MTA Rail Fan

On 11/19/2023 at 11:57 AM, Wallyhorse said:

The only change on the IRT I would make would be on the , where north of 135 I would add a new elevated connection for the  that would close the existing 145 and 148-Lenox Terminal stations for a new, full-length elevated station at 145 running to 147 that covers most of the area Lenox Terminal goes to.  From there, I would have such go over a new bridge south of the Macombes Dam Bridge and running to a new station in the Bronx at 153-Yankees above the Metro North Station of the same name.  From there, the line would join the Jerome El south of 161-Yankee Stadium with likely a new upper level for that station before joining the line proper north of 161.  This  would run to Woodlawn with the (possibly with Woodlawn rebuilt as a three-track station to allow for more trains to terminate there) with some  service terminating at Burnside or Bedford Park Boulevard if not all trains can terminate at Woodlawn.

I see the similarity to the original plan of having the tracks at 148th-Lenox connect with the 9th Av El, before merging onto the Jerome Line at 167th Street. I don't agree with this though, an upper level station on 161st-Yankees would not be ideal. The city doesn't want another elevated line built anywhere in the city, especially the lack of space within the area to allow it.

On 11/19/2023 at 11:57 AM, Wallyhorse said:

On the lettered/B Division lines, I would be looking to build an additional phase of the SAS where the operates via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel to possibly first a new Schermerhorn Street station and a station at Seaport that would eventually be connected to the rest of the SAS before joining the Fulton Street line on the as-present unused tracks/platforms at Hoyt-Schermerhorn with the then becoming the Fulton Street local at all times to Euclid and extended late nights to Lefferts in place of the late-night shuttle currently in use on Lefferts.  This allows in Brooklyn the and  to both operate express and eliminate the merge/unmerge at Hoyt-Schermerhorn and another one at Euclid, allowing  the to operate to Lefferts except late nights and the  to fully operate in The Rockaways.

I agree on this, don't have much issues on it other than finding ways to eliminate the Rockaway Blvd merge.

On 11/19/2023 at 11:57 AM, Wallyhorse said:

The other significant change is the one I have noted many times:  Having Canal Street on the return to being the terminal station it once was with the intention of moving the  to Nassau and essentially having a split and  operate between 95th-Bay Ridge and Jamaica Center with the interchange between the two lines occurring southbound at Canal Street (where this  would terminate, something that was not possible until the current setup was done in 2004) and northbound at Chambers (where the / would terminate save for a handful of rush-hour  / trains that would end and begin at Broad Street.  This is mainly to improve  service in Brooklyn that in the past Bay Ridge politicians wanted split because too often the  had been the "rarely" in Brooklyn.  On Broadway, the  would replace the  to 71-Continental running 19/7 (with some  trains ending and beginning on the tunnel level of Canal Street) and a new "Yellow " operating from either 9th Street or Bay Parkway on the to Astoria on the Broadway/4th Avenue Local that would run at a max of 6 TPH and replace the  along Broadway and Trinity Place/Church Street in lower Manhattan via Montague.  These would be the only real changes I would make.

I would have to disagree on this motive.
1. There is no need to split the  into the  to Chambers. There's not a lot of demand for Nassau service below Broad Street along 4th Avenue. Not only that, the merge along Montague would strain capacity.
2. Instead of converting Canal Street on the Nassau Street Line into a terminal, have the old platforms be reused for service. You could definitely double capacity by using all 4 tracks along the  line, even making provisions to have the center tracks be used for some other line to terminate at Chambers Street. I don't know which line, but whatever is possible I guess. It would surely open up more transfer options.
3. The issue with the "Yellow " idea is that the 36th St Merge would be 2x more worse. It now functions as a merge for both Express trains and Local trains. That's a huge capacity limiter, especially with 6 TPH running. I don't see Bay Parkway as a suitable terminal at all. 9th Avenue however, can have its lower level reused for terminal usage.

Quote

How would this work? The merging with the  local going to 125 St is actually interlinking… 

Oops, I intended that as express, not local. I must've typed local by accident. I'll try to fix that if I can, unless it's too late.

