Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/03/2020 in all areas

  1. 12 points
    My random thought for the night: defying my best instincts, I've actually been reading fantasy plans on this forum the last couple days (since there really isn't anything better to do with my free time lately than screw around online). And the impression I keep getting is that many of you have absolutely no consideration for the train crews and what their job entails when they are off the train. There are certain places that can not be used as terminals. Just because you can turn a train there doesn't mean you should. Cutting back runs so that both destinations are locations that don't have crew facilities (even great men have to pee sometimes!) is cruel and inhumane. And in these times of social distancing and the city refusing to do anything about assaults against employees, how can you have an entire line worth of crews have to stand around on the platform, having no place to even sit down or eat their lunch, until they are ready to make their next trip? Even when non-terminal locations are used as temporary terminals for a GO, it will always return to a regular location and their time at that temporary terminal will be at best to drop back to the second train arriving. This is exactly why 205 on the is not a terminal and the crew change is done at Bedford Park. Likewise when the goes to 86 St (or the to Ave X for that matter), the crew change is at Kings Highway which is equipped to handle multiple crews (but NOT Kings Highway on the which I know is a miserable place for everyone involved to end at).
  2. 4 points
    You know...reasons why this country is suffering the most is because of the lack of uniformity and entitlement in people. If everyone coordinated and the US government acted from the very beginning...this could've cleared up by now. Look at the London Underground...NYC could do the same if people cared....nobody cares about anything but themselves...one pple have the symptoms or know someone who's suffering, then they finally listen.
  3. 4 points
    they were reliable but their bodies were beyond shot, had the MTA not been cheap and listened to MK and went with the stainless steel option the R44's would still be running today. and yes the R44's body wise are trash, even the SI ones are becoming shot
  4. 3 points
    they are only OOS for now since they are not needed, the isn't running and there's plent of R46's and if they're short they can borrow from CI since there's no and service.
  5. 3 points
  6. 3 points
    Hindsight is 2020. The R160 order was supposed to replace all R32-R42 cars. They were well on their way to retiring everything by late 2009 or early 2010 had they not discovered problems with the R44's. While it's easy to argue that they should have a reserve fleet of older equipment, there is not unlimited space in subway yards to leave idle equipment that's just waiting for something else to break. It's also not free to keep cars ready for service. They need maintenance, inspections, etc. While it did create what is now a significant car shortage, that wasn't the case in 2010. In case anyone was living under a rock, there were massive service cuts like had never been seen before and that happened to free up equipment. As the MTA recovered and service increased, the shortage became more pronounced. The R179 order was also delayed many times over, so while it might not have been a big deal to keep the R32's and R42's for an extra 3-5 years, I don't think they were ever intended to be kept for 10+ years. I think there's a definite problem with unitized equipment in that it's hard to get the fleet numbers exactly correct, so small subfleets end up getting brought in with subsequent orders. If there's a change in the service pattern, it also affects things. It's been said that even if the R44's were kept, that about 50 R32's would've needed to stay for the BMT Eastern Division. That's entirely related to the increase in the number of 480 foot trains needed for the expanded service. Under the service pattern that was in place when the R160's were ordered, they would've replaced everything on the BMT Eastern Division and not needed to keep any R32's. It was the same problem for the R179's. Most are of 480 foot length because they were intended to be used on the services that ran R32's and R42's. However, it became obvious that more 600 foot trains were needed and that was partially resolved by the extra cars added to the order. But now it's planned to get some 480 foot R211's when they were originally all planned to be 600 foot.
  7. 3 points
    I have missed reading your informative posts here and it is great to have you back, even for a short period.
  8. 3 points
    50 r32's were gonna stay for the eastern division and before the TA gave up on the R32's, the Phase I's were the better cars. when pitkin had these R32's they were never a problem until they sent the remaining cars to jamaica when the Phase II's were getting reefed. gets slack because they always scrap first then realize oh shit we scrapped so many cars now we have to reduce service. they knew the R44's were shot and still ended up reefing more cars than what they should have kept. the R40M's should have stayed since they were in great shape and were good cars. The R30 retirement is the biggest example, they got away with it until the metrocard came into play and then ridership grew. the R143's are the replacements of the R30's, Just like the R179's are the true Replacements of the R44's. the R211's will be the Replacements of the R32's/46's even if the R32's retire before the R211's come in. the R179's aren't the true replacements of the R32's.
