Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Jemorie

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    434
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

204 Excellent

About Jemorie

  • Rank
    Poster

Profile Information

  • Location
    NY

Recent Profile Visitors

1,772 profile views
  1. Yeah. Happen last time too with me lol. It's also actually a good thing that you and I finally agree on something, subwaycommuter1983.
  2. Oh my bad. And thanks. I was actually quite glad I at first brought it up in the R179 Thread, as the positive outcome was that it lead to a more interesting/more informative discussion and now we got two separate threads (this one and the WillyB Thread) for it.
  3. Offending? Whatever you say. Although I honestly had no idea what happen last night in the R179 Thread that made that individual in question blow off hot steam other than the fact that the Williamsburg Bridge topic was sorta drifty in a way, as I was not active at the time nor was I viewing the forums from offline at the time. But from what I saw as I logged back on, Lance has already sorted out the problem. So everyone should be cool by now.
  4. I’m not sure what are you getting sand in your vag about or backseat moderating about. If you had enough time to actually read the dates of each post in this thread, you’ll see the Williamsburg bridge conversation died out last week Friday. Anyway, it’s my fault that conversation happen. So that’s why I stated I’ll save it for another time or so. Take a seat, kid. EDIT: I just now realized the convo likely had continued last night in this thread (hence your reaction) before Lance eventually stepped in and sorted it all out, but I wasn’t online nor was I viewing the forums from offline at the time. Either way, I apologize for bringing the covo up in the first place, as I didn’t think it would lead into a more complex and drifty discussion.
  5. Really? I thought it was easier for riders to distinguish between the and considering that they run solo on separate tracks in Brooklyn (below Hoyt). The just needs to stay either 480 feet or 600 feet using one particular car type instead of this nonsensical mixture of aforementioned car lengths combined with the mixture of three different car types all concurrently on the line.
  6. They've been back in service since Thursday.
  7. I agree. Makes life a bit easier by having riders connect to the Lex instead of having to take the first after just getting off the shuttle bus from the bridge.
  8. You guys should see how packed Manhattan-bound trains in Brooklyn are in the morning rush hour though. They're packed before they even reach Myrtle-Broadway and have been so for years. Yet trains on the line in that particular direction are every 10 minutes. Matching the headways with the current 5-minute headway on the combined will work. And some downtown-bound trains can terminate at 2nd Avenue and head back up to Queens like they did before. Trains run very slow throughout the WillyB because of the many timers throughout the bridge. I think I remember one time the even stating that the is above guideline at rush hour too. With the four-car R179 order almost finished, it will help. Anyway, I'll save this for another discussion for some other time.
  9. One more four-car set on the run? Sweet. Hopefully by the end of April, the will run much more frequently as officially planned. There are more than enough four-car R179s to make it work. The Middle Village to Manhattan direction during the AM Rush (and reverse in the PM Rush) needs the extra service as the current 10 minute headways aren't cutting it. It should match the current combined / skip-stop headways (5 minutes) to make the Williamsburg Bridge 24 tph in the 8:00 a.m. hour instead of the current 18 tph (6 's, 6 's and 6 's it has now).
  10. The is scheduled more frequently only during rush hours and that headway during that timeframe is 6 minutes. Off-peak is 10 minutes. Rerouting an to Bay Ridge would create a 12-minute service gap (rush hour) or a 20-minute gap (off-peak) on that entire line in the northbound direction. So why mess with service on one line to make up service on another? Ruminate.
  11. Understandable, but even they can be wrong. You just never know.
  12. I don't even understand how you concluded it was an R179 in the first place anyway lol. You don't even know unless you were there at the said station lol. It doesn't make sense for that lone 10-car R179 trainset to have a mechanical failure because I'm 100% positive that whenever it goes out of service for the day, it is in the shop being repaired or inspected. The only exception is when a passenger is rowdy enough to cause such a problem.
  13. You always do, what else is new with you. I’m tired of you saying that offensive nonsense over and over again. You need to stop. It’s not true. Either you’re just pulling that out of your ass or you heard that from your “friends” or something. Whatever the case may be. Because even I said earlier in this thread that it’s pretty pointless to keep the 222 R32s and 50 R42s when they are not really in service as much besides the R32s on the . Especially since they’re choosing not to make the line full length and the east already has more than enough NTT four-car sets to make service.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.