3 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

 local in CPW , but express south of CPW? Impossible, as CPW express connects directly into 8 Av Express. You would be delaying   When the  crosses over to 59 st CC’s express tracks… The ideal way is to have  CPW/8 Av Exp  CPW Lcl/6 Av Exp with  running between 207 - Lefferts and  between 205 - Far Rockaway this allows  in nights to be a  shuttle to Lefferts and  be full time on all 4 boroughs going express in Manhattan and local in Bronx Brooklyn and Queens nights and weekdays peak-express Bronx, Express Manhattan and Brooklyn and weekends only express in manhattan and Brooklyn.

Thus  between 168 -  Bay Ridge and  BPB/145 - CI via CPW Lcl - 6 Av/4 Av Exp. Only downside is no more upper level 50 st unless we scrap this setting and do   as is  via QBL/8 Av Exp to Far Rock via Fulton St Exp.  BPB/168 - WTC,  absorbs  in Bronx and upper Manhattan.

 is fine

Not sure about the   though…

To address concerns regarding the  and  lines, instead of demolishing the upper level at 50th Street and making the the only line there, I've absorbed the idea of converting 50th Street into an express stop. This involves shifting the platform over the local tracks, enabling all three lines to have a transfer point. The local track would be cut off, and a new switch added to merge onto the current express track, facilitating CPW Express service during weekend G.O without local service. This configuration allows the and to operate fully express along 8th Avenue, with the running exclusively on the local track. This creates space for another line, the , to be reintroduced for increased trains per hour (TPH). Another option, though cheaper, involves keeping the station as is but swapping the as the 8th Av express after 50th Street, merging onto incoming express traffic. Initially, I considered the into 168th Street and the back to Bedford Park Blvd, but this posed reverse branching challenges, making it more practical to retain the current arrangement and prevent potential merges.          

Regarding the , I support the decision for Rockaway Beach Branch reactivation by Queenslink. The question arose about its operational hours—whether it should run at all times or, as currently, with another service replacing it during weekends and late nights. Therefore, I've marked it as operational at all times. 

3 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

Who enjoys Broadway Express More? Queens or 2 Av? Show me proof.

The objective isn't about personal preferences for the Broadway Express; rather, it's focused on eliminating the bottleneck created by the 34th-Herald merge on Broadway, causing delays. The optimal solution involved keeping the train on the express track to 96th-2nd, enabling more frequent runs for both lines without encountering merge issues. The subsequent decision revolved around whether to retain Broadway on Queens Blvd or extend both locals to Astoria. To align with the current NYC Subway while making a minor adjustment at 50th Street on 8th Avenue, the choice was made to maintain the and in their designated northern terminals.

Here are some changes and deinterlines I've made around the current NYC Subway. It should be noted that not all of these are 100% firm, as I'm still tweaking a few things here and there and figuring out what might work and not work. All of which will be explained below.


 Van Cortlandt-242nd to South Ferry (All Times) - Broadway-7th Local
 Wakefield-241st to Flatbush Av (All Times) - WPR Local, Broadway-7th Express, Eastern Pkwy Local
 Harlem-148th to Flatbush Av (All Times Except Late Nights) - Broadway-7th Express, Eastern Pkwy Local (Late Night Shuttle to Times Sq-42nd)
 Woodlawn to New Lots Av (All Times) - Jerome Local, Lexington Av Express, Eastern Pkwy Express
 Eastchester-Dyre to Utica Av (All Times Except Late Nights) - WPR Local (Peak Express in Rush Hours), Lexington Av Local, Eastern Pkwy Express
 Pelham Bay Park to Brooklyn Bridge (All Times) - Lexington Av Local, Pelham Local (Pelham Peak Express via )
 Flushing-Main to 34th-Hudson (All Times) - Flushing Local (Flushing Peak Express via )
 Inwood-207th to Far Rockaway and Lefferts Blvd (All Times) - Washington Hts Express, CPW Local, 8th Av Express, Fulton St Express
 168th to Euclid Av (All Times Except Late Nights) - Washington Hts Local, CPW Local, 8th Av Express, Fulton St Local, via Liberty Av El to Lefferts Blvd
 World Trade Center to Jamaica Center (All Times) - 8th Av Local, via 53rd, Queens Blvd Express
 Bedford Park Blvd or 145th to Bay Ridge-95th (All Times Except Late Nights) - Concourse Local, CPW Express, 6th Av Express, 4th Av Express, Local after 36th St to Bay Ridge (Late Night Shuttle to 59th St-4th Av)
 Norwood-205th to Coney Island (All Times) - Concourse Local (Peak Express in Rush Hours), CPW Express, 6th Av Express, 4th Av Express, Sea Beach Local
 Jamaica-179th to Coney Island (All Times) - Hillside Av Local, Queens Blvd Express, via 53rd, 6th Av Local, Culver Express to Church Av
 Rockaway Park-116th to Metropolitan Av (All Times) - Rockaway Local, via RBB, Queens Blvd Local, via 63rd, 6th Av Local, via Jamaica Local
 Court Square to Church Av (All Times) - Crosstown Local, Culver Local
 Jamaica Center to Broad St (All Times) - Jamaica Local (Peak Express Skip-Stop in Rush Hours), Nassau St Local
 Jamaica Center to Broad St (Rush Hours) - Jamaica Local (Peak Express Skip-Stop in Rush Hours), Nassau St Local
 96th St-2nd Av to Coney Island (All Times) - 2nd Av, Broadway Express, Brighton Local
 96th St-2nd Av to Brighton Beach (Weekdays or All Times Except Late Nights) - 2nd Av, Broadway Express, Brighton Express
 Forest Hills-71st to 9th Av (Weekdays or All Times Except Late Nights) - Queens Blvd Local, Broadway Local, 4th Av Local 
 Astoria-Ditmars to Coney Island (All Times) - Astoria Local, Broadway Local, 4th Av Local, West End Local

