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.

Lance

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    3,176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Lance last won the day on November 2 2019

Lance had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,903 Excellent

About Lance

  • Rank
    Senior Moderator

Profile Information

  • Location
    New York

Recent Profile Visitors

4,206 profile views
  1. Is this the first weekend the Rockaway Park shuttle extension is in effect this year?
  2. Two things are likely playing a part in why this isn't being considered as an option: 1) The E and F swap between 53rd St/8th Ave and 63rd St/6th Ave all the time. So much so that riders are relatively familiar with this service change. When's the last time you've seen an E train on the Culver line? 2) During the overnight Rutgers closures, if the E was extended down to Coney Island in lieu of the F, that would be a long, slow local line from Jamaica-Parsons. The F currently has 45 stops between 179 Street and Coney Island, but it has that express portion on Queens Blvd to speed it up. The E as a full local at night doesn't have that option and would increase from 32 stops to over 50 crawling the whole way there.
  3. Yeah, I'm bumping this... Following a bit of inspiration and the fact that the 143s aren't exactly L-line exclusives these days, here's a new combined line map with the J/Z and L lines: No requests at this time.
  4. Here's the thing though: how long should the 32s and 42s be retained just in case something like this happens? Six months? A year? Longer? The MTA cannot afford to keep around 300 cars from the 1960s while at the same time storing and maintaining their supposed replacements. At some point, the 179s need to become a reliable fleet that can remain in service long-term. Either that or Bombardier needs to be held accountable for delivering faulty trains. It's possible if the spare factor on the other classes is completely obliterated. There are just enough spare 46s and five-car 160s scattered around to meet service requirements on the A and C lines. However, I don't see that happening though as the MTA will probably just take the path of least resistance by placing the 32s back into service for the duration of this situation, rather than risk a potential car shortage by not having enough trains on a particular line.
  5. If this is a manufacturing fault, I have to wonder at what point does the MTA just sue Bombardier for a complete breach of contract? How many major incidents must occur before they're held responsible in a fashion more than just giving the MTA a couple more cars? If this decoupling happened in one of the river tunnels or on an incline, this could've been disastrous. Bombardier was paid to produce and deliver a series of train cars that would last several decades and replace the ancient cars that are in service at the time. With the latest major incident, these new cars are once again out of service indefinitely while the situation is investigated. We cannot afford to keep a bunch of 43 ton paper weights lying around unused because they're unsafe to operate.
  6. Well I'm glad the essentials won't have to pay out of pocket for this, but I do wonder how the MTA budget will look after this is over. By agency tallies, even with reduced ridership, there are 10,000 riders during the overnight hours. That won't be small change for an indefinite service suspension, especially if Cuomo continues to expand the PAUSE.
  7. Slowly but surely getting back to normal. Or something resembling it. Shifting back to the 53rd Street/63rd Street switcheroo for a minute, does anyone know if the riders in the area affected were informed of this planned service change? For 63rd Street riders, switching the F and M is a significant service cut, especially at the increasingly popular Lexington Av station. On the same vein, wouldn't switching the two routes create a bit of a line imbalance between the two tunnels? Right now, the combined output of the E and M through 53rd Street is roughly 23 trains per hour at the height of the rush with the F running 15 through 63rd Street. If this switch were to be put into effect, that'd be 30 trains through 53rd Street and at most, eight running across 63rd Street. Really makes an already under-utilized tunnel even more under-utilized. That's why I'm a little hesitant to take this as a finalized and permanent service change, but rather a possible pilot program to see if it's a viable solution.
  8. Why would I know? I don't work for the MTA, nor do I have any familiarity in IT. I imagine the answer from @bobtehpanda is likely correct though.
  9. Why would the F return to 53rd Street? The whole point of the current service pattern is to give 53rd Street both local and express service to Queens. Besides, what's gained here anyhow? Those switches will still be in use regardless, just to a different endpoint. Currently, F trains go between 63rd Street <> Queens Blvd express using the switches near 36 Street. If the F and M were to switch, it'd be almost the exact same thing, with the exception of the M going to the local tracks instead of the express ones. Also, what serves 63rd Street on the off-hours when the M doesn't run? Sure, the F can run up there in its place, but then you have that situation where trains are running to via different lines depending on the day of the week, which is something the MTA likes to avoid unless otherwise impossible (see current weekend M service). So, you're calling for another reduction in service on top of an already reduced service plan? Somehow, that doesn't make a lick of sense.
  10. I'm not surprised. Even after we get past the COVID service reductions, the 32s would only be around as a buffer for another catastrophic failure of the 179s, which is not a good enough reason for retention unfortunately. They should keep a few sets on property just in case, but they cannot keep the entire fleet in revenue inactive simply on the chance that something may happen with the 179s. These new cars need to prove their worth as that was the whole point of buying them.
  11. Exactly. And you know what I haven't heard in this proposal: who's paying to transport these people around. Is the city going to foot the bill for this partnership? The state? Or will the essential workers we've been thanking so much for keeping things running have to pay more just to get to/from work?
  12. The Times Square shuttle will bow out Friday night in an effort to move crews to other lines.
  13. As part of the renovation work being done at the 138 St-Grand Concourse station, the wall tiles and name plates have been recently removed, unveiling the long-obscured original name tiles behind those AG name signs. https://forgotten-ny.com/2019/11/138th-street-station-mott-haven/ I never even thought there would be mosaics with 138th Street written out given the MH ceiling mosaics and the fact it was named for the area and the old NYC railroad station. While the Mott Haven tiling may be too far gone to save/preserve, the longform mosaics are in good enough condition to fix. According to a Redditor, there's a "do not touch" sign next to the 138th Street mosaics, so there may be a chance there.
  14. I suppose the better question that needs to be asked is, why can't this be done remotely? It's 2019. One shouldn't need to physically plug into the onboard computers to update the system these days. Naturally, that will be an added expense, but considering the existing hardware likely needs replacement anyhow, perhaps it's a good idea to look into. Side question: how are the digital ads updated on the 142s/160s?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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