-division fleet. The 32s are a drop in the bucket of the total fleet, yes, but the 32/42 combination comprised a very significant portion of the available 8-car rolling stock. There is no car availability for the C and J/M/Z besides the dedicated R143, R160, and R179 pool. You can run mixed consist lengths on the , but that brings the R46 spare factor down to risky levels. There is car availability to maintain <80% peak guidelines without the 32/42s pre-211, but not 100%. Now, will ridership be at 100% any time soon? Absolutely not. But if it even reaches 75-80% before the 211s arrive, you cut things close. Likewise, if it rises to say, 60%, and there's governmental pressure to maintain social distancing, loading guidelines may have to be altered to reduce standee numbers, which would require higher frequencies than a 60% guideline and necessitate greater car availability. The point of all this is, mothballing the 32s present some very specific constrictions for the 8-car consist availability. 

13 minutes ago, Lex said:

That was a terrorist attack, not contagion.

And? The point is that social/psychological reactions, which you are referring to, were expected to completely decimate daily routines in NYC. There was talk that no skyscrapers would be built again. That people wouldn't come here and wouldn't use transit. That didn't quite pan out. 

12 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

It reminds me of how the contractors screwed up Montague with the clearance issue, and the MTA never even tried to fix the problem; people will continue making the argument "oh well the R32s and R42s are on their way out anyway", but that doesn't make it right.  Something was botched, and is being left as-is without being corrected.  It's a slippery slope; in a sense, that type of thinking is what brought about the transit system's hell years.  The corner-cutting and deferred maintenance of the '60s became the graffiti and derailments of the '70s.  We can't afford to go back there, but the Authority's managerial complacency could certainly end up pushing things in that direction.

I'll have to see it myself, but my understanding is the entire 'racked' zone of the new 14th St. tube is a no-clearance zone now. Of course it makes sense when you think about it – where else were the racks going to go? – but it's another head-scratcher. They really want to have mandatory single-tracking for any repair or maintenance work in those tubes, at any point? People are really going to appreciate when any G/O whatsoever brings back 24 min headways...

25 minutes ago, QM1to6Ave said:

I think one factor will be a lot more people are allowed to work from home nearly all the time permanently. And probably some increases in staggered schedules. but that will affect more white collar jobs than anything else. 

Right, but I think that skews towards a crowd who doesn't use the subway as much. Employees in most fields will still have to report; it's basically just people who can work from a laptop that will be working from home. Back in 2014, the stat was a median household income of $58k a year for subway-only riders and $39.6k for bus-and-subway riders. The telecommuting crowd are largely finance, tech, data, and some creative fields. The first three of those are generally making a lot more than that household number, though admittedly the fourth (some friends of mine!) are probably within that dataset.

Now, the flipside of that is that a general recession will mean a lot of layoffs, probably disproportionately affecting blue-collar/service workers (who fit in that category). Bankers wont't be using their jobs.

I'm also curious if that recession will affect rideshare spending. That was a splurge a lot of people decided to start indulge over the past few years. Will people decide it makes more sense to take a $2.75 subway than a $10-15 Uber in different economic circumstances? It's possible.

1 hour ago, LTA1992 said:

It's amazing to me how many in this thread haven't considered the longer-term psychological and sociological effects of this virus.

There WILL be a decrease in transit ridership (some estimate a 30% reduction) for the first few years. And mind you, that's provided we don't eff up and not prepare over the summer for BOTH the flu and SARS-2 in the fall and winter.

No matter which, there will be a significant chunk of riders who stick to other means for the foreseeable future.

For once, the MTA might be absolutely correct in their assumptions.

Seems to me like most everybody who has talked about service needs has talked about this.

Anyway, the best I can say to that is a firm maybe. As I said before, for 12-24 months, a ridership reduction of varying levels, for sure. Even after this slows down over the summer, I'm sure ridership will be extremely low. I know I'll be biking as much as possible, even after cases have slowed. But for "the first few years"? If there's a vaccine by the spring-summer as discussed, I sure as hell hope it's not for years afterwards. That wouldn't really add up.

Two other points.

1) This is what everybody said after 9/11, didn't pan out. City boomed, people went about their lives.

2) Leaving aside railfans, people don't ride the subway for fun. They don't take it for pleasure, they take it because it's either their only option or their fastest option. Most of NY doesn't own a car. People aren't just going to opt out of the subway unless they have a darn good reason. I agree with you that a lot may change in New York, but the subway will remain a necessity for the vast majority of people. 

1 hour ago, Collin said:

I don't know why people would be opposed to a plan that averted a full 18 month closure, still accomplished all the announced objectives, saved taxpayers money, and was completed ahead of schedule and under budget.  Now the techniques learned in this project can be applied to future ones to make the system better.

Read up on the difference between the two, not just what the Cuomo press release says. You're missing the "all" part on the announced objectives. This project was probably between 40-60% of the scope of the original project. It's quite literally designed to allow for its own deterioration – that's why the LIDAR is there. When you strip away all the major work from a project, of course you complete it more quickly and cheaply. But we'll all be paying for it down the line.

