Lance

The exterior signs do indeed display the diamond for express runs, but for whatever reason, it's not working on the interior signs. It's possibly a glitch in the programming.

If I explicitly meant the "A line" as you see it I would have explicitly typed "the ".

 

And if the R32's were retired the damn R44's would have stayed. They would have ultimately been forced to pick the lesser of two evils, and by that I mean car classes.

 

The MTA may do a lot of stupid shit, but they usually manage to come through with having an actual fleet to provide service. Cutting the outright would have been the biggest f**k up of 2010 and even I could never even fathom that.

You're right. Even if by some stroke of extremely bad luck and the 32s were retired before the 44 issues cropped up, they would not cut an important secondary line like the C. The merger of the M and V may not have happened and a few lines would've seen reductions in service. Of course, the 179 order would've been rushed up a bit and whatever 44s that were in good enough condition to be in service would remain active.

The problem with a question like that is there are so many variables to deal with. Where will these lines run? Specifically, where are the termini? That plays an important part as to how often trains can run (which is another question), especially when the terminus of one line is a through-station for another. Also to be included is when these lines would operate. Would they run all day or just for one part of the day? You really can't answer the question of how many lines can be run without dealing with or eliminating some of these factors.

Reminder: The goal of FASTRACK is to shut down a specific part of a line while affecting as few other lines as possible. It's also to spend as little money on providing alternate methods of transit as possible. Your (or )to 168 St does the opposite of that. Your idea calls for the extension of the to damn near its full length, but along Central Park West instead of Queens Blvd or extending the well beyond its full length route and for what benefit? You claim it's to provide good service for line riders east of Broadway-East New York, but if either of your ideas were implemented, riders would still have to transfer between the and at the Junction (and would have to transfer again if your plan specifically was enacted). On the subject of the option, what would serve the stations south of Delancey-Essex Sts? You can't shaft one part of the system at the "benefit" of another. Once again, it looks like you're trying to serve a very niche market by rearranging the subway when the easiest option is the one the MTA put forward, which is to run shuttle buses through the affected area.

Probably can. With the list of weird ass rerouted that would likely never happen (like the to Far Rockaway), I wouldn't hold doubt on it

Of course, the semi-useful ones (J to Metropolitan, E to 168 St) are strangely absent. Go figure.

so the 179s are coming in 2014, right??? i'm sick of operating those 32s and 42s! lol

The test train should be ready by late 2014 and they should enter service sometime that following year, but you know how that goes.

Short answer: pretty much yes. In one way or another.

Looking at the month ahead (weekend-wise), here are the major disruptions that are planned for January:

- no service between 149 St and Woodlawn (1/4, 1/11)

- shuttle buses run from 149 St to 161 St, Woodlawn to Bedford Park Blvd

- no service between E 180 St and 149 St-Grand Concourse (1/18)

- shuttle service runs every half-hour along Dyre Avenue branch

- no direct service between Howard Beach and the Rockaways (1/4)

- shuttle buses replace trains between 205 St and Bedord Park Blvd (1/18)

- alternate Queens-bound trains turn at Bedford-Nostrand Avs (1/11, 1/18)

- no service between Essex St and Chambers St (1/11)

- service extended from 71 Av to 179 St (1/18)

A few more things of note include the running via 53rd Street (Queen-bound) almost every weekend, the and via Rutgers and via Cranberry (both Brooklyn-bound) for a weekend each and one-direction express only service along parts of the Queens Boulevard Line.

Well the ultimate solution to this entire thread, not to boast is simple. The MTA in the 60's and 70's should have carried out their promise to replace the 3rd Ave El with the to the Bronx with a new subway as stated in their presentations. That would have solved everything.

Yes, the "ultimate solution". As if it's so feasible. Not to be mean or anything, but from the way you name-check the T-line, some would assume you're getting a paycheck every time you do so.

Why were the (N)'s running on the local track at 59th street (Brooklyn) this weekend? 

If you're talking about Sunday specifically, there were track issues at 36 St/4v so dispatch may have decided to run the trains on the local tracks to avoid the problem.

