Lance

Probably should just get used to it. It's likely much easier to do these recordings in-house rather than outsource them to the Bloomberg team and have to wait for them to send back the updated announcement recordings. I just wish they'd stop using the first take Ms. Mitchell gives as they always sound garbled, which is my main concern as the whole point of the automated announcements is that they should sound clearer than the average conductor.

My main concern with this is that unless there is subsequent platform reconstruction on the Jamaica and Myrtle Ave lines, one of those Jamaica / Queens Blvd express lines will get the shaft with shortened trains due to the Eastern Division constraints. It would be even worse if the became the line that ran to Jamaica Center as that branch is already restricted to a lower output due to the line's construction and poor switch placement. Sure, this problem can be resolved quite easily by resurrecting the (running it along the proposed route through 2 Avenue), thus removing the length restriction, and restoring the old service, but then we'd eliminate direct midtown service for Myrtle Ave riders, forcing them back onto the much-overcrowded trains. Tis the issues of a half-built line... Also, isn't the Williamsburg Bridge another restricted stretch of track? Can the bridge handle the combined output of the and expanded service? I recall that during the planned Canarsie shutdown, service was going to have to be reduced to fit the additional trains that would run to/from Manhattan during the closure. Wouldn't this restriction still apply? Obviously this is not as big of an issue as the first point since 2 Avenue can easily turn around the overflow that could not run across the bridge, but it's still something to consider. Re: Ditmars Blvd - I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but what's the current terminal capacity here?

I wouldn't be surprised if they get upgrades similar to the ones planned for the 142s and 142As as they are around the same age. As long as the trains are well maintained, the trains will be fine. The present problem is that the 143s are the primary car class for the busiest single-service subway line. It's also hampered by the fact that only the 143s and a relatively low amount of the 160A1s are capable of running on the line, making the trains much more likely to break down. They definitely didn't order enough of them. Of course, the 143s were ordered in 2000 when the line's ridership wasn't literally bursting at the seams. It was growing, but it was manageable at the time. By the time they wanted to change over to CBTC signaling, they were delayed partly by a lack of usable cars, which is why they had to wait for the 160s to arrive in 2007 before switching over.

I'm glad you said this. Way too often, I'm seeing calls for streamlined services simply to avoid using switches, which can be quite counterproductive at times. Some ideas, like the oft-mentioned Broadway for example, are prime ideas that would be immensely beneficial with few downsides as long as the replacement services are operated correctly. On the other hand, I've seen several ideas that obviously do not take ridership patterns into consideration at all and assumes everyone would be willing to transfer to another line as long as there is sufficient service. Sometimes it's much more efficient to simply keep the riders on the trains instead of forcing them to transfer, especially when it's the bulk of the train's load doing the transferring.

Everyone's covering their asses in case it doesn't happen. Can't be blamed if they were just reporting what someone else told them. Its like CNN with a Buzzfeed article and about just as hilarious.

Who knows? Maybe when they were ordered, they used the same specifications as they did for the replacement curtains for the R16-38 classes back in the early 80s. After all, the R68s were ordered in 1982. That means it was not outside the realm of possibility the replacement bulkhead signs for the older cars didn't occur around the same time as the order for new signs for the incoming R68 series. The only real difference between those signs and the ones for the new cars is the inclusion of the JFK Express route on the latter.

So much for making the full-length.

It sounds like a combination of route unfamiliarity on the part of the conductor and bit of bad information from dispatch. Or it could a case misremembering switch placement. It is possible to hit Bay 50 Street then immediately switch over to the express tracks for the rest of the West End line in the northbound direction.

As promised, to round out the original sign curtains found on the 68s, here are the head end route curtains: Used on: R68s As with the destination signs created, this is the last curtain that would contain route options that the trains themselves could not easily access. The only exception to this would be the route curtains on the 44s and 46s, which also contain the Eastern Division routes. However, since these curtains were ordered and created in bulk for all of overhauled 40s - 46s, this can be excused. This would also be the last curtain to contain the diamond N route option as subsequent sign curtains would be created following the N / R terminal switch in May 1987, eliminating the rush-hour N short-turns at Whitehall St, which were labelled as such on maps and trains.

