T to Dyre Avenue

WOW 😮!!! They even painted the gates blue. I definitely wasn’t expecting that. It looks great. Like new. After the crazy shit that happened on the 19th, I was considering saying, “Eh…I’ll visit them in the Museum.” But now I may consider taking that one last ride after all. I just hope this car, and whichever others get this treatment (if any), get preserved. It would be a real damn shame to hear of it (or them) getting trucked off to Sims Metal looking like this.

Yes, it’s true that have the local via 63rd cuts off LIC from the inner QBL local stations. This is also a reason why I backed off from this plan. At the time I came up with it (2019ish), I didn’t think it was necessary to preserve that access. But it probably is. So I see why you have the local. But if you have the local via 53 and the express via 63, then yes, 53 gets less service which wouldn’t be so good. The has to go via 53, so having it plus one of the 6th Ave local services as the expresses in Queens keeps that busy corridor with a proper amount of service (at or near 30 tph).

So far, according to the MTA’s website, only the is making local stops in Manhattan except at 49th St, where the is also stopping. At least they haven’t given up on the yet, even after delays at DeKalb Ave due to a train with emergency brakes on. And the is still running its full route but with very reduced service.

@mrsman I think it should be to 207, to 168, to 205 (145 on weekends) and to BPB (205 on weekends/late nights). I don’t see any real advantage to sending the to 205 and the to 168. Have the serve Washington Heights/Inwood and the serve Concourse; it’s what riders have been used to for 80-plus years. Your QBL plan is interesting in that it has one 8th Ave service and three 6th Ave services. I proposed a QBL with that same split a couple years ago, but with the and express to/from Jamaica and the and local to/from 71st Ave, with the removed from QBL. The idea was to have both a Culver express (the ) while still having the and having QBL deinterlined as much as possible. But like your QBL plan, it would have called for splitting the 6th Avenue local’s 30 tph three ways between the , K and . That’s going to be a very tight squeeze. In order for it to work, nothing can go wrong on the railroad that would require trains to be rerouted. And we all know that just isn’t possible with the NYC Subway in general. Not to mention that have 30 tph between the , K and would force QBL to operate well below the line’s capacity because you definitely won’t be able to run 30 tph on the . Maybe 20 at the most. And you have the K dead-ending at 2nd Ave/Houston St. At least with my plan, the can still be the popular service it has been for the past 11 years, albeit with a tight squeeze on the 6th Ave local tracks. I’m not in favor of returning the to Nassau St with the and because that will make it a relatively unpopular service once again. I get why you want to remove the from 6th, but I can predict it won’t go well with riders, even if there are more choices than before. As for the and , I like them better on Brighton since the consensus seems to be that Brighton riders prefer Broadway over 6th. The only reason to do and on Brighton is that it’s a more simple operation that can allow the to stay weekdays-only. But even so, it may prove to be a less popular option with riders than even the current operations.

Someone had fun with this one earlier this year… I mean, his map shows it certainly is possible to have a service between 2nd Ave and Brighton/CI. The question is, would you really want to? You’d be forced to leave a lot of unused track. The would have to merge with the at Rockefeller Center, then diverge at Lex-63. This would preclude the operation of a Broadway-63rd service, so that whole segment of the 63rd St tunnel would have to be left unused except for emergency reroutes and non-revenue moves. And the would be subjected to two merges in the Rock Center area - with the northbound and the southbound (that’s assuming the is not sent back to Nassau St). Is it really worth doing? I like this plan better, but I’d reverse your and . I’d rather not have a full-time local train. And I think the should run on weekends. I don’t think in this day and age, you can get away with a local on weekends.

I think it's probably better to reroute the via the then the , because there are a number of line stops that are literally blocks from the line. It's more convenient for affected riders to walk those blocks to/from the than the .

WOW 😮…I gotta say, they did a pretty damn good job of approximating the pre-GOH look with those stickers. All they need are blue front and side doors, and “ta” insignias and I think they got it.

No it isn’t. If I had said something like “giant fat asses,” then that would be incredibly rude. But I did not say that. I’m saying those seats have done just fine over the years with people of all shapes and sizes sitting on them, so I’m just trying to find out how a bunch of out-of-control foamers put a giant hole in the seat after just a couple hours of retirement runs.

How in the heck was someone able put a big hole in those seats? I’ve seen people jump on and off R68 and R160 seats with barely any damage. I’ve seen morbidly obese people sit on those seats without causing damage to them. Wouldn’t you need some kind of large cutting tool to put a big hole in those hard plastic seats? I really hope that’s not what happened.

I used to commute on the CPW line too. Always got held up at 59th, whether I took the or the . And for some reason, every single time, it would always be the train across the platform from mine that left first. But not until after both trains sat in the station for at least a couple of minutes. I couldn’t be happy enough to get rid of that delay.

Bill, I knew you weren’t referring to the GE R32s. But I was just pointing out the GE’s still had visible marker light housings after GOH, so they might have been easier to work with for restoration. But maybe I’m wrong about that. I admit I don’t know anything about restoring a subway car, or even a private car.