  9. 3 points
    I'll second this... Northern Blvd is wide enough for a busway or tramway running down the center if you remove the parking and use the center three lanes. The 14th Street busway has already shown that high frequency articulated vehicles with dedicated rights of way attract more ridership. Doing the same on Northern Blvd seems like a no brainer to me. BRT or LRT from Flushing to Columbus Circle (like the DOT had planned previously) would do quite well. Realistically, peak load point from Brooklyn on a hypothetical train extension would probably be 34th Street-Hudson Yards, assuming full build out and occupancy of the developments at Hudson Yards and Manhattan West, so a three track two platform station (like North Greenwich on the Jubilee line) there would do the trick. If we're aiming for 30 TPH on the line I would have at a minimum 20 TPH to 72nd Street/10 TPH to Hudson Yards, given how high density the Upper West Side is.
  10. 3 points
    Looking at this, you can basically cover the Flatbush Av half of the Midwood line with a extension (which would do it significantly better because higher pax volume capability), and Kings Highway is too narrow to comfortably host a tram past Avenue P. For the SE Queens line 164, Francis Lewis above Jamaica Av and Union Turnpike are wide enough to do this, but I don't see there being the demand. Cutting north out of Jamaica to cut across on Union Turnpike and then drop down isn't going to get you through ridership from Jamaica; the Q36/43LTD to the Q77 is more direct and will see higher patronage. You might get some traffic to the college from Jamaica but the Q25LTD is going to be faster and more direct. You're better off just extending the along Hillside and the along Merrick, then beefing up Q77 service from there. Your BronxLink isn't terrible but if you were going to do that just run it to Inwood and integrate the yard into 207 St, and your Greenpoint connection duplicates the and would get massively bogged down in traffic on 57 St. There are better non-LRT ways to do basically all of this.
  11. 3 points
    I feel like the R32's are cursed and won't let anyone retire them for good. Always some reason comes up for why they have to stay longer.
  12. 2 points
    that's because they don't need them, the is suspended along with the lines. So they don't need to run the R32's. the R32's last ran about 2 weeks ago on the
  13. 2 points
    Always good to see Jarrett Walker linked here! I'll add another piece that I think is relevant to the bus/streetcar/LRT discussion in the last few pages: https://humantransit.org/2010/07/paris-converging-vehicles.html https://humantransit.org/2010/07/paris-converging-vehicles-contd.html and on how buses can complement rail networks (ostensibly making LRT unnecessary) when you properly invest in them: https://humantransit.org/2016/09/paris-the-triumph-of-the-bus-stop.html
  14. 2 points
    alright anyone in NYC would be very very wary of any light rail routes, so you'd probably get 1 every 10 years. if not worse, nobody really wants a light rail route, so you might as well do a subway that's surface level or at grade.
  15. 2 points
    Again, what is the obsession with streetcars? Frequency and the overall quality of service is more important than mode. There are several pieces by the amazing transit consultant Jarrett Walker that you should read. Here are a couple about streetcars: https://humantransit.org/2011/12/outtake-on-endearing-but-useless-transit.html https://humantransit.org/2009/07/streetcars-an-inconvenient-truth.html
  16. 2 points
    These underserved areas that you speak of are mostly industrial areas with few people living in said areas (with the exception of North/Southeast Queens, Flatbush and whatever is happening in the Bronx). Therefore, bus service better serves the needs of the people living in those underserved areas. Also, no disrespect but I will also bandwagon onto the fact that the way you post some of your proposals at random derail the conversation at hand, and its kinda getting annoying. Personally the only areas that I think would benefit from a LRT/Streetcar would be Main Street, Fordham/Pelham Bay, and Red Hook. Before I forget. I saw you map with the relief streetcar on it. Why not have it run on Northern Blvd between Sunnyside and Main Street instead of the lineup that you proposed? And wouldn't it make sense for that line to follow the current Q32 route in Manhattan as opposed to sending it uptown? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now back to the discussion at hand, with De-interlining Queens and whatnot, I noticed how many people on the Forums seems to have conflicting views as to how it should go with our existing infrastructure. While I'm personally on the side of doing 8th-53-QB Local/6th-63-QB Express. I did think of an extension that would help resolve this debate, which I will quote here: While I didn't mention it, the alternative to a Queens bypass service would be to send either of them (or both) up Northern Blvd. (Though that would create a bottleneck which is what my plan focused on reducing as much as possible) Personally, I wouldn't go out and about building express tracks along the Canarsie Line as there is no space to do so. My Canarsie-"Manhattan Cup"-QBL-Jewel Avenue line is dubbed as the "", mainly because a rollsign existed (for the R110B) featuring a Grey- bullet. If a short-turn Terminal needed to be created along this Extension that I'm proposing, I'd choose 42nd Street-10th Avenue to be the main candidate because a transfer could potentially be built with the there.
