Eric B

Sure wish they made them look like that again (including the larger door windows and the center ceiling light strip and air valve sound).

The GOH cars retiring now have nothing to do with the original cars aside from the shells. Inside, they and the 32's are almost the same.

If the bridges collapsed, that would be a long term outage, so I would add placing the second track on the Franklin shuttle (It seems they left the ROW space so that it would be too hard to do) , and extending the platforms to at least 8 cars. So then the  would run from Coney Island to Franklin, the become the Brighton Beach express again, and if the Williamsburg was out as well, than instead of the (M), you would have the  provide additional service on the Culver, to help draw people away from the affected Manhattan Bridge service. On Fulton,  and would be increased, or the  and even swapped (this was actually one of the "Manhattan Bridge Alternative" options from the 90's study), which would add capacity for both ENY and Franklin transferers.

With that long term a shutdown, I would reopen the abandoned Myrtle Ave. platform to be the shuttle bus transfer location, and the West End would run to there, and the Manhattan bound "bypass" would be reverse-signaled, so it could relay past Gold St., and head back, and cross over to the southbound at Pacific.

Probably a combination of that with the piece we have that arches over the entrance (which was designed to make jumping the turnstile harder, but of course still leaves too much room). And yes, the bottom of it would have to be lower, and yes, make sure it's strong enough ).

8 hours ago, mrsman said:

The articles aren't very clear, but I assume the connection will be within fare control, right?

Yes, you can see where the passageway will come out on the 6th Ave side next to the exit with the elevator, and the TSQ side will lead into the new middle platform.

Prince St.-Bway-Lafayete would make sense, because they're close, and Bway-Laf already has a western mezzanine directly under Bway, with stairs to the platform that is currently used for something else.

The Bryant Park passage was promised to the tenants of 1 Bryant Park (the new Bank of America tower whose sidewalk vault the passage is in), so they would have connections to both Times Sq. and the 6th Ave. line. 

10 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

QT6: I think the problem with that is you would bypass a significant portion of the ridership if you ran it down Eliot Avenue (also keep in mind the blue routes have a very long distance between stops, so you would still need a local counterpart along Eliot).

I just came off of the 58 awhile ago, and it was nearly packed (even on Sun. night), and most of the people were already on before Grand Ave. (I got on at Queens Blvd. where Grand Ave begins), and nearly all went into Ridgewood. So I was thinking all the more, if those people were coming from Flushing, an Eliot Routing would be better for them, and it would divide those people from the ones going to and from Grand.

(Also, a LOT of people then got on around 69th. If they were coming from the 18, that definitely needs to be extended (QT4 & 78))

OK, great; cool! (Since the last thing I heard made the passageway sound not completely certain).

Thanks!

On 1/6/2020 at 7:40 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Also the Flushing Line would still be A Division, as the Steinway Tubes and the 42nd Street (at least up to Grand Central) and LIC subways on both sides of the tubes were built pre-Dual Contracts as well. 

OK I wasn't thinking about that; I basically was thinking the IRT "mainline".

Besides, if they were willing to build that much, then I would phase in a conversion of the Flushing line. First, extend the  and capture the  line in Manhattan to Grand Central. Cut it off there, and completely rebuild the tunnel from scratch (remove the tubes and install new ones if necessary). So the  would run Grand Central to Canarsie, the Flushing then converted and the  temporarily covering it, and a shuttle from QBP to Vernon-Jackson, )or this might have to be the local from Flushing rush hours). Then, when it's all finished, it would be a pink  (sort of a cross between the gray L and magenta &) from Flushing to Canarsie. (the rush hour "diamond" service would run to Myrtle-Bway like the extra service now).

Quote

Yes, you’ve got a nice through east-west side line, like we did from 1904 to 1918, when the current IRT “H” was implemented. But why have the “Lower Lexington” Line duplicate the existing service one level up? Maybe just have the “Dual Contracts” subway continue straight down Lexington Ave/Irving Place to Union Square, where it could then run briefly under the existing line for connections at 14th and Astor Place. From there, the new line could then run down Bowery to Park Row, then continue down Park Row past Pace University to intercept the existing  subway at William Street. 