Man, I'd give anything to see them do that. Years ago (2010ish?), I even asked if it was possible to restore the face on her (or maybe it was Subchat), but with LED screens and marker lights. I don't remember what answer I got, if any. Of course the GE R32s still had the housings for the marker lights and the Exp and Local signs covered over, but still in plain sight. Those would be the easiest to restore Unfortunately, all but two of those cars were reefed and I believe the remaining two cars are at Floyd Bennett Field for NYPD training. But restoring the interiors to their former glory? That's the real challenge, lol.

I seem to recall them using an S sign on the Arnines. With the R32s, they probably could set the side signs on Special, although the front Flipdot sign could be pretty much anything. It’ll be hard to see it anyway. I don’t suppose they’d be able to do anything to approximate the original historical look on the front of the final R32 train’s run, like the big sign they had for the final R42 run, other than possibly repaint the front and side doors blue.

They did. But also on the .

Even the current has to continue out of service to get to Jamaica Yard, although it’s not far from Continental to the yard leads near Union Turnpike and the tracks are below the in-service tracks at 75th Ave, so they don’t interfere with and trains. But the IND built those tracks right from the start, whereas yard lead tracks from the 4th Ave local tracks would have to be built from scratch and would likely force some service outages during the construction. I’m starting to wonder if maybe it’s more the multiple merges that mess up service than the overall length of the line. I wonder if we address said merges, that could yield measurable improvements to the . Maybe it’s not entirely necessary to completely change the line into an Astoria-Coney Island service that might cause blowback from West End Line riders who would be put on a completely local service and have to transfer at 36th for express service. Perhaps we can start by addressing the bottlenecks on QBL, Broadway and DeKalb first and maybe that might be enough to show better reliability and permit trains to run more frequently. So I’m in favor of having the stay express all the way and run to/from 96th/2nd and rerouting the to the 63rd St Tunnel and the weekday to 53rd. I’m also in favor of running the via Sea Beach, the via West End and the and via Brighton. This would require the to run solo in Astoria. But doing so would likely require a significant amount of trains running into and out of Brooklyn because Whitehall and City Hall Lower will not be able to turn them all. I don’t think it would be so good to have all those trains taking up track space running light. So I’m going to suggest the possibility of having the serve as a secondary Sea Beach service between Kings Highway and 8th Ave on weekdays in addition to the . This last part I definitely agree with. Given how busy the N Judah line gets, it should get its own tunnel. The T Third line will be getting its own tunnel in downtown SF in just a few months (after a long delay), so it will no longer through route with the K Ingleside line. I guess the K will once again turn at Embarcadero as the M Ocean View and (soon) the J Church do. That might be a somewhat of a bottleneck with J, K and M trains turning there, while the N continues on to Caltrain at 4th and King streets. 2024 will be the real test. That’s when the L Taraval returns to the subway. Perhaps then they should strongly consider putting the J on the surface at Market St. That’s really the easiest solution. I read that the PCC cars run in J service when they head to Balboa Park Yard, so it wouldn’t be a totally new thing. The Market St Railway claims they have enough PCCs for both the F and J routes (the E Embarcadero PCC route is still suspended), so maybe that’s worth doing. It’s got to be better than the J shuttle between Balboa Park and Church/Duboce and a transfer to the N. Though a really ambitious idea would be to have the J continue northbound via Fillmore Street to Fisherman’s Wharf and/or the Presidio.

This is a project that the MTA can do independent of finishing the SAS, especially since it's looking like the MTA will finish it sometime after the Jets win another Super Bowl. So they should be converting 36th St Yard independent of the SAS. They are? That's news to me. The MTA definitely didn't keep this in mind. I mean, from late 1988 to roughly Fall 1994, they ran a fully local train on the Sea Beach Line. The West End Line's current Y-junction with the 4th Ave Line makes it possible for both local and/or express service to serve it. In fact, prior to 1967 (Chrystie St connection) and between 1986 and 2010, that's exactly what was done. Not saying we should run both 4th Ave local and express services there again; only that it is possible to run both. As for Bay Ridge, the local tracks are indeed straight-railed for trains to go to Bay Ridge, as the / has always done. There are, however, provisions for switch tracks between 36th and 45th St, that would make it possible for trains to run express between Atlantic and 36th, then make all stops to 95th St without interfering with West End trains entering and leaving the 4th Ave line at 36th.

It's funny because many years ago, I thought they were going to rename the the because I kept seeing signs on the middle cars in R62A trains on the . There was even one period of time in 1993 where I saw a 5-car set in Unionport Yard entirely signed up as on my way to school. Why it was there, I don't know. At that time, both the and ran entirely with Redbirds and it was several years before the decision to go OPTO on the Dyre Shuttle. Yes, I never really saw a reason to change the Nereid to another number. I never even saw the need to change it from a diamond to a circle. It's a peak direction rush hours only service. Because the Lefferts and Far Rockaway branches run seven days a week, I can see more of a reason to change one of those. But even then, the split east of Rockaway Blvd accounts for a relatively small portion of the entire line. Now, if there was also a split at north end of the line - like for a crosstown Bronx service, as has been proposed on here in the past - then I would definitely be in favor of using a new letter like for one of the new branches. But as is, I don't really see the need for it, especially since riders aren't getting a full service on either the Lefferts or Far Rockaway branches.

