Jump to content

T to Dyre Avenue

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    3,100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by T to Dyre Avenue

  1. No. I don’t work for RTO. I don’t have to know what any of those terms are or answer any of them off the top of my head, thank you very much. And I’m not even gonna bother to look them up. What matters is I ride the trains as a member of the public and as someone who’s shown a strong interest in the system and grown to appreciate its history (unlike most riders). I’m goddamn sure if you asked any of the riding public what any of those terms mean, you’d get blank stares. But like many other people in this city, I recognize when the system has shortcomings and want to see better. So I’ve made suggestions on here and spoke to and wrote my elected state representatives (not like they really give two shits, but I guess that’s par for the course). I might even agree with suggestions made by others, like I did with @RandomRider0101 upthread. He conceded his point about 9-car trains and was willing to move on. And so was I. The first time you responded my previous was fine and your points were fair enough. I was willing to accept the reasons you gave and move on. But then you had to go and quote my post this second time in a far more obnoxious and less respectful tone. And that is not fine. I really don’t appreciate it.
  2. Excuse me, but I’ve been riding the subway for the better part of the past 45 years. I think I know a hell of a lot more than “squat” about the system when I show interest in it. And I really don’t think making a suggestion to add more capacity to the line should be dismissed as being a “buff who don’t know squat!” You see, this agency (and its predecessors) has a history of saying “no can do” to suggestions made by the riding public, even when other transit agencies prove successful with the exact same suggestions. At least give me a real reason why 9-car 179 trains would be more trouble than it’s worth to operate. Instead of saying I know squat. Is that really too much to ask?
  3. It really shouldn’t be to hard to do this either.
  4. Fully agree. GO or no GO, the always seems to get delayed. How many times can we keep running it the same way and expecting different/better results?
  5. Yes! Why can’t they just reposition the cameras?
  6. How did the bridge end the possibility of building a parallel subway tunnel between Brooklyn and Staten Island? Like this - https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2022/02/a-tunnel-too-far-part-2-hylans-dream/ I don't disagree that it wouldn't be cheap. But I think the real problem is a lack of will more than anything else.
  7. Southbound trains should hold at either 36th OR 59th, not both.
  8. What does ANY of this have to do with replacing the tracks in the 63rd St Tunnel which runs NOWHERE near South Brooklyn? Running the in place of the (you’ve posted this for the zillionth time now!) will absolutely NOT any be any better at addressing any issues that may result from this project. Completely moot point now that Max Rose and Mathylde Frontus are out of office and Justin Brannan and Andrew Gounardes aren’t still actively pursuing it. If they don’t care anymore, then why do you?
  9. Riders on the didn’t seem to like it when they got the R62As back from the . At least, the ones who posted on here they didn’t seem to.
  10. For me, the best news would be is if the new City Ticket includes a free transfer to the subway or buses. Then I’d definitely use the LIRR more. Weather permitting, of course, because my nearest station is Auburndale, and I live near 16th Avenue, so walking down to 39th Avenue is a long way to go, no matter which way I go.
  11. Around 2016-17, when the R62As were being prepared for, then transferred back to the line, there was plenty of complaining from line riders about them. Search the Subway threads from about that time and you'll find no shortage of posts complaining about it. BART basically has several branch lines that converge into one main line through Oakland and SF, so every piece of equipment they have can show up on any of their lines. For CTA, it's not uncommon for them to transfer trains from one line to another. But it's rare that it will be older cars replacing newer cars. That was done with some 2600-series cars being sent to the Orange Line to replace newer 3200-series cars, which were in turn sent to the Blue Line.
  12. I’m starting to get used to the “SI” display. I wouldn’t mind if they started to switch to using that designation officially on all printed documents related to the (maps, station signs, etc.) rather than change the trains’ displays.
  13. I always wondered if SEPTA would consider ordering its own version of the R211 with an orange front and seats as the replacement for the B-4 cars. Having rode the subways in Philly many times, including regularly in 1996-98 when I went to college there, it doesn’t seem like there’s anything unique about the Broad Street Line that would prevent NYC B-Division subway stock from running there. They might need a power upgrade on Broad St to accept New Technology trains, like they had to do in the Rockaways in order for R160s, R179s and R211s on the . Yes. Other than the upcoming Alstom trolleys, the only talk of new SEPTA transit rail equipment I’ve been hearing about are replacements for the M-4 cars. But I for one was surprised to read that that they’re talking about replacing the M-4 cars and not the B-4 cars, even though the M-4 cars are 15 years newer than their Broad St counterparts. I guess the M-4 cars really are that bad.
