T to Dyre Avenue

1 hour ago, Kamen Rider said:

Okay then:

what’s a G2?

when the conductor has full indication but the train operator does not, what’s the probable cause?

what’s the significance of 106 Ball.

what’s the meaning of three short buzzers?

Which yard requires a hard hat?

what does ATPM mean?

If a train operator sees another employee standing on the roadbed with his arm straight out to the side, holding his flashlight steady, what does that mean to the train operator?

 

these are all things we who work for RTO have to know. Can you answer any of these off the top of your head?

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. 

10 minutes ago, Comrade96 said:

trust me and kamen rider, itll be wayyyy more headache than its worth 

You buffs dont know squat

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?

On 8/15/2023 at 6:28 PM, RandomRider0101 said:

If it's indeed a 1 for 1, they should combine those r179 4 & 5 car sets for 9 car service. This move would kill two birds with 1 stone: make the one consistent length again, and push the r46s off the line.

It really shouldn’t be to hard to do this either. 

On 8/10/2023 at 3:24 PM, ThatSubwayFan980 said:

Tell me about it! The  is just not the best that it could do! Every day, every station, every borough, everything! They're just always delayed no thanks to the GO or maybe the subway system itself.

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?

1 hour ago, MJHmarc said:

Or reposition

Yes! Why can’t they just reposition the cameras? 

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. 

On 7/29/2023 at 4:43 PM, darkstar8983 said:

Is this a legitimate start date, or is it speculative?

It’s legitimate.

Southbound  trains should hold at either 36th OR 59th, not both. 

21 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

And this is all why I would have worked to return the northbound side of Canal Street and Bowery on the  to active service and worked on making the  stop at Canal back into the terminal it once was with the idea of moving the  to Nassau and having the  run 95th-Canal on the  while the with limited exceptions terminated at Chambers coming southbound (I noted how I would do this in numerous prior posts elsewhere and pols in Brooklyn were looking for the to be split anyway).  Eliminating the  from Broadway for this, I would then streamline Broadway this way:

and remain as they are now with likely additional service to/from Astoria.

becomes the full-time (19/7) local running from Whitehall to 71st-Continental (replacing the ) with overflow trains that can't terminate at Whitehall ending southbound and beginning northbound on the tunnel level of Canal Street. 

If necessary, a new "Yellow " would operate (maximum 5 TPH) between Bay Parkway on the  and Astoria to supplement the  in lower Manhattan that would be instead of having extra service to Astoria.

This would IMO streamline Broadway and allow for extra trains from the Broadway line to operate via the tunnel to 71-Continental. 

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. 

16 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

This all stemmed from pols in Brooklyn wanting the  split in two, making the a much shorter route (on weekdays, nights and weekends I would extend this  to Metropolitan to absorb the night and weekend shuttles) that in Brooklyn would not be subject to delays from elsewhere on the line.  This also would have been about keeping pols happy. 

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?

4 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

I don't think the general public cares that much, they just want reliable service and decent A/C, which from the public POV, the 75 FT cars offers. As an passenger (not a railfan) what is their to complain about in regards to the older cars in the B div. In regards to the equipment in the current fleet overall, only thing riders complain about AFAIK is is the frequent hot cars on the and lines.

 

 

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.

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.

3 hours ago, Chris89292 said:

It’s not just rail fans complaining, it’s also average citizens, I don’t blame them tho, if they were to remove the new trains from my home line, I would be mad too, all those trains replacements in the years 2000-2019 weren’t worth it, if they’ll just shift around subway cars, replacing the new with the old, the nyc subway system is indeed strange when it comes to fleet replacements or swaps, anyone outside New York will see this weird as well, I don’t see BART do this, or CTA

1 hour ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

That's because other cities in the US have smaller systems and those systems are not as old as NYC.

AFAIK I didn't hear any complaints from rail fans when the r142As were removed from the #6 train in exchange for the r62's. 

Oh wait, the #6 doesn't go to Astoria. That answered my question.

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. 

50 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

I hope they can fix the R211S route display to instead of it just saying SI, It's not that hard to do since these are leds. The font might be narrower but at least it'll display   I know it's a nitpick

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. 

6 hours ago, FLX9304 said:

It’s actually the MFL (Market-Frankford Line) in Philly. Yes they do have NTTs called the M4, which is poorly built by ADTranz from 1997-1999. Their car numbers are from 1001-1220, but 1033-1034 are used as a disposal and revenue collection service, which runs nightly after trains stop running. The BSL (Broad St) line does NOT have NTTs, their trains are B-IVs from Kawasaki in 1983. Their car numbers are in 2 dividends: the single ends are 501-576, and the double ends are 651-699. 2 cars (650 & 500) were renumbered to CW3 & CW4. They do the same routine as the MFL. These trains are slated to retire once an order of B-Vs, BSL’s NTTs arrive, which is hopefully next 2 years. The Trolleys, are slated to get new 130 light rail cars by 2027. 

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 .

2 hours ago, rbrome said:

This is the first I've heard of it. Source? The B-IVs may be old as dirt, but they still seem to run quite well. I wouldn't be surprised if SEPTA replaced the M4s before the B-IVs. 

