Grand Concourse

Um, what's with the blank post javier?

 

What's the point of mismatching the sets ?

Well, it was going to happen eventually. They weren't going to keep them in the same 11 car group forever. Whatever is ready to run, they take. No different than with the R62As. I just hope they don't mistakenly connect two 6 car sets together.

The Corona cars do move around the system for maintenance, so the stickers would then come in use to identify where they belong.

Well considering the R142/As on the 2/4/5/6 lines have gone for years without yard stickers, I kinda find it doubtful they'd all of a sudden put back yard stickers on the R142A converts and R188s on the 7. Plus if they see the numbers, as well as keep the train intact as 11 cars, it can't be that difficult to know it belongs to the 7.

Anyone know why UP gets to keep majority of their RTS? They have 260+ buses with less heavier lines than FB. Or will they move/scrap their RTS when the lfs's come in?

*fixt.

 

Well UP can't handle the hybrids, so that is sorta why FB has been shafted with the ngs from FP since they already have a ng fleet. UP will eventually get a new batch of buses to replace their rtss. Eny's rts fleet is really old and despite the xd40s they have, they also probably need those rtss they got from fb.

Ideally, yes, but that means building a new river tunnel and adding more expense. The line isn't even getting a full commitment to go past 72nd st going south to at least 14th st or Houston let alone ready for an extension north into the Bronx especially when the main focus is to get riders in Manhattan off the 4/5/6 and to take the Q instead.

 

Erm, wouldn't extending SAS to two more stops in the Bronx at 3 Av-138 St with a free transfer to the and 3 Av-149 St with a free transfer to the be worth it? That way, the two SAS tracks wouldn't have to turn sharp from 2 Av north to 125 St west. The two SAS would just simply stay straight into the Bronx without making any curves at all. I prefer this over the transfer at 125 St-Lex anyday.

I understand what you are getting at, but other than helping out 2 train riders from having another option of getting to Manhattan or 6 train riders getting a less roundabout way of getting to the west side with a Q to 2 transfer, it still won't justify the expense given how phase 3 and 4 aren't even committed to and phase 2 on a bubble. And as mysteriousbtrain pointed out: 125th-Lex sorta does just that. Basically if a person is going to the Bronx, they are probably staying on the 4/5/6 anyway. The Q will more or less be for those on the east side so they can stay off the Lex and have their own line with more direct access to the west side of midtown.

 

I personally believe that Phase 3 should go ahead of Phase 2, because it provides a new trunk line, which will be needed for additional service.

I would have 4 tracks from 63 to 42nd, so that additional trains can terminate on the center tracks at 42nd. The line would connect up with the Nassau St Line and the BMT Jamaica Line. Then J and Z trains would be rerouted over 2nd Avenue,

I would have the J terminate at 96th and the Z to 42nd. The T would operate from 96th to 9th Avenue on the West End.

Understandable, but ending at 96th doesn't help many people. Phase 2 is what will make the SAS a stubway to a semi useful line. I do agree phase 3 is also needed, but phase 2 can be done now, why start over again when the street is already dug up and then seal it off again for later? Don't 'half ass' a project in the middle when it should be done completely. There's no back up for the Lex north of 96th. At least to 125th if something goes down on Lex, riders can have a backup in the Q and take that down and get back to Lexington av at 59th or Union Sq.

Phase 3 as important as it is, is not really that 'needed' given by midtown you already have several other trunk lines in the area already. 

 

As for your J/Z idea, I dunno. 8 car trains aren't really ideal and it remains to be seen if the line will be 4 tracks wide at that segment. Plus with a connection from the QBL at 63rd st, it would make more sense to have a line there connect to 2nd av and run south. [Perhaps as part of another project to build a new Queens trunk line to help ease the burden on the QBL, but that's another subject.]

I still sorta agree with the idea to annex the Nassau/center st line for the SAS and cut out the actual phase 4 plan down water st. The main issue would be how to get a 10 car train to work on platforms that at best can hold a 9 car train. [ie close off a car or have barriers to prevent people from exiting into an empty space vs a platform.]

