BrooklynIRT

How do riders like the added trainsets on the weekends?

In what ways was BK service cut? Was there overnight service to ATL? Did they cut weekend service, weekday rush hour service, and off-peak weekday service, or were any of these not cut? I was not keeping up with the LIRR much that long ago..

A city is only as good as its transit system. #United4NYCTF

Might as well forget about the second school of thought (for now and the foreseeable future at least) since it has been well documented that Lefferts riders do not want to ride trains directly to/from there that run local in Brooklyn and absolutely will not stand for the loss of direct service from a train that runs express in Brooklyn.

I wonder when they will start using M8s on the SLE? The only recent thing I could find was this: "The [Conn]DOT is also working to expand the New Haven Line’s M8 railcar usage to New London." From here: http://foxct.com/2015/05/20/rail-advocates-turn-attention-to-southeastern-connecticut/

I am surprised no one has posted about the R142s on the train earlier. Apparently due to a switch problem at Chambers that fouled up 7th Avenue Line service. I guess they rerouted a couple of and trains to fill service gaps. I know there were huge gaps, like almost 20 minutes or so along the . I only saw one train of R142s, which included 7056-7060, at 225 St-Broadway, and one train of (I believe) Livonia or Lenox R62s at 231 St-Broadway. Those R62s immediately followed the R142s and both trains were going to 242 St-Broadway-VCP. That happened in the early afternoon.

Sup B35. I have not given this subject as much thought as you have. Five routes being the same and running so close together like that is weird. So it goes..good ideas regarding many of the X-towns being one color. I only looked at the M103 and M9 because I wanted to get to the Municipal Building using a bus from Uptown and while studying the map I noticed the glaring oversight that made the M9 and M103 look like one thing by City Hall, complete with NO TERMINAL BOX for the M103. I used an X-M15 (M15 SBS but now I want to refer to SBS lines using X- followed by the borough and route #), getting off at Madison-Catherine. Then I took a long walk to the Municipal Bldg. I did not need Google transit directions to tell me how insanely slow and trafficated Lexington is and therefore how bad an idea it would have been to ride an M103 from Uptown to City Hall instead of an X-M15 since I had to get down there by a certain time. The travel time on the Lexington buses is really something though. That %^$* is no joke. Or I guess you could say the travel time is, for want of a better word, pathetic and thus actually is a joke. Welp, continuing where we left off...

Manhattan bus map... The M9 should be colored orange rather than purple on the map and it should not be "merged" with the M103 which is also purple, nor should the M103's terminal box at City Hall be missing. If they were concerned with an orange M9 and currently orange M21 right next to each other on Houston (Avenue "A" to Avenue "C"), they could make the M21 light blue as it does not run into any other light blue line. But the red Bx5 and Bx22 have been right next to each other like that on the Bronx map for over 20 years IINM (Castle Hill Ave between Bruckner Blvd and LaFayette Ave).

Teh Stef post I mentioned in post #3173: http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1315440

Did it work?

Montague tunnel clearance issues following the renovations. I first saw this mentioned by SubChat poster Stef a long time ago..this matters for the in situations in which any of those three lines need to be sent that way due to service diversions. It obviously matters for the since they go through there regularly. overnight / all other times.

Why did they care about having OPTO-capable equipment on the Concourse Line?

Because it runs local in Brooklyn?

So what is the approximate cost of installing a new switch?

Court/Schermerhorn Streets..converting the Transit Museum back to a regular passenger station would be a bit of a problem. I myself am not sure whether I would want that; I do not currently favor keeping the Museum or converting it back to revenue service. I am on the fence, I suppose. It is the pits when somebody has to make a decision like that. (Either a transit buff trying to decide whether s/he prefers one or the other, or competent elected officials [and, hopefully, competent constituents] trying to decide whether to ask MTA to keep the Museum or convert it back to revenue service.) I would probably say convert it back to revenue service at least temporarily; maybe there could be a way to eventually send service elsewhere and convert Court-Schermerhorn back to a museum if most people thought it were a good idea. Or find another abandoned station or abandoned part of a station to put the museum and leave Court-Schermerhorn in passenger service. Are you sure about Utica though? I thought the platforms ended either right on the western edge of Utica/Malcolm X or a few feet west of the western of Utica/Malcolm X. When you said existing turnouts, did you mean bellmouths? Where in relation to the existing, active Utica-Fulton station exactly are the existing turnouts and/r bellmouths of which you speak? Also, is rebuilding Nostrand JCT easier than tunneling under the at Utica-E Pkwy or doing whatever work would be done around Utica-Fulton to implement either of my proposals from post #1? Or is it pretty much the same in terms of difficulty? Yes, I thought about connecting a Utica/Malcolm X subway to a S 4 St subway but would not propose it because it would involve underpinning the BMT Jamaica el.

