Lance
-
Posts
3,197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
35
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Lance
-
-
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.
0 -
On 7/31/2018 at 3:37 AM, Ilia said:
Really? Cause I don't think the R42s could fit the A, AA, B, CC, D, RR all in one side destination rollsign.
The sign curtain mechanisms on the 40-42 series were the same for the 44-46 series of cars. It's just that the latter were motorized while the 40-42s were hand-operated. There was plenty of room in the cases for longer curtains, as evidenced by those printed in the late '70s and mid '80s, containing options for the A, both Broadway and 6th Ave B routes, along with the C, D, H, K, M, Q and R lines. I believe the only reason the original '60s curtains were so short compared to later versions was that the TA had some plan to keep the sets segregated from each other, a plan that obviously fell apart as the system deteriorated over the years.
On 8/3/2018 at 3:32 PM, Ilia said:I'm still really confused about the 1973 modifications on the ED R42 sets, from what I dug on eBay and what you said Lance (that I didn't really understand by the way), I believe the secondary sets' front rollsigns (cars 4890s - 4920s) that were assigned to the
, 
and 
, were modified into J, K, Special; and later, primary sets' front rollsigns (cars 4850s - 4890s) that were assigned on the 
and 
, were modified into J, K, M, Special, LL, QB (like you mentioned). But what was the point of having the 
and 
lines using different sets or... 2 different sets having the same route? What about the side signs? It means they would be like that? :
<removed>
There is something not logic behind the J and K added on the other sets and the LL and M being moved. Either I messed up somewhere or it's simply because TA didn't even think...
If I had to wager a guess, the car segregation plan was still in place when the K-LL-M signs were order back in the early '70s, though they may have started leaning towards combining all of the East New York-served routes into one curtain around the same time, resulting in the ED cars possibly running with two curtain sets. Also, I believe the QB-J add-on modifications were done in-house, which would explain why the design quality dropped in comparison to the professionally-made ones.
On the reproduction front, I'll be sticking with the 40-42 series for my next sign, which should be released next weekend.
1 -
Just to interject something regarding the oft-proposed DeKalb Av switch, I see the idea is now to swap the
and 
or something to that effect. My question is how does this work during off-peak hours? When the ran on the West End, it ran 19/7 to Manhattan, either to 57 Street or 21 St-Queensbridge. Neither of those options are available without getting in the way of through services. That says nothing for previous late night West End service, which was relegated to shuttle status during that time. While a justification can be made for more off-hours service on the Central Park West and 6th Avenue lines, I cannot see that going far in calling for three services on those lines during the overnight hours, which would be required in order to give Sea Beach customers direct service to Manhattan. It's not much better for the and 
via Brighton either. One of those would likely be relegated to part-time status since they would mirror each other from 57 St-7 Av to Prospect Park and even more if the were to join the as a 2nd Avenue service. It'd be extremely hard to justify off-hours Brighton express service to keep both services running at all times, which means these massive changes will not be particularly useful outside of the peak periods.
That's why while I'm against changing any of the DeKalb services, I'd much prefer swapping the
and over the and . With the former, Brighton can still operate peak period express service and the West End and Sea Beach lines will continue to provide 24/7 service to Manhattan without needlessly duplicating existing late night service.
4 -
That may be a part of it, but running through service for two lines puts a damper on quick completion as well. If I had to wager a guess, it's the junction between White Plains Rd and Jerome Ave that's being replaced. If they suspended
service for the duration of the project, it would probably wrap up in a shorter timeframe. Of course, nobody's going to stand for those kind of operations during peak periods, which leaves us with the slow speed order. Also, from what I understand, very few of these types of projects actually finish in the span of a single weekend. It's just that they aren't critical switches, so having it out of service for a few weeks with nothing happening is not a major problem.
Shifting gears, look what's back for the end of the month:
STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS | 9:30 PM Fri, Aug 24 to 5 AM Mon, Aug 27
No
trains between Myrtle Av and Crescent St in Brooklyn
No trains running - Take the instead
Think they'll get it right this time?