5146, 5148-5149 FB to EN.

2401 YU to UP.

6012, 6016-6017 EC to CP. Not sure what's up with that.

 

4919 JA to CS. [likely loan]

Oh 'wonderful', it's not enough FB got/will get 30 ngs [from FP] to replace the 5170-99 batch [to ech and eny], but will lose more RTSs for the Xd40s. So basically give more lf buses to the depot with some of the longest and crowded lines where it's almost a miracle when people actually moves to the back of the bus instead of pushing out one of the other NG batches to take on the xd40s.

Top Gear has been getting boring since Hammond's accident, sadly.  I'm not blaming it on him, but most stuff just feels scripted and they're getting old.

I don't find it boring. Some of the stuff is over the top like that ambulance episode, but that's what i love about the show, the absurdity. The all car reviews have been boring.

 

I just hope it is resolved soon before they run out of the specials they've been airing to fill in for an episode.

The phase 2 plan of ending the line under the lex is a 'cheap' way/excuse to say they have built the line to help riders from the bronx instead of actually building the line into the bronx. Otoh, i'm not opposed to the sas turning westward under 125th. If they could extend that to at least cpw, it would be a great 'crosstown' line. there is only the m60sbs and bx12sbs as their 'fastest' option to get from one side to the other.

Is there a reason why the R62A's transfers from the aren't paired together on the ? For example; 2306-2310/2221-2225

Someone did report seeing an 1800 set (purple stickers) with a 2000s (red sticker) set. If they need trains, they can mix them as they are the same trains. With more trains to come off the 7, i don't think the final yard fleets are done yet. And it may be possible the 2000s goes to the 1 and 1660s to the low 2000s goes to the 6 and S.

More than likely this action will take place on the remaining R62As on the .

I kinda doubt it. There's no point reprinting new 7 train maps for the r62as when they will eventually be all moved off to the 6 either some months before or after the station opens, depending on how much longer it is going to take to open that station for service.

tbh, I don't really care about the front design being that much different from the R143/160s. I just wished it wasn't the all black front again. I think it would've been nicer if there was something that could distinguish between the Alstom and Kawasaki sets from a distance like one being red and the other blue like the MNCR trains. imo.

I saw that set today at Times Square. Weird how it's arranged: 7336-7340, 7331-7335. They always put the C cars in the middle for testing.

But aren't C cars supposed to be right next to the A cars on both ends of the train?

What sources did you hear this from?! What reasons were there? Come on, be specific!

1909 was scrapped years ago, which means 1906-8 and 1910 would be a 4 car train. It will never be a 5 car set and would be the most likely cars for garbage duty. 

Actually 1926-1965 will be converted to 5 car units. *1961-1965 are still singles for now.

Also 7321-7329-7910-7330 are in service.

I sure hope so. But didn't they already link some of the shuttle cars into 3 and 4 car sets already? Forgive me if this has been answered, but when trains are linked, can they be unlinked and reconnected into a new set? I get the idea is to remove the components in a car that would not be used as an end car for the t/o to operate the car, but with the shuttle cars, they could've just linked 2 cars leaving a single for flexibility instead of all 3 non consecutive numbered cars.

They also really need to get around to rebuilding the TS platform of that line to hold 5 car trains.

Well after the major swap is done (whether people like it or not), the remainders are up in the air as to where they will go. Of course too early to say. But yes, that r62 set will go back to the 3.

What about the 6 riders? That line isn't all underground. My point was about the ppl here still trying to talk about the 2,4,5 lines. Those three are not changing trains. The swap is just the 6 and 7, nothing else.

are your posts a joke?

