Lance

@Wallyhorse: You keep bringing up how other countries do this and that, as if it matters. Regardless of any real or perceived benefits of elevated lines over subways, you will not see any elevated lines built in New York City, especially not in Manhattan. You can take that to the bank.

@NY Elevated: There's a serious problem with your 6 train proposal. Even if there was demand for a local service to Brooklyn from the Lex, that service cannot terminate at Atlantic Av. Unless those trains deadhead to Utica Av or somewhere else, they will create a conga line of delays along Lexington Ave because the express tracks at Atlantic Av are being used as a terminal for one service while still being a set of through-tracks for other services. You can't have that, especially at the height of the rush hours.

I meant on the 81-84 signs. As you can see on the posted image of the 1981 north signs, 21 St-Queensbridge was not an option as a terminal on the signs. On the later 1988 and '89 signs, this as well as several other stations were added as potential terminals. Since I'm not exactly finished with what I wanted to post for this week's sign curtain, I figured I'd post this one as a holdover of sorts. Compare to this post. Modified: 08/1989 This modification, which covered the first JFK Express reading, was done to reflect the late-night service pattern on 63rd Street. There are a few of these modifications done to some of the rollsigns. I'll post them eventually. Hopefully I'll be done with my intended sign by next week. Until then, stand by.

Those A1s that are laid up on the Hillside express tracks and in the yard are there to go in service for the AM rush. They are all maintained at East New York.

And I reiterate my previous comment when I say I'm damn glad you're not in charge of car equipment. Let's go through this car class by class. The 32s and 42s, I'll give you that one. They should have been gone and the premature retirement of the 44s is the only reason these cars are still in service. However, that doesn't apply to the other cars. The 46s, which you claim are stuck in a time warp. Hmm, I wonder why that is. Maybe it has something to do with them being built in the mid-to-late '70s, making them a product of their time. The MTA isn't going to put out money to update the interior of cars that aren't going to be around much longer, and if they did, you'd be the first in line to complain about frivolous expenses. As for your claims that they're the cause of slow service on the R line, it's funny how it doesn't seem to affect the A and F lines, which use the same cars. It's almost like the R-line's problems are not related to the cars at all. Regarding the '80s cars, the 62s and 68s, well I think you're just fishing for reasons why you don't like these cars. You can find mumbled or hard to understand manual announcements on any train, regardless of age. There are also many instances where said manual announcements are crystal clear. It depends on the conductor. I'll admit the lighting on the cars is lacking and that's because of some bone-headed move to put ad space on top of the light panels.

The W will never be the Broadway Express unless it's brought back in its 2001-04 setup. Otherwise it would just delay the entire line for no real reason because it would have to switch between the local and express tracks twice; once at 34 St and the other at Prince St. While I also don't think the N should return as the Broadway express when Second Ave opens, I understand why it has to be express. There simply isn't enough room for the N, R and W as locals along Broadway. They'd all fit, but it'd be a tight squeeze.

There was never an option to build the Second Ave subway to IRT specs. Ever. Even in the 1939 Second System and '51 BoT proposals that included retention of the 3rd Avenue's Bronx portion of the elevated, the Manhattan subway was always intended to be built for BMT/IND width cars. In fact, the IRT itself wasn't digging and building tunnels to IRT specs following the Dual Contracts and that was well before a Second Ave subway was even envisioned.

Well it's a good thing you're not in charge of car equipment. The 46s are doing quite well for cars that are approaching 40 years in service. There are no inherent structural issues, they aren't rusting and on average, they can go over 90 thousand miles without breaking down. That's pretty damn rail-worthy if you ask me. And the 68s (both types) are doing even better, despite their "dark and depressing" nature.

Now that you've mention it, I've done a bit of digging through both 27 and 68 signs from 84 and 86 respectively. Oddly enough, both sign curtains contained most of the same readings Readings on the 27 north signs not on the 68's: 125 St-St Nicholas Av Queensboro Plaza Reading on the 68 north signs not on the 27's: 21 St-Queensbridge Readings on the 27 south signs not on the 68's: Aqueduct Racetrack Broadway-East New York Canal St, Manhattan Reading on the 68 south signs not on the 27's: Howard Beach-JFK Airport I'll do a little more digging to see if there are any mistakes in the sign curtain.

I will concede my point since a potential Second Ave-Fulton St line could change things dramatically. I just don't see it now. Regarding Second Ave via Nassau St, I still think it should at least be considered. If anything, it'll make Nassau St actually useful for the first time in a very long time. It gives the line a link to midtown and points north without having to transfer to another line. It's the reason why the M is so damn popular. The added transfers the Second Ave line would gain through a Nassau St connection is simply a bonus in my opinion.