1 -
So, business as usual then.
1 -
You know, I don't know why you guys continue to entertain his ramblings on these things. As @ttcsubwayfan mentioned, he has not changed his tune in the many years he's been a member on this forum and I don't expect that to change any time soon. Much as we all roll our eyes to the latest Wallyhorse idea, we should do the same to anything that FlushingExpress posts because nine times out of ten, it's the same thing repeated time and time again.
3 -
14 hours ago, Caelestor said:
Here are some "recent" service changes that riders complained about but ultimately went through:
-
via 63 St, 
cut back to Court Sq, new 
(later ) service: More trains into Manhattan, reduced overcrowding and delays at Lexington Ave - 53 St.
-
rerouted to 6 Ave, no more
service to Downtown + Brooklyn: New Midtown service for northern Brooklyn, relief for the 
Whenever the MTA proposes a service change, a report is written explaining the pros and cons, and ultimately they go through because the benefits (typically more trains = more capacity = more ridership = fewer delays) outweigh the negatives. If the MTA opts for crossovers instead of flyover tracks at Rogers Junction, deinterlining will be implemented and riders will get used to the new service patterns. The proposed
transfers at Nevins St and Franklin Ave are way less drastic than the changes and would be identical to the transfers at 96 St, 125 St, Chambers St, and Brooklyn Bridge, which people are already used to.
The bottom line is that people want faster and less crowded trains, and this service change is expected to provide a lot of benefits at minimal downside.
A slight correction to your second example: the south Brooklyn extension of the Nassau St
was always going to be eliminated as part of the 2009/2010 service cuts. The idea to combine both the Nassau St and the old lines into one route came about because the alternative was to run two dead-ending lines that terminated relatively close to each other.
0 -
-
And yet they still cannot send an NTT
train to Metropolitan Av without it being signed as everything under the sun except as a to Metropolitan Av.
Really though, why? There hasn't been a
line for nearly 30 years now. What are the odds they'll bring it back?
5 -
To respond to a few posts regarding my most recent post in this thread (because it seems pointless to quote several posts that mostly say the same thing), I'm well aware of how the line would ideally operate if the
did not get in the way with the fumigation process at 71 Avenue. I was simply remarking that the Queens Blvd line rarely operates under ideal circumstances so we can't simply rely on the theory that the trains will automatically be faster without the in the mix. The agency needs to investigate why the line is so slow as of late and fix it. Whether it's poor fumigation practices or extreme slowdowns due to flagging, the weekend Queens Blvd service setup is not new and I can't imagine this problem has existed for the 80 or so years the line has been in existence.
3 -
I think the problem is that if overall service is reduced by the GO and
train service is cut back to Queens Plaza / 96 Street / wherever, that's even worse service for riders. On paper, even with the 12 minute adjusted schedule, that's one train every four minutes when everything runs local as it is this weekend. Remove the and that becomes every six minutes, on paper mind you. With one-directional express service, it's a bit harder to justify cutting the because either the 
or have to run local to compensate. I'm not saying that option should not be considered. I'm saying that if it is, the trains must run tighter to make up for that loss. Otherwise, it just makes a bad situation much worse.
Shifting gears, for those interested, my digital reproduction of the 1979 R44 side sign curtain is now available in the Rollsign Gallery. Check it out, along with my other reproductions.
0 -
I don't see why they would've bothered slicing them up, but this is the TA, so who knows? I guess they just grabbed the first sign curtain available for this random 42.
Shifting gears, I can finally unveil the sign curtain reproduction I hinted at in a previous post.
