RollOver

Something went terribly wrong this morning in the wikia network where both MysteriousBtrain and I make our own ideas. I'm going to contact them, so that sooner or later, I could hopefully get back to editing my ideas as well as the other wikis. I don't see how did they accused me of spamming and vandalizing when I never did such such a thing. *Facepalm* Sorry MysteriousBtrain.

It's taking a long while. Given how complex the subway system here in New York City is. I think I might postponed for now because it's putting a huge strain on my eyes. There are also other issues I'm facing with the plan too which is why I consider postponing it.

From what I've read on the posters when I got off the at Rutland, Rockaway and Van Siclen are set to re-open Monday if I remember correctly.

True.

Those of you who saw my Flatbush Avenue Terminal reconfiguration in this thread a while back, forget I said anything about it. Because I understand that Nostrand Avenue is far too narrow for the Flatbush Avenue Terminal itself to be four-tracks instead of two. Plus, I don't think there's a need for tail tracks south of the station either. Much cheaper for Brooklyn IRT trains to be stored at Livonia Avenue yard rather than building tail tracks south of Flatbush Avenue Terminal and/or east of Utica Avenue. Either way, as someone told me a while back in this thread, Flatbush Avenue Terminal was never intended to be a terminal. It was always meant to be extended, but it never had due to $$$. Therefore, Nostrand Junction (or Rogers Junction, I don't care which name is actually use, don't matter anyway) is all that needs to be reconfigured. Or should I say that it should have been just like the merging and diverging south of 59 Street-Columbus Circle from the get-go. Therefore, in my world, the limited & runs to and from Utica/New Lots will continue to operate just like in the real world.

No they don't.

The weekend no longer runs to Chambers now that they recently install a new switch to/from the middle track at Essex.

Lol, bobthepanda.

If riders on the Flatbush and New Lots branches can just stay on the going to Downtown Brooklyn/Lower Manhattan or transfer to the at Atlantic-Barclays to nearby Lex stations, what would be the point of extending the or ? There are even videos on YouTube of that old brown Bay Parkaway (typing this from my iPad) and that Prospect Park shuttle being plain empty.

Have the run its entire route 24/7...

Wow...

Quite similar to the one I proposed lol.

Ever since the switched from mostly R160s to mostly R32s, I would always pass an R42 or an R160 up for an R32 whenever I wanted to look out the window in the first car on the entire line in both directions. Other than that, I take any train that shows up first. I can remember a couple of R32s with dead A/Cs on the during the summer months. One was at the first car and some other day, in the middle car where the C/R is.

This makes no sense. Don't they mean somewhere east of Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts or what? Service Change Posted: 02/24/2016 6:42AM Due to a train with mechanical problems at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts, southbound trains are running local from Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts to Broadway Junction. Allow additional travel time.

Lol, yup.

Lml @Javier.

My fault Javier for downvoting you.

Less.

Seems like they're gonna restore the switch (with a brand new switch) between the 2 outer tracks and the middle track at Essex throughout this weekend now.

Regardless of what's written in black and white, I sometimes believe that they do actually maintain/inspect half of the R160 fleet at Jamaica and half of the R160 fleet at Coney Island because of the reasons you stated. As well as some other lines in general. Sometimes, I actually believe that. Joe Korner's site may say that the X line is based here and the Y line is based there or whatever, but as always, the real world may say otherwise.

In short, I was actually alot more interested in talking about how many trains can be run on a line (or should I say tube), than talking about the train itself, which is why I responded with a general unrelated statement to the user (who I actually thought was someone else who used to be on the forums).

What... For your information, I was never upset about anything from the get-go in my previous post, so I don't where you come from accusing me of that. I, myself, don't care at all what you or anyone else here for that matter think about me or my previous post or any of my posts in the past anyway. Think what you want. But it is true that you can't possibly run a train more than 2 minutes. I do however know I can indeed be wrong about that though, as I heard some other people stated otherwise. Yeah, that is what I indeed wrote. Big whoop. Obviously I could have just said the train can't run more frequently instead of talking about something general, but the train was nowhere close to being my primary concern in my previous post since we've had billions of threads about the line being suckish and blah blah blah...the usual.

You know it's 30 trains per hour like any other line in theory, dude. You been knew that from the get-go. But you can't run any more than a train every 2 minutes (30 trains per hour). I mean while a train every 2 minutes (30 trains per hour) is possible on paper, there would, without a doubt, be delays since trains are very close to each other. It also depends on how crowded the station is and how much time the train spends in the station, delaying another train immediately right behind the first train. Even when there's no flagging at all, a train every 2 minutes is prone to bunching and delays. As said in another thread, the can't possibly control the exact timing of trains here and there.

According to the line review, most likely so.