SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[Chris89292]

I’ve seen another transit system on instagram with platform barriers that are designed better than the cheap hideous ones on our subways, it’s located in Japan and the design is similar to ours but built with iron metal, it has space for doors to open, it’s not fully closed off but it looks very modern type, unlike ours with yellow paint on it, looks like something out of the 60’s, MTA is downgrading so bad now a days

[Calvin]

New inside lighting are being done on the R142As on the . Seen one pair, 7756-7760 and on video, a train: 7781-7785 with 7696-7700 with this work done. 

Edited April 10 by Calvin

[Chris89292]

40 minutes ago, Calvin said:

LED lighting are being done on the R142As on the . Seen one pair, 7756-7760 and on video, a train: 7781-7785 with 7696-7700 with this work done. 

what LED, the new Interior car lights or the Signage light?

[Calvin]

4 minutes ago, Chris89292 said:

what LED, the new Interior car lights or the Signage light?

New Interior car lights. It's like a tint of blue.

[Kingsbridgeviewer382]

5 minutes ago, Chris89292 said:

what LED, the new Interior car lights or the Signage light?

interior

[Kamen Rider]

On 4/10/2024 at 5:59 PM, Chris89292 said:

I’ve seen another transit system on instagram with platform barriers that are designed better than the cheap hideous ones on our subways, it’s located in Japan and the design is similar to ours but built with iron metal, it has space for doors to open, it’s not fully closed off but it looks very modern type, unlike ours with yellow paint on it, looks like something out of the 60’s, MTA is downgrading so bad now a days

I think we once again need to go over what being a “pilot program” is. 
 

the gates we have up now are not designed to be permanent. They are testing the concept.

 

the gates in Japan are supposed to be permanent. 
 

[zacster]

Yea, but it looks like they don't want these gates to work and no thought went into them.  They were forced to do something.

[Chris89292]

13 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

I think we once again need to go over what being a “pilot program” is. 
 

the gates we have up now are not designed to be permanent. They are testing the concept.

 

the gates in Japan are supposed to be permanent. 
 

Doesn’t seem to be the case when the MTA is adding them randomly on the , the pilot test should’ve occured on just the original 3 stations.

[Kingsbridgeviewer382]

35 minutes ago, Chris89292 said:

Doesn’t seem to be the case when the MTA is adding them randomly on the , the pilot test should’ve occured on just the original 3 stations.

That's too small of a testing pool to determine the effectiveness of the barriers. Not all stations were created equal so it's better to test it out on multiple stations to see where the barriers could be most effective.

[Calvin]

There's a change in the  train schedule that took effect on April 1st, when the  was back at 63rd St, Roosevelt Island and 21 St-Queensbridge: 

* There are only 2 trains during the AM rush that goes out of service, the usual  to Coney Island from the tripper to 96 St and just 7:47 AM from Forest Hills to 59 St, Brooklyn. They both come back from the Coney Island Yard PM hours as a 3:17 and 3:48 from 36 St station where the and  are at.

[Kamen Rider]

5 hours ago, Calvin said:

There's a change in the  train schedule that took effect on April 1st, when the  was back at 63rd St, Roosevelt Island and 21 St-Queensbridge: 

* There are only 2 trains during the AM rush that goes out of service, the usual  to Coney Island from the tripper to 96 St and just 7:47 AM from Forest Hills to 59 St, Brooklyn. They both come back from the Coney Island Yard PM hours as a 3:17 and 3:48 from 36 St station where the and  are at.

Because all those drop outs were the extra R jobs that were added for the GO.

[darkstar8983]

3 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

Because all those drop outs were the extra R jobs that were added for the GO.

Before there were 3 drop-outs (two 59 St trips in addition to the 96 St  trip). I think there are less drop-out trips now since midday service is every 8 minutes instead of every 10 minutes, and likely before the service increase, there were  trains that get taken out of service at 71 Av as well after the rush hour.