But by doing that, you'll create a merging bottleneck at 36th Street. When the operated to Bay Pkwy, it merged with the at 36th (as well as the and the / before it). There would always be delays at 36th. Why bring that back? If there is a demonstrated preference of West End Line riders for Grand Street and 6th Ave, I wouldn't want to stand in the way of that. I mean, before Vanschnookenraggen posted that plan on his blog, my favored option was to have the run via the Sea Beach Line, while leaving the and in Brooklyn as is. But that would either require the to stay on QBL (and deal with its million merges and continue to be unreliable) or build connecting yard lead tracks from the 4th Ave local tracks to connect to them to the 38th Street Yard, so that the can be based in Brooklyn. But this option would likely require the work trains based there to be dispersed to yards around the system (is that really a bad thing?).

I suggest extending the to Coney Island via the West End Line, similar to the proposed in the Vanshnook plan. https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2020/10/deinterlining-with-one-switch/

I’d prefer they extend the to the Rockaway Beach Branch, but then terminate it at Whitehall St, while having the be expanded to 24/7 service and extended to Brooklyn (local to Stillwell Ave via West End Line). The would stay the same, but maybe run more frequently.

Well, to all the posters on here who object to proposals to de-interline the subway, here’s a proposal that’s the exact opposite. That said, there’s a lot here that I just don’t think is necessary. These extra services - the , , , , , , and - are going to force their parent services to run on reduced frequencies during rush hours. DeKalb and West 4th St are going to be delay-prone nightmares. The running as the old train would be a super long route just like the old service was. And why switch the and lines in Brooklyn? And wouldn’t it be confusing to have the go on its regular route while having another that goes onto the upper 2nd Ave line be confusing? Does it replace the or does it run in addition to the and ? If it’s in addition, then you’d have three services on upper 2nd Ave with only one service on midtown/lower 2nd. That’s even worse than the MTA’s proposal to have the and on upper 2nd and just the on midtown/lower 2nd (which really is a bad proposal, but that may have well been intentional on the MTA’s part). There’s just too much reverse branching here. You’ve may have more tph at the ends of many lines, but it’s going come with the cost of reducing service on the trunk segment of each line in Midtown and Lower Manhattan

I’ll agree with the parts about state legislators not keeping their hands out of the MTA revenue stream and that transit funding is very political. That’s obvious and it’s got to change or it’s going to keep wrecking the system. And there is some truth to NYC, SF and Chicago pols banking on surviving on their cities’ histories rather than building on it - although Chicago did build a pretty decent amount of new ‘L’ lines post-WW2, even though they eliminated a lot, including their very extensive surface rail system. But no, resting on your laurels should be a big no-no for any politician worth their salt (then again, too many aren’t). The rest I disagree with. And I don’t want to drag the thread way off topic, so I’m not going to discuss why.

There’s definitely more crowded trains on Lex and Broadway during the rush. Those are the two lines I generally ride. Though still not quite as crush loaded as before the pandemic.

Who said anything about that guy? What Foran is saying here, should be the real cause for concern. I mean the MTA is going to receive many billions of dollars in Federal. Other transit agencies are somehow able to do more with less, including the CTA and LACMTA. Why can’t the MTA? I agree that the bipartisan stimulus bill and let’s keep getting the work that’s being done, done. Fare hikes and service cuts should be off the table entirely right now. It is both ridiculous and greedy of MTA top brass to even be talking about that now. Other transit agencies do more with less, so the MTA has no excuses to cut service and/or raise fares in the face of receiving many billions of dollars in Federal aid. Then the Governor and the State Legislature need to get off their asses and codify into State Law a true source of dedicated funding right now and stop the bullshit. Given that a big pop up with Ben Shapiro saying I should help stop vaccine mandates flashed on my iPhone screen the second I attempted to read the article and that the Daily Wire cited the New York Post, I’m a bit skeptical about how much truth there is in this article. Now I’m not here to get all political about the Post and Shapiro (I save that for Twitter, 😆). But I will say in response to your question (which is a good one and which I bolded) that if greedy landlords are going push businesses and corporations out of New York, then maybe it’s time to reevaluate just how easy/difficult it should really be for landlords to evict corporate tenants. If the businesses/corporations are doing good business and paying their rents promptly, it shouldn’t be so easy for landlords to kick them out. For what it’s worth, I think the notion that New York is going to lose its status as a global financial hub is a bunch of bullshit. I mean, I read articles about how Brexit was going to cause London to lose its financial status and corporations were going to move to other cities, including New York - the exact opposite of what this Daily Wire is trying to convey. It’s all a bit alarmist to me.

They sure were. Although the pre-GOH R32 and R40m/R42 “salad trains” that ran on the could really tear it up on those CPW express tracks between 125 and 59, they felt like they were on their last legs so when the R68As bumped them off in late 1988, it was an improvement. Yep, I saw it on their Twitter feed. I’m disappointed, but I expected it.