As stated above, I will now explain the few changes and tweaks I've considered that aren't mentioned in this plan:
 - Initially, I considered routing the  to E 180th St alongside the and , but later contemplated redirecting it to Dyre Av, Nereid Av, or Wakefield. These considerations arose in the context of deinterlining the system and addressing bottlenecks at the 135th Junction and 149th-GC Junction. However, potential challenges with capacity limits and terminal procedures became apparent, especially if all three lines operated together via WPR. This would necessitate a decision between eliminating the via WPR or maintaining the current service configuration.    
 - If the were to be removed from WPR to alleviate the bottleneck at 149th, passengers would lose their one seat ride to Manhattan via Lexington Av. Reflecting on historical proposals, the 1968 Program for Action mentioned a new line along Park Avenue as a replacement for the 3rd Avenue El in the Bronx, possibly corresponding to the . It's uncertain if it would've continued along Park Avenue to Wakefield or make a connection with the via Gun Hill Rd to Nereid Avenue. Considering these aspects, one proposal involves resurrecting the Park Avenue Line concept, incorporating a lower-level station for seamless transfers between each line. Another thought could be rebuilding the tunnel to bypass 149th-GC, stopping at 149th-3rd and proceeding north via 3rd Avenue. The feasibility of merging either lines with the Dyre Avenue Line or WPR Line remains uncertain.   
 - In the initial introduction of the IND Second System Proposal, the Flushing Line featured two extensions beyond Main St — one leading to the College Point Line and the other to the Bayside Line. Today, large parts of Northeast Queens lack subway service, primarily relying on buses, rendering them transit deserts. In contemplating the revitalization of these proposals, I've considered extending the line exclusively via one of the branches. The challenge lies in deciding between College Point and Bayside, both being viable options. The objective is to select a single branch to avoid complexities related to merging points within the line and to enhance the overall capacity.
/ - I've proposed some slight changes for the line, considering options like extending it entirely to Far Rockaway or dividing service evenly between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park, thereby eliminating the Rockaway Shuttle. To benefit both JFK and Rockaway riders and reduce travel time into Brooklyn, I suggest reinstating the Pitkin Avenue Extension from Euclid Avenue to Cross Bay Blvd, with tracks connecting to North Conduit Avenue, as shown in the IND Second System Proposal. Although it may seem minor, this modification eliminates the Rockaway Blvd merge, allowing trains to operate seamlessly into Lefferts Blvd. To provide riders on the Liberty Avenue Line access to the Rockaways, I'm proposing a transfer from Rockaway Blvd to the Rockaway Beach Branch, facilitated through the Liberty Avenue Station for the  to Rockaway Park-116th.  
 - A notable challenge along the Archer Avenue Line is Jamaica Center, originally not intended as a terminal. In reference to the 1968 Program for Action, the initial plan envisioned extending the upper level of the Archer Avenue Line onto the LIRR Atlantic Branch ROW, which is converted for subway use, stretching as far as Laurelton to provide subway service to Southeast Queens. This proposal should be implemented in order to provide the most capacity and service, forcing Far Rockaway and Long Beach LIRR trains to be redirected onto the Montauk/Babylon Branch. An additional suggestion involves constructing two more tracks along the ROW of that branch. This modification allows trains to bypass St. Albans while still providing service to the Rosedale station. The only adjustment I've made to this proposal is designating the terminal as Laurelton-225th instead of Springfield Blvd. It wouldn't be surprising that one of the challenges this proposal will encounter is opposition from NIMBYs (Not In My Backyard advocates).