  17. 2 points
    Also, the bronx link can be served with a train that goes down Fordham, on Allerton or Pelham Parkway, to Either Co-Op or Pelham Bay Park, which can easily be a train, or train, or just an extention off Concourse . NYC doesn't need a light rail line when it has subway services that can do the job.
  18. 2 points
    False. R142's can run in 4 to 6 car units. The middle car in a 5 car unit doesn't actually provide anything to another car. It's always the B car next to the A car. When the C cars were ordered for the R188s, these were lighter cars missing a number of parts for the "A-B pairing". With those cars, they actually pass through on both ends so that the A and B cars between them communicate. This is why the C car is always found between an A and B car in a unit, and once again the B car in the middle of a unit don't marry with any other cars (as to the question of why they didn't just have two C cars on the new orders, my best guess is consistency with the R142A's which were converted?)
  19. 1 point
    There's a B32 now operating (has been since 8:30 PM).
  20. 1 point
    Can it work? Probably, but are there better ways, yes. Which is easier? a subway probably.
  21. 1 point
    Crazy.... Normally, this wouldn't be a problem but with a major virus going around that's contagious crippling the city, this is very bad...
  22. 1 point
    I assume he meant round trip.
  23. 1 point
    Those photos are amazing! Then drastically increase density on the corridor by rezoning it, turning it from a corridor with autoshops to a corridor that is actually urban.
  24. 1 point
    the train doesn't really need 4 tracks anywhere, since it's a route that doesn't share tracks with other trains, and runs as peak direction express. 42 is also a cross town route, so I don't think you can put 4 tracks under 42 St, note that and trains are not directly on top of each other, so I don't know which one is directly under 42 St, or 41 St if one of them is running directly under those Streets. Same thing with the train because I don't know the geography on 34 St and how this can be built without disrupting any work, or the M34/A bus. Now this idea is interesting running the on the express tracks via 63 St isn't a good idea because there's no express service to Queens Plaza. That won't bode well with Queens Passengers going to LIC (But it's still service going there). But taking the off 63 St just takes off capacity for both and lines to 179th and Parsons/Archer. So I guess putting the to 179th is a good idea, but run 1 TPH for Parsons/Archer on both lines. But you'd still have to cap some service and run some trains through 60 St as a local or express train (Where are you placing your trains?) Your train is a mess, first of all if it takes over SAS and goes back to 125th St, it's just zigzagging through Manhattan, and is a triple crosstown line going across 14 St, 57 St, and 125th St with provisions to expand. Once Phase 3 becomes an actual thing, there's also the train that'll connect 72 St trains, and 2 Av - 14 St trains. A better place for that train is the Bypass, having trains end at Forest Hills, using the Express tracks/Jamaica Yard to turn back, and making the train go to Jewel Av. But the and running on the same line is a non starter.
  25. 1 point
    I agree that the should run local because the 63 St line doesn't stop at Queens Plaza like the currently all do at 59 St. However, it's simpler to have only the run on the local tracks between 207 St and WTC full-time, and move the to 53 St / 8 Ave express. Then all the B division trunk lines Concourse / CPW express / 6 Ave express 207 St / CPW local / 8 Ave local - 53 St / 8 Ave express 63 St / 6 Ave local lines - Astoria / Broadway local SAS / Broadway express can be deinterlined from each other in Manhattan. This also standardizes the headways at 4 minutes on the , 6 minutes on the , 8 minutes on the so that continued interlining on QBL and at DeKalb Ave remain smooth.
  26. 1 point
    You can speculate on what weekend service will be, but things change day to day (and the MTA website is NOT doing a good job updating things anymore) and it's all based on crew availability. I can tell you for a fact that the service headways listed on mta.info on Tuesday and Wednesday this week were completely different than what was actually running, and as we transition from AM to PM crews, it could get much better or much worse for the rest of the day. Remember that there are many crews who work the during the week and might be on the or on the weekend. The had by far the worst turn out for crews this week, but they may do better over the weekend. Also less senior people work Sat/Sun and many of them don't have an assigned job or location. Also there might be enough senior people looking for overtime to completely fill these weekend jobs. My speculation is that most lines will be running their regular weekend schedule.