[darkstar8983]

I just had a thought. Observing the ridership trends on Queens Blvd, it doesn’t seem like the  train is as full as it could be, but yet service between 6 Av Stations and Brooklyn seems well utilized. Why doesn’t transit consider the following changes

1. Split rush hour  service between 96 St/2 Av and Forest Hills-71 Av (keep the 71 Av trips via the 53 St tunnel), so that way each  branch runs every 12 minutes during peak times. Midday service can be every 8 minutes (again either split to 96 St and 71 Av), or keep every 10 minutes and all trips to 96 St. Evening service until 10PM to 96 St and run weekend service there too. Night service can stay at Myrtle Av.

2. Swap the  during the s Queens Blvd hours of operation then swap the  to 63 St all other times.
 

it Just seems that the  isn’t as busy and having the service suspended for 7 months showed that the  can handle Queens Blvd for the most part with not as much  service on that end of the line, but the 6 Av-to-Metropolitan Av section needs at the very least the service it’s getting, if not more.

[ArchytectAnthony]

2 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

I just had a thought. Observing the ridership trends on Queens Blvd, it doesn’t seem like the  train is as full as it could be, but yet service between 6 Av Stations and Brooklyn seems well utilized. Why doesn’t transit consider the following changes

1. Split rush hour  service between 96 St/2 Av and Forest Hills-71 Av (keep the 71 Av trips via the 53 St tunnel), so that way each  branch runs every 12 minutes during peak times. Midday service can be every 8 minutes (again either split to 96 St and 71 Av), or keep every 10 minutes and all trips to 96 St. Evening service until 10PM to 96 St and run weekend service there too. Night service can stay at Myrtle Av.

2. Swap the  during the s Queens Blvd hours of operation then swap the  to 63 St all other times.
 

it Just seems that the  isn’t as busy and having the service suspended for 7 months showed that the  can handle Queens Blvd for the most part with not as much  service on that end of the line, but the 6 Av-to-Metropolitan Av section needs at the very least the service it’s getting, if not more.

1. I feel like doing all of this would be pretty messy and confusing on many levels: riders perspectives, additional interlining etc. Altho I agree should continue to 6th Ave on weekends, whether to Forest Hills or 96 st. ( trains really needs that help on weekends in my experience lol)

2. Pretty sure this was discussed a lot in the 63rd st closure thread. As much as I think letting run to Forest hills on weekends can reduce the late night switcheroo confusion a little but idk.

3. I have some doubts about that, both and on 53rd, probably, but the is well known for many common issues, so itll need the help, even if riders doesn't take the on QBL local as much as other routes.

 

Edited Sunday at 02:55 PM by ArchytectAnthony

[S78 via Hylan]

2 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

I just had a thought. Observing the ridership trends on Queens Blvd, it doesn’t seem like the  train is as full as it could be, but yet service between 6 Av Stations and Brooklyn seems well utilized. Why doesn’t transit consider the following changes

1. Split rush hour  service between 96 St/2 Av and Forest Hills-71 Av (keep the 71 Av trips via the 53 St tunnel), so that way each  branch runs every 12 minutes during peak times. Midday service can be every 8 minutes (again either split to 96 St and 71 Av), or keep every 10 minutes and all trips to 96 St. Evening service until 10PM to 96 St and run weekend service there too. Night service can stay at Myrtle Av.

2. Swap the  during the s Queens Blvd hours of operation then swap the  to 63 St all other times.
 

it Just seems that the  isn’t as busy and having the service suspended for 7 months showed that the  can handle Queens Blvd for the most part with not as much  service on that end of the line, but the 6 Av-to-Metropolitan Av section needs at the very least the service it’s getting, if not more.

Hard pass. It’s been explained numerous times by RTO employees here why the  is needed on Queens Blvd and not 2nd Ave. Just because trains don’t seem to be utilized on a particular corridor doesn’t they aren’t. 

[Wallyhorse]

7 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

I just had a thought. Observing the ridership trends on Queens Blvd, it doesn’t seem like the  train is as full as it could be, but yet service between 6 Av Stations and Brooklyn seems well utilized. Why doesn’t transit consider the following changes

1. Split rush hour  service between 96 St/2 Av and Forest Hills-71 Av (keep the 71 Av trips via the 53 St tunnel), so that way each  branch runs every 12 minutes during peak times. Midday service can be every 8 minutes (again either split to 96 St and 71 Av), or keep every 10 minutes and all trips to 96 St. Evening service until 10PM to 96 St and run weekend service there too. Night service can stay at Myrtle Av.

