LTA1992

You can't be serious......... Ain't no way. Even wikipedia would have been a better first choice.

I mean, that's pretty easy to do when ridership dropped to levels not seen since 1910....

Shells my guy, shells. Nothing else. I do feel like some members have forgotten that the 211s were still being built while delayed

I remember this too. I was part of the debate that happened on these forums over it. It made sense because the design is similar to the 160

You just told me your age with that first sentence lmfao. Get over it. Anyway You said all this, but didn't give a S-I-N-G-L-E piece of evidence. Second, you're blaming this nameless individual like the 2008 recession wasn't still being felt and was the REAL reason why the number was reduced. I was there. I don't need your lecture.

It set the bar for that generation of cars. The 211s are the base of a new generation. I still think the generations will be defined from the first digit from now on. There's no other explanation for numbers bloat as when it came to pre-NTTs, close contract numbers usually defined families. R1-9, R12/14/15/16/17, R21/22, R26/27/28/29/30, things like that. There would always be minor differences (for example, picture windows appearing on the 32/36WF), but families nonetheless. Divisions don't apply

The third option was a rumor and never actually confirmed. While there was a decrease from the original 1,700 number, that doesn't mean there would have been a third option. It just means one or both options were smaller than originally intended. I don't know where that person saying the 179s were originally Option 3 is coming from with that

You know, just because the had cars needing to be retired, doesn't mean it would have gotten them. And plans changed. I do remember there being a time when the was an option, though only vaguely

Crazy how some of y'all be sounding....

If you can pick up Gene Sansone's Illustrated History of New York City's transit cars, that's a great resource. It's a big reason why cars in OpenBVE got so detailed (Courtesy of yours truly)

Forgot to mention, when it comes to ISO, you wanna mess with you aperture first. Only if that doesn't do the job do you increase/decrease ISO. If your ISO is too high, let's say 1000 and above, it starts getting grainy. And it's will be quite noticeable in the subway, or just in dark period. 800 is a good start point. (This is exactly why I don't teach, always forgetting stuff lmao)

I will never understand why people took those chimes seriously. The announcements were text to speech too

(Apologies for the multi-post, I'm seeing things I wanna respond to way too late lol) Professional opinion? Depends on the environment and, ultimately, your personal style. Shutter speed depends. You want the film look (24fps), 1/48 is your setting. Shutter speed is always double the fps you want. You want 60? 1/120. I wouldn't advise messing with the shutter speed because then you need to compensate your light and other things. So just stick to 1/48. Focus should ALWAYS be manual. You can hear and see the focusing so it would be better to train your focus pull. White Balance? Whatever you need to get white looking white. Easier aboveground as florescent green is an annoying issue, speaking as a Gaffer/Set Electrician. All of the things you want to know will come with time and your own talent. Experiment. Don't be afraid to mess up either. Some of your best work will come from happy accidents. Oh, and if you don't know the Rule of Thirds, learn it. A very important fundamental that will destroy the notion of needing a professional camera to take amazing shots. And don't breathe. That's the key to truly stable shooting. All my pics are via phone. But most don't know unless I tell them.

However, saving the debut for the first day of Black History Month (you know, on a service that directly connects Harlem and Bed-Stuy and the Fulton extension was one of the main factors that contributed to Bed-Stuy becoming a Black neighborhood) could have been planned and is pretty genius imo

The real time changing was one of the best things I read in the spec sheets. Glad to see you're satisfied with it

No, the pilots were the first 10 211As. The Ts are prototypes specifically for testing open gangway configurations. Everything else on the train is pretty much proven.

See, the frequency is also what makes BRT the better option. A train every 30 minutes, or a bus every 5 (plus extra intervals from the S53, 54, and 57 thought the line). It opens up the option for more than just ferry goers and makes crossing the island far easier. From a cost-to-benefit view, and again I can't believe I'm saying this, BRT is the best option and has far more reaching benefits. Please don't remind me how much of an echo chamber this place can be. Enlightenment is a book or three away (The me from about 10 years ago would have been pissed at this plan. I've definitely grown lol) When treated with the same respect as a Metro, from service to its vehicles, Buses can do the job exceptionally where needed. They are transit too. Which is why I hate the phrase "transit desert"