Stations that haven't received major renovations since the '80s still retain those Standard font signs. As long as they aren't in the way of a new wiring installation or something, those old signs usually stick around. Of course, there are instances where they are left alone even during a rehabilitation project. The northern part of the East 180 Street station with the freestanding signs comes to mind for this one.

To add on, as one of the closest stations to Times Square outside of the eponymous station, 49 Street ranked at 38th in terms of annual usage in 2017.

Amendment: Off-hours train service will be suspended between Broadway Junction and 8 Avenue for the next seven weeks for prep-work related to the partial closure. https://new.mta.info/l-project/jan-april-2019-servicechanges

Expect a slowdown in new arrivals as Transit has halted delivery of any new cars until the existing problems with the rest of the car class can be resolved. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nyc-transit-stop-taking-train-cars-bombardier-until-144525931--finance.html

The best option is the one that Transit is being strong-armed into not considering. The second-best would be to suspend off-hours service entirely and run a modified contingency service plan with boosted service on the appropriate lines to compensate. This is a perfect case of having your cake and eating it too. Everyone wants service to run unimpeded across the river but the work still has to be done as they do not have the opportunity to punt this down the road. These half-assed measures are the end result. Now that they are forced to go along with the bad option, they have to work around it to avoid an incredibly dangerous situation in stations not even remotely equipped to handle the crowds expected under such a reduction of service. There's a reason why Transit painted this partial closure idea as the worst option when presented back in 2016 and it wasn't just to piss riders off. Transit knows they will feel the full brunt of the criticism when this all comes to a head once this partial shutdown begins, hence the pushback to the article. Riders aren't going to blame Cuomo for cancelling the shutdown because his panel of experts said that the tunnel can be repaired without impacting service. Instead, they're going to go after the MTA when the inevitable sea of riders crowds the stations during the service reduction periods.

Keep the discussion to the relevant topic at hand. There are appropriate threads for the partial Canarsie shutdown. Use them and do not clog up other threads with irrelevant commentary.

The original order predated the plan to extend the to ten-car length trains several other changes to the requirements for overall B-Division service. Originally, the order was a straight replacement for the remaining 32s and 42s on the and lines, both of which at the time used 480-foot trains. The five-car sets were to be used for fleet expansion in anticipation of the then-unopened Second Ave extension. The only good thing about the extreme delays in delivery of these cars was that it allowed for a change in the order at no expense to the MTA. This was mentioned a few pages back.

Not to rain on anyone's parade here, but a couple of things: 1) first and foremost, the design and purchase of these cars is slated for a "future capital plan". That could mean the 2020-2024 plan or one well into the future, which leads to 2) the 40 year benchmark is a guideline for a train's optimal lifespan. That does not mean the 62s will start retiring in 2022. If that was such a hard figure, we wouldn't have the 46s (40-43 years in service), the 42s (49-50 years) or the 32s (54-55 years). With good maintenance, Transit can and likely will, extend the lifespans of the 62s so they can focus on replacing all of the much older cars still in service.

There's no real need to replace the strip maps on the 142/142As with a FIND system like those found on the 160s and 179s as the cars rarely leave their home lines. The only consistent swapping of cars only occurs on the and lines and that issue was resolved with the combined strip map design for the two routes.

We know one thing, there will have to specialized consists for both the 42nd Street shuttle (to be extended to six-car lengths) and the Franklin Ave shuttle (limited to 180-feet car lengths at Franklin Av and Park Place).

If the date is correct, it would predate the overhauls of both the R40 straight ends and R42 cars by about two years, meaning they would not have had the horizontal rollsign mechanisms installed. I believe the offset could be a result of the angle the picture was taken and/or incorrect installation of the curtain on the apparatus. As for the signs themselves, in the mid-'80s, Transit created several interim sign curtains inhouse with the Bergen Street Sign Shop before outsourcing the job out to the usual slew of creators. One version contained a diamond Q with the Helvetica font while another would contain a diamond B and C with no option for the Q whatsoever. We'll take a look at these interim creations in their entirety at a later point.