There's even a Second Ave Elevated build option on those pages of the document? I loled hard at that one reading it in the summary report.

Was that portion ghost-written by Wallyhorse?

Don't take that too seriously.

I overheard an MTA employee say the vintage train won't run next Sunday due to track work. Anyone can confirm this?

Next weekend, 53rd Street will be shut down in both directions for construction. E-trains will run via the F-line between 21 St and W 4 St.

Not for nothing, but your post is a bit contradictory. If the C had a lot of hot cars when it ran the A1s last summer, what would sending more over there do? Besides, wasn't last summer's swap a two-fold solution of upgrading the 160s out of East New York and giving the 32s some much-needed fresh air for the compressors? Unless the former is still going on next summer, wouldn't it make more sense to return to the 32/46 swap?

Yep. Last day too.

The 62As will run on the 6, the converted 142As will run on the 7. That has been the plan from the beginning and it has not changed. Maybe if the 4 ran the majority of the 142As and not the 6 line, the former would be the recipient of the 62As.

A better question would be "which sets don't use the "Manhattan-bound" announcement in Manhattan?" If I'm not mistaken, it's a glitch in the software that leads to this happening on the trains. I don't think it's really limited to any particular sets, unlike when someone catches a train with older transfer announcement files or old strip maps.

Before anyone asks, check out this link for what a Plan 4 is.

http://stationreporter.net/weather_plans.htm

Not listed is Plan 5, which calls for partial line shutdowns due to hazardous conditions. This usually affects the open embankment lines like Dyre Avenue or the Brighton.

Like I said, service to and from Jamaica Center seems to be unaffected, based on how this service advisory is worded. If it was affected, the advisory would read something like "Trains run every [X] minutes between [briarwood] Van Wyck Blvd and Jamaica Center." Instead, it reads as such: "Additional service operates between World Trade Center and [briarwood] Van Wyck Blvd." There will be additional service on the E-line for those two weekends, not less. It's just that those added trains will run to 179 St instead of Jamaica Center.

Late nights and weekends it will run to/from Essex St. Now if it will still run OPTO on weekends is another question...

It'll remain OPTO unless it's extended past Essex St. Also, the M will run to Essex St during the daytime and evening hours on weekends. Service will continue to terminate at Myrtle Av during the overnight hours.

It dosent say massive.Just says ongoing signal problems.Give a little explanation and some updates as to when service will be restored.its been going on for about 18 hours now.

Ny1 says its a broken fiber cable.They say they are hoping service will be restored.They are giving better explanations as to when service will be restored.

http://www.ny1.com/content/news/transit/199878/l-train-issues-cause-morning-commute-headaches

Since I can't watch the video without a TWC account (stupid if you ask me, but whatever), I'm going to have to take your word that some other information was mentioned in the aforementioned video because the article itself just paraphrases the MTA service alert.

It's a massive signal malfunction. It's been stated in the service advisories. How much clearer does it have to be?

The way it's worded makes it sound like service to 179 St will be added on top of normal service to Jamaica-Parsons, not halved. That's why I'm wondering if there will be a reduction in F-line service as a result.

Here's an interesting service change (starts the weekend of 12/14):

 Additional service operates between World Trade Center and Van Wyck Blvd 

Weekends, 9 AM to 7 PM, Sat, until Dec 21 
                  11 AM to 6 PM, Sun, until Dec 22 

Alternate  trains run to/from the 179 St  Station.

I doubt it. The only reason why the 142 signs flicker between readings is because of the particular displays used. The 142s use signs made by Pocatec while the 142As and up use signs by either Luminator or Telecite.

Wait a minute... One minute you complain about the not maximizing on services they provide, and then the next you complain about them trying to market their services to get more people to use it.  Which is it?  They're marketing their SBS service because they want to increase usage on their bus network. I don't see anything so terrible about that.

I'm just questioning why these glorified limited bus routes have to be announced while the rest of the bus network gets left to the wayside. The other local/limited bus routes don't get a mention. And I never said it was terrible that they're mentioned.