AndrewJC

34th then

Seems like a waste to staff that tower for just an hour or two each evening. Much simpler to just run the C express (and ignore the 50th St. issue) or to run the E express. Once headways reach 20 minutes, everything can run local.

 Nope there was no gap. Before the Train with the sick passenger came, one left like 7 min ago prior to that. And plus after they sent the Train behind our Local still, another Train was behind that Train (Which ran Express from Canal-59 Street). And people were confused.

So we have 7 minutes from the previous C to the incident train, then another 15 minutes (according to your report) until the D pulled in - already up to 22 minutes, more than twice the scheduled C headway. And the C on the express track was still a few minutes away.

Seems like a bit of a gap to me.

Presumably the dispatcher didn't know, when he decided to send the D local, that the incident train would be ready to proceed in a minute or two. At that moment, his top concern was to provide service to the 72nd, 81st, 86th, 96th, 103rd, 110th, and 116th, all of which had had a gap of more than twice the scheduled headway already. He did the right thing.

People on subchat think it has happened before but I think either it would run via 4 all the way to manhattan.Never remember this.

It's happened, but not in a number of years.

Here it is in 2001: http://talk.nycsubway.org/perl/read?subtalk=198281

You misunderstood. The train with the sick passenger went local directly behind our Train and the 2nd Train was behind that Train. It was no 30 min gap.

And what was the gap on the local track ahead of that D?

They've done this before.

But not in many years, as far as I know.

CBTC signal work on the express tracks. Same reason for most GOs involving Queens Blvd, 53 and 63 St these days.

Not only has CBTC not been awarded on QBL yet, the CBTC spec hasn't even been defined yet.

The QBL work is to modernize three interlockings - a prerequisite for CBTC, but not CBTC itself.

Flushing is where the actual CBTC work is taking place these days.

I think it's more likely that the would go express after 42nd st. so that 50th and 59th is not a chore to travel between. But the ends around 10 anyway so they probably wouldn't have to alter much.

The C can't cross from local to express at 42nd.

Crazy ride on the train this morning...

 

Got on the at the junction thinking it would be a normal ride up to Penn Station. First, while waiting for the train, there was this dude in some daisy duke shorts, a tank top, and heels dancing in the platform. Snapped me a picture of it and got on the train. At Nostrand Av, I see the TOMC heading the other way. Thought I was seeing things at first, but you can't miss that silver and white paint scheme lol.

 

..Fast forward to High St, and we sit in the station, C/R said that there's a sick passenger at Chambers St. That pissed me off somewhat since I had a bus to catch. I double back to Jay St and find out everything is going over the , so i hop on the and take that to Penn Station.

 

I get off the train already pressed for time and get slammed with the Comic Con crowd who all get on the wrong M34 and they hold up the line even more. I make my bus with only minutes to spare

 

And it isn't even noon yet...

Just FYI - High Street and Clark Street are nearby. If I had a problem on an A train at High and I needed to get to 34th, I'd walk over to Clark for the 2/3. (Of course, I don't know if you have an unlimited.)

They could have run some extra service between Bedford Park (turn on the middle track in the station) and 161 (clean out, change ends on the middle track) from 0700-2100 to absorb some of that extra ridership from the .....those buses from Mosholu & Woodlawn were coming down completely full!

What about the crew shortage?

They never do that for some reason. Then again last time the line was shut down in the Bronx IIRC weekend headways were still 8 minutes. So effectively the D is running at 250% of MTA's loading guidelines in the Bronx, instead of 200% before the weekend cuts.

I spent a few minutes scratching my head before figuring out what I think you meant by those numbers.

The off-peak loading guideline allows for 125% (formerly 100%) of a seated load at the peak load point. First off, that's the loading guideline - 100% of it - not 125% of it! Second, I don't believe the D, under normal operations, typically carries as much as 125% of a seated load. Third, the peak load point is not in the Bronx. Fourth, any major GO scares away some fraction of the ridership - either they find other ways to get where they're going or they wait until the GO ends to make their trips.

I'm making up these numbers to illustrate the point, but let's say the 4 and D leaving 161st northbound on a weekend typically both carry about 40 people per car (that's about a seated load on the 4 and a bit over half of a seated load on the D) . The 4, then, carries 40 x 10 x 7.5 = 3,000 people per hour, and the D carries 40 x 8 x 6 = 1,920 people per hour. If the full load of the D is diverted onto the 4 (i.e., there's no diversion to other lines or to other modes or to Monday), we're looking at an hourly load of 4,920, or 4,920 / (10 * 7.5) = 66 riders per car: about 131% of guideline, not 200% or 250%.

