TheSubwayStation

2. It was a timer protecting a switch.

 

Then, this derailment wouldn't be possible as long as the timers are placed correctly; hence the word "protecting".

NEXT: Due to someone rerouting the to 168th Street, a T/O has overshot a timer and derailed on 6th Avenue. Reroute , , and trains. ( trains have been suspended.)

 

1. Which area specifically is impassible? 2. How does running a timer cause a train to derail?

R143 is not R38 . It like R38 had return to service. I know it does not make any sense. Who is start to think R143 is consider as R38 is only for A , C line . It like R38 have been reborn. C line is only part time line & does not run in Late Night. &

You know it was only statement. Only I can say : there were 200 cars of R38 that were into service on A , C line. So why take it big deal of 208 cars of R143 should run C line. It just statement.

I literally have no freaking clue what you're trying to say here. I'm sorry, but you seem to be violating an NYCTF posting rule:

 

Languages - All public content, including but not limited to titles, signatures or attachments MUST be in the English language.

 

In any case, it's not a question about whether R143s could potentially run on the . It's about whether it's specifically a good idea. For example, R68s could theoretically run on the , but it's hard to see why it would make sense.

T/Os were an example/comparison. I didn't use them as a reason as your post suggests. And if you think about it, it won't be much of a cost difference. ENY already handles 3 fleets. Swap 42s with 179s. Pitkin had 3 in the past. If anything, it's the only one majority affected. They currently have 32s and 46s. Swap the 32s with 179s and add 143s. They are similar in design as NTTs in general. Not a large cost difference as it could've been.

But, if there are no cost savings, why bother to put R143s on the in the first place?

It's not about the T/Os; it's about reducing maintenance costs. There's no rule against spreading out cars, but it's better to avoid it when possible.

I've been thinking about this, and since there are so many possibilities that could theoretically work, we have to understand that it's better spread car types over as few yards as possible. Thus, putting R143s on the seems attractive because it would leave ENY yard with only two car types (R160 and R179) and 207 St yard with only one (R143). The question is whether there are enough R179s to displace all of the R143s from ENY, because if there are any R143s left there, there's no point in moving any to 207 St in the first place. The other issue is that if the is supposed to get R179s too, the R179s are no longer isolated to ENY and the cost savings of displacing the R143s are gone.

I wanna see that thread.

 

Found it:

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/22140-premeptive-p-train-warning/

Also the and total up to about 30tph. Where do you end the other trains running via 53rd. trains can run via 63rd and change to the local before the branches into the express. IMO, 53rd-Lex can handle it. It's only about 6-7 tph less.

 

Well, I would have the express trains switch to the local track after 71 Av and terminate there. That wouldn't interfere with trains running local, although the switching might cause delays to trains. If that's a problem, here's an alternative solution:

runs via 53 St

runs via 63 St

Edit, TSS, you can run all trains via 63rd!

 

That's true, but the train alone can't handle the crowds at Lexington/53 St IMO.

NEXT:

 

There are signal problems at Queens Plaza,

 

All trains going farther into Queens from 53rd Street are routed via the express tracks, when the comes in there is a result of 37tph, which will cause major delays, reroute the .

 

via Queens Blvd Local

select trains via 63 St

 

Any trains in Queens continue on their regular route. Any trains in Manhattan go out of service at 47th-50th Street and turn at:

 

1. 57th Street

2. 168th Street

 

Any trains in Brooklyn turn at Chambers Street.

 

IMO you've cut service way more than necessary. Expect severe crowding on trains and all Queens Blvd trains.

They delivery of R188 #7811 - #7832 ( 22 cars ) will come this year. I will laugh if the R188 order will be cancelled if they built 4 additional cars R188 #7811 - #7960 then it will go to 4 or 3 line. 3 line will be nice. Nothing due to East Side riders , it all complain of something like propulsion system or it will be used as 11 cars set in service. When it should run in 10 cars set in service. Change can happen.

 

if 473 cars R188 still pending ( that 350 R142A , 123 new cars) first of all where will they get 350 cars R142A cars. If 6 line were to give 360 cars of R142A. # 7211 - #7570 to 7 line ( 360 cars of R188 / R142A ) where will they get 350 R142A cars . When there is remaining #7571 - #7810 ( 240 cars of R142A in service. ) is 360 R142A really new or not wont be taken from 6 line & will 2 line give up #6301 - #6650 350 R142 ) converted to R188. When there is 1,030 R142 of Bombardier cars in service.