I was trying to think of other routes, such as Utica-Fulton-[bedford or Franklin or Classon] and then under the East River to the SAS. This would increase network coverage, but it would also miss a lot of transfers in Downtown BK. I suspect the would need those transfers since I suspect a lot of people currently transfer from other lines to go to the only existing East Side-Brooklyn services, and therefore the would relieve the if it transferred to those other lines.

90-degree turnouts are not going to happen nowadays? I wonder if they have they started working on the 90-degree turn at 2nd Ave-E 63 St so the can access the SAS after coming across E 63 Stand whether land acquisition is or was involved there? Love to know how, with such a big difference in tunnel mileage, among other things.

But the tunneling in proposal #2 would be less difficult and less expensive than, say, building a brand new tunnel for subway service from Utica-Fulton to the SAS without going through an area with as many tunnels as Downtown BK, right?

Another reason I think proposal #2 is better than #1 is that, especially if cross-platform transfers between trains on the outer tracks and trains on the tracks at Hoyt-Schermerhorn are made possible, the follows a much more "logical" routing where it enters the Fulton line at an express station (Utica-Fulton on the northbound, Hoyt on the southbound) and leaves the Fulton line immediately after another express station (Hoyt on the northbound, Utica-Fulton on the southbound), unlike proposal #1.

Proposal #1: A that starts somewhere between Utica/Clarkson Aves and Kings Plaza... ...goes up Utica to Fulton St, heads west on Fulton via the IND Fulton local tracks (the merge would be just east of Utica Ave station there; might have to be a jug turn because I want the to stop on the same tracks as the at Utica-Fulton)... ...branches off the IND Fulton local tracks either b/w Clinton-Washington Aves and LaFayette Ave stations or just west of LaFayette Ave station... ...merges with the and comes into DeKalb Ave station... ...then branches off before Whitehall St station and then gets up to 2nd Ave to connect with the Second Ave Subway. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal #2: A that starts somewhere between Utica/Clarkson Aves and Kings Plaza... ...goes up Utica to Fulton St, heads west on Fulton via the IND Fulton local tracks (the merge would be just east of Utica Ave station there; might have to be a jug turn because I want the to stop on the same tracks as the at Utica-Fulton)... ...runs via the IND Fulton local tracks to Hoyt-Schermerhorn and stops on the outermost tracks there (gotta fix up those outer platforms and allow passenger access again)... ...branches off the IND Fulton local tracks and runs via a short new tunnel from there to merge with the and come into Court St station... ...and then branches off before Whitehall St station and then gets up to 2nd Ave to connect with the Second Ave Subway. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know some problems were mentioned before, but I wanted to discuss them in a dedicated thread here. I am curious as to how/why any parts of either proposal might be physically impossible to build and whether they would involve disruptions to existing subway service and digging in dense neighborhoods to an extent greater than that of other proposals. I am also curious about the extent to which this line's capacity would be constrained by sharing tracks with the and . Which of the two proposals, if any, is better? It seems to me that proposal #2 is better. It seems less expensive and more feasible since it does not involve tunneling under the IND Fulton, IND Crosstown, or BMT Brighton tracks in Downtown Brooklyn, unlike proposal #1. Assuming adequate turnaround facilities at the (T)'s terminals and given the current service levels of the and within Brooklyn (and/r service levels of the within BK prior to the Montague tunnel closure, which I do not think were that different from current service levels), I am sure this could run up to 15 TPH. Should it? One of the reasons I came up with these proposals was that I thought making use of much existing infrastructure (and mostly building the brand new infrastructure just along Utica, where the B46 gets slammed with passengers, and along the far East Side of Manhattan and Second Ave, close to the not-as-far East Side where the Lex subway obviously gets slammed with passengers) would result in lower construction costs overall. I mentioned proposal #1 in another thread, where I was told that it (or parts of it?) would be physically impossible and difficult to build. Again, proposal #1 involves tunneling under IND Fulton, IND Crosstown, and BMT Brighton tracks in Downtown Brooklyn while proposal #2 does not involve tunneling under any of these in Downtown Brooklyn. But alas, I realize that a [rather interesting] problem with proposal #2 is that we would have through trains stopping on all six tracks, which would mean having to figure out which side the doors on the trains should open, unless there is a viable way to quickly open and close the doors on both sides. Or, MTA could just hire assistant conductors for that, I suppose. I hope there is a viable way to quickly open and close the doors on both sides to facilitate transfers from the to the and and vice-versa. I have an idea of what the entire procedure for quickly opening and closing the doors on both sides of the train (ideally, a train making automated announcements) would be like, but do not want to post it now for purposes of post brevity. Also I am thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of having the assistant conductor posted in the cab (they do not have to be there for the entire trip on whatever train they have to operate at Hoyt-Schermerhorn) vs. having the assistant conductor posted on the outer platform at Hoyt-Schermerhorn and will try to talk about this later. Maybe in a new thread. Significant edits in burgundy.