Crazy incident happened. Somebody passed out on the northbound Train @ 59th Street. 15 minutes later, still waiting for help. They ended up sending the Local because of that BUT it was stupid because there was a Train at 42nd Street on the Express tracks because of that sick person. And when we got to 125th Street (On The Local), there was a DIRECTLY Behind us. And thats the same Train that had the sick passenger and even the C/R said they should have had both that And Express because the was now 15 min late. And then the Train that I mentioned before on the Express tracks via 8th Avenue was behind that Train (Local as well). So basically they sent the Local which could have been avoided, and they should have let the late Train go express. It was like wow. Really?

Based on your description, there was a gap in local service of close to 30 minutes, when the regular local headway is 10 minutes. You're suggesting that one 480 foot train pick up a half hour's worth of local passengers, rather than having a 600 foot train go ahead to share the load? Why are you so eager to starve the local stops of the service they need?

Wow indeed. In my opinion, the only thing the dispatcher did wrong here was wait 15 minutes before sending an express up the local.

Aside from the questions of the extension itself, I seriously question the idea of a park-and-ride in the first place - the opportunity cost is immense.

We could build a subway extension with a vast parking lot at the terminal. It would be very attractive for Long Islanders who want to drive partway into Manhattan during rush hours, but it wouldn't be very useful locally, since any nearby residential and commercial development would require a long walk across a parking lot to reach the station.

I'd much prefer instead to see a subway extension into a dense mixed-use residential/commercial area, to improve transit access without resorting to cars and so that the extension sees traffic outside rush hours.

Ugh I hate delays like that. At least they're warning riders though.  Didn't they have a fastrack a few weeks ago?

FASTRACK is for short duration maintenance work. Anything large-scale that requires the track to be out of service for more than 7 consecutive hours (closer to 5 in practice) needs a longer shutdown.

 The real issue to me is when they don't notify the pubic about delays. If i can avoid it i WILL. Last week and were running express to 71st, and so there was a conga line, and even after 71st trains were crawling. I'm not fond of being stuck between stations either. I would have taken the where I could at least use my phone. They say "allow additional travel time" but that somewhat implies that warning applies the stops being skipped. 

 

That's another thing, when there's a delay, and instead of holding trains in stations with the doors open, they let them stack up in between stations, no one wants to be stuck on a train. That's even more annoying when its an express train and the locals are just whizzing by.

 

For example,if you KNOW there are issues, inform us. I don't want to leave 71'st Continental ,"southbound" and get stuck for 20-30 mins while and trains are whizzing by, Inform your customers, I would have gladly switched to the local train and been on my way, and if there was a problem further down the line, I'd rather be told at or before Roosevelt Ave so I can take the instead of getting stuck between stations on the express or local tracks between stations "south" of Roosevelt Ave.

Agreed 100% about the announcements. But if the problem is congestion, then holding in stations just pushes the problem back.

I'm gonna just put this out there, the isn't getting all of the (7)'s R62A's half of them are going to the while the (4)'s R142A's are going to the making the half and half. And the being R62A/142 only, its cheaper and also when it comes to parts the R142A/188 will be in 2 yards instead of 3, what sense would it make to have mostly R62A's on the with very little R142A's, this plan alone would make the most sense, this would be way better than having them on the in case pollishits gets involved

Nonsense. There is no reason for the R62A's to be maintained at three shops (240th, Mosholu, and Pelham) when two would suffice

The Flushing CBTC project seems like a big waste of $$.

The purpose of Flushing CBTC is to replace a very old signal system that needs to be replaced. It could have been replaced with a new wayside signal system, but how would the life-cycle costs, capacities, and running times have compared? Not favorably, I suspect.

Source:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mta-slashes-trains-1-6-lines-warning-claims-impact-small-multiple-benefits-article-1.158805

"The authority said the changes were seasonal schedule adjustments because ridership is lighter during the summer, a spokeswoman said."

It's no longer Summer 2011. (As far as I know, the summer-light-riding schedules weren't implemented in 2012 or 2013 - and even if they were, summer's over now. Summer-light-riding schedules, by the way, were routine on the subway through the 90's, and they're still in place on buses, so it's not like this is a foreign concept.)