// - I've reintroduced two major proposals, from the IND Second System and 1968 Program for Action, for these lines: the Hillside Avenue Extension and the Queens Super Express. The Hillside Avenue Extension envisions the extending its route to Queens Village-Springfield Blvd, effectively serving a substantial portion of Northeastern Queens along Hillside. Regarding the Queens Super Express, I've brought it back with some refinements. It will originate from 63rd Street, running parallel or via tunnels under the LIRR, making stops at Northern Blvd and Woodside-61st before merging into Queens Blvd through a new lower-level platform at Forest Hills. From there, it will operate under the current main center tracks, with additional tracks integrated into Jamaica Yard, bypassing Kew Gardens and emerging through a ramp into the Hillside Avenue Express tracks at 169th St. Even without the Hillside Avenue Extension, this design increases capacity within Queens Blvd, even allowing one of the local lines to operate fully to Jamaica-179th. This is where the  and lines come in, as I've reinstated the line from World Trade Center, operating alongside the via 53rd and Queens Blvd Express, where it will switch local after Forest Hills towards Jamaica-179th. Alternatively, the could assume the same role, operating to Jamaica-179th via Queens Blvd Local. However, I've occasionally reconsidered this due to the demand for Crosstown service into Queens Blvd. This proposal is still a work in progress, as I have yet to finalize what to do with the  (or ) and  lines. 
// - Today, the BMT Jamaica Line currently faces operational challenges between Marcy Avenue and Myrtle Avenue, impacting service and capacity. These issues involve merging delays during rush hours at Marcy Avenue between the / and lines, added by the slow curves and speed timers along the Williamsburg Bridge, including the Myrtle Avenue Junction. To address these concerns, I propose the reintroduction of the South 4th Street Line, as proposed from the IND Second System. In this plan, the  (or ) is rerouted back to 2nd Avenue, with the center tracks extending into Brooklyn via South 4th Street, as originally intended. New stops will be established at Clinton-Pitt Streets, Havemeyer Street, S 4th Street-Broadway, offering a transfer point with the , before turning via Beaver Street and making additional stops at Flushing Avenue and Myrtle Avenue-Bushwick Avenue. The line then turns via Myrtle Avenue, following the existing Myrtle El, placing identical stops until Fresh Pond, where it re-emerges onto the original tracks leading to the Metropolitan Avenue station. All stations along the line will accommodate 10 cars, with Metropolitan Avenue being rebuilt to accommodate this as well. The use of the  or  bullet will not matter in this proposal, with further provisions made for additional lines via South 4th Street, such as the 2nd Avenue Line or 8th Avenue Line, operating express to prevent any sort of reverse branching or merging issues along the line. 
/ - This is a small proposal, as it mainly entitles having either of these lines swap northern terminals or both to Astoria-Ditmars Blvd.
// - In my final proposal, I propose the reintroduction of the IND Second System's 2nd Avenue extension into the Bronx, via Lafayette Av, towards Throgs Neck. To ensure these three lines maintain their designated tracks without merging in on each other or reverse branching, I've reimagined the current 2nd Avenue Line. In this redesign, the and run express to 125th Street-2nd Avenue, with a transfer only at 72nd Street for the , operating as the 2nd Avenue Local. Recognizing the potential benefits of utilizing the Crosstown 125th Street Line and the extension into the Bronx, various options were considered. One involves the operating via 125th, with the express tracks splitting from 2 tracks into 4 tracks, allowing the  to operate on the local tracks of the Lafayette Avenue Line and the as the express. Another option includes having one Broadway Line via 125th, with the other Broadway Line operating via Lafayette Avenue as the express and the  operating as the Lafayette Avenue Local. The final, albeit far fetched, option is converting the Dyre Avenue Line into B Division and any one of these lines run up to Eastchester-Dyre, transforming E 180th St into the next Queensboro Plaza.