Date: 1979
Used on: R44
Printed by: Transign
This is the last sign printed in the '67 route color scheme for the R44s and more than likely the entire subway. Subsequent curtains printed for the R44s would all be done so with the '79 route color arrangement. Also, this sign curtain is very similar to one printed for the R42s in 1977 by American Identification Products. The only difference between that sign curtain and the one illustrated here is the inclusion of the "Special" exposures, which are not on the R42 version. These sign curtains also combine route options for the IND north and the RR. Previous signs created for the R40s and R42s would be separated between the A AA B / CC D / RR routes. However, as the RR used R42s from Coney Island, same as the AA and B, it was apparently decided to combine the route options on one roll, rather than the split that persisted from the delivery of the train cars back in the late '60s.
I'm finally back.
Check my signature for my next project.Watch this thread for updates on my next major project.
6 -
13 hours ago, Lawrence St said:
Is Kingsbridge Road on the
still viable to be restored as a station? Just curious.
5 hours ago, Union Tpke said:No.
To further elaborate, all that remains of the former station are the headhouse (sealed since the '40s) and the long-since abandoned trackways for the station. Even if the line were to be extended the thousand feet or so to platform a full-length train, it would require extensive renovations (read: a complete rebuild) to get the station into serviceable condition. Also, an extension of the line will undoubtedly run into the houses that have since cropped up along the former ROW. Unlike Rockaway Beach, which is technically still owned by the city of New York, all of the former NYW&B ROW north of the Dyre Ave tail tracks has fallen into private ownership.
1 -
23 hours ago, Lawrence St said:
Does anyone known when the next
shutdown between Manhattan and Brooklyn will start? I'm dying to see that to 96th St again.
23 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:Check the MTA website.
Specifically, page 49 of this site.
21 hours ago, Vtrain said:Has anyone on this site heard on when the Chambers St J/Z stop will close for rehabilitation when this was announced just not long ago?
The station will remain open for the duration of the project, most of which only pertain to making the station fully accessible. See here for more details.
0 -
On 7/24/2018 at 3:50 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:
The
to New Lots seems to be the norm now. I've noticed that regularly. Not sure why either...
It's a good way to keep service running to/from Brooklyn despite any disruptions and/or capacity constraints on Nostrand Ave.
0 -
This was just posted, right? I try to keep up with the station closures and this came out of nowhere, which is my main problem with the MTA's [lack of] communication. They'll promote the hell out of their half-finished beta site, but real information like this is hidden behind the planned services until the absolute last minute.
0 -
I'll see if I can answer some of the questions you posted.
The RR was based out of Coney Island until 1987, which is likely the reason behind having a RR-only set of signs. The
and 
along with the 
until its 1976 discontinuation all reported out of Jamaica. Obviously, the sign curtains for those routes were split between locals and expresses.
As for R42 car 4665, it's very possible the car was transferred between yards at some point and they replaced the sign curtain as necessary.
Regarding the
and 
being on one sign, in 1976, a new sign curtain design was created that included all IND north routes, along with the ones from Coney Island (the AA/B and 
).
Finally, I believe you're half-right in regards to the updates made to the ED front signs. Some of the signs made at this time only had the K, LL and M, whereas others had a combined route list that matched the side sign curtains printed around the same time. The order for this set was J, K, M, Special, LL and QB. On a side-note, the
was also not a Coney Island line, despite running via Broadway. Since it was only a part-time, rush hour only line at the time, it shared it's fleet with the and later the based out of East New York.
2 -
10 hours ago, Lawrence St said:
A thing I have noticed is that the R179's have new programs that aren't present in the current R160 AAS system, such as the
to 59th St and the to Queens Plaza.
Do we really know if these options aren't available on the 160s? After all, how often does the
terminate at 59 St-Columbus Circle or the uses 160s in the first place, much less run to Queens Plaza?
0 -
1 hour ago, LegoBrickBreaker101 said:
Good news on #3, at least two people have caught an R179 signed as an
so if anyone wants that, go fan it
So I guess they never updated those systems for a
to Metropolitan, eh? Whatever. At least the 179s see some new scenery for once.
0 -
Either similar to how 57 St/6 Av was for when
trains had to run to Manhattan on the weekend, or more likely, by extending the to Queensboro Plaza/Ditmars Blvd to keep it out of the way of through trains.