How about we determine where the students of aforementioned local stops are heading and based on that make the a true express service for students up to the station where many students are heading? That way students have a fast express ride and the becomes less crowded.

Because the overwhelming majority of 1 riders are not students. What you propose would save a minute or so for a small number of lucky riders and make everybody else cram onto the next train.

Part of the reason for that is that you can only board the at 238th going Downtown.  There is no way to board the at 238th going towards 242nd and the reason is that supposedly 242nd is close enough that the doesn't feel the need to allow people to board going Northbound. Also, that area is not very dense.  When I have taken the I've gotten on there a few times to avoid 231st. It's a bit more civilized since it's mainly people from Riverdale or the Riverdale boarder getting on there.

Who would board a northbound train at 238th?

Actually a better question is why it was built with no express line option?  It's really a painful trip from 242nd... The train moves and you're at 96th in about 25 minutes but still.  It would be a lot faster with an express train because then you have to switch at 96th.  Too much of a hassle.

I've made that trip many, many times, and I've never found it painful. For a local, it's pretty brisk. Sometimes I get off for the express at 96th; sometimes I stay on and grab a seat as the masses get off. (I certainly prefer a reliable 25 minute trip over an express bus that's subject to the whims of the traffic gods!)

Regardless of the track layout, express service would not make sense on this line, simply because the stations closer to 96th are much busier than the stations at the north end. While 231 is the busiest station north of 181, every single station between 181 and 103, aside from 125, is busier than 231. If there were an express, there'd be a tremendous rider imbalance, with locals much more crowded than expresses.

As someone that has used the Seventh Avenue Line for almost 2 years my opinion is no. I don't see the point in the coming back. It won't address the current issues which is overcrowding on the . It would skip too much popular stations, and it would be a terrible pain on the butt on the local stations on the entire line which is why it was killed in the first place. So no the won't be coming back.

 

A more realistic idea would be to add more trains during rush hour which will solve the overcrowding on the . This would work better and if communications based train control (CBTC) was brought to the Seventh Avenue Line it will help address the issues on the even more. There is no reason to use the 3rd track anyway since it's used for yard moves anyway. (Really I don't see this point brought up by foamers to use tracks that are unused for services that are not needed!!!!!!!!!!)

Sorry to be the dissenter, but the 1 isn't overcrowded. It's crowded, and occasional trains are certainly overcrowded, but the line is not carrying more than 110 people per car, on average, during rush hours. Like on any other line, people tend to clump up by the doors even when there's plenty of room in the middle of the car, but that doesn't make it overcrowded.

That said, ridership has been growing, so even if it isn't overcrowded yet...

may need some more trains... It's always jam packed with people. From 103 street station it's hard to find a seat if any.

It's hard (virtually impossible) to find a seat on any line at the peak load point during rush hour. The MTA doesn't schedule for a seated load.

The reason we are not seeing as much frequency on train service on the is because the TPH was cut back from 18 TPH to 16 TPH rush hours, then from 10-12 TPH to 9-11 TPH off peak. They did the same thing on the , from 23 TPH to 21 TPH, rush hours. This was never officially announced to the public until the NY Daily News announced it after the fact. They never restored the original frequency because they are more focused right now on the B division ( i.e IND, BMT ) , increasing service on those lines with the obvious exception being the  . (CBTC anyone?)

Source?

In the morning rush, the 1 runs 19 tph (ask Trip Planner for the schedule and count the number of trains between 7:50 and 8:49), and it's been that way for years. Middays, 10 tph. Weekends, 7.5 tph (reduced from 10 tph in 2010).

The 6 runs 23 tph in the morning rush (again, ask Trip Planner), 15 tph middays, 7.5 tph weekends.

service has always been limited, in one form or another. The loop terminal limited capacity due to high dwell times - then, new SF limited capacity because of the lack of tail tracks.

 

If the had done something instead like extending the platforms past the loop and walling off the curved sections, we'd have the best of both worlds - a loop is theoretically the most efficient way to terminate a line, so long as there is no platform on the line.

In recent years, the 1 has never run more than 19 tph. South Ferry loop can handle 21 tph, and the "new" terminal 24 tph. The north terminal may be the greater constraint, although of course there are alternative north terminals like 137th.

Your comment about loops depends on the geometry and on the signaling. If the loop is sharp enough that trains have to crawl through it, it can constrain capacity even without a station.

too bad if the UES riders don't want the old trains back, they can take taxis or buses to the west side if they don't like it.