I recognize that these ideas and proposals may seem ambitious, perhaps even far fetched. They incorporate elements from historical plans like the 1939 IND Second System, the 1968 Program for Action, and other proposals made from various individuals, including Vanshnookenraggen. I am aware of the potential high costs associated with these plans, as based on current standards, and I understand that their realization may be unlikely. Nevertheless, it's enjoyable to explore and discuss these concepts, and I welcome opinions and thoughts from others on the matter. Please feel free to respond and share your perspectives. Thank you!

41 minutes ago, LGA Link N Train said:

I propose adding 1 Extra stop on the Concourse Line, we’ll call it “Williamsbridge-White Plains Road”!

Williamsbridge-White Plains Road would achieve a few things here. First and foremost, the track and platform layout will be set up like 34th Street-Hudson Yards on the , with Diamond Crossovers on both ends of an Island Platform Station with at least 1500’ worth of Layup Tracks to store an extra 4 trains During Off Peak Hours. 
 

In the Mezzanine Level, the main thing that will be included is a Transfer to Burke Avenue Station on the  and  to allow passengers to transfer, but thats not the main point of why I’m proposing this station. Although the added transfer would be a bonus. What WILL be included on the Mezzanine is an additional Room for Crews to Switch out between Trains, maybe a back up Dispatch Tower, although that might be unnecessary with Bedford Park being the primary Tower for Concourse I presume. Last But not least, in the same area that the new Crew Room would be located, you can also throw in a Signal, Track and/or Third Rail Quarters for good Measure.

In response to this, I will say that the new terminal will benefit  riders with the extra TPH they're receiving. A Concourse Extension is needed, given the need for more TPH within that corridor and how 205th functions. It could also be noted that the Concourse Line can possibly turn via Webster Avenue and operate further north. It might be operating parallel to the  and  train on WPR, but at least it might do something in relieving crowding and putting riders into more alternatives. 

56 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I’m aware that not all the R46’s have those problems. However there is still too many that show the wrong destination. You can have the first half of the train say one thing and the second half say another thing. I think this definitely falls on the MTA for half adding enhancements. The MTA is notorious for bringing updates to some trains and abandoning the rest. That’s why for example a bunch of Jamaica’s R160s never received yellow poles and floor mats by the door and why some R46s have old codes and others have been upgraded. 

That's true. However, even if the destination signs says one thing and the other half also says another thing, it's the conductors job to place it. Even if they're half different from one another, they will still end up having the same terminal and same thing. It's the conductor who technically controls those destinations signs. It's true that the MTA is notorious for bringing updates to some trains and abandoning the rest, but you have to remember that the MTA has neglected some of it's trains up till now. That's why most of the trains were rebuilt in the GOH program back in the 1980s and some were left in graffiti even before the GOH program. Although we have Andy Byford now, he should be able to have the MTA stop neglecting it's trains. Just remember that the yard controls the fleets, not the MTA directly. That's why there's half enhanced sets and sets that weren't enhanced.

3 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I fanned the  via 6th Ave as well and I did not see any R46’s with correct signage. Most of the trains had the wrong destination meaning a Bay Ridge bound  would have Forest Hills signage and the Forest Hills trains would have Bay Ridge signage. I saw a couple of trains with blank LCD’s which isn’t uncommon for the R46’s, I saw one that said “Last Stop” and there was one that had the correct destination but it said via Broadway local. Today I saw an R46  with correct signage.  
 

What I’ve noticed is usually when the  is rerouted or has a G.O that causes it to skip stops there would be tons of R160s on the line. The R46’s are horrible when it comes to hearing announcements and having working destinations. 

That's not the case with ALL R46's. Some have been given the enhancements in 2017 which improved speakers for announcements, but it can also be due to how close or how far the conductor is to the speaker. It's not mainly the R46's to be known as a problem or blamed upon. Some conductors either forget or don't place it up thinking people will know. There's not much to blame except that the G.O wasn't explained properly. 