...and how are we defining NTT here? AC traction? 

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.

1 hour ago, biGC323232 said:

To me when they rerouted the  over the 63st tube the  should have became the replacement then....Jamaica would have kept their cars and the  wouldnt been cut from 6 to 4 cars...Thats just me 

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.

42 minutes ago, Calvin said:

From this photo, were all the R62 cars back then 1351-1625 (minus 1431-1434, 1438) linked 5-car sets? I remember the 5-car conversion happened on the Bombardier R62A class cars. 

 

 

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.

On 7/3/2023 at 11:42 AM, TMC said:

There is, but I’d want them to start at NWP and Southeast. 
 

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. 

5 hours ago, TMC said:

I don’t get why 3rd Avenue is proposed so much, there’s a parallel commuter rail corridor that’s ripe for improvement, and 3rd Ave itself has demand levels in line with a tramway, not a subway line, judging by the Bx15’s ridership. It certainly shouldn’t be a branch off of WPR, causing worse interlining under your configuration. 

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.

On 6/23/2023 at 5:40 PM, mrsman said:

^^^^^

Another possibility would maintain the switch from local to express near Herald Square, that I loathe, but streamlines the service a little bit to make the merges easier.

Jamaica Center - Broadway Junction - directional AM/PM express between Bwy Jct and Marcy - Nassau - Broad St.  So it will be a directional express to Manhattan from 6 am - 12 noon, away from Manhattan 1 pm - 8 pm, and local in the reverse direction. 

Broadway Junction - Broadway Brooklyn local - Nassau - Montague Tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge  

No changes 

No changes 

 Astoria - 60th - Broadway local/express* - Manhattan Bridge - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach 

71/Continental - QBL local -- 60th - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - West End line to 9th Ave 

 Eliminated

 

* Query whether it would be better to have the merge between local and express occurring at 34th or just south of Prince.  The movement is always disruptive, but if the movement occurred at Prince, it would provide more service to the local stations on the Broadway BMT.

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.

2 hours ago, Ale188 said:

The 211S just transferred to Pitkin with an NIS 160. Proof:

Oh great. This has some foam in it...

 

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.

17 hours ago, Theli11 said:

But.. why? There's no real point to doing this and the fact that the and the rest of the IRT are in the same division makes things easier. They can swap cars if need be, whenever new cars come in for the IRT, you won't have to make a separate set for the that'd require a whole new fleet of trains (and probably a completely different bid/train all together). It's just easier to keep it the same division than to spend money making it a new division for no reason. The cost would be the fact that we've already spent time putting CBTC for the current subway cars and line and you're spending money for no reason. Ordering and maintaining a specialize fleet is a significant amount of money the MTA can't be wasting on an issue that is as frivolous and unimportant as this.

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.

20 hours ago, MTA Dude said:

This 100%.

I've taken the  semi-regularly pre-pandemic, and you literally had to fight and push your way onto trains at Queensboro Plaza and 74th-Broadway. What @Chris89292 is proposing is to cut capacity by 9% just for the sake of slightly more compatibility with the rest of the IRT, compatibility that is already lacking to begin with because of the lack of track connections.

If there's really a legitimate concern of 6-car sets being limited to the , then you could order singles to make those 11 car trains. That way you could take it out to run on other IRT lines in a pinch.

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.

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. 

So exactly two decades from now would put the R143s right on schedule to be retired and replaced.

10 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

Considering the mad rush from the F coming from Queens to the 96th street bound Q I see every morning while working the F or the Q… yeah, not going to happen if they can get away with it.

everyone then gets off one stop later at 72 street and starts hiking toward New York Presbyterian… it’s already the 30th busiest station, and just so many people in scrubs it’s not funny.

These same people can’t just as easily take the  to the ?

On 6/7/2023 at 9:18 PM, Chris89292 said:

 Looks like the 63rd Street project is back on track, New starting date is August 2023 (Subject to change)

Proposed Weekday Service Plan - Revised
• One track out of service between 57 St/6 Av
and 36 St
• via 53 St   line in both directions
• No trains on Queens Blvd 
• from Ridgewood & Brooklyn terminates at 57 St/6 Av, 6 AM-9 PM 
• Reduced   service rush hours
• Increased service
• shuttle train between Lex Av/63 St and 21 St-Queensbridge, every 20 minutes 
• Free shuttle bus between 21 St- Queensbridge and Queens Plaza

Proposed Overnight Service Plan - Revised
• Both tracks out of service between 57 St/6
Av and 36 St, seven nights per week
• Overnight service
• via 53 St   line in both directions 
• shuttle train suspended 
• Free shuttle bus between Roosevelt Island, 21 St-Queensbridge, and Queens Plaza
• No service at 57 St/6 Av

Proposed Weekend Service Plan - Revised
• One track out of service between 57 St/6 Av
and 36 St
• Weekend service
• via 53 St   line in both directions 
• normal service in both directions 
• shuttle train between Lex Av/63 St and 21 St-Queensbridge, every 20 minutes 
• Free shuttle bus between 21 St- Queensbridge and Queens Plaza
• No service at 57 St/6 Av
• Selected weekends with both tracks out of service, shuttle buses provided, dates TBD

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.