Regardless of what anyone says here, the overwhelming majority of riders simply don't care - it's a passing curiosity at best.

Do you think West Siders traveling between Franklin and 135th let the 3 go to wait for the 2 so that they can get newer cars? Of course not - they take whichever comes first.

By the way, can someone find any concrete proof the 160s were originally slated for Pitkin?

I don't believe they were.

Then we mus ask ourselves why the 30 day test on the took place initially ? This isn't a rumor here or wild speculation, this is an educated guess based on past patterns where it comes to new cars and acceptance testing. Recall the R142's were originally revenue service tested on the and it was a stunning success. So it is we still see R142's on the today assigned to 239/180th street yards. My point is that if the 30 day tests were indeed successful then the R160's would have indeed been assigned to Pitkin Yard after all. Of course, let me state for the record again so everyone is on the same page here that the early retirement of the R44's along with the circumstances regarding the Rockaways as I initially mentioned before changed everything.

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the 30-day test. The purpose is for NYCT to verify that the train can operate for 30 consecutive days, in revenue service, without any serious malfunctions. If it can't, the manufacturer is on the hook to make whatever fixes are necessary, and then the 30-day clock starts again.

The purpose is not for NYCT to try to figure out where the cars should run.

I wouldn't sleep on the R42s, its a back and forth discussion on what to do with the cars, they are looking more like shit, people say they'll be gone when the R179s come in, there's a rumor saying next month, if the same amount of R32s stay on the J past this month than that's gonna be something, say if they decided to give the all the R160s (172-184) of em ( doesn't need 222 R160s due to the reliability of the cars) and 184 R32s go to the in total (that would be the total altogether with the 72 cars already there), that would really wipe out the R42s, they have to do something with the R42s to make em stay, its obvious that they don't do as much work to em, the only rumor I heard is they'll be gone by next month, IMO I doubt it but we'll wait and see

The J and the C are both 8 car trains. The total car requirements are exactly the same whether the C is 100% R32, 100% R160, or anything in between.

In other words, I don't know if the R42's are going to stick around until the R179's or if they're going to be retired sooner, but it certainly doesn't depend on whether the C is running R160's.

Something I've wondered, what exactly resulted in Montague Street being more damaged during Sandy than the other tunnels?

The flooding was worse and took longer to pump out than anywhere else. The longer salt water is in contact with electrical components, the more damage it does.

Good luck to the passengers on the  line if they are on the R62A line in a car with broken ac! I once took a South Ferry Bound   Train to The Last Stop and one car was with broken ac and it was during the summer!

Any particular reason you're restricting that to one line and to one car class? It's pretty dreadful being in a hot car, on any line and of any car class.

What's the point of those timers between Clinton-Washington and Franklin Ave on the s/b? Seems like it'd be on top of the list of some of the most useless timers in the system...

I can't speak to this one in particular, but most of the recent timers have been installed to bring the signals into compliance with safety standards - that is, without the timer, there's a risk that a train that passes a red signal at max speed will hit the train ahead (or will come too close to comfort - I don't know what the safety margin is).

I dont need personalized service. I need consistent service. Why even have stations if you arent gonna stop there?

 

And its not even that. I know repairs are necessary I know that. But its never Ave J M and H its always Neck Rd and Av U.

 

Can i at least get some warning? Like i said there was nothing to inform commuters.

I got an email alert on September 10 at 3:35 PM about the service change starting the following day. If you're not signed up for email alerts, perhaps you should sign up.

J, M, and H often encounter similar GO's.

Q: We already know the Montague street Tube is shut down till oct.2014, How come the cant run in 2 sections but has to run over the bridge on weekends?

To allow work to take place closer to Court Street than can take place when trains are terminating there, and to reduce costs and crew requirements.

It also isn't at Lenox Ave, but a block over at Adam Clayton Powell Jr Blvd. So why not 149-Powell Terminal?

 

182-183 no longer has an open exit to 183rd St and 163-Amsterdam no longer has an exit to 163 St, so should we change those names too? Heck, even W4 St only has an exit to West 4th if you take the elevator!

The elevator exit at West 4th leads to the north side of West 3rd, just like the adjacent staircase.

http://goo.gl/maps/18G37

What exactly is a call-on?