Hi. Can I get an R188 LED that has the old R188 Sign and covers around the LED like the new version? I'll send pictures if needed. I'd like it to sign the Local Green Circle.

3 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

As someone who lives off the in Ridgewood and occasionally uses the , I could not think of a worse service plan and and even worse justification. To your points:

1. Yes, astute observation. What exactly is the problem?

2. That's not the point. How many people would use the M to get from Middle Village to Forest Hills via Manhattan when you could walk or take a bus? About as many people as use the A all the way from Far Rockaway to Inwood, or the 2 from Flatbush to Wakefield, or the F from Jamaica to Coney Island. The M isn't there to serve the Middle Village to Forest Hills corridor, clearly.

3. Yeah, I'm aware. I did it before the 6th Avenue M existed, back when hardly anyone rode the Nassau M. Why? Because not nearly as many people want to go to Bowery/Canal/Chambers/Fulton/Broad or on to Brooklyn as want to go uptown. I can tell you that the M via 6th Avenue is immensely popular around here as an alternative to the L. And unless you want even more people's "lazy asses" crowding the narrow stairways at Essex-Delancey, I'd keep the uptown M.

4. Look at that on a map. Same as point 2...why would you do that? If you live near the M, the Q58 can get you to QB faster than going via Williamsburg and LIC.

As for the on Queens Blvd, when will railfans learn? That service was unpopular since day 1. The first major improvement to the QBL post-opening was the 60th Street Connection. Why? Because more people want Manhattan than Crosstown. After that? The 63rd Street Connection later did the same thing - because even more people want to go to Manhattan.

Let's face it. The will be staying orange - it's a hugely successful and popular service, one of Transit's best recent service decisions. The Nassau M was carrying air back and forth to Brooklyn every day. The isn't coming back to 6th Avenue. And the certainly won't be returning to QBL.

Not to mention, you propose this a year before a major and necessary shutdown of the ? Come on.

Well played.. well played sir...

For Some Reason, I feel like that if the MTA Returned the  to Forest Hills, then the Brown  has a chance of returning

1. The  Today basically goes in a almost full clockwise circle which makes no sense

2. People could literally WALK or take the bus to Forest Hills from Metropolitan Avenue

3. If people wanted to get to Midtown, then they could take the Brown  To Essex and take the  to Midtown or  if they felt like it (Idk why people have to be so lazy and complain about transferring since it's like school and home. GET YO LAZY ASS UP AND JUST DO IT FOR f**kS SAKE!)

4. If people couldn't take the Bus, then they could take the  to Myrtle Wyckoff Avenue and transfer for the  and then take it to Lorimer Street for the  where they can take a one seat ride to Queens Blvd

AdonisDimaggio. Where's the R62A 5 train rollsign above?

And No LED. Thanks!

I also need a R62A 5 train Rollsign that says for North Dyre Avenue and South Flatbush Avenue, which looks like this:

Hi Spectre. I need a sign for the  Please? I need it to look like this. 

Hi guys. I need a R142/A 4 end like this picture. Would be nice to have one.

Then I need a R142/A 5 end sign. 

And Last but not least a R142A 6 end sign. Sorry for the same requests of each line. I think it won't fit so I had too.

Hi guys, can I get a front rollsign that says "Special". Here's a photo of it:

Thanks.

Forgot to mention, can you try to make it the same size as shown in the picture? Thanks.

https://www.roblox.com/library/208932098/R42-J-Train-ExteriorShould this Work? If it does, is it possible for you to make the exterior rollsign like that?

Spectre What about this kind of texture? https://t2.rbxcdn.com/4d93e0e662f771350f35e90c35863b75

Can you make it like that?

AdonisDimaggio Do you make Exterior Rollsigns also? If so, can you make a exterior R42 Rollsign of the R42 Brown M train to Bay Parkway? Thanks.

Actually, don't make the interior rollsign that color, I change my mind. Have it the same way as the first page has?

If anyone has done the R42 Brown M rollsign for me, let me know.

Can someone make me a R42 Brown M train rollsign from Metropolitan Avenue to Bay Parkway. Here's a video with the rollsign: 

Also, make the interior rollsign like this color, https://t0.rbxcdn.com/f1ee7e74bbd546219ee124651cced5c2