Culver

 its still the same links tell me what you think with the pier 40 extension  

 

(mod's please delete the short im working on that post didn't mean to post)

Yeah, if you run it like that it might work. Traffic on Canal can be insane, though. The risk is it becoming like the M60 in that respect.

I remember now why that route got canned: because the subway is much faster. I doubt the MTA will bring it back. Speaking of which, anybody know how the B39 is doing? Of all the redundant routes to resurrect.

I wonder what the other new routes will be called. We have a proposed Bx46, B84 and M12. All that need a little tweaking

I'm wondering what the DUMBO route will be. The streets there make anything other than extending the B25 or B67 a few blocks each rather difficult.

Everything on a CNG engine has to be made of a higher strength metal due to the extremely high temperature that the combustion stroke and the exhaust creates. Everything in the engine compartment has to either be made of the same higher strength metal or be heat shielded as well. And recently the started using more ventilation on the engine compartment panels. And let's not forget about the cost of those carbon-Kevlar "bulletproof" tanks with all of the associated hardware...

Thanks for the explanation. Knew about the tanks, was disappointed that the engine-related modifications increase cost significantly. But is actual maintenance more expensive, too?

Not when it is running as a shuttle on the weekends. When the is truncated to Myrtle, it splits the train in half. Only when sent to Manhattan is when the M is running 8 cars.

Oh hell, that was a Sunday post. That's what I get for jumping the gun.

Like the hybrid buses, CNG buses are more expensive to buy, more expensive to maintain, and more expensive to build/convert facilities around.

 What's more expensive to maintain on a CNG bus? The fuel system is supposed to be sealed and gas is supposed to keep spark plugs clean (unless they use a diesel pilot spray, I guess). Otherwise, it's essentially the same Cummins ISL9 but with some modifications, and the same transmission.

The was using 8 car trains today.

Well, it does that every day.

The CNG filling station is within JFK airport, nowhere near the depot

It seems close enough for them to use it anyways.

7 minute run.

https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Rockaway+Blvd&daddr=Tow+Pound&hl=en&ll=40.65349,-73.79096&spn=0.019633,0.038581&sll=40.646203,-73.798135&sspn=0.001735,0.002411&geocode=FQJvbAIdWUma-w%3BFcA1bAIdoOyZ-w&t=h&mra=me&mrsp=1,0&sz=19&z=15

Not ideal, sadly. I suggested it because, as I said, they were using CNG buses anyways.

This brings me to a question: with CNG being cheaper and (a tiny bit) cleaner, why haven't all depots undergoing rebuilds (such as FR, prior to Sandy) been equipped to handle CNG filling? I don't want to get into the pro/con argument of NG extraction, but it's going full steam ahead anyways, might as well take advantage of the low prices and slightly better emissions.

 

cc13 said: Well, long-term, I'd prefer that HBLR extension. At least that brings you directly to the business districts in Jersey City & Hoboken (as well as the connections available to other services like PATH, etc). There isn't much in the part of Bayonne that faces Port Richmond. It's mostly residential, with a little bit of industry further east.

 

I'd like ALL OF THE ABOVE if possible, which would be AWESOME! Imagine a nuNorth Shore SIR, the HBLR coming into SI, MORE SI/NJ local &/or LTD routes, more ferry terminals (a nuPR ferry), ALL OF THOSE THINGS (and more hopefully ).

I'd up-vote this, but I'm out for the day.

Guess JFK took the CNGs and let FR use their buses instead.

Saying this as a serious suggestion: just convert JFK to CNG. The filling station is there and CNG is cheaper than diesel; and in general tends to be cleaner to run. The price of CNG alone makes it a good long-term investment for the MTA.

Well, making that "small" loop just outside the gate is no big deal. And I think we can all agree that the only routes that should actually go into CSI (the way the S93 does now) are those that actually terminate there.

 

I think the original idea of just having the S63 make the detour via South Beach makes the most sense. Then it's simple: Locals via South Beach, limiteds via Narrows Road. If anybody wants to save some time, the MTA can maintain the 3-legged transfer so people can transfer from the subway to the S83/93, and then transfer back to another route (whether it's the S53/63, or some other SI route).

I like this idea. Then basically the local/LTD pairs are S63/S93 LTD (even with 93 terminating at CSI, close enough), and S53/S83 LTD. They would then distribute lots at 4 Ave based on that pairing: 53/83 b/w 86 & 87 facing south; 63/93 b/w 87 & 88 facing south.

I think maybe in the interest of differentiation from the S93, this S63 could simply not stop at CSI. Even if it stops there, it wouldn't have to be all the way in the campus loop like the S93.

(**sigh**)

 

86th Street is the closest subway station to Staten Island. That's why all the Brooklyn-SI routes terminate there: It's cheaper than running them to 59th Street. There's nothing special about the S93 as to why it should be the only SI route to get extended to 59th Street. Either they should all go there or none of them should go there.

Yeah, I don't get why some people are still confused by this. It's been made pretty clear by the MTA (and commuters) that 86 St is just fine because of the area's stores and eateries and connection to R/Brooklyn buses. Going to 59 just adds time in traffic.

When the S83 LTD eventually comes (MTA can only bullshit us for so long), I'm guessing it'll share space with the S53 and not the lot between 87 St and 88 St on 4 Av facing south with the S93 LTD.

An S63 (or St. George-Bay Ridge route, or both) would have to take the space b/w 87 St and 88 St on 4 Av facing north. The west side train station stairwell has enough crowds as is.