From http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Subway_Signals:_Train_Stops#co:

Call-on. For a home signal indicating "stop and stay", it is possible under certain circumstances for the tower operator and train operator to cooperate to clear the stop and allow the train past the signal. This is called a call-on, and requires that a train is directly in front of the signal, the signal showing red over red, all the switches in the route lined up correctly, and the tower operator having operated a special call-on button associated with the home signal. When these conditions obtain, a third, special yellow light (the call on aspect, shown at right) appears under the signal, and the train operator, seeing this, presses and holds the signal's key-by button, with which each home signal is supplied, until the stop drives and stays down (accepting the call-on). The operator may then proceed past the home signal at very low speed, into possibly-occupied track, prepared to stop within vision.

 

Note that although a call-on is usually given when the signal's control length (the track ahead of the signal) is occupied, the tower operator can force a call-on when the control length is vacant by operating the call-on button before the route is complete. But for this, the normal "high signal" (fully clear) aspect would appear as usual instead of the desired call-on aspect. This is sometimes done when the track circuits at an interlocking are operating erratically. SeeInterlocking.

 

All I gotta say is when they got rid of the they screwed up Broadway, the helped out a lot and everything ran smoothly, there's more than enough equipment to bring it back as in going to Whitehall, all of the trains that were on the went to the (N)/(Q) for added service

No they didn't. The W used 10 trains. The Q went up by 5 trains. The N didn't change (the local running time wasn't enough to require any additional cars).

Broadway runs basically fine, as far as I can see. It's a bit less congested than it was with the W.

The W will be coming back when SAS opens. It certainly can't come back now - the R has taken over its south terminal pocket.

I have waited up to 15-20 for mins for the to arrive , it is clear that the can't handle Manhattan and Queens by itself and that the needs to come back, besides aren't there enough R68 and R160s to reactivate the if ever needed to.

I've waited up to 15-20 minutes for pretty much every line I've ridden. That doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem.

Except at night, the R is scheduled more frequently than that. If the R has a reliability problem, then efforts should be made to solve the reliability problem. Throwing more trains at it won't solve anything.

The R doesn't handle Queens, or Manhattan north of Canal, by itself - the M and N share the work. The Manhattan stations south of Canal are not particularly busy - even before the Montague tube shutdown, southbound R trains in the morning were mostly empty by the time they left Canal.

To add:  if a secondary BMT 4th Ave local can also be implemented along with the current West End and Sea Beach Expresses, also thr . The 6th Ave via Chrystie St cut is out because it is a critical line, so in my opinion if a perspective can be sent down the West End line that could work. It would do wonders on the insanely jam packed particularly on the AM rush which is worse then the  on the AM and PM rush.

The southern M was cut because ridership was very, very low, and there was more than ample room on the alternative routes to carry every M rider. Unless ridership grows substantially on the 4th Avenue or West End line, why bring it back in any form?

Well in the future they'll run on the again may not be 14 sets but 3-4 sets, they're not banned, its just that putting them on the is a pain in the ass in the summer and last year they ran most of them to lefferts, not far rock

They seemed pretty evenly split, from what I could tell. Aside from the Rock Park trains, there didn't seem to be much preference one way or the other.

While the new M is good and more useful than the V going to just 2nd av and the M to Chambers st (Bay pkwy rush hours), I still wonder if there could've been a demand for the V to church av (as express or a local)? The old M probably didn't need to go all the way to Bay Pkwy or even 9th av, but it's not like it had to be routed north. It was just a byproduct of severing 2 underused stub ends and giving some folks 1 less train to transfer to. The only good is that the Queens blvd end of the line doesn't have a full 600' 'empty train' (so it's 2 less empty cars).

The F to Brooklyn is not overcrowded. Crowded, yes, but adding on 10 tph would have been overkill.

The purpose of combining the two M's was to save money, since it's cheaper to run trains through than to have two nearby terminals. The connection has proved very popular among riders - that seems like pretty good news to me.

On Dual Contracts sections, all you would have to do is shave back the platforms where there are curves. The cars could still be the current 9 feet wide. Signals would not have to be moved since the tunnels in those sections were built to BMT specifications (For cars 67 feet long). The only places where this is not possible are the sections built during Contracts 1 and 2. Had it not been for the clearance problems on those portions only, we would probably be using 65 foot long IRT cars.

 

I'm only saying this length specifically because the R62 keeps popping up in my research where they could have been of the 65 foot length.

Every single platform, curved or straight, would have to be shaved back in order to accommodate B Division equipment, and any signal or other component which is not placed outside the clearance envelope of a B Division car would have to be relocated.

