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.

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/13/2021 in all areas

  1. No on the road training today. We was just being briefed on the new specifications of the bus today.
    2 points
  2. yup, we got three cars this morning
    2 points
  3. 9504 is back at GA Depot after Months of being away.
    2 points
  4. How about they get these medicals out of the way for us to get in and kick ass?
    2 points
  5. Bet ! #letthemasshirecommence
    2 points
  6. That certainly didn't last long. 4038 is back, and assigned at LGA. 9714, 9757, 9762-63, 9770 assigned to Manhattanville, all are mixed between Secaucus and upstate. 9661 assigned to KB, currently in NJ.
    2 points
  7. B17 does during rush hour only.
    1 point
  8. I agree with this view. I don't think it should be 2 months but it shouldn't be cut altogether. I'd do 1 month and add 2 weeks of road posting or road ops with a tss.
    1 point
  9. Mitchell Field currently has Gilligs #2000-2004, #2006, and #2008. They should have #2010 soon as well.
    1 point
  10. I don’t see why you can’t use the or with my preference being a truncated (at Whitehall, with City Hall lower as a secondary terminal for whatever Whitehall can’t turn). The other local service would be still able to turn at 71st-Continental. Why would tph need to be reduced? If anything, both locals might be able to get a slight boost in service since they’ll no longer both be turning at 71st. Yes, 71st and 67th would be losing a service, but let’s be honest. At 71st, the overwhelming majority of riders are crowding onto the and , so having just the or as the local there would likely not be a huge loss. 67th would really be the only station significantly affected because it would only have the or stopping there with the other service being rerouted onto the branch. 67th Ave (my home station from 2012-15) is one of the lowest ridership stations on the QBL, so even there it really shouldn’t be a dealbreaker to only have one train service stopping there. I can guarantee you LIRR won’t go for this. It’s bad enough we’re trying to get them to run more service in Queens and all we’re getting is foot-dragging from them. I just can’t see how they’d want this branch back. Even if it went from Howard Beach straight into Kennedy Airport, that benefits riders from Manhattan far more than LIRR riders from Nassau/Suffolk who would have to ride much farther west than Jamaica in order to catch a JFK-bound train at a hypothetical station in Rego Park. And might even have to change trains in Jamaica first before changing for the JFK LIRR train. The current AirTrain would be way more convenient than having to do all that. The connection from the ROW to the QBL would be made just east of the 63rd Drive station, then turn south onto 66th Avenue or 65th Road. The only new alignment that would be needed is a portal for the ROW so the new line can clear the LIRR Main Line and the apartment buildings along those two streets. Then it would join the subway using the existing turnouts.
    1 point
  11. The upcoming 2021 XD40 order is an option from the XDE order, so most of the specs on 7851 (including the full roofline) are the same. Same with the 2021 LFS diesels, they're options from the LFS HEV order, which is why the HVAC unit on 8755 is different from the rest of the LFS diesels.
    1 point
  12. The next R211 set is coming in as we speak.
    1 point
  13. I should've been more specific... The routing I remember - I was referring to how it was setup schedule-wise.... Thanks for the throwback map snippet though. Cool, but his nuanced question was asked from an operational standpoint, not a passenger standpoint. I'll just throw this out there FWIW.... At LGA, less often than not, you're not gonna be able to ride through LGA on the Q72 from some point south of it, the way you usually can on the M60 from points west (believe me, I tried on several occasions).... With the Q48, I find that it's driver dependent as to whether he/she's gonna question where you're getting off at, if you rode through LGA & you're still on the bus at, say, that Ditmars/GCP service rd. stop... It also depends on how many people boarded at LGA & if you're easily discernible or not... In other words, if the bus is crowded (or anything close to it), chances are, you'll be able to ride through LGA & Ditmars/102nd back towards Flushing.... If you're the only person on the bus after Terminal A though, chances are you're gonna get questioned & possibly dumped off at Ditmars/102nd.... I've experienced both situations.