Nice, I like how you broke it down piece-by-piece.

 

Basically that is just a rough idea. I don't see why Grymes Hill became so important lately? The S66 is fine and the S57 is ok where it's at as well. They are basically school routes like the S54-56 with the added bonus of picking people up lol. For $2.50, you and a couple of other people get a personal driver across staten island.

 

For the S63 or S67, have it travel on Narrows Road North and South instead and make no changes to the S53. It would run from Bay Ridge via Narrows Road, Clove, Victory, via CSI, via Goethals Rd. And to Bay Ridge, via Goethals Road, via CSI, Victory, Clove, Narrows Road. Maybe for the buses sake, Goethals Road north could be turned into a two-way street and a walkway built over the expressway at some point.

 

A free 2nd transfer could be made between the S53 and S63. The ridership potential from this route would be very high, it would be a local X10 in a way like the S79 is or was a local X1.

I like this idea, but have one question: With three bus routes already turning at 4 Ave, where would an S63 fit? And the S83 LTD?

That's exactly what I said but nobody seems to agree with me. The panel to 4839 probably just swing open, nobody opened it. I'm not trying to say anything but when 4810-39 came in from QV they all had panels flying all over and shit. They came to brooklyn like that, drivers had to use stickers or whatever they could to keep those doors closed. So the door probably swung open when he went into the stop.

The MTA really has a fine product on their hands with these Xcelsiors. I'm almost willing to forgive the cramped interior and Titanic overhang of the LFS at this point since those things seem to actually be well built and run fine.

i created maps for it 

northbound 

https://maps.google.com/maps?ct=reset&tab=ll

 

southbound

https://maps.google.com/maps?ct=reset&tab=ll

 

tell me if the links work?

I just get blank Google map of NYC region

4899 is in.

 

 

These last 29 may be all, but it is a possibility that they could order more. This way MTA can use the remaining old buses until MCH opens in January. 

 

 All the Orion VII's are scheduled to be overhauled, and re-powered with new engines which will extend their lives until at least 2020-2022. The new C40LF tanks are certified through 2032-2033.

 

 

The buses were already re-certified. That's why they are still in service now.

Thanks for the answer. I'd give a +1, but I'm out for the day. Those OGs getting Cummins ISL G engines?

Question on the tanks: Any idea what construction they're using? Still heavy steel or they using the more modern plastic with carbon-fiber jacket?

I saw an UPTOWN with the "CULVER EXPRESS" on the . Went like this:

 

 

JAMAICA-179 ST

CULVER EXPRESS

QUEENS BLVD EXP

 

This was during the GO that involved uptown trains run express from Church to Jay on a weekend.

So they did update them to have a Church-Jay express routing. Good. *Every time* I took an one of those two weekends, I got an R46, so I didn't notice the R160 programming.

Probably a good thing since most conductors on the don't bother selecting the proper program on GO's anyways. I remember the days of the 3-month periods where they went express and some conductors would just turn off FIND or select the local route and have the train announce 15 St-Prospect Park while the train was half a mile to the east and 20 feet lower. As this is a random thought thread I'll mention this: a while back when and were running express *southbound* b/w Carroll and Church for a 3-month period I was on a Manhattan-bound . The conductor set the program to the construction Church-Carroll *northbound* express and didn't bother to change it or announce the stations that were now assumed to be skipped by the train's route program. She then made it worse by playing a 6-month old pre-recorded message about G trains stopping at Smith-9St (which they no longer were). Incompetence at its best.

The MTA has fixed the Kings Highway program on the R160s. It now says:

 

63rd St/6th Av LCL

Culver Local

Kings Hwy

They need to figure out how to handle the different local/express combos in Brooklyn.

Artics not too fond of snow, I presume. Well, next generation of artics a dozen years from now will likely feature electric all-wheel-drive (hub motors), so we only have to wait 12 or so years to not have problems with artics in snow.

No detour washes their buses when it gets too cold...its better to have a dirty bus running than a clean frozen one that can't run at all

Yukon never washes theirs on the inside at any time.

So we can all agree the 4C as is, does the job, right? If you're Westchester DOT, you have no incentive to cut the line as it serves your county (or at least an incredibly loyal patronage) and turns a profit.

Back to Bronx route proposals...anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

I guess I forgot to laugh (ha... ha...??), but if they do "blow up" the line, as long as Westchester pays for it then let them go right on ahead.

Exactly. As long as Westchester pays for it and it turns a profit, no reason to  cut it. Why would they cut a route that actually makes money?

I just want to verify something. So there are 23 original C40LF buses in operation and 36 Orion V CNG buses in operation. The next new C40LF option is for 29 buses and this is supposed to retire the old CNG fleet. We actually have 59 old CNG buses. Are the extra 30 old CNG fleet buses extras while Orion VIII OG CNGs have work done or will the MTA end up taking up one of the remaining C40LF options? The reason I ask is everyone keeps saying that the O5 CNGs will be retired with this next option and the math doesn't really add up (and I can't seem to find any explanation on the forums other than possibly O7 CNGs being overhauled). Thanks in advance.

Amtrak7 posted the numbers for the route, and after the fare hike & service reductions, the route actually turned a slight profit (when you factored out the overhead costs and everything).

 

BTW, I thought it was the BxMC4.

I take it some of BL's Orion Suburbans got toasty engines back in the day?