Aside from the 7, which has its own areas of tight clearance, every IRT subway line uses some Contract 1 trackage.

I've been to all 4 local stops. There aren't that many people that use those stations. Broadway only needs the to serve as a local.

If they were served only by the R, they'd be the four busiest stations served only by the R.

As I said, the express only saves a minute or two, and it's not worth making tens of thousands of riders wait twice as long for a train so that you can save a minute or two.

The should be made express again (but at all times) and have  the as the only local since there isn' t demand for two locals on Broadway.

There most certainly is! All four of the local stops between 34th and Canal are busier than any of the stations served only by the R.

The Broadway express run only saves a minute or two - it's not worth making tens of thousands of riders wait twice as long for a train so that you can save a minute or two.

On weekends there is however on weekdays ridership at local stations Is pretty low.

Not true. Weekday ridership is greater than Saturday or Sunday ridership at all four local stations. At two of them, weekday ridership is even greater than total weekend (Saturday plus Sunday) ridership.

At the Kew Gardens Union Tpke station a sign saying what the MTA is doing about modernizing the signal system between 71 Av and Union Tpke it said they would reconfigure the interlocking west of 75th so what would they be doing?

The single crossover south (or west) of 75th is being converted to a diamond crossover. The modernization, in general, sets the stage for CBTC.

+1 for coining a new term

The term's been around since 1999!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/item_SDaDjYFMVtx0KPGJnNiKoM

Tell that Astoria residents.  They still want the QM22 back and I don't blame them.  They should bring it back.  What you didn't mention was that it only had a few trips so it wasn't breaking the bank.

Virtually no Astoria residents care about the QM22. (One of their elected officials has been repeatedly pandering to his constituents by "demanding" a restoration of the QM22 - and, for that matter, of the W train - but that just shows how out-of-touch he is.)

The annual operating cost of the QM22 was over $200,000. I'd rather see that money spent somewhere else, where it will benefit more than 62 people (closer to 31 people, since presumably most made round trips).

It had 4 trips, and 61 riders, for the last year it fully operated (2009). If the operating costs were $85 per hour back then (estimate) , then it would cost about $90.67 for the morning 6 Avenue trip, and $63.75 for the 3 Avenue run (AM and PM), the 6 Avenue PM trip would cost $85.

You would need 18.134 riders to break even that AM 6 Avenue Trip (for the PM one 17). You would also need 12.75 riders to break even the two 3 Avenue trips. You get 60.634 riders to break the costs even, but rounded up to the nearest you have 61, so it breaked even.

Again, your assumptions are completely wrong. Total daily operating cost was $850, and the average fare paid was $4.17, not $5.00. The QM22 did not come close to breaking even - it covered 31% of its direct operating costs, or 17% of its total costs, from the farebox.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aha-LfXMlWNBdHd4QkhLRF92cURWNWdSbzNfSjJwWWc&hl=en#gid=1

Of course, since the flipdots are about 25 years old, they sometimes don't work as intended.

And for those occasions, there's always paper!

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?32359

Well i was just on the train from New Lots

Could have been a reroute due to a problem at South Ferry. I once boarded a southbound 1 at Fulton - I don't know which branch it took in Brooklyn, since I got off at Atlantic.

Trust me I rode those R44s in SI 2 days ago and I honestly think they can't handle another SMS, they're bodies are shot and they rumble very hard

Somehow I don't think that this is how these decisions are made.

(They rumble because they're exposed to a lot of fallen leaves yet the nearest wheel truing machine is at Coney Island.)

Man this is so annoying. They take the off, and now the from the Broadway Express, and they keep piling up in the train, I can barely find a seat on the way home. I believe that there needs to be some kind of rush hour help on the Broadway Express, because I see countless and trains running empty in both directions, and I see either the uptown or downtown , depending on the time of day, full to the brim. 

 

The problem even extends out into Brooklyn. I remember the days where the train would just drain out at Church Av. But that's not the case anymore. Most people are getting off at Cortelyou Rd now, and the train is about halfway full from there. I think there needs to be some kind of peak service on the , because the Broadway Express needs more trains during rush hour! 

 

One way I see to solve this problem would be to turn some trains at 57 St. The countless trains I see passing 14 St that are going to Astoria is very frustrating, as the platform gets even more and more full. Maybe even bring back the to 57 St, but have it run Local in Brooklyn. I hope that the CBTC gets installed on the soon, there are literally thousands of trains on the one behind another, and the service flows so smoothly. But bottom line, the needs to make some more short turns, or get more service during rush hour.