2. Swap the  during the s Queens Blvd hours of operation then swap the  to 63 St all other times.
 

it Just seems that the  isn’t as busy and having the service suspended for 7 months showed that the  can handle Queens Blvd for the most part with not as much  service on that end of the line, but the 6 Av-to-Metropolitan Av section needs at the very least the service it’s getting, if not more.

A while back, I had proposed this myself by splitting the into and "Orange ." with the trains operating as they do now and the "Orange " trains operating to 96th Street-2nd Avenue.  What likely would need to be done there would be if split the into and  as I would do it, probably have every other  train run to 71st-Continental to fill in the void of the  being split (or course, CBTC work between Court Square and Queens Plaza on the  would have to be completed before this could be accomplished).   

In this, the "Orange " would run at all times to 96th/2nd and eliminate the night and weekend shuttles.    

4 hours ago, S78 via Hylan said:

Hard pass. It’s been explained numerous times by RTO employees here why the  is needed on Queens Blvd and not 2nd Ave. Just because trains don’t seem to be utilized on a particular corridor doesn’t they aren’t. 

And the is utilized and why if they can do the necessary CBTC work between Court Square and Queens Plaza on the , I would return half of the service to QBL to compensate for the loss of the  and in this case go back to having the operate entirely to 71-Continental when the is not running on QBL (with the late nights returning to be an express).  

[shiznit1987]

As a QBL rider, let me just say this: Only having one local was hell. The issue is that the  does carry light from 5th av/53rd st up to Roosevelt, but once at Roosevelt it becomes packed again. 

[Wallyhorse]

5 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

As a QBL rider, let me just say this: Only having one local was hell. The issue is that the  does carry light from 5th av/53rd st up to Roosevelt, but once at Roosevelt it becomes packed again. 

Which would be covered in an  split to and "Orange "  by having (once necessary CBTC work is done) having half of the  trains operate to 71-Continental to during the week and at all times nights and weekends.  This gives with the "Orange " 2nd Avenue riders a one-seat option on 6th Avenue while having half each of the current  and  trains cover QBL local with the .  

[Kamen Rider]

Can we keep this nonsense in the other thread…?

[darkstar8983]

19 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

As a QBL rider, let me just say this: Only having one local was hell. The issue is that the  does carry light from 5th av/53rd st up to Roosevelt, but once at Roosevelt it becomes packed again. 

Ohhh. Didn’t know that. I’ve only seen the  west of Roosevelt Av and that’s why I made that comment. Sorry about that 

[Trainmaster5]

I asked a question way back around Thanksgiving and I’ve yet to see anyone answer it. Looking at the website from way back then I pointed out that most delays were not caused by equipment troubles but other issues. We’ve had disruptive passengers. We’ve had people on the tracks. We’ve had signal and switch problems. I haven’t even mentioned the network communication breakdown problems that seem to crop up intermittently. Meanwhile I keep seeing posts about the R211 cars and how the anticipation has increased for the introduction. I’m trying to figure out what the justification is for this. I don’t see anything that shows that the R211 will eliminate the present day problems. The problems that I’ve pointed out have nothing to do with car equipment. There’s nothing wrong with being a pom pom waver but it’s time to come back to reality, IMO. I don’t think the introduction of the new equipment will help improve the quality of service to any degree. Stevie Wonder can probably see my point. Just my opinion though. Feel free to disagree. Carry on.

[Kamen Rider]

43 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

 I don’t think the introduction of the new equipment will help improve the quality of service to any degree.

For a lot of people, it's often also what comes with the new equipment.

In the case of the R211s, that would be CBTC on 8th Avenue, which means retirement of much of the legacy signal hardware that is often the root cause of problems. 

[Trainmaster5]

10 minutes ago, Kamen Rider said:

For a lot of people, it's often also what comes with the new equipment.

In the case of the R211s, that would be CBTC on 8th Avenue, which means retirement of much of the legacy signal hardware that is often the root cause of problems. 

Actually I'm not in disagreement with you on the basics. Where I come from the infrastructure, not the equipment, is the most important component. Signals, switches, rails, CBTC overide the NTT cars. It's the "other" things that are holding things back. My opinion. Carry on.