But then once in Brooklyn, where would the new subway go to “capture” the outer, “Dual Contracts” IRT stations past Atlantic?

The duplicate line (forgot to mention) would be good for the additional capacity needed on the line (in addition to the new line being the larger B Div. construction).

The new line, coming from Clark St. would just run right in through Atlantic, and pick up the outer lines. 

Quote

And what about the remainder of the “Dual Contracts” IRT, i.e., the 7th Avenue Line below Times Square plus Park Place? I don’t really see the point in just cutting it off at Times Square. That would make it a glorified shuttle with rather low ridership. It should continue north of there perhaps jogging over to Columbus/Morningside or Amsterdam. And if we’ve already got the new “Lower Lex” trunk line going through the Clark Street Tunnel, then we can’t have the existing service via Park Place/Beekman going through there too. Because that would be a truly bad case of reverse-branching, where each of these new services would be forced to run less frequently than the current services do. And that wouldn’t be worth doing. 

I guess I never fully worked that part of it out. But that part of the line is veering toward the Cranberry St. tube, so maybe that's how that portion could be be captured by the B Div. Ii would still bring Brooklyn (and ferry) riders to the main part of Midtown. It could perhaps be the "K" to Lefferts, then.

I just took notice of the QT 86 and 87 (the former picking up the 54's swing by Atlas Mall, allowing the 54 to go straight again, and the latter basically replacing the Q23), and they still end short of Myrtle Ave. They should go the few blocks to Myrtle, improving access from to the Forest Hills area. These routes stopping just short of major avenues with connection are a holdover from the old network that need to be fixed, and  don;t know why these two were missed.

There was also a brief period a few years ago where the QM16 was extended to that side of the bridge plaza.

Or an idea of connecting the Dual Contracts portions of the IRT with a new line built under the lower Lexington, from where the Dual Contracts Clark St. line turns from William St. onto Beekman; it wold instead continue straight, to under the City Hall station, then under the Lexington line to Grand Central, where it would pick up the Dual Contracts uppe (true) Lexington line, and with it, the Jerome and Pelham lines.

The original 1904 line would be restored, crossing over at 42nd, and continuing uptown to the Broadway, Lenox and WPR lines.  (And probably just be cut off at Nevins or Atlantic Ave, where the converted line would pick up the rest of Brooklyn. So in Manhattan, we'd have a nice, through east-west side route). The Dual Contracts 7th Ave. line would probably just be cut off at Times Sq. 
So the only "A Div" left would be the single 1904 line, 242-Atlantic, with the Lenox and WPR/Dyre branches (and if they were to do all of that, they could also pick up the upper WPR and Dyre with a SAS extension).

I like a lot of what I see.

They finally extend the 55 the rest of the way to Jamaica, the 58 and QT6, all the way to Roosevelt Ave., having the Glendale express route use 69th St. instead of goign all the way over to Woodhaven, using 59Pl./60 St. between Metropolitan and Flushing, instead of Fresh Pond (which I never thought they would do), and straightening out the route to LIC.

But I believe this new QT6 should use Eliot Avenue instead of Grand, which is torturous during the daytime. The 58 will remain for Grand Ave. and the QT6 would be good for direct service to Queens Mall and Flushing.
Also, I think the QT77 [replacing the Q39] should come into Ridgewood, taking the same route as the QT80, and both should perhaps take Gates Ave. to Forest instead of Myrtle.

It's not capacity's sake, it's because it's a steep hill, and would be easy to reach dangerous speeds and lose control, so they enforce a maximum speed (the same with river tubes).

10 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Why would those 42s be moved to Pitkin for scrapping when they can easily just done that at ENY...either way, kinda sucked that they’re gone. Looks like I’ve waited all too late to get an RFW on the  going back to Manhattan from Jamaica.