    1 point
  14. @B35 via Church for visual purposes
    1 point
  15. Some of the main problems with ANY de-interlining plain I see is that 1. The current subway system (even with rebuilding of Rogers Av Junction) has inefficient terminal operations that cap the number of trains that can run on the entire line. 2. If we try to circumvent issue 1, then interlining begins, either through merges, or short-turn trains. With short-turns, you are forcing a station that typically doesn't operate as a terminal to operate as one. If there are going to be merges, then it defeats the purpose of de-interlining, which would just add confusion 3. You would be forcing the subway to YES operate at near max capacity, yet MORE riders will not be taken to their destination on a single line. This would force transfers, or additional walking time to get to/from their destination, which could re-shape the rush hour (making it start earlier and ending it later). The problem with transfers is that within the system there are some stations (even in popular complexes) that have narrow pathways that wouldn't be able to handle the foot traffic. 4. De-interlining the system would drive up the cost of providing daily service because many more train crews would be needed to operate each line - which would therefore translate into needing government grants to make up the deficit because you can be sure that doubling the subway fare will be a non-starter.
    1 point
  16. Kinda answered your own question there buddy lol. Most of the short turns are directed by dispatchers and/or supervisors in the event that buses are needed back going the other direction, delays, ect.
    1 point
  17. Much to my surprise, that's actually assigned to JFK. Let's see how long that's going to last.
    1 point
  18. 4038 with LGA stickers is on the Q60. Not sure if loan or actual transfer.
    1 point
  19. Thread cleaned. Some of y'all really have to stop with the backseat modding.
    1 point
  20. I don't see how much if this improves the NYCT, in fact nothing is solved at all except for more interlining than usual. There's nothing much to say about the and except the is local along CPW. This is an issue because there are no switches that allows the to run from 8 Av line onto the CPW line before it hits 59 St-Columbus Circle. This means you got 3 different train lines that needs to stop at the express side of the station which is very bad because you add interlining which would delay trains even further. Then you also got the issue of the interfering with trains as well as the whole mess between Canal St and Hoyt. The current and has to merge with each other between those 2 stations in order to get from Brooklyn to Manhattan and vice versa. This hurts the because it needs to run to Lefferts/Rockaways while also having to deal with getting in the way. Now it's worse because the is running local along CPW and another line interfering with the hurting its service even further that being the (I'll get to in a bit). If you kept the as the to Lefferts, I wouldn't have an issue because its just the , no interlining and brings down confusion to those trying to figure out which train is going where. Next we have the and , people prefer having the along Concourse because it's been the line that's served it. Much like how people preferred keeping the letter M around when the died (which I'll get into later), there wasn't a need in not having the continue serving Concourse. But then you decide to have the run some other completely different route than expected and had it run along as the 's version of the , that being a local version from Church Av running local all the way to Forest Hills. This is literally just the extended into Brooklyn, there was no need in swapping around letter at all. Not to mention bringing back the would've made a lot of people angry. The current already does a much better job than it has for a very long time. I would like to see it come back, but it would be carrying air. Next up we have the and this Yellow (X). Like I said about the other one, there was no reason in changing the names around at all, it's just very unnecessary. Although, there are some things I see that has been solved. Broadway doesn't have an interlining issue like it does before which was the merging onto the local tracks between 34 St and 42 St as well as three different lines running along the same tunnel that being 60 St tunnel. However, there are some new issues that comes up. For starters, we got the merging with the along 63 St only for the to run local the rest of the way and meeting up with the along QBL. I wouldn't have an issue, but this would delay trains trying to run express along QBL which still has the same amount of merging issues as the current service does, actually maybe even worse. Not only is the forced to merge with the (which I should call the since that is what it is) between Bergen St and 47-50 Sts, but it has to merge with the only to split up again and with the . Oh and I forgot to mention the , so that's four different lines. Then you got this Yellow (X) which is basically the back running express along Brighton like it used to, but now runs local along Broadway. I also want to mention that Dekalb junction hasn't been fixed at all which is a huge disappointment. All in all, nothing seems to be "improved" by this "master plan" of yours. You got more delays on certain lines and unnecessary changes to others, this in all honesty is actually worse than the current system. I do like some of these ideas, the could be looked at further which could honestly happen seeing as is going to be 100% NTT's soon which would make signing up trains easier because no more R46's running around and less hassle for crews.
    1 point
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.