Gong Gahou

I can't confirm this incident, but I can tell you I spotted one running on Pelham about a week ago.

Of course the MTA can run them on the . They just have to prep them up for service. The real question is: will they? - and the answer to that, as some posters have pointed out already, is no. They are over 50 years old, and the MTA is making the move to replace the entire fleet. They have already put some money into extending their life until their replacement arrives, and they are not going to spend more money to add new rollsign text when that money could be used for more important things, such as fixing up old/vandalized signs in stations/station entrances. It's just a waste of money. If you have an old Playstation that is occasionally breaking down and you coughed up enough money to replace it with a Playstation 4, are you going to spruce up your old Playstation when money is hard to come by? It's the same concept here. You might argue that the cost is very small but it is still something the MTA has to pay for, and the cost will add up since the MTA is dealing with a lot of equipment as opposed to just one car.

Not possible due to late night work. trains are terminating at Brooklyn Bridge as well. I got caught in this after school. At the time n/b trains were running express in Manhattan briefly - which I failed to catch upon arriving at 86th. Waiting for the local took about 15 minutes, with an average headway of 10 minutes. Some trains were running local too - and it's possible one of them actually ran on the in the Bronx, as I saw a Manhattan-bound, NIS train of 142s passing though Elder Av. There was a service change - not too long after your posted - that sent trains express due to track work at that area, so it probably was still ongoing.

Not will be - it could be. At this point in time no one can say 100% that new subway construction will be elevated, because the reality is that there will be people who will fight for alternatives.

In MysteriousBtrain's scenario, M trains will occupy both middle tracks should Queens Plaza become a terminal for it.

Fresh Pond's point still stands though. Think about it: since the 188s will only stay on the 7, any service change on that line can be shown on the strip map. Only the lights need to be changed, and that can be done with some programming. They don't need the "via [X] line" flexibility because once again, the equipment will only run on the 7. It's a moot point, and since FINDs cost more per panel it's a waste of money to buy it when strip maps can do everything that is needed and for a cheaper price. The FIND system may look clear and better, but that is just personal preference and not something that is really needed. Strip maps are clearly not illegible, and assuming the passenger knows the basics of how a strip map works, it will [logically] provide the exact same information just as the FIND does. Why? Because the FIND is essentially a strip map, no matter how you look at it. The only difference is how they both display information to straphangers. Having preferences is not a bad idea, but since the MTA doesn't have an infinite amount of cash, sacrifices will have to be made if it means a better financial outcome. This is neither an overanalyzation, nor is it a silly choice. It's also not a grudge against FINDs, if that's what you were thinking. It is simply the better decision in this kind of situation. Any time you spend money on something - be it food, clothing, housing, a car, a pet, whatever it is - you need to weigh the benefits and costs of your options and then pick the best one. It's just good money management.

No, it isn't accidental - most definitely done on purpose. More than likely it's done for design purposes - to give enough room to indicate to passengers that Bowling Green is a terminal station (denoted by a thick curved black line) and that trains can go beyond it into Brooklyn (indicated by a continuing portion of the horizontal green line along with a vertical white line). They could have done it without skipping a light bulb, but then they would have even less room to to fit all that in there. Plus, there's plenty of bulbs, so the MTA can be creative and skip some lights if it ends up making the strip map more pleasing to the eye. That's actually not true. They can't drive the thing down there, as it's too big for the tunnels (about 20 feet in diameter, assuming the sandhogs are 6 ft tall). Because of its size, all the parts were manufactured and then delivered to the boring site where the machine was assembled and brought to life.

Actually, strip maps shouldn't be a problem with the train. With the exception of loaned cars from another barn, the cars you see on the will only run on the because the line only uses equipment coming from Concourse. Concourse equipment won't run on the or as both lines are based from Coney Island.

The MTA also name stations after a place or after its location, such as 66 Street - Lincoln Center and 34 Street - Herald Square. Hudson Yards is a neighborhood according to the official site for the development as well as a few other sources, but the MTA doesn't think so. You can tell from the station name, too - under MTA's naming conventions the station would have been called "Hudson Yards - 34 Street".

Ethan777: Adding on to itmaybeokay's post, the site's blog also mention that Version 2 for Windows is being worked on. Depending on what you look at, simulations may or may not be accurate. The idea/concept may be spot-on, but the actual operations could be completely different (hence why there are users who'll praise simulations for thier accuracy, while others who have/had actual experience in the industry will denounce the same simulation for being far from the real thing). I can't say anything about this program though; I already had the application for a few months but haven't set some time aside to play it. But that doesn't mean it's not worth checking out, so if you're interested you should give it a go. You have nothing to lose except the time you spent on it.