Right, as your post is suggesting, the math on this only works if we assume <80% service guidelines, with the either suspended or significantly reduced. Depending on how this recovery goes (and we can expect a second wave this fall/winter), it's certainly possible that the whole system will maintain that diminished service for 12-24 months, and then their math works out. If service is restored before the R211 order arrives, the R32s will have to be reactivated. There's no real way around it. 

That reminds me, it was 3890 I meant to post had those headlights out of MCH. And yeah, a lot of those original-paint NGs from Yukon have those huge numbers. Never understood why so many of SI's buses ended up with those numbers. Same thing happened on the O5s, MCIs, etc. 

1 minute ago, Q23 via 108 said:

Think they'll keep a 10 car set to do a farewell run? Of all the cars, The R32s deserve a farewell run the most. (Albeit prob in like 2 years from now).

Honestly, I think they'll be keeping a lot more than that. Nothing is getting scrapped right now in the first place, and my hunch is they'll keep this fleet around in the event that service needs rise before the 211s arrive. It'll all depend on what the city (and subway) recovery looks like. If we really do have a vaccine next spring and the 211s are not on property, they'll need the 32s. Any other turn of events, they're able to get by without them.

2 hours ago, Collin said:

There were 272 combined R32 and R42.  There are 318 R179's, and they're more reliable, so even more are actually available at any given time.  Is it really a surprise that the R32's are retired?

That's not the right comparison. You had 272 R32/R42 stock for 8-car service. Now you have 188 R179 stock for 8-car service, 130 R179 stock for 10-car service. The number of cars for 8-car consists has decreased by 84 cars. This is point I was trying to make about fleet compatibility. The ENY pool cannot utilize any other rolling stock besides the R143 class, which really should be dedicated to service, since every other fleet is 75-feet. The 207th pool is also limited, unless the  starts to run mixed-length consists (undesirable, particularly with the crew needs at 168th for R46s). Likewise, the 8-car sets can't help out with the 10-car service needs on any line. There's a real loss of flexibility. So, yes, it is really a surprise that the R32s would be retired without the R211 arrival, and I can only imagine this is based on the assumption that service demands will stay diminished for another 12-24 months.

I'll move my post over from the fleet swap thread:

The interesting point in this document is the information about the peak requirements. S-700 is the coronavirus supplemental schedule, and the math they're doing here really makes sense only for covid equipment needs. You wouldn't allow for a 182-car decrease in fleet size under peak capacity, and it's bewildering to me that they think the fleet can run at peak capacity (once we're past this crisis) without the arrival of the R211 class. Particularly given the fact that the A's base fleet are a significant number of aging R46s reporting worse MBDF by the year, and the C would have to rely on a single car class to run 8-car trains. This much never in the cards, from my understanding – just the gradual phasing out of R32s until they were a hold fleet in the meantime. After the R42 fiasco, we have proof that nothing sticks until it sticks, and we'll have to see what happens in the coming months. Service requirements are unlikely to return to normal for at least another year, possibly longer, but the R211 delivery and scrap schedules are probably going to be in odd shape as well. We'll see if they actually strip or remove any R32s from the premises, but at this point even the formally retired R42s are yet to be stripped and are sitting in the yards. I'm starting to think the MTA is planning on diminished equipment needs for 12-14 months, and they're just thinking it'll roll into the arrival of the R211s. That would truly allow for the 32s retiring, because no other timeline adds up.

2 minutes ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

Before the C was suspended due to the pandemic, there was one day when the line had a mixture of R46's and R179's.  No R32's at all.  Other days there was only 1 or 2 trains of R32's running. 

So the line does not have a complete dependency on 88 R179's.

Right, but my understanding was that that was a desperate effort to get the 32s off for C/R safety. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression they were trying to avoid mixed-length consists on the line, and similarly disinclined to run the 46s because of the multiple crews needed at terminals. Of course the whole thing is much easier if they run a mixture of 46s and 179s, or allow for more regular full-length service. Maybe that will be their solution. Locals and politicians have been clamoring for that for ages, anyway. 

10 minutes ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

I still can't get "really needed" since there is plenty of idle equipment around and the very line these cars are used on is one of those idle lines. 

You're right, but when the  does eventually return down the line, complete dependency on the 4-car 179 fleet does make things a little complicated. Short of the CBTC lines (188 contract, 143 contract), every other A- and B-division line has at least some flexibility in the event of crisis when it comes to rolling stock. At least the R46 fleet kept married pairs in 62xx series, singles on the 62As, etc. In the past, the company has tried to avoid absolute reliance on a single type of rolling stock (without a major spare factor), and you would know this better than I would, but my understanding is that every example of a dedicated fleet has had a share of problems (R11 contract, automatic cars on the shuttle, etc.). Insisting on the 8-car  and limiting the fleet to 4-car sets of 179s (now that all the other 60-footers are retired) is a new approach.