And replace them with what? If the relic 32s and the decrepit 42s are still rail-worthy, then surely the 46s are sticking around for as long as possible. As for why they aren't on the R as much, well that's because they're primarily on the F due to the split-R situation.

Yeah, but it's still overkill. Fulton St does not need three lines. Sending the Fulton local to Lefferts isn't the issue. Running about 15 express trains down the line would result in a lot of empty trains unless something drastically changes in terms of ridership. If anything, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but it'd make more sense to just send the C to Church Av on the Culver, rather than this flood of trains that's being thrown about. Of course, this is all based on hypothetical situations that may never see the light of day, so yeah...

What I'd like to believe is that what's posted on the website is not indicative of exactly what's going on. There may have in fact been M trains running to 2 Av, but it's posted as though service is completely suspended on the M so riders aren't looking for M trains. They'll hop on the R, F and J for alternate service, rather than piling on to the probably very delayed M train that pulls into the station. Of course, I'm probably wrong, so don't quote me on this.

Cross-posted from my rollsign thread:

Good afternoon folks. As promised, here is the south destination roll curtain from the 1981-84 series of signs created for the R16s through the R38s. Dated: c1981, 1984.10.01 Printed by: Transign Used on/Intended for: R27-R38 cars See previous post for details on this curtain. Coming up next week: something else not related to the R16-38 group of cars. From which car class, I'm not sure of yet. I do have a question for you. Can any of you find the font (or a similar one) for the original R40 slant signs seen here? I've been wracking my head around this quandary for a couple of weeks now and I'd appreciate the help.

Why would the A and C both serve the Fulton line along with the so-called T? I kind of get sending Second Avenue trains down Fulton St, but having both 8th Avenue lines running would be serious overkill.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but...

Good evening folks. Almost forgot about this, and that would be a shame since I'm trying to keep something resembling a schedule with these posts. I wanted to do something related to yesterday's museum excursion of the Train of Many Metals (I love that name BTW), but that wasn't in the cards. Though, today's sign may have been on the 38s at one point or another so there's that. Without further ado... Dated: c1981, 1984.10.01 Printed by: Trainsign Used On/Intended for: R27-38 cars These signs were the first to use a left-justified format on the 16-38 car classes since the before the opening of Chrystie Street. These were also the last signs to use two-line readings for the interior. Subsequent signs created for the overhauled 32s and 38s would use one-line readings for the interior, presumably for legibility purposes. The 1981 version of this sign did not originally contain readings for 36 St, Brooklyn or Metropolitan Av. Those were added in later as an insert. In terms of the actual readings, this is one of the last destination signs to refer to 6th Avenue as the "Avenue of the Americas". Next week, we'll see the south roll as we close out this period of signs on these cars.

Nope. Not a chance in hell. They'll hopefully get the line built as far as 125th Street and Lexington Ave and then stop.

Eh, I'll take a shot here - suspended between Chambers St and South Ferry - suspended - some southbound trains terminate at World Trade Ctr - split service; 1) 205 St to 2 Av, 2) Atlantic Av to Stillwell Av - via Cranberry in both directions - via Montague in both directions, some southbound trains terminate at 34 St, northbound at Prospect Park

Well, hopefully his proposal also includes a rebuild of DeKalb junction because otherwise D and R trains will cross in front of each other to get to the Bridge/6th Avenue and Montague/Broadway respectively. Unless the R is now the Bridge line with the N being the tunnel local. But then that's just the N via the West End with a new letter.

So you would have the West End being served by a full time local? I'm sure riders would be switching over to the D for express service. Also, unless the switches north of 36 St are replaced with diamond crossovers, the N would have to run local on 4th Avenue as well in order to serve 45 St and 53 St.

Talk about a diversion.

Like I said, here's a sign found on the slants. This is the oldest sign I've recreated thus far. Dated: 1968.02.01, 1969.10.28 Printed by: Translite Used on/Intended for: R40, R42 cars This is one of several signs printed for various lines that used the R40s and/or R42s in the late 1960s and early to mid-'70s. All of these signs are the last to use the older-style fonts. All other signs printed after 1970 would use the Standard (Akzidenz-Grotesk) font. After last week's big sign from the R46s, I decided to post something simple for this time. I'll sprinkle the rest of these R40 signs between other sign posts so I have a bit of a buffer for when I'm busy with other things. Next up is something from the R16-38 group of cars.

Well, it's good they're finding these issues now and not after they get here and are put in service. We already did that song and dance.