0 -
Probably, but again, it doesn't display "JAMAICA" even though that's technically correct to alleviate the confusion potential.
0 -
On 7/13/2018 at 9:43 PM, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:
Always forgot to ask it, and seeing that the new M9s are doing it. I wanna know the answer: why do the M7, M8 and now M9 doors delay before closing? They close about 99% first, then after about another 2-3 seconds they close and lock.
I think it's a required safety measure. Even on the subway, you can see that the newer cars take a little longer to close their doors than the older fleet where you can literally slam the doors shut.
1 -
I think the switcheroo is also in place due to the station rehab at 57 Street and the upcoming closure at 23 Street. The last time this service change was in place (Sept. 2017 if I'm not mistaken), the
ran to 34 St-Herald Sq via 6th Avenue while the ran via 53rd Street with downtown service rerouted via 8th Avenue/Cranberry. It's likely not beneficial to run the via 6th Avenue with ongoing station rehab work at those stops, hence this week's service reroute. It allows for service to continue via both 63rd Street and 53rd Street unimpeded.
2 -
With more variety in the yard fleet, East New York now has the ability to rotate these cars about, allowing the 32s to rest occasionally.
0 -
On 7/18/2018 at 5:57 PM, VIP said:
Random thought... perhaps manhattan and Jamaica bound
trains should Read “BWAY-BKLYN LOCAL” or “BWAY-BKLYN EXP” with “VIA JAMAICA LOCAL” because the Myrtle to Marcy Avenues is not Jamaica. Technically the only “Express” along Jamaica is Skip-Stop service during rush hours. Remember when trains were terminating at Broadway Jct, the LEDs read “Bway-Bklyn Local” it’s accurate... What do you think?
To piggyback off of officiallyliam's comment, the entire line from Marcy Av to Jamaica-Parsons is the Jamaica line, so it isn't wrong to label the trains as Jamaica Express/Local. The
was labeled as Broadway-Brooklyn locals to dissuade riders from the incorrect belief that those trains were bound for Jamaica Center. It's likely the same reason why the also shifted from "Jamaica Local" to "Myrtle Av Local" soon after the 2010 service changes.
1
, 
and 
, were modified into J, K, Special; and later, primary sets' front rollsigns (cars 4850s - 4890s) that were assigned on the 
and 
, were modified into J, K, M, Special, LL, QB (like you mentioned). But what was the point of having the 
and 
lines using different sets or... 2 different sets having the same route? What about the side signs? It means they would be like that? 
and 
or something to that effect. My question is how does this work during off-peak hours? When the 
via Brighton either. One of those would likely be relegated to part-time status since they would mirror each other from 57 St-7 Av to Prospect Park and even more if the 
and 
service for the duration of the project, it would probably wrap up in a shorter timeframe. Of course, nobody's going to stand for those kind of operations during peak periods, which leaves us with the slow speed order. Also, from what I understand, very few of these types of projects actually finish in the span of a single weekend. It's just that they aren't critical switches, so having it out of service for a few weeks with nothing happening is not a major problem.
trains between Myrtle Av and Crescent St in Brooklyn
No trains running - Take the 
via 63 St, 
cut back to Court Sq, new 
(later 
service to Downtown + Brooklyn: New Midtown service for northern Brooklyn, relief for the 
did not get in the way with the fumigation process at 71 Avenue. I was simply remarking that the Queens Blvd line rarely operates under ideal circumstances so we can't simply rely on the theory that the trains will automatically be faster without the 
or 
and 
along with the 
until its 1976 discontinuation all reported out of Jamaica. Obviously, the sign curtains for those routes were split between locals and expresses.
and 
being on one sign, in 1976, a new sign curtain design was created that included all IND north routes, along with the ones from Coney Island (the AA/B and 
).
to 59th St and the
SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic
in New York City Subway
Posted
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:
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.