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

    3,191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

Lance last won the day on October 22 2020

Lance had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,929 Excellent

About Lance

  • Rank
    Senior Moderator

Profile Information

  • Location
    New York

Recent Profile Visitors

4,654 profile views
  1. To answer the other question, the 179s have all the route options that are available on the 160s. The only difference between the two systems is that due to a coding error, the 179s all use the 8th Avenue "this is/the next stop is" recording. That K option was just a test of the audio/visual systems by Bombardier.
  2. Well, you're definitely not going to like that they apparently added it to Pelham Pkwy-Dyre recently. I caught it on a downtown 5 yesterday. I'm starting to think they're adding them to all these stations just to spite us at this point. I agree with you that it isn't needed for most of the stations it's been attached to these days. Only Union Square on the Lex, Times Square on the shuttle and West Farms Sq need it for the severe curves at those stations. Might as well just add it to every station with an announced transfer at this point and save everyone the trouble.
  3. If it becomes an issue when the Flushing line is out, I imagine they'll issue an emergency order for repairs in the 60th Street tunnel while Flushing work is delayed to facilitate this.
  4. Rather than quote every response, and because I don't want to be here forever, I'll just respond to the general points made. Delaying Queens Blvd CBTC is a definite non-starter. The MTA spent a lot of money installing this new signal system on the line and it's in no way cost effective to maintain two signal setups while they wait for a sufficient number of new NTTs to be operable. 46s running on any of the Queens Blvd line long-term is pretty much a thing of the past at this point. As for delays on the other two capable lines, Canarsie was delayed due to a lack of available compatible trains The 42s weren't booted off the L line until mid-2007 and even then, the A1s that replaced them weren't CBTC-compatible until 2010. The issues that delayed full implementation on the Flushing line were more technical than anything else, but were also in part caused by problems with the trains themselves. We all recall those constant signal problems on the 7 line in the lead up to the transition. In terms of train reliability, yes there was an uptick in reliability on the 32s when they were briefly pressed back into active service (and please spare the semantics on whether the trains are in storage or are semi-retired, they're currently not part of the general car requirements either way), they were out of service entirely for a few months before the 179s were forced out of service necessitating the 32s' return. It's not really that surprising that trains not in regular service might perform better than trains that see service almost every day like the 46s. And to take one of the suggestions to put them into service during rush hours only, it doesn't negate the fact they're limited from running on a lot of lines right now. They can't run on any of the Queens Blvd routes due to CBTC, so the E, F and R are out. The C is also out because it's a fully underground route that will risk overheating the HVACs. While this is another instance where the MTA shot itself in the foot, the repairs on the Montague tunnel mean the 32s also cannot run on any of the Broadway lines anymore. Realistically, that only leaves the A, B, G and J as suitable candidates for the 32s to displace some other trains around. As for the incoming 211s, that order, at least the base order itself, is still on track. The options may be delayed due to the pandemic and issues with funding, but the base order was already budgeted into the last capital plan and is not affected. If all goes well, that should be able to replace some of the worst-performing cars in service right now. Of course, the delays don't help matters as it will likely take a year once the test train arrives before they start accepting cars en masse, if we go by the previous car orders as an example. We do need those options funded as well obviously, but I honestly can't see that happening right now. Ridership needs to bounce back significantly from their still incredible lows to generate some of that lost revenue. I say that because I don't think the MTA can use the stimulus funds to pay for those new cars while so many other transit agencies need support as well just to operate. We'll see obviously. And to answer the question above this post, the A currently requires 38 - 40 trains at the height of the rush hours while the Rockaway Park shuttle uses three short trains. If the base order directly replaces the 46s there, that'd be 270 cars to the A and 15 to the shuttle, leaving 155 to be placed elsewhere. Of course, this assumes no service expansions anywhere or any problems with any of the new cars, but that's to be expected given the circumstances.
  5. Makes you wonder what their end goal is here. Speaking of the 59 Street transfers, I just wish they'd fix it so it stops playing before 4 and 5 trains have already come to a complete stop. Conductors won't open the doors until it finishes so the destination/next stop announcement plays correctly, which I'm guessing is on orders from management since it happens on every train I'm on regardless of time of day. They got it right once when they moved the playback trigger back a couple hundred feet sometime after 2010 when they added the walking transfer to the F announcement. Of course, it got knocked back when they added the "watch the gap" portion later and hasn't been fixed since.
