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

SENIOR MODERATOR
  • Content count

    2,793
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Lance last won the day on August 8

Lance had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,114 Excellent

5 Followers

About Lance

  • Rank
    Senior Moderator

Profile Information

  • Location
    New York

Recent Profile Visitors

2,684 profile views
  1. Lance

    K train.

    Presently, there are no plans to resurrect the K designation for any service. As for sightings, it's been determined that the 179 signed as a K to Coney Island was a test message to ensure the electronic signage works properly. Nothing more. Also, as has been stated numerous times now, if there is any news, you can be pretty sure it will be reported here first.
  2. To add on, it was a challenge to get the line as far it did. Getting it past 169 Street became extremely difficult in the midst of the Great Depression and the onset of WWII. After that, and realizing they needed an adequate terminal for the and , the line was extended to its present terminal.
  3. Let's not turn this into a haves vs have-nots situation. These are just some thugs looking to cause trouble and simply used the first opportunity that came to mind. The fact the train bypassed their stop was really just an excuse to start shit.
  4. Lance

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    Yeah, that one's pretty inconsistent with the usual standard. Then again, they have been doing that with the and reroutes via Lexington Ave and 7th Avenue respectively for a while now, so they're consistently inconsistent. Par for the course.
  5. Lance

    Planned Subway Service Changes

    Because running three services on one track with a track change on both ends of the reroute for one of the services has never caused any problems, right? Let's do it in the other direction as well even though there's no real reason to do so.
  6. Lance

    Rollsign Gallery

    Looks nice. Shifting gears, my latest reproduction, sticking with the 40s-42s, is now available: Click here for full resolution PDF. Date: 1976 Used on: R40, R42 Printed by: American Identification Products This is the first front-end sign curtain produced for the R40s and R42s using the sign standards illustrated in the 1970 Sign Manual. In a departure from the previous much larger signs created around the time the cars were originally delivered, these curtains would be similar to the R44s and R46s. To ensure only the correct bullet would be displayed on the front of the train, the originally large rollsign window was modified in the mid '70s, around when these curtains were created, with a black casing covering over most of the window. This can be seen in the following images: Naturally, there were a couple of instances where the sign curtain pre-dated the window modifications, like this: This is one of the last front-end sign curtains with the '67 color scheme for this series of cars. A similar version was printed for the Eastern Division including the J and LL lines, likely corresponding with the side sign curtain printed around the same time. Our next sign reproduction will be sticking with the '70s, but from the R27-38 group of cars this time. @MHV9218 inadvertently gave a hint as to what's next with the IRT version. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
  7. Lance

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    I think that because it will be normal service starting in April, they did not include the "via X line" portion that's usually found on rerouted trains into the recordings. They really need to redo the entire system and make it into a modular setup where the crew can pick any route letter/number, routing and destination and have it available. The millennium design that came with the 110s worked well for its time, but as more routes are needed and transfers constantly change, it might be time for a different approach.
  8. Interesting find there UT. Just a small quibble: do try to keep the thread titles relatively short. Otherwise, it screws with the page formatting. That is all.
  9. Lance

    Planned Subway Service Changes

    The problem I see with a lot of these ideas is that, in solving one problem, it creates another, sometimes several others. In this example, as mentioned, because the is now rerouted to Dyre Av, there is no service to 148 St-Lenox Terminal, creating the need for shuttle buses where there previously wasn't one (expense). It also requires more cars for service than the current operations (another expense). Under this proposal, train service would continue to operate along Jerome Ave, which means only a few sets will be made available on the shortened line, less so if service is extended far up Jerome Ave. Extending the all the way to Dyre Av from 135 Street would require more train sets, and thus more crews to operate them (see previous) to meet normal service, possibly more than could be provided by freed up sets. Another thing this would do is invent a new transfer point as there would be no direct service between White Plains Rd and Lexington Ave, possibly overwhelming the already crowded Jerome Ave platform at peak periods. All this for a relatively minor service change seems a lot like overkill. More so since the delays themselves are relatively minor, at least on the trains I'm on in the mornings. Sometimes, the best solution is the simplest one: slow down the trains in the work zone slightly and otherwise leave service as is.
  10. I can see a 143 borrowed from the pop up on the , but the likelihood of a 32 from the is pretty remote. I think the plan is to keep that line as new tech as possible, which is why the gets first dibs on the A1s while the gets literally everything else. Also, I don't see any of that happening with the upcoming weekend closures, but rather the main shutdown where service is boosted.
  11. Lance

