Grand Concourse

i take it the rts was 919(5)*? And the o5 was 180? I saw them too when walking to fb av this afternoon as well. *give or take that range

O5 #180 on the q35 few hours ago. So looks like they are still around.

On the sbs thing, it also 'helps' that the sbs replaced the limited (at least on the m15), so it's not like some have a choice anyway especially if they are going a further distance. uh, what? And is this why you are so obsessed over the <1> thing? The 4 and 5 are also packed on lexington av, what about the 'safety' there?

God help you if you were to sit in a M7 3 seater or the 2 seater for 2-3hrs. I don't mind 2 seaters if the seat isn't cramped, but I'd be miserable for sitting there for that long sitting with some stranger. The middle seat mainly serves to give the 2 outer seats more breathing room, but otherwise they would've been better off with the same 2x2 seats that the C3 has. I wished I took a measuring tape with me to see the width difference, but it feels like a world of difference. The M7s are narrower than the M1/3 (thus all those platform gap issues), so it stands to reason they slimmed down the seats to fit the new dimensions. They should've kept the same dimensions of at least the 2 seaters as on the M1/3.

With how there seems to be more JFK buses on the Q35 than FR ones, maybe both depots should be merged on the roster*. Hard to keep track over who 'owns' what.

The only good thing about it was that it made getting on trains on the UES a little more tolerable and sped up the commute for those north of Burnside av. But that said, probably not a good idea to bring it back.

Another artic on the Q35, but the rear sign was displaying Q10. #1003/13, didn't get a clear view and you can still see the old 54xx number.

smh, why is this 9 or <1> talk still going on? Even the 4, with it set up for express service, can't have that because like the 1, the local stops have too much demand to lose any service. Express above 96th will never happen for all the reasons listed in this thread.

I rode off peak, but the point is they don't sit there unless they are forced to. At least keep the dimensions of the seat close to the M1/3 seats and make the 5th seat smaller.

Lol, honestly never had that issue with the armrests, but i avoid the 2 seaters because I was crushed in this one time years ago by this other guy, who wasn't that much bigger than me. I forgot where to where, but it wasn't a comfortable ride for at least 30min or something. I never had that sort of issue on the m1/3 seats. This is why the c3 seats are so good and i rather all trains had 2x2 seats so 4 ppl sits comfortably over 5 cramped ppl (and most of the time that middle seat on the 3 seaters are empty anyway). The hell with capacity, if i have to pay for my ticket, i want a decent seat size or room to stand.

M7 seats suck. I dunno how the M8 ones are, but I'd rather it be reversed. Send some M7s to MNCR and give the LIRR all the M9s.

Rode artic #1003 on the Q35. Looks like the artics are sticking around

Front section or the back? If the back, I hope it means other buses get that seating arrangement (if it was a 'recent' change). = As for the xd40 thing, lmfao. I dunno whether to smh or laugh at how dumb that was. Otoh, at least it wasn't some profanity or drawing of a penis (some years back someone vandalized an airtrain poster with the train as a dildo).

Wasn't the problem that the Rockaways part of the line couldn't handle multiple R160s in a row? If it was like 1 train at a time (like the test) then it was fine.

Well no suburban seated RTSs with them all converted to the hard plastic seats. And they aren't getting O5s (probably unlikely as Grand av is better adapt to handle them). I get that maybe the BM1 would be closer to FB, but it won't work as FB works as a local only depot. I don't know where UP is, so I think by default just leave the BM lines at SC.

The B100 covers an area the B2 does only in a more direct line. If the B2 and B100 were merged, there'd be no excuse to reduce service as it would be the only line running. The B9 seems to have like half of their buses short turn at av L and FB av on weekends. And the point is none of this merger will likely happen no thanks to the unions refusing to approve inter agency swaps. The whole point is why have such a long dead head for a route that is closer to another bus depot? The FB segment has other options running down. There's no point in running half filled B2 buses to KP.

:Shrugs: Both run thru residential areas. I guess the B2 covers a little more ground than the B100. B100 sorta cuts thru. I guess it's really a good case for either route.

There's no need to extend either past 16th st. That's what the B82 is for. I don't think the Bm1 should be moved either as FB should stick with local only buses.

Ok.. But that was my point, the mta isn't making decisions because the ridership demanded things thru political means. That's why i never believed that argument at all. Of course any rational person picks whatever takes them to point b first (at least if over a short distance and where the lines still run together, a person is not likely taking a 3 if they were going to the bronx).

technically yes and no on the extra cars. There are new 5 and 6 car r188s on top of the inserts (not just the converts), but these will most likely be so the 7 will have enough trains when extended to the javits center. Depending on how many trains that segment needs, there could be a few spares left for additional service on the mainline, but not the many to make a major difference. And being older trains, the r62as will probably need a few more spares than the ntts do. As for the r62as, yup, they will be more or less (as long as things don't change anytime soon) moving from the 7 directly to the 6. No need to add the 1 into it other than maybe giving them an extra train set or two if needed.

I never meant to slam what others said. I'm just stating something that i said ages ago as being a simple less confusing merge. The whole point is the b100 should've been a fb route. for the most part they overlap because the b100 was a competing line. Now under the mta umbrella, there is no reason why they must both be kept and they could focus on making the new line better and freeing up some resources. The other point was that you said you were tired about reading the same idea over and over again and i am assuming you mean the other minute changes the others said making their plans different from each other causing the discussion to continue on without end.

There's nothing wrong with it. The issue is people over thinking how to 'fix it'. I think the ideal solution is stick with the B2, but when it gets to FB, it would make a left up Utica and then a right onto Fillmore in place of the B100. Riders can transfer to the B9/41/Q35 to continue down to KP (it would be a 3rd leg transfer and won't charge another fare). There's no reason why SC has to send buses all the way to Fillmore av when the FB depot is right there at Utica av. The union issue is the other hurdle in this B2/B100 thing.

I've had some drivers that forces me to walk to where the stand is instead of letting us on if he's behind another bus at the stop and then at the junction, refuses to let us off till we are right next to the subway entrance. Other drivers woul allow everyone off if we are close enough because of all the traffic from nostrand and it eliminates the main worry about farebeaters getting on from the back doors. Saw two d60hf on fb. 1026, nis running north, dunno if it went in service or where it was headed. I didn't get the number of the other.

well those extra trains will have to go somewhere, it will happen anyway. And what 130th yard?

well in part because fr depot was damaged from the storm and they had to borrow buses from sc and later jfk depot.