  6. Isn't the move from Jamaica to Coney Island a transfer of necessity over anything else? The 46s can't run on Queens Blvd once CBTC is fully activated there and we can't wait five years for a sufficient amount of 211s to be pressed into active service before switching over to the new signaling system. It's the same reason why the 6 now uses the older 62As instead of the 142As that used to hold down the Pelham line. As for the diminishing performance levels on the 46s, and forgive me for making the obvious point, but the trains are 45 years old and it's quite expected that they will start to break down more frequently than they did in years prior. After a certain point, there's only so much preventative maintenance that can be done before it's time for the trains to be simply replaced. Even the replacement electronic signs are nearly 30 years old at this point. I seriously doubt Luminator expected those signs to still be in use longer than most of us have been on this Earth. Hell, even the signs on the newer 142s are starting to fail at this point. They're all up for replacement, but no one's obviously going to spend money to replace signs on trains that won't be around in a few years hopefully. And even if they did want to replace them, they'd likely have to replace all of the surrounding components because the system is so old and outdated at this point. Circling back to the cars themselves, it doesn't help that the 46s are now the backbone of several primary lines and have been so since the transition from Jamaica. They are currently the primary fleet of the A, C, N and Q lines, whereas before, it was only the A and R, while providing secondary support for the F whenever needed. Of course, as mentioned above, it can't be avoided unless Transit delays implementation of Queens Blvd CBTC until the arrival of the 211s. And to offer a rebuttal to the oft-mentioned suggestion here, the 32s are not the silver bullet some of the folks here like to pretend they are. The 32s were retired because they are consistently even worse performers than the other aging fleets in active service. The 32s have averaged 35K miles between failure for years now, whereas the 46s have only recently dropped below 60K MDBF. In my opinion, that's not bad for trains from 1975. That doesn't include the accommodations that need to be made for the 32s to even run these days. If by some miracle the 32s were pressed back into active service, they're pretty much limited to the Jamaica line or their HVAC starts overheating and they get taken out of service. Isn't that why the 160s were temporarily placed onto the A and C lines when the 179s were taken out of service last summer? Right now, all we can really do is wish for the best and hope there are no further delays in receiving those new trains. There are ways to avoid putting unnecessary strain on these aging cars, like putting them on the secondary routes like the B. The problem in that lies in the fact there aren't enough applicable secondary routes to avoid having the cars continue to mainline full-time routes like the A, C and Q. It'd be better than the current operations though.
  7. Not a clue unfortunately. It looks to be full Helvetica, but that doesn't narrow it down much I'm afraid.
  8. I thought it was a capacity problem on the ancient hardware in those trains, and also the reason why most of the remaining '04-era transfers were replaced by Charlie Pellett versions.
  9. They'll have to deal with those problems as they come up as there's no way they'll be able to preemptively without some divine intervention. Let's hope the 46s can last long enough to weather this.
  10. Perhaps. It would make sense with the text being in Standard instead of Helvetica like it was by the end of the 1980s. Though unless the plan to send the G and N (later the R) to Jamaica Center fell through at the last minute, I'd imagine having erroneous station signs would be more confusing than not. Par for the course, but still pretty weird though. Right, I forgot the racing specials stopped there. However, the JFK Express never stopped at Hoyt-Schermerhorn, so that means those signs on the outer platforms lasted at least six years following the elimination of the Aqueduct specials. Wouldn't surprise me though as there wouldn't really be a need to waste resources removing signs that people won't access in the first place.
  11. Damn, these are nice finds. Like MHV, I saw some of these pop up on your Flickr feed and had to investigate myself. Regarding the Queens Blvd signs at Briarwood and Union Tpke, I'm curious why it looks like the latter originally had three services and the former four when the number of services running to those stations was inverted at the time. Van Wyck Blvd had the E and F through 1988, which then became the R and F with the G added in 1990 as a late night service after the R was cut back to the 4th Avenue shuttle that autumn. I guess they could've covered over one of the lines with a blank at some point and then sometime after the Hillside Ave services were consolidated to only the F in Oct. 1992, the sign was cleaned up with a left-justified F. I do wonder if the G was ever on that sign though. The sign at Kew Gardens is even stranger as there was no reason to replace the original E and F that was already there as neither line was slated to discontinue serving that station. That bullet replacement at Broadway-Lafayette looks like it was a service sticker mistakenly used for an entrance sign. Note how the inner shading is slightly brighter than the surrounding bullet. For Hoyt-Schermerhorn, it looks like those service signs replaced ones similar to those found at Jay St in this photo. Jay St-Borough Hall (IND 6th Avenue / 8th Avenue) Collection of NYCSubway.org On a side-note, I wasn't aware those side platforms at Hoyt-Schermerhorn were in service at that point. Nothing ran on