Pitkin isn't generally for scrapping; it's often used for long term storage (like 110A's were there for a long time).

14 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Even better (just click to enlarge😞

So is that really the map of proposals?

Looks like they've even straightening the Q39, including taking it off of Fresh Pond and cutting across the little streets between Metropolitan and Flushing, which I had suggested, but didn't think they would ever do! (so now something else picks up the 58 St. route, which is part of what made the line unbearably long).

Someone also said the new Eliot route would come into Ridgewood, and the the Q58 would have a more direct alternate route tot he main one? (Is that the Eliot route, as I've also suggested?)

Hope they also extend the Q58 closer to Roosevelt/Main, and the Q55 at least to Jamaica-Van Wyck!

Is there a written out list of what's on this map?

Quote

Looks like the placement of the full color LCD screen is mirroring the placement of the rollsigns on the R68As

Yes, that was well known, from the mockup. (And the sign is most likely LED, which by now have gotten small enough as pixels to reproduce a rollsign text graphic).

What happens when  and  need to be rerouted to the express, like to run around a problem?

But the IRT did have a tapered car 100 years ago as well, the first subway cars, the Composites. Don't know why they they never used a tapered design again; the modern designs (especially the R62) were made to have curved sides, and don't look right with straight sides.

13 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I assume there's technical reasons behind why the BMT Eastern Division never got upgraded despite the rest of the system being lengthened to ten cars. You'd also have to spend money on resignalling.

It was likely because the lines weren't as popular as the southern division, which went to Coney Island. So even as far back as the "Dul Contracts" era, the southern division was completely rebuilt and the old els replaced, while the eastern division got mostly modifications to the existing lines. This would make further upgrades more difficult. So in the Chrystie era, where the southern division was completely upgraded to IND capacity, the eastern division was less densely populated, especially with the areas being largely  bombed out due to all the abandonment, and at times, rioting, so there was not even any demand to completely unify it with the IND. They tried through running the K train, and that only lasted a few years. A far cry from now, where the area was rebuilt, people moved in from Manhattan, and now the lines are filled to capacity.

Yeah, it's not that they don't have the staff, it's just easier to not run a special shuttle (basically) line just for that, when they already have an extra line running (the  to 96th, which could cover the  route).

I would say create a little intermodal area on Junius St. to extend both the B8 and B35 the few blocks to the  New Lots Station. (Seems so obvious, and doesn't have sense to have those two routes stop sort like that).

On 9/5/2019 at 5:21 PM, Union Tpke said:

@RR503

Signage

• At Union Turnpike - Under tape on Northbound local track, one place tape removed (Seen 1986)
• At Forest Hills
• At Grand Avenue- Under tape on platform sign on Northbound track reading "Late nights for Parsons/Archer take local to Van Wyck Blvd for (G)"."
• At Briarwood - G sticker covered 2007-If accurate, this would likely still be there. Might have been for the old  to 179th Street service pattern during late nights, which can be seen under a sign at Continental.
• At 67th Avenue
• At 75th Avenue

p=2

Let's not forget the (E)(F)(G)(N) sign on the Interboro (Jackie Robinson) Pkwy exits. which are unused and darkened, (forgot if the signs are still visible).

So that will complete that order?

( 12×8  11×8,  13×10)?

The problem with the screen map is that it's pixellated, and this comes from the source image resolution not being fine enough. Other images on those screens are clearer, so they could make it look better as is. I still think the separate line drawings, and shading for part time would make it better.

It looks like all he's done is add hollowed oblong bullets to the same line drawings. The maps he produced in the 90's were like that, but used much thinner line drawings (but were still very clear to see).

 What I think would be best would be an individual line version of the current map, like the one I did awhile ago. Then, part time lines could be colored lighter like they do on the Vignelli Weekender.

This is what they should use on those new kiosks, and update them real time with service changes.