Lance

I think we're going to see a bunch of these little glitches (like the one mentioned above, or the one the plays the / version of "the next stop is" / "this is" for all lines) until at least all cars are delivered and there are no technical faults with the cars.

That's been my thought since I heard of this relabeling project in the first place. The yard stickers made perfect sense when the and (notorious car sharing lines) both used redbirds and the 62s/62As were predominately on the and lines and those cars can be easily confused with each other at a casual glance. Nowadays, only the and have that potential for misplaced cars, whereas the does not interact with any other line that uses 62s or 62As in any fashion. This whole thing sounds like some idea from the suits that nobody vetoed on grounds of pointlessness. On a separate issue, has anyone seen a full ten car set of refurbished 62As in service? I ask because I've yet to come across one. One half of the train always looks all bright and shiny while the other half remains drab and depressing.

On the flipside, now it's going to be another expense to retrofit the cars with CBTC equipment when it really should've been done at the onset, even if the cars were not going to be assigned to the . 8th Avenue CBTC was always on the horizon and forgiving the initial belief that the bulk of the four-car sets would run on the line, it's always been a strong possibility that these cars would run on a CBTC line at some point in their lives. Then again, since Transit keeps using different CBTC systems on each line, it might actually make sense to wait rather than install something incompatible with the signal system.

I imagine that any new platform ACs work about as well as the ones at Grand Central. They're fine if you're standing directly below the vents, but move a couple feet in any direction and you're back to boiling on the platform. With the HVAC kickouts from every passing train and the relative openness of the subway stations themselves, it would be extremely difficult to cool down the stations in any significant way. That's why it's always brought up as a secondary benefit of full-height PSDs. I wouldn't be surprised if those trains are cut back to 71 Avenue or are abandoned entirely.

That's interesting because I noticed that some of the transfers have been omitted in a previous update for the line. For a while now, the M60 Select portion at 125 Street, the M86 Select at the eponymous street and the at Lexington Av-63 St portion at 59 Street were all dropped in the Clark St AAS update.

Hello everyone. Back again with another entry into the gallery. We're sticking with the '70s, but moving to an older group of car classes: Click here for the full size PDF. Intended for: R27-38 Here, we're looking at a route sign designed and likely created in the late '70s, the approximate timeframe based on the exclusion of the K line, which was discontinued in 1976, but before 1979 where the route colors were changed to their current design. Regrettably, there is very little information that can be gathered for this sign beyond the fact that at one point in time, it existed. Unlike the IRT counterparts, which would be modified in the '80s to reflect the correct route colors, the B-Division version here was likely discarded in favor of new route signs that would be created in 1981 and 1984, likely because it would've required more modifications than simply covering over the original route bullet. There are design drawings for this curtain, which were used as a basis for the reproduction, but aside from the text itself, this reproduction is more in line with the IRT version in terms of measurements for the components as there is more visual evidence of those signs available. I don't really care for creating reproductions of signs with very little, if any, information available for it (the transfer information on the interior exposures of the R40-46 signs don't count in my opinion), but I really wanted to make this sign for a while now, probably since I made this one way back when. Luckily for me, our next sign, from an even older car class, will have some supporting backup. Enjoy.

Oooh, does that mean they're going to go on the line now? /s

Ding ding ding. Even at the 4th Avenue ESI-rehabbed stations, the "original" ('70s) tiling is still in place for the most part. The idea behind the renovations is to open them up and make them feel less dark and claustrophobic. Besides, if they replaced perfectly good tiles, I'm sure the complaints would revolve wasteful expenses.

That was "option 1" that Gotham Bus Co. posted upthread. Oddly enough, or perhaps not so much, the proposal to rebuild the Twin Towers was supported and sponsored by Donald Trump. The winning proposal mentioned by bobtehpanda was supposed to look something like this: Courtesy: Studio Libeskind For those interested, here is the evolution of the design of One World Trade: Courtesy: NY Times That and they cannot get a major tenant to justify another tower in the area. Not when the other buildings of the World Trade Center still have a lot of occupancy. A few years ago, there were rumors that 21st Century Fox would move their headquarters to 2WTC, but with Disney's buyout of all non-News related properties, that plan has since fallen through. Recently, there were discussions that the new Amazon headquarters would be in the lower Manhattan area, possibly at 2WTC as well, but if I recall correctly, should they decide to expand here in New York, they would more likely be in the Hudson Yards area rather than the World Trade Center. That means the future of 2WTC remains undecided and will likely remain an empty lot for the foreseeable future.

