Eric B

It wasn't in the building (that's the still open one on the west side); it was where the newstand is on the southest corner, and you can see the newer sidewalk cement under it. Inside, it has orange tiles and a low ceiling where the token booth was.

Yes, it was reconfigured to the present in the 90's Also, while this wasn't built for SAS; there were often ideas of using it as a cheaper alternative to the new line continuing below Delancey.

That's where they would actually turn, since the switches are between 34th and 42nd. Not sure why they would have to discharge at 34th.

Cool; since we hadn't been hearing as much about the all-electric delivery forecast lately. (Was looking like they were just sticking with hybrid).

Since it was just two trains peak direction, I'm surprised they're even bothering with it; I thought the service reduction would be the end of it. I guess they must have been doing really welll with riders.

How does the emd at 7th Ave?

It will have to be the 68's added, because the is being extended, and the cut way back, so only that line will have the extra cars for the service, which is on their own line anway. So this will be interesting!

They usually just run the to 34th, so are they doing work on 6th Ave. those weekends?

Some 160's were retrofitted with LED headlights, and they are the standard "cool white" (prob. 5000K)

I saw one passing by Linden/Ave D. by the yesterday. Had never even heard of the route.

This area is horrbly connected. (I call it the "cipher zone"). It's the current system that looks like it was drawn up by someone who has never set foot in the area. The redesign, while of course not perfect, would still be an improvement.

Look at the new big LED sign by the cafe in the Moynihan station, The pixels are now small enough that they could pretty much approximate that sign!

The R39 would be for both Myrtle and 3rd Ave. and thus A Div. sized (since even the B Div. el used A Div. side cars. don't know what they would have done from Central to Metropolitan where it would run with the wider M line cars). IT would basically be an A Div. version of the R38. If I remember correctly, someone not too long ago somewhere uncovered a diagram of it, or something, though I'm not sure now.

That's nothing; these days on Canarsei, some "glitch" they say is causing the work zones around Livonia to stretch for two or three stations! And this has been going on for weeks now! They should just turn the CBTC off for that whole stretch and go WSP; except that there is a gap in the signals around New Lots (especially southbound) for some reason (but otherwise, they're spaced normally, for all the unequipped trains going to the wash, or storage such as the R32 there). But in the midday, having such along "absolute block" under WSP would be better than what they're doing now.

ATP basically corresponds to what they used to call "cab signaling", where your r/y/g is on a screen, in a round dial, with your speed shown via the actual dial, and you have to try to keep it in the green. It's actually more work than WSP (the conventional signal system), because you have to pay attention to this screen in addition to the roadway. When I'm seeing is that the policy is to just turn the ATO off regularly on the outdoor portions of the line (which on the (7) is almost the entire line!) due to the work gangs, and those tend to be the hardest areas for manual operation, because of the grades and curves, with sudden speed limit drops. (Another term I had never heard until qualifying is "Movement Authority Limit", which is basically what was known as the "moving block" —as opposed to the old "fixed block", for the area ahead that CBTC control has been granted to each train approaching. That's when you see the signals start to flash green.

You didn't even mention BIE's, where we have to do the whole walkaround wherever it is. The conductor is only responsible for making announcements. I heard on the railroads, the engineer is the one who sits it out, and the conductors do everything. I wonder if that is supposedly holding true to the 'rule' of the conductor being in charge (though there's more than one conductor, but I'll guess one of them is over the others), and the subway changed the practice? Or perhaps that rule didn't apply to the railroads, and the engineer is the one “in charge”, and “in charge” is in the sense of a supevisory position rather that who has the most physical responsibilities? I myself always wondered why the lower paid man is said to be in charge, and as stated, we're responsible if we know a conductor is doing something wrong as well; but it seem they were only thinking about the conductor being able to immediately pull the cord for [obvious] improper operation, where we have less awarenes of what they're doing.

I saw them used (by T/O, but conductors couldn;t use them, of course) in the beginning, and you could sit on the end of that transverse and look out the front! I don't know why they didn't just remove the cabs when they were made permanently into 4 car sets.

I saw a sign on one (on the Q) where the plastic was discolored, like it was starting to be burned. Never saw that before! Hope they get the 211's soon.

That probably was the R55. It was proposed a few years before the R68's came out, and if you think about it, the 44/46 and 68 bodies are pretty much the same; the same 75foot layout with the orange seats. Main difference was the cab one each end of every car (one ful width; one small), the wall panels went from faux wood and the beige to stainless steel; the front end door was again recessed, and a single ridge was added on the side in the middle of the strip between the two sets of three ridges. So the 55's may have just been a continuation of the 44/46, as in the early 80's the faux wood color scheme was still new and in vogue, but they had given up on the P-wire and went back to the SMEE system. A few years later, as the battle against grafitti had gone into full effect, they went with the stainless steel interior (starting with the 62's on the IRT), and by that time, the contract number was up to 68. (this is probably also when they changed the car configuration and added the small cab and changed the end doors. They had essentially reverted back to the the R42, but 75feet, one cab full width, and stainless steel. What I'm interested in was the proposal to have the full width cab collapsible, like how the 62 cabs are convertible that way. The door pretty much closes the operator side into a small cab, but I don't know how they would have folded down the other side with the curved walls).

It's running on the midnights, where it's not revenue now. It's on the express tracks from Roosevelt to Kew Gardens, and the local tracks from Continental to Kew Gardens (I guess so the could still have it past Continental). (Just finished qualification today!)

Just started qualification today. (Also, didn't know it was actually running on QBL, on the midnights, so E and F and even some M TO's, are qualifying already!)

But with this new map, they would likely be more used!

It seems all those interactive screens they had are gone now. This map would have been a good use forthose. When I used to see them, I had wished there was something like this. I wonder why they got rid of them, and only put up all these non-interactive screens.

But there's going to still be merging anyway. Keeping trunk lines together will not solve the problem enough to justify the limited direct access it would leave.

No, not the actual tunnel width; they just added stuff (cables, equipment, etc.) that narrowed the clearance. With all this talk of deinterlining Gold St. Iseemingly inspired by then deinterlining the IND uptown, one difference is that the uptown change basically consolidated operations, so that the and and and start and dinish in nearly the same places, and use the same yards on both ends. As far as the crews, each terminal on the branches are also consolidated into the same "section" or "district" (i.e. "North", "South"). With the BMT South, all have the same yard at one end (and the uses it too), and are in the same district, so it's already consolidated like that. (And the and are there too, but moving them around on that end won't really change anything in that regard). I guess the sole benefit of these isdeas is trying to avoid the slowdowns where they come together at Gold St? I don't think that by itself is worth changing up the lines. For one, a lot of the delay is because it seems they now basically stop everybody at that interlocking to ask who they are (i.e. "spot"). They already had cameras there (at least southbound, when I used to be over there, 11 years ago), but it seems they don't even want to trust those anymore (and they even less trust punches). All of these "backup" measures, piled on top of one another! They need a better way of the tower people knowing for sure what is what (it's already on the now computerized train registers), and also schedule it better so that trains trying to get to the same line (either way) aren;t arriving at the same time. (Which seemed to happan a lot). It's nice to have direct access to different trunk lines on the outer branches. Also, on the uptown IND, one interlined service was rush hours only, while the other only served two local stops (weekdays only) and ended, so it wasn't as big a loss as what is being suggested for the entire BMT South.