Did you READ the thing? They perfectly explained it. Broke it down. This is why I have no problems. Especially as someone who used to live in the service area and still travel there. The issue is primarily cost and yard space. We can't just build in the green spaces. That's a no-no after Moses. Similarly with LRT. Yard space is an issue and not even St. George has the room. I was wary a few years ago and knew they'd pick BRT. But after reading 600 pages, I'm satisfied with what we have. I wanted heavy rail, but always knew there'd be issues that made it difficult. Caddell Dockyard being the main as the ROW is an access road for them. The industries are ready and willing to work with the MTA and have even agreed where needed to have buildings razed and relocated to move the ROW closer to Richmond Terrace. More importantly, you can't "just rehab" them for service. You're ignoring all the other things in the ROW. Literally industries bisected by it and there are plenty of places new viaducts have to be built. Then the parts that aren't on a viaduct are sinking into the Kill. They are also going for a route that impacts parks and businesses MINIMALLY. There's a restaurant where the tracks pass right through the parking lot. I thought that business would be gone. Nope! As far as I've seen, aside from major industrial buildings that have to move for new viaducts, there are only two business I can recall that are going bye-bye. A gas station and a kitchen and supermarket supply store. Please. Read the EIS. I am genuinely surprised at the fact I have no complaints. Please remember too, there are service expansions in here that would not be possible with the rail options. S1 between West Shore Plaza and St. George (25 minute run) S2 Arlington to St. George (about 18 minutes) S53 extended to Arlington via the Busway. The very nature of the Busway would mitigate any issues caused by the extension. However, the Narrows Bridge will always be the decider for how well it runs. S54 and S57 extended to St. George via Busway. That would be a boon for cross Island travel and the increased headways will be welcome. I used to hate going to my friend's house all the way on the South Shore because half the time, going via St. George would be quicker. The headways on the S1 and S2 combined would equal 5 minutes headways all day between Arlington and the Ferry. Portions East of Bard Avenue would get even better service. More than what rail would have provided. (However, the lack of complaints come from years of learning that just because we WANT rail transit, doesn't make it possible. And buses, when treated with the same respect as Metro, can do the job and do it greatly).

https://new.mta.info/project/staten-island-north-shore-bus-rapid-transit I can't believe I'm saying this, but I have NO issues. They addressed every concern I had and even surpassed my expectations in certain areas. Namely, the access ramp near St. George and Arlington station. As much as I would have preferred LRT, the report is right in saying yard placement would make that difficult. Buses are transit too and this is a good plan. I'm most impressed by the service. As we know, long routes can be an issue. Busways and minimal stops balance that out. So I have no issues with the S53 getting extended to Arlington via the Busway. That would have saved at least 40 minutes off my trip to YABC when I lived in Graniteville. We may never actually see it, but at least they impressed me.

The MTA figured out decades ago that trains run their best when all cars operate with the same (or very similar) propulsion system. It's why they stopped mixing outside of things like 32/38 and 40/42 combinations. That would apply to the 160s as well. There's a reason you don't see it more often.

I'm sorry, just how big is Philly's system again? I'll wait...

Hard Shell. Looks nicer and I can lean on it. I just wish we could get the soft shell width as it's like a foot wider.

I wish you could hear the voice my brain made up for this

Sorry, should have mentioned. I just assumed everybody knew that detail already. I will say that I've seen the debut of every car from 160 on and the fanfare the Ts got was nothing I've ever seen. People not only impressed, but COMPLIMENTING the MTA for putting our money to the right stuff and asking for MORE. (All options better be Ts. The public, from what I saw in EIGHT HOURS, want them) Smiles, pictures, people testing the gangways and re-learning the art of balance. It felt amazing to be a railfan yesterday. A feeling I haven't felt since.....the first time I got to ride the ToMC? I can't even remember the last time I was on a train, or even in the system, for that long. Normally, I'd say the future is bright, but I learned some shit yesterday that killed that for me. Just......yare yare......

Waiting for it now at Spring EDIT: The gangways are the place to be of you REALLY wanna feel the tracks. Every kink, every dip, that's what I'm talking about. I'm officially Team Hardshell. Softshell gang, keep to the first half lol