  27. 1 point
    Just to clarify, are you proposing the following: Forest Hills - QBL local -53 - 8 Ave express - Fulton local to Euclid Jamaica Center - QBL express - 53 - 8 Ave express - Fulton express to Lefferts or Rockaways 168th St- CPW local - 8 Ave local - WTC 207/Inwood - CPW express - 6 Ave express Concourse (all stops) - CPW express - 6 Ave express Concourse express - CPW express - 6 Ave express 179th - QBL express - 63 - 6 Ave local - Culver line Forest Hills - QBL local - 63 - 6 Ave local - Willy Br - Myrtle Ave This seems to work, so long as has enough capacity to be the sole line to service the CPW local and that 6 Ave express would have to be divided into three services to service and . [It should, especially considering that the CPW locals are not as crowded as since CPW runs alongside the park. Plus, I have nothing against splitting the express 3 ways as I have a proposal out there to split the QBL express three ways to equally serve Jamaica Center, 179 locals, and 179 express.] I understand the difficulties of deinterling QBL, so that all stations would have access to both 8th Ave and 6th Ave service, but I'm concerned that without deinterlining there won't be enough capacity to handle the demand of QBL. QBL is really a tough call, but I concede that even without deinterlining, QBL service is bound to improve by divorcing QBL from the Broadway BMT.
  28. 1 point
    Bus was cut off by a dump truck. Saw it in the back of meadowlands.
  29. 1 point
    Mate this is becoming a little repetitive, and most of your lines can be served by a shuttle. I think like 20% of your proposals actually have SUBWAYS in it. And the rest were really weird Light Rail lines, or something that doesn't make sense or much use, OR something that can just be served by a train or already has trains around it. I wouldn't have a real issue with this, but it does derail the conversation, and it gets rather annoying. Also a tramway? to Greenpoint? They have the to Queens with tons of transfers and the train. I don't know anyone who needs that, but when it comes from you i'm not really surprised.
  30. 1 point
    Don't know how many trains of the sort there are, but I've done a lot of late night fanning & what I can tell you is, most of them I usually saw around 3-4am..... How??? By hitching a ride in the trash
  31. 1 point
    Because it's quite clear that OP is only mostly interested in drawing crayons all over the place and not things that actually work.
  32. 1 point
    The air-brake package was just the tip of the iceberg; the other components had problems as well from what I used to hear from people in NYCT. And I do remember being stuck on many trains back in the day that had rough braking, broken AC, or straight up got taken out of service (usually electrical problems). Never had those problems on the or , incidentally... Generally, the 's end goal was to get rid of all the old cars, but they were actually organized about it; the order in which car classes (and sub-classes) retired was based in part on mechanical/structural condition, and fleet size (i.e. small and/or worst groups of cars first). Art Vandelay, a fountain of knowledge who used to post here, indicated it also had something to do with a fleet's last scheduled maintenance, apparently.
  33. 1 point
    All of the NTT's work in the ABBA, ABBBA, ABBBBA unit configuration. You can also substitute a C car between an A and B.
  34. 1 point
    The other horrible one is the , especially during GOs or rush hours. A 2 hour round trip without leaving the cab PEL-BBR-PEL + adjacent track flagging or rush hour delays can really do a number on you. And if you're late, and your layover gets cut at Pelham...
  35. 1 point
    Yeah, but as I've been saying (I did predict the R211 delay), this mess just slows down the whole clock, and at some point (long time from now) service will have be restored, and the MTA will need full capacity, which it won't be able to achieve if the 32s are gone before the 211s arrive.
  36. 1 point
    I just thought of an idea since we're on the topic of Queens Blvd. **The CBTC Technology on the Should be upgraded to allow compatibility with Mainline B Division lines such as 8th Avenue and Queens Blvd** Trains make a Cup-Holder extension around Manhattan Up 10th Avenue and 57th Street. After 3rd Avenue-57th Street, it will go under a new tunnel into Queens and replace both the and Trains on Queens Blvd to Forest Hills. Service will be extended to 10 cars and will run 26 TPH. If possible, a service split could be done within the line to allow for a new service up Jewel Avenue. Atlantic Avenue would be upgraded to allow for potential Short turn runs. Trains will have the Express Tracks along QB to itself. WTC Terminal will be upgraded so that it can turn up to 30 TPH. Trains will run from Queens Village on Hillside Avenue and run Express into Manhattan. Alternative here is to have those trains replace the and on the Express Tracks; creating a super long route. and Trains will now use the Queens Bypass. The will run 18 TPH to Jamaica-179th and Trains will run 12 TPH to Jamaica Center. Service would be extended to 10 cars.
  37. 1 point
    The R32 fleet is NOT retired. For the final time, these cars are put ins. (Substitute, supplement, and spares) most are being stored and some are stripped or awaiting stripping of parts.
  38. 1 point
    This is one of my biggest gripes with US metro trains. Across the country, each new generation of rolling stock seems to have smaller and smaller windows, and they were never very large to begin with. NYC subway trains now have perhaps the fewest and smallest windows of any metro trains in the world. It makes the trains feel far darker and more enclosed than necessary. It's depressing.
  39. 1 point
    It might evolve into "Staten Island Transit" or "SIT" with the motto, "SIT down and shut up"!
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.