Jeez gone for over 2 weeks and i see all this crap on this thread? I am starting to wonder the very same thing. He offers no proof of what he says and how hard is it for people to understand? The r62as have to go back somewhere. If you don't like the old trains on the 6, then find an alternative mode of transportation if it bothers you that much. The r62as is not a total downgrade like when the J has to lend r160as to the C for r32s every summer, so calm the hell down. Just because the r62as don't have the automated announcements or blinking station displays and stuff, it still has a/c and heat and takes you from point a to b. Deal with it.

Plus the 'assumptions' haven't really helped. I'd still like someone to confirm if a t/o really did walk from one end of the train to another on the GC S instead of the optos on each end.

They have red stickers on them, however there is some yellow showing through the red here and there.

 

So basically just stickers peeling off.

Yellow stickers for all of them or just one car in the set? I mean i think it'd be nice to bring the yellow stickers back, but pointless to do this for the entire fleet.

The 7 is gaining a new car with every convert set coming in as well as the 8 new trains. By the time all the swapping is done, there will be a more R62As on the mainline than R142As sent out. In a way it is like trading 10 R142As to the 7 and sorta getting back 11 R62As (of course not 11 at the same time, but the 11th car will eventually be sent back in a 10 car train).

As for the person some weeks ago asking how anyone knows the numbers of the car fleets: there's wikipedia and nycsubway.org which has all the numbers listed. Just look it up there if you want to know the car numbers. As for where the trains are, well that's just observations by people riding the lines everyday. Nothing complicated about it.

As for the person asking about that isolated car '7218' and now the special strip map with '10th av'. Please buy a camera for proof because you aren't helping your case by making baseless claims. Just saying.

Apples and oranges. The buses they have don't have the carbody issues the R44s have. They can't run the R44s and had to pull all of them from service.

Probably because they did not anticipate the earlier retirement of the R44s.

There's no 201st St yard. Did you mean 207th? And why would it be by itself?

Hem, I don't remember slants on the W till after it became a part time line with the bridge work done. All I remember seeing were R68/As on it. But yeah it was a decent line. One time (during the bridge work) a W i was on must've been really late as it was sent via the N Sea beach express track to Stilwell av. Non stop from 59th-4th av.

I am not sure. I would guess the mta probably used the options and did not expect to need more R160 8 car sets because of the R44 retirement. Otherwise they would've retired all their R42s and most of the R32s on the C already. If the R44s were still around, they probably would've been given to the C.

I'd just wish/hope Phases III and IV aren't designed like a half ass job like I and II are destined to be. You know two track with CBTC but it is what it is.

Yes, hopefully it will be 4 tracks with the hope that maybe there will be an eventual connection from a Queens line down 2nd av. Even 3 tracks for phase 1 and 2 would've been ideal or even just a 3 tracked 72nd st station to short turn trains could've been helpful. But it is what it is because corners have to be cut to get the project from going way way over budget.

No one is going to walk from 96th St and Lex to 96th and 2nd just to make a transfer. It will still relieve the Lex, and it's projected to get a lot of riders, so I don't know what your concern is...

Exactly. At that point a rider should know where they are going and it's their fault if they get on the wrong line well short of their destination. By that thinking, maybe the 4 and D lines in the Bronx should have transfers to each other north of 161st since they run side by side.

The point of the SAS is to make things easier for those east of Lexington av to get to a subway line and so everyone can spread out over 2 lines instead of trying to cram onto a narrow and short irt sized train.

Yeah, I heard that the MTA was planinng on restoring the W line service. Hope they do, because it sucked that the 2 newest lines (both started in 2001) got canned in the 2010 doomsday mess.

V sorta lives on as the new M. The old M to Bay Pkwy was axed and I guess probably deserved to be since those trains were barely filled.

The W, I think survived only because Astoria ridership grew to the point where they needed 2 lines serving them. Otherwise the W would've just gone away since it was just to replace the B when 6th av service was cut from the Manhattan bridge construction. I always felt the W should've stayed as a rush hour only line since the Q basically does the same thing when extended to Astoria and the N is just so slow crossing over the tracks at Prince st to run over the bridge.