  14. They couldn’t really do that back in December 2001 because they still had the in South Brooklyn during midday hours as well as rush to compensate for the and being shut out of Brooklyn until 2004 due to Manhattan Bridge work.
  15. The car in front of 1499 in the photo is 1326. The poster who put the photo up said it’s from 1988. So more than likely all of the R62s were still single units in 1988. I say “more than likely,” because although I didn’t ride converted R62s until 1992, it’s possible they may have started converting them from singles to 5-car sets before then. I rode the to a lot of Yankees games that year and the next and I don’t remember any transverse cabs on the R62 trains then. The first time I rode an R62 train with transverse cabs was in 1992 after coming back to The Bronx from a school tour of Brooklyn Tech. And it looked weird because in the middle was this door with a small rectangular window and to the left of it was a large rounded window. I’d never seen anything like that in the subway before. Because the sign box cabinet door was directly in front of it, you couldn’t really look out the front and you had to be tall to look out the front through the little window in the cab door.
  16. Certainly they could run more Harlem Line service overall but I was focused on the Bronx segment of the line where stations have criminally less train service than they can and should.
  17. I’ve long wanted to see them run more locals starting at Mt Vernon West to better serve Central and North Bronx transit riders. I’m sure there’s plenty of capacity for more of these trains.
  18. I'd retain the as the second 4th Ave local and turn the at Whitehall. Then there would be no need for the to use Prince St, which was just as bad as 34th St, when the switched at Prince during the bad old days of 2010-16. Maybe look at some way to reconfigure the switches north of 57th, so trains can switch for the 60th St at a faster speed with minimal delay. And hey presto, there's your split service! The in Queens and Manhattan and the in Brooklyn.
  19. Still seems a bit weird to look at a SI train running in the subway. Yes I know the SI R211s are the same dimensions as the other variants and the same goes for the SI R44s.
  20. I think it would just be easier, less time-consuming and not put extra miles on trains by giving the its own fleet that can take advantage of its longer platforms. And yes, I think they really should consider a rail car that is slightly longer than the standard 51 feet. I’m sure it’s not impossible to do a 56-foot car with four side entry doors per side. And it’ll fit right into all of the line platforms without having to lengthen any of them. When the Flushing Line had a connection to the rest of the IRT via the Queensboro Bridge and the 2nd Ave El, it was clearly easier to have the same size trains as the rest of the IRT. But when they demolished the El, that connection was cut, leaving the Flushing Line in relative isolation (save for the Astoria Line crossover east of QBP). There was also far more flexibility when single and paired cars were the standard. They lost that when they switched to perma-linked multi-car sets, especially after they sent the R62As back to the . Because back then you had more options for train length that you just don’t have now with the perma-linked sets. You certainly have very few other options for 6-car R188 sets outside of Flushing. The Grand Central doesn’t need that many 6-car trains. They’d likely have to go back to buying some single cars to keep the flexibility of moving Flushing cars to the other IRT lines and vice versa. Which must be a huge pain in the ass to do, given how many trains are required to run the services. I honestly think it would be easier if they didn’t have to do that, given how Flushing A-Division trains have to travel what seems like half the entire system just to get them to another A-Division yard. They clearly don’t have a lot of options for where to transfer the 6-car R188 sets.
  21. There would be almost nowhere to sit on the trains if each R262 car had four doors per side instead of the conventional three - assuming the car bodies remain at 51 feet long. Now, if the R262s were to be longer than that - perhaps closer to 60 feet - then having four side doors would be possible. I’ve long thought about putting 60-foot A-Division cars on the line to deal with the crowds there. Or they could go to plug doors that open out and slide to onto side of the car body (like the new BART trains have) or having side doors that open into glass panels, like the end car doors on the current NTTs do. Of course the end doors are opened manually, so it’s not a problem there. But with side doors that open into window panels you’d have to figure out where to put the door machinery so it’s not visible to the public and easily accessible for the mechanics.
  22. So exactly two decades from now would put the R143s right on schedule to be retired and replaced.
  23. These same people can’t just as easily take the to the ?
  24. Yes, and just like the original, I found it on Manhattan Community Board 8’s website from a Google search. I didn’t find it anywhere on the MTA’s website, same with the original. https://www.cb8m.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/63-St-Direct-Fixation-Public-Presentation-June-2023.pdf At the very least, they should run the to 57th and 6th on the weekend too. I don’t think it’s such a good idea to shut down a station in the heart of Manhattan on the weekend given how bustling that area gets on weekends.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.