Initially I thought they probably listed it there as a forecasted maneuver should the equipment continue to have problems (I remember an incident where the 6 train I was on had trouble accelerating out of every station), but then it doesn't make sense why they would terminate trains at Kings Highway instead of rerouting all northbound trains up the express. I'm thinking that the actual word here should be southbound.

Those aren't their original number plates. The original is the same one currently on every R-68 besides the oddball numbers you saw on 2755. Check the oldest photos on nycsubway.org - you can (barely) make out the Standard Medium font on the plates. Subchat posters mention that these "replacement plates" are actually stickers. Last I checked, that was true for one of them (numbers were even painted white due to wear), but it was too dark for me to see the other one. Subchat also mentions another possibility for their disappearing plates - that they weren't destroyed, but stolen while it was out of service.

By "Atlantic Terminal", are you referring to Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr? If you are, then the answer to your question is because trains can't switch to the local tracks there. You're probably thinking of the crossover north of Pacific St - that won't work since it is local-to-express only. The only way trains (or any train coming from the Manhattan Bridge) can make local stops along 4th Av is if they go through DeKalb Avenue, because the only switch to the 4th Av Local is over there. By the way, this service change takes place during late night hours. Even if Atlantic-Barclays had a express-to-local crossover, it would still make more sense to make local trains stop at DeKalb. DeKalb customers would lose direct 4th Av service if trains bypassed the stop, towers would have to deal with two interlockings instead of one, and all that switching to bypass one stop could delay trains.

That's correct. This applies to all words on their end rollsigns. That condensed font is actually the condensed font for Standard Medium. Also, the font on the 62As is the same font you mentioned in an older post. Don't let the slants deceive you - that is Helvetica through and through; it's just an older (and apparently altered) version of it.

6658 in new scheme as of today, according to MTAPhotos: Scratch that, I saw the wrong thing on the list above.

Possibly, but not surely. since it's also possible their "other halves" are out of service at that time.

6772 is in the new scheme as of yesterday.

Saw 6762 recently repainted in the new scheme two days ago.

No, you were right the first time. Had you written "aren't allowed", you would be saying the 32s are allowed inside the tunnel.

Linking just means coupling, or connecting, two or more subway cars together. For instance, the J needs eight-car sets for service, and they create that by linking eight cars of R160s together. Linking is done through the use of couplers and drawbars. A coupler is a semi-permanent connection because trains connected by couplers can be separated on the spot, whereas a drawbar is considered "permanent" because, outside of the maintenance shop, trains connected by it can't be separated without the required tools or physically breaking it. Outside where? On the platform?

They were supposed to be retired when the R160s came in, but because of structural problems found in the R44s management decided to keep them running while retiring the R44s instead. Snowblock says 6:53 pm. Of course, this is only a general guideline since Snowblock doesn't work at 207th and a poster caught it an hour earlier.

Truth or not, it does have some merit. Keep in mind that it's not just any door that allows entry and exit into the system - it's marked an "emergency exit", which explains the alarm that was in place. Yes, you will have customers using the door illegally, but the overwhelming majority of the cases are legal or permitted uses that are nowhere near an "emergency". This means the alarm has practically lost its meaning and usefulness, and mainly serves as pain in the ears for customers and the agent.

So it was very recent; I paid a visit to that stretch this evening and it sounds different than before. I'll miss the clack-clack of the jointed rails, but I also like the way it is now - preferably without the roaring. And thanks for mentioning the weight of the rails too - I was wondering why the profile of new rails look different than before. It's actually understandable if the term "failure" doesn't strictly mean mechanical failure and instead refers to an equipment breakdown that requires the affected car to be taken out of service. While the 143s can still operate mechanically in the event of a CBTC failure, it cannot be put into service because CBTC operation requires constant and continuous communication between the train and the signal equipment to do important calculations (such as determining how much space is allowed between trains on a track), and when the equipment on the train fails to send or receive a signal, there is no way to know exactly where the train is - which is very dangerous in a CBTC system without some backup signalling installed. Unfortunately the report's definition of MDBF says failures are mechanical, so that pretty much goes out the window.

How recent is this? Because I have a couple of sound bytes I recorded on that stretch recently and I'm not sure I hear what you are hearing. I'll pay attention next time I sit on the D train.

A not-in-service R188 ran on the Broadway line today; passed through Times Square on the downtown local this evening.