HenryB

Because it's 3 blocks. None of the other OOS transfers were that far. The Court Square transfer worked because the platform is directly above the platforms. Also, the current transfer isn't too pretty as it is- no easy way to work a passageway in there. With the new 3rd Avenue exit at Lex/63, it's a 3 block walk from any of the BMT exits to the .

what about 42st - 8ave to 42st - Broadway. It is more than an avenue  

 

 

I don't really understand the point of the full length mezzanine. Seems like a big waste of money if you ask me

From my observation, people could leave the platform anywhere right after they leave the train. That makes the platform less crowded.

via 2nd Avenue has signage that reads

CONEY ISLAND

BWAY / 4 AV EXP

VIA SEA BEACH

 

http://imgur.com/a/0aFcO

Wow, very confusing, even for rail fans. 

Imagine you have only two seconds to read that. What is "Bway" and "Bway / 4 Av"????

If calling   via 4 ave Express as "Sea Beach Express" is fine, why not just show "Broadway Express", "Via Sea Beach Exp"

(thanks for the picture by the way)

maybe the trains were asked to hold in the stations longer than usual, so people could walk out the train and take pics. 

I would consider today's   was more like a shuttle to a rail theme park than a normal commuter train. 

http://www.mta.info/status/subway/NQR/24721701

Service Change   Posted: 01/01/2017  2:58PM  

Due to a train with mechanical problems at City Hall, northbound  trains are running on the  line from DeKalb Av to Canal St.

As an alternative, for travel between Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan, take  train service to nearby  train stations. 

Expect delays in  train service in both directions. 

Allow additional travel time.

-----------------------------------------

Wow, the first day of 2nd ave service and    is experiencing delay 

According to the individual map the runs local 24/7 btn 57th & Canal. First lower level train arrives at Canal 558AM. Based on that info the answer is no.

Makes little/no sense to have 3 locals. Something's off.

 is now a broadway express, updated yesterday. See:

http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/tncur.pdf

Guys keep in mind there wasn't people posting every detail of the early stages of the previous NTT fleets (I wish their was though, as those types of posts are very informative) they might have had similar teething issues, the 160s didn't run in service until a YEAR after the first cars were delivered. I'm sure the 160s had hiccups during the testing stage and now their excellent cars. I remember stuck FIND's was common on the 160s and the Siemans sets all had to be sidelined to correct some issue they had. 

at least something was delivered 

I think it's worth having a separated thread for the future of R68/R68A.

By the time of 2020, the R68/R68 will be about 30-35 years old. That's a bit late for mid-life upgrade if we expect the cars have 40-50 lifespan. But then by the time they will be only trains in B division that couldn't support CTBC.
If   likes to keep them until 2030, that means   should begin the tender process for R68/R68A upgrade now, or soon.

So hopefully the project of R211 goes well after it gains so many attention from public and media 

I wonder it is possible or not to ask whoever won the bid to modify 1 set of NTT to open gangway configuration, so MTA could test it earlier and then decide how many open gangway configured R211 they want.

Remember back when people insisted that open gangways were impossible?

Originally the R211s were planned to be 75ft so open gangways might not work well with that car length in NYC (?)

but 60ft i think it should be fine

I don't think adding colors and some little decorations could increase the costs a lot...

btw....I think USB ports are not necessary for subway cars, but if they do like to put charging stations in cars, maybe they could consider qi wireless chagring pad? At least there won't be ports for people to put gum into

Due to an power outage, expect extensive delays on                                          and  trains.

     ......

Why can't they just say "Due to an power outage, all subway lines are ****ed up experiencing extensive delays. Allow additional travel time. Passengers might use uberPOOL, walk, or just don't travel at all."

 

 

No-one else is qualified, yet the Chinese company building Chicago's new cars are interested in submitting a bid.

Not sure how the following news will affect the decision of MTA for R211: 

http://statestimesreview.com/2016/07/05/singapore-government-cover-up-embarrassing-refund-of-faulty-mrt-trains-from-china/

Singapore is returning 26 of 35 train sets built by CSR (Chinese manufacturer) and Kawasaki, due to critical structural issues.

every time there are suggestions on line extensions or new services patterns,   will say they can't do since "we have no cars no cars no cars...". But then why it takes so loooong to award the contract for new cars? 

Thanks for the comments~ Here's the updated version:

 - 2nd Ave Express (4 tracks phase 3)/Local (2 tracks phase 3), 125th Street, 2nd avenue <-> Culver

 ->  and  , either one of them goes Church Avenue using Culver local, and another one goes Coney Island using Culver express

 - 2nd Ave Local, 55th Street <-> Bay Pkwy (West End) OR Bay Ridge

​-> Terminate at Chamber Street, weekend and late nights

Problems:

-  and   alone don't use all the capacities of 4 tracks design

- Platforms of station on Nassau Street Line need to be lengthened (see B-31, http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/feis/appendixb.pdf )

-  's platforms in Houston Street station would be fair away from  's after making turn from E 1st street to 2nd avenue 

One thing to remember when referencing those maps: they are not to scale. What may look like a lot of space on the Dougherty maps really isn't in real life. From the existing 2 Avenue station to Bowery on the Centre St line, it's about 1,400 feet or just over two full-length trains.

 

Also, that gentle curve from the 2nd Ave line to Canal St on the Centre St line is not possible. Not without digging through half of Nolita. If anything, such a connection would require dipping below the current Chrystie St connection before turning west towards Bowery, and probably below the existing station. Only after that could I see a merge for service to continue down to Broad St and Brooklyn.

 

One final thing that should be noted is that a 2nd Ave/Jamaica connection would probably require a complete of Chrystie St.

Yea there is a mistake in my drawing. It should go under Bowery St station. Thanks for pointing it out

By the way, what do you mean by "a complete of chrystie st"?  

I'd keep that station, just at St Mark's Place instead of 10 Street. It could serve the area by Tompkins Square Park.

 

The idea is dead in the water but I am intrigued by his double deck local- express setup. And why Is 3rd Av on the called Stuyvesant Square?

I worry that we can't run many trains per hour as possible because of the capacity limit on Nassau. That's why i suggested   goes 2nd ave too.

the 3rd Av station on   ....just tried to rename it after new platforms for 2nd Ave are built

(something like "Stuyvesant Square - 3 Av" "14st - 3 Av" etc)

Is it new, at least for here?

Source: p.18     http://web.mta.info/capital/pdf/CapitalProgram2015-19_WEB%20v4%20FINAL_small.pdf