2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I was not originally going to post this memo but since you asked for proof:

Word, just saw that myself. Very strange stuff. The interesting point in this document is the information about the peak requirements. S-700 is the coronavirus supplemental schedule, and the math they're doing here really makes sense only for covid equipment needs. You wouldn't allow for a 182-car decrease in fleet size under peak capacity, and it's completely bewildering to me that they think the fleet can run at peak capacity (once we're past this crisis) without the arrival of the R211 class. Particularly given the fact that the A's base fleet are a significant number of aging R46s reporting worse MBDF by the year. That was never in the cards, from my understanding – just the gradual phasing out of R32s until they were a hold fleet in the meantime. After the R42 fiasco, we have proof that nothing sticks until it sticks, and we'll have to see what happens in the coming months. Service requirements are unlikely to return to normal for at least another year, possibly longer, but the R211 delivery and scrap schedules are probably going to be in odd shape as well. We'll see if they actually strip or remove any R32s from the premises, but at this point even the formally retired R42s are yet to be stripped and are sitting in the yards. I'm starting to think the MTA is planning on diminished equipment needs for 12-14 months, and they're just thinking it'll roll into the arrival of the R211s. That would truly allow for the 32s retiring, because no other timeline adds up.

3 hours ago, Fan Railer said:

R32s are retired as of the new B division assignment effective 4/27/20.

Do we have any evidence that this is a permanent retirement, as opposed to the indefinite hold from service per equipment needs and Covid safety protocol? Seems natural that the suspension would be reflected in the division pick, which will be in effect for the next few months that are part of the lockdown.  

One of the MCH lead acid NGs has the new LED headlights as well (like 4562 way back when). Seems safe to say that's the replacement inventory for now.

3 hours ago, CenSin said:

I met a right-wing white supremacist on a train a few days ago. Long story, but it ended amicably.

That's too bad.

Is that what that sign even is? Kind of hard to make out. Could it just be the lights/or some covering? Rollsign at the far left looks stock R44 to me.

Been putting a little thought to this, really thinking there's a story here that's gone unreported in a lot of coverage, lot of news pieces etc. Would be interested to hear from people who might know more. We know that coronavirus can become aerosolized (airborne) in various situations, and we know that small particulate matter in air pollution is being considered as a possible means of aerosolizing. We also know that people with respiratory problems, and people who live in areas of strong pollution, are considered particularly at risk for the virus in terms of their response. Feels to me like we're staring the problem in the face here.

We've known for decades (and there've been studies, though nothing ever conclusive or thorough enough) that the subway is filled with steel dust from brake shoes (and to a lesser degree, silica dust from tunnels) that lines the surface of just about everything you see. It's the reason there's a small cloud as a train departs a station, why if you hold a door you get darkened fingers, why the bulkheads of 240th Street's cars are so dark and dirty. The subway is filled with it, and T/Os and C/Rs are exposed to it all day long. It seems extremely possible to me that that has affected their respiratory health and made them more at risk for Covid, and it seems somewhat possible to me that some of the dust has allowed the virus to aerosolize and linger in the air. Those two factors together are brutal for transit workers, and I haven't seen anybody discussing them.

Another bit of proof here: nearly all of the MTA's covid deaths have been front-line people, B/Os and C/Rs and T/Os. The Company is massive, and if it were just a randomized thing, you'd see everybody from cleaners to accountants getting sick. But that hasn't been the case. I'd look at steel dust as a specific factor here.

4 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

yeah services cuts might happen but once they rollout OMNY 100% ridership would go up. Its like when the metrocard was introduced, ridership grew. It all depends on how everything turns out.

Yeah although think about the discounts that came with the Metrocard (transfers, bonuses, etc.). They're not gonna add a new transfer in or anything like that, and if anything we know they're cutting the FairFares etc. subsidies from the city, so I wouldn't count on that quite as much as with Metrocards.

9 minutes ago, SevenEleven said:

Back in March 2019? I was part of the bus move to Tuskegee that Saturday night but it was Tuskegee ops doing the actual in service trips.

Anything before that, nah. Either I was working my regular run or they got bodies for the bus move before I got done.

Oh I was thinking this round but word, that adds up. OH would've had a fit losing those runs lmao. That had to be a funky convoy all the way uptown tho...

32 minutes ago, RailBus63 said:

The $3.8 billion from the Feds is a stopgap at best.  The MTA is projecting a $6 billion deficit by the end of the year.  There will be a deficit even if all ridership returns within six months, which probably isn't happening (unemployment being a big reason).  The state has its own deficit to worry about now and will not be able to give billions more to the MTA.  Sadly, I think service cuts are very, very likely. 

Another question down the line is if the budget crisis rolls into capital spending. Immediate cuts will come out of Operations, but Capital could be affected if the feds don't help enough (very likely with the current administration and their cronies in Congress). If that occurs, any contract not already fulfilled (R211 option, R262s) could be delayed or pushed down the line. It might be that the R32s go, but the R46s have to last longer than planned, for example.