 

Could you please speak English so we can understand anything about what you're trying to say?

Atlantic Av to Flatbush Av (EP Express/Local)

 

Why don't you call this the ? And wait a sec, how are you going to terminate trains at Atlantic Av?

 

241 St to Chambers St (WPR Local/7 Av Express)

 

Why Chambers St, not Wall St? (There are switches there that aren't shown on the track map.)

 

Atlantic Av to New Lots Av (EP Express/Local)

 

Same as with the .

 

Woodlawn to Borough Hall (Jerome Av/Lexington Av Local)

 

Sounds good.

 

Dyre Av to South Ferry (WPR/7 Av Express)

 

Why would you send it down 7 Av, when you could just turn it at Bowling Green? Besides, you'll interfere with trains terminating at Chambers St.

 

 

NOTE

Trains may go to Utica Av

Trains may go to Wall St

Trains may turn at Utica Av

[NORTHBOUND SELECT] Trains may go to 148 St

 

NO. IMO, if you want to serve 145 and 148 sts, you should run the . Now you've screwed up 145 and Sts with infrequent service, and done the SAME with WPR/Dyre...

 

Buses provide service to 145 St and 148 St

 

Like I said, you can just run the . There's no reason to save the MTA money during a G.O. by needlessly eliminating trains that usually run.

 

Free transfer between 7 Av and Bergen St

What's with you and Atlantic Avenue's switches?

 

I don't know. Have I done a lot of scenarios with them?

NEXT:

 

Due to switch replacement, the area west of Atlantic Av-Barclays Center is impassible. This is a long-term, planned service change.

 

Note: trains can still enter Atlantic Av.

on here theres too much foam

 

LOL @ the idea that SubChat has less foam than NYCTF...Maybe they have good sources, but when a knowledgeable person brings something up, everybody else goes crazy with foam.

The was having some delays this afternoon...Anyone know what was going on?

I smell the usual SubChat foaming...

Geez man its just a train. You act like it is your LIFE.

That's because it sort of is.

 

 

Same with a lot of railfans, though...I don't mind that Threxx is really, really interested in trains (I am too), but it's that some people are just looking to prove people wrong over topics that are more trouble than they're worth...

Well that doesn't really count since they both are a 160. But even that combination isn't perfect cuz of the propulsion packages.

 

With the Alstom cars while braking, the dynamic brakes stay on until about 5 mph then the regular brake shoes kick in.

 

Now with the Siemens cars, the dynamic brakes stay on all the way to 1 or 2 mph, then the brake shoes kick in.

 

So in a sense, one car will be pulling the other when slowing down which causes the cars to bang into each other

 

You got the two mixed up. It's the Siemens that cuts out at 5 MPH.

Well, won't the new cars run in the same trainsets as the old ones? If that's the case, then the new motors will have to be compatible with the old ones.

Whoops, I guess it was your plan that I was reading.

If you cut the to Chambers St/Broad St, everything should work out just fine.

 

You didn't see my rules. In any case, if we're going to account for all trains, I don't think there's anywhere to put the trains if you suspended it...

 

BTW, if anyone's curious about the Manhattan Bridge closure scenario, here's what the MTA's plan was for if they actually did have to close it:

http://www.erictb.info/erc.html

Via 53 Street. Select trains run to 21 Street-Queensbridge.

 

How many TPH go to 21 St-Queensbridge? Running all trains through 53 St is too many TPH, so it would need to be a bunch.

There is absolutely no need to screw up the line. The combined tph is well over 30, and any unnecessary switching delays the trains even more. Leave it running express and have riders transfer at Union Square, and for the few riders that board south of there and are getting off Downtown, they'll just have to deal with transferring to the and then the .

 

Good point. I forgot how many TPH the was.

 

NEXT: the switches between the 63 St tunnel and the Queens Blvd Express tracks are unusable. Rule: you can't cut any trains to only Brooklyn or Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan.

As I would do it:

 

and service run to 71st-Continental at all times the would normally be running during this interruption.

runs Court Street-95th Street in Brooklyn ONLY.

 

Here's what I'd do:

runs in two sections:

 

 

runs local between 14 St-Union Square and Brooklyn Bridge to provide a transfer at Canal St

 

Your idea to suspend the majority of the line isn't good because not only is there nowhere to put those unused trains, but you've also screwed up Manhattan and Queens riders needlessly.