It's readily apparent the MTA considers the line the primary service on Nassau St and not the , which is why the latter always gets the shaft in this service change. Obviously they couldn't (or didn't bother to) get someone to record a proper announcement so they had to make due with what was available. It's kind of long in my opinion though. Really should've used that old "Metropolitan Av-bound..." portion from the , but whatever.

Here's a new one: If only there was a way to switch over to the center track on either side of the station so trains can open their doors on the Court Square-bound platform. Oh wait...

It looks like Byford brought the hammer down on mislabeling the trains because they now have proper signage for the via Myrtle Ave service change. I see they even included one of those special service cards in case the electronic signs were unable to display properly.

Yep. With the reduced to 12 minute intervals, there’s no reason to cut the , despite both running to 148 Street.

And the problem with that is...? Shifting gears, for those interested, 1811-15 are now eqipped with the Lexington Ave yard markers. The cars also have the refresh upgrades except for the split standee poles.

The station was called "Cortlandt St-World Trade Center" for a long time, and probably came about when the station was renovated back in the '70s. Courtesy Wayne Whitehorne, NYCSubway.org Also, keep in mind that the actual Cortlandt St road does not reach Greenwich St where the runs under.

Exactly. I'm so glad they're focused on these damn yard stickers for cars that never interact with each other. Meanwhile, we're all just roasting here on the trains because the HVAC crapped out again.

But doesn't that just create a different problem? In one case, you're punishing Jamaica riders with only local service. Obviously it doesn't matter when everything's running local there, but the one-directional express runs on top of local-only service in the other direction just adds insult to injury in my opinion. In another case, it punishes riders seeking 8th and 6th Avenue services from Queens respectively. People still want to get around on weekends and I feel that needlessly rerouting services is just as bad as the slow downs resulting from holding and flagging. I believe I mentioned this previously but it bears repeating: weekend construction work is not a new thing and I highly doubt service was this crippled when running multiple services on one line in the past, even through construction zones. Was it even this bad say 15 years ago with the and sometimes running up Queens Blvd? (Maybe I'm wrong and the old-timers (@Trainmaster5 ) will chime in accordingly.) The agency really needs to look into why things are so slow nowadays and fix the problem. There's no reason why any line should be running at abysmal headways like the 20 minute intervals on the or the collective 12 on Queens Blvd, even when there's work happening on the line. This right here. As most here know, I create the unofficial weekend service maps and I've noticed there seems to be no rhyme or reason to any of these planned service changes. Sure, you'll get a couple of consecutive weekends where they're doing the same work (the last four weekends of suspended service east of Crescent St comes to mind), but those are few and far in between. General maintenance doesn't apply as that occurs as needed and it's understandable that those related service changes are seemingly random. However, the "long-term" projects, like Queens Blvd and Flushing CBTC / signal modernization work or even the track replacement projects, should be done with as few stops and starts as possible. Not only would it get the job done quicker, it would also give riders an idea of what to expect well in advance, rather than the current approach of checking the site every week to see what line is out of service. The MTA already stole TFL's website design. Maybe they can "borrow" their long-term service change procedures as well.

Nah, the better thing would be to have the run at its normal headways despite being cut back to 149 Street. For some reason or another, that isn't possible because every time there's work on Lexington Ave (this past weekend, it was the northbound express run between Brooklyn Bridge and Grand Central), the gets reduced, which is the real issue at play here. From an operations standpoint, it doesn't matter how the trains are labeled; it's that service reduction that's the problem. Normal s or shortened s - unless that reduction is removed, there will still be uneven loading on the main trains.

It's one of those "damned you do, damned you don't" situations. Had the MTA actually ran service normally and hit the goats, it would've become a PR nightmare with every animal rights advocate, not just the PETA pitas*, comes out against the agency for harming/killing a poor, defenseless animal. Getting some cutesy PR from the fiasco is much better alternative, even if service had to be rerouted to round up the goats. *pains in the ass

Do you really want the to be the sole express on Lexington Ave? That sounds like a recipe for disaster, even with the reduced TPHs on the . It matters very little when everything is local, as it will be this weekend. However, you know how riders are with their express trains. They'll let a dozen trains fly by to get on that one express train that arrives. Also, terminating alternate trains at 149 St-Grand Concourse is the exact same thing as ending the trains there, just with added confusion and no other gains. All trains terminating at 149 Street is much easier to convey to the riding public than some trains terminating there.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.