Barely find a seat? During rush hours, the loading guideline for the Q train (R160's on a 6 minute headway) is 125 people per car. Outside of rush hours, the loading guideline is 53 people per car. There's no expectation that you'll get a seat when you ride the subway!

The L uses 24 trains, not "literally thousands," and they are significantly more crowded than the Q at the peak load point.

Anything built during the Dual Contracts can fit B Division trains with slight modification. That includes the WPR above Tremont Avenue.

That "slight modification" entails narrowing all of the platforms and removing a bunch of signals!

Rememeber Westchesters main request is all R62As to be converted to full width cab , so it shouldn't be too much of a shocker to see more R62As being converted to full width cab.

Westchester is the name of a storage facility. There's no reason for a storage facility to care about cab arrangement.

Pelham is the name of the maintenance shop. I suppose that a maintenance shop might care about cab arrangement, but it seems pretty unlikely.

Neither storage facilities nor maintenance shops are independent entities that make independent decisions. They all belong to the New York City Transit Department of Subways, which makes decisions on a centralized basis.

And the reason for this centralized decision is simple: so that all R62A five car sets assigned to the 6 are interchangeable and nondirectional. That is, take any two five car sets, facing either direction, and link them together, and the result is a 10 car train with a transverse cab for the T/O and (most important) for the C/R.

That's why we need the QM22 for the hipsters.

The QM22 carried 62 riders per day. Its impact on subway ridership was negligible.

The discussion here was about midday GO's; the QM22 only ran rush hours.

Some people at my school and in the subway themselves complain about the being slow. 

That's certainly not my experience. If I'm going somewhere served by both the A and C, I'll typically take the C if it comes first, and the A rarely passes me.

Due to the constanst swapping with the and and do NOT  be surprised if the R32s and R160s stay where they are , as of right now the want the R32s on an outdoor line at all times so that their a/c do not break down and they as well wanna retire the R32s and R42s on one line. Now that R160s have been introduced to the it would be very hard to just take it away because of complaints from both the riders and crew ,and on top of that riders and the and gotten used to now seeing R32s on the line and do not mind it at all .So after the summer ends don't to shocked if you still see the R32s on the and and the R160s on the as long as the and keep a few R160s then it will be fine in the end.

Air conditioning is not a problem on the R32's outside the summer. There's no reason to run R32's anywhere but the C outside the summer. Until 207th or Pitkin is equipped to work with R160's, running R160's on the C is costly.

I wouldn't be surprised if half the R32s stay on the J ether, the only issue is 207th isn't equipped to handle the R160s

That's a pretty significant issue.

Can't Pitkin maintain NTTs? I thought they could anyway.

No.

Remember all that 207 has to do is just watch the R160s to make sure that nothing is wrong with them and any huge work that needs to be done the set can get sent to eny to get its work done then it goes back to the .

Watch? The issue isn't watching - the issue is making repairs and performing scheduled inspections. Why transfer all those cars back and forth unnecessarily?

I was going by what my training manual stated.

Then your training manual was mistaken.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=r2oqb8&s=5

(My post was also mistaken - I meant 8 new trains, not 88.)

This is true, but only to an extent. Of course every rider (discluding railfanners) will ride the first train they see. As for the instances in which you see passengers purposely avoiding one train just to ride another, I'm willing to bet that occurs only when special circumstances such as stench, rowdy passengers, skip stop service, poor A/C, ect. occurs.

 

However, you must be downright stupid to not prefer an NTT or a 75 footer over a 60ft SMEE generation train. There is simply no reason as to why a person wouldn't prefer to see an NTT. If one comes by, then its a bonus. If a SMEE pulls up, oh well. However, you must acknowledge the fact that people prefer NEW things. It is the extent to which we are willing to give up commuter time which is in question, and in the majority of cases, the answer is NO, but to blantly say that people don't care at all if an NTT pulls up is false though.

I guess that makes me downright stupid. I don't like the NTT seats, the acceleration is jerky, and I find the loud, droning announcements irritating. I don't dislike them enough to wait for the next train, but if it's entirely up to me I'll take a SMEE any day.

(Makes no difference to me what's new and what's old.)

Do they mean 21 St starting local at 36 St? Couldn't they start running local after Roosevelt?

Is Roosevelt Tower staffed at night?