    R179 Discussion Thread

    While yard preference may play a small part in the 68s remaining at Concourse, I believe the main thing that prevented the from receiving 160s is the fact that the Concourse Yard only services one line. The NTTs would be a waste at Concourse as opposed to say Coney Island, which services the and lines, the latter of which all share cars at times. That flexibility of electronic signage is much more useful when a train could enter Ditmars Blvd as an and leave as a than it would ever be on the , which rarely shares its fleet with any other line. All this talk about car moves and I'm just sitting here wondering when we'll see those five-car sets. Damn build problems.
  12. Lance

    R179 Discussion Thread

    Before anyone asks, yes, this is why several recent posts have been removed.
  13. Lance

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    Slight correction here: The has been a late-night local since 1980 when service was cut back to 125 Street during the overnight hours. Unlike the west side where there continued to be two services during the overnight hours (the local and express), the east side had to contend with only service until 1999 when transit advocates pushed for more late night local service on the IRT. That's a separate issue, caused by the fact that the local is a direct equivalent to the daytime , which is why it's the one to run local in Manhattan, rather than the , where direct Central Park West - 8th Ave service would be lost. I believe this problem should be solved with either late night service in Manhattan or by taking a cue from the , which doesn't start late night local service until well after midnight (which would obviously also require expanded hours).
  14. Lance

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    It's possible for a Bridge train to hit DeKalb Av and then run express on 4th Avenue. From the north tracks of the bridge, trains would switch over to Brighton track the and use presently to stop at DeKalb Av. Following that stop, it could switch over to the 4th Avenue local track and merge with the . Directly before Atlantic Av, the train would then switch over to the express track. Invert that for Manhattan-bound service. Of course, I wouldn't recommend it in any way because the weaving back and forth does nothing to minimize those often-complained about merging delays, even if it is in the middle of the night. These kinds of service ideas really spit in the face of late night riders. Let's run through the list, shall we: 7th Avenue Express - Are we really proposing to relegate local service north of Times Square to just the line? That idea was deemed terrible nearly two decades ago, which is why the started running local during overnight hours to reduce wait times. Lexington Ave Express - See previous. It's the same reason why the was extended from its previous late night terminal at 125 Street. Eastern Pkwy Express - Ditto. Central Park West Exp - The only reason why the continues to run express along that sector is because the line is long enough as is. However, if there was enough push from riders, you can bet it would become a late night local as well, just like the did back in 2015. Queens Blvd Express - I guess Sutphin-Hillside doesn't need late night service, right? There's no way for an express to hit Sutphin Blvd without new switches being installed after Briarwood, which I don't see happening anytime soon. Even if you meant the , which isn't any better quite frankly, there is very little gained by skipping Briarwood and 75 Avenue other than maybe a minute on travel time. The only one I don't really have a problem with is the via Bridge/4th Avenue express and that's because the and are still there providing service every ten minutes on paper. However, I have to agree with the consensus that shifting the to Whitehall would only make an already slow trip out of Brooklyn even slower. If I'm not mistaken, the via Brighton is one of the slowest trips out of Coney Island, second only to the via Culver. Why make that trip more annoying when the present setup works well enough? As you can probably gather, the point I'm trying to make is that late night operations cannot be solely based on the speed of the trip. With such large intervals between trains, some services have to run local to reduce wait times for customers, even if express service makes more sense from an operational standpoint. The only alternative would be to shorten the intervals and Transit does not seem interested in that avenue.
  15. Re: Service alerts I've noticed very different service alert notices depending on the time of day. Sometimes you'll get the most verbose service alert known to man, while at other times, it seems like they're being charged by the letter, hence the extremely vague notices. I don't know if it's because the comms team is unaware of the situation as well, but regardless, consistency needs to be just as important as conveying the relevant information to riders.

×

Important Information

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