Is anyone really surprised? That meeting was a complete farce and only served to paint the full-closure supporters as the opposition. As soon as it was announced earlier this month, the modified plan was always going to be the one that went forward. The only way it will not is if there is some significant structural deficiency found that completely prevents its use, like how the was kicked off the Manhattan Bridge in late 1990 after it was determined that continued use of the south tracks would further damage the structure.

I can't give you a cost/benefit analysis, but a conservative estimate of the entire combined project could be somewhere around $3bn. Restoring the Rockaway Beach line itself would be a massive expense as everything along the ROW would have to be replaced to current standards that meet ADA requirements. Nothing along that ROW can be salvaged as it's been left to rot since the early '50s. The second expense would be extending the Fulton St tunnels from Court St to the East River. Comparing it to similar expenses like the Flushing extension, which cost about $2bn for a mile-long extension from Times Square, it's not outside the realm of possibility that a half-mile stretch of new tunneling would be around a billion. Of course, that does not account for land acquisition that would be necessary as the entire area is full of very narrow streets that don't meet up with Court and Schermerhorn Sts. The final and largest expense would be the cross-river tunnel itself. Digging around both the Montague and Joralemon tunnels and any other obstructions can will likely drive up costs. In order for this to actually be beneficial, especially the Rockaway Beach portion, that line would have to pick up a ton of riders from that section alone. The actual Rockaways line has a direct connection to Manhattan with the , despite the low frequency there. Anything that ran via Rockaway Beach and Queens Blvd would take about the same amount of time to reach Manhattan as its Fulton St counterpart. Without a bypass (another large expense), Rockaway Beach does not have the draw required to offset the high costs unfortunately.

While we wait for @Ilia to release his reproduction of the original R40 slant sign curtains, we can take a look at another set of replacements for the front signs of their straight-end cousins: Date: Sept. 16, 1987 Printed by: Transign Used on: R42 When these signs were placed in use on the trains, the cars in question were scattered across the system to provide necessary service during the delivery process of the R68 series of cars and the GOH of various car classes at the time, including the R40 slants. With the exception of the A and C, it was not outside the realm of possibility to see the 42s in service on any of the routes shown above on a semi-regular basis, at least according to the car assignments at the time. While the Manhattan Bridge south tracks closure was in effect at the time, that major service change seems to have had little impact on the sign order as the options are essentially from 1985, especially in regards to the Q, which was converted to a normal hours route in 1986, losing its rush hour diamond route designation. This is the last sign curtain produced for the R40-42 series of cars before their overhauls. Subsequent sign curtains produced would be horizontal in nature as the sign curtain mechanism was changed across all of the R40s-R46s during their respective overhauls. This curtain would also be the last in the R40-42 series to omit routes that were not travelled often on these particular cars, as the post-overhaul signs would include every possible route that existed at the time. Next time, we'll finally wrap up the R68s' original signs.

Ooh, the original '68 slant curtains. Can't wait.

To answer the actual question, the post-overhaul signs had several extraneous options that wouldn't be possible without reversing or clogging up the line. Along with Astoria Blvd, there's both City Hall and Canal St on the 32s' north sign curtains and Kew Gardens-Union Tpke and Rockefeller Center on the south destination signs. I think their inclusion was to make up for the lack of adequate destination options on some of the older pre-overhaul signs (some of which dated back to Chrystie St). I guess if there was some incident that closed off the platforms at Ditmars Blvd, but left the tracks open to continue Astoria line operations, they would be able to correctly display the terminals for such an occasion. Oddly enough, this situation actually happened back in 2001, where trains terminated at Canal St, but relayed at the closed World Trade Center station due to the cleanup of the WTC site.