the outer tracks at that time to justify opening the doors to the outer platforms. @MHV9218 I believe there's a reason why there aren't many enamel CC signs floating around or captured on video, etc. The plan to eliminate the double-lettered routes was thought of way before 1985. The first batch of signs for the 16s - 38s after the trunk color redesign came out in 1981. This is the version that had the Broadway lines with white text on the signature sunflower yellow color. I wouldn't be surprised if the plan dated back to the Diamond Jubilee map design change, but wasn't implemented then due to budget concerns at the time. Too many trains were running with signs dating back to at least the Chrystie St connection, if not before. While the colors on some of those signs would be wrong when the trunk color design was put info effect, the route letters would still be the same if the double-lettered routes remained in operation. In regards to some of these signs' longevity, the ones at out of the way stations tend to stick around for a while. There were a couple of old service signs on the Pelham line that lasted until the 2010s renovations. Sometimes, they stick around well after station renos, like this one at 59 St-Columbus Circle: 59 St-Columbus Circle (IND 8th Avenue) - 04/22/2018 Flickr: Coney Island Av On another side-note, the reason behind some of the signs retaining their '67 colors well into the '80s was that it was close enough to the '79 design. There were plenty of gold N's scattered around with the teal E's. And if you looked close enough, one could find slightly different shades of A's and D's, but those were less noticeable since the '67 and '79 versions were almost the same.
  12. So, there'd be a shuttle on top of the through service to Van Wyck and the overflow to 179 Street?
  13. After looking at this map, I have to say that in it's present state, I don't like it at all. Right now, it looks completely unfinished and slapping a "beta" label on it does not absolve it from criticism, especially when it looks like an alpha release. First and foremost, they need to decide on a map style. Using a semi-diagrammatic system map overlaid with a completely geographic topographical map is completely messy for no reason. If the goal was to show stations in relation to their general locations like the regular map, they should've used an overlay of that map rather than a 100% geographical one. It would result in less zigzagging lines that currently appear on the live map. On the subject of the zigzagging lines, what's up with that? Why do lines have to parallel each other to show station connections and transfers? It's less noticeable at Columbus Circle where 7th Avenue will curve nearly 60 degrees to line up with 8th Avenue, but it's an egregious error at Canal St where Broadway juts over to the Lexington Ave line to hit that station, then bounces back to align with the eponymous street to hit the City Hall station. There's also the question of why there are so many 90 degrees turns on various lines that don't actually happen in real life. If they can do angled curves elsewhere, why does the Brighton line need to make four sharp turns between Brighton Beach and West 8 Street? Why is the Broadway-Manhattan Bridge connection completely eliminated in favor of what looks like another East River tunnel bypass? Even ignoring some of the bizarre design choices and map overlays, I don't find this a particularly useful map at present compared to various 3rd party options readily available. Why is everything so small while still being so condensed at the same time? Users cannot see station names until they zoom in to a neighborhood. It's even worse for the subway lines, most notably on Queens Blvd. It's especially hard to see the various services on shared trunk lines as the line widths are inexplicably one pixel wide unless the map is zoomed in to the station level. As most people will be using this map on their phones, it would be much more useful if service lines were wider and more pronounced at higher zoom levels as there's presently very little contrast overall. Same thing with station labels. Another thing apparent, and which partially defeats the purpose of using a geographical map overlay, is that the roads also do not appear until the map is zoomed in fully, though it's unknown whether this is a limitation of the map overlay or something designed by the MTA. Another issue with the overlay and this circles back to an earlier point, is the complete lack of contrast. Everything from the general landmass/water to the roads to the parks are all in either in shades of light gray/white or a very light shade of green. Another tick against this map is its current iteration is that it's presently very slow and buggy. Pulling up the real-time arrivals or moving the map can be a slow process at times due to system requirements. If this is to be used by the average consumer and become a necessary travel tool, the app must be optimized for more lower end devices rather than the latest and most powerful devices currently available. While this map is a big step in the right direction, showing actual current service visually for the first time in an official capacity rather than through third party apps and programs, it has a long way before it can replace those other apps.
  14. I demand compensation for this blatant theft of my idea. Seriously though, it’s about time they’ve added the J/Z to the line maps on the 143s. It’s been years since these trains have started running on the J. On a side-note, it looks like the J/Z portion is using old BMT rules making Broad St the “northern terminal” instead of going geographically north-south like the other line maps.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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