Jump to content

T to Dyre Avenue

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    3,100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by T to Dyre Avenue

  1. 12 minutes ago, Chris89292 said:

    This doesn’t necessarily mean the train will enter service “soon”, it’s been confirmed already that it’ll enter service this fall, it’s just doing usual testing

    Either way, I’m very much looking forward to riding the R211T. I want to experience riding an open gangway train here at home after riding them elsewhere.

    10 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

    Not yet. It seems that the MTA wants to make the C fully NTTs before making the C 100% full length due to 8th Avenue CBTC. They basically want to displace the r46's off the A/C as quickly as possible.  So, don't be surprised if the 8 car r179's stay on the C until the first option order.

    The sooner they can get the (C) to 100% full length, the better. It is foolish to be operating trains of different lengths at the same time on the same line because the cars are operated in inflexible perma-linked sets. Unless there’s some way to alert riders on the platform ahead of time as to whether the next (C) train will be a 480ft train or a 600ft train so they can position themselves accordingly.

  2. 21 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

    If anything, I would look to go to 12 cars on the (7) and do the necessary work to allow for stations to have 12-car trains. 

     

    4 hours ago, Chris89292 said:

    at this point the (7) line should convert into BMT, to operate 60ft R160’s, R179’s full 10 car set, this will make the switch track at Queensboro plaza very useful, when (N) trains are delayed in Manhattan, BMT (7) trains could switch over to Astoria to reduce crowds, both astoria and flushing lines will be able to operate on any lane 

    Honestly, I’d much rather have 10-car trains of 60ft cars on the (7) than 12-car trains of 51ft cars because the 60ft cars will handle crowds better. The 10-car trains have 40 entryways per side, while the 12-car trains would only have 36. And the 10-car trains would be 12ft shorter than the 12-car trains. The only true issue is that any 60ft car that runs on the (7) has to be the same width as the current R188 fleet. So 60ft long/8ft 10in wide cars could only run on the (7). But I don’t think that’s truly an insurmountable issue.

    The switch connecting the Astoria and Flushing lines on the upper (northbound) level which is the Flushing Line’s only connection to the rest of the system is not really useful for anything other than equipment moves and it wouldn’t be any different with 60ft cars on the Flushing Line. 

  3. On 4/6/2023 at 2:49 PM, Chris89292 said:

    Packed trains has been a problem on the (7) for quite some time, you’ll see people waiting for another train at 74th Street because the trains are fully packed, 11 Car set R188’s doesn’t solve the problem at all, unless the MTA had the idea of building a new northern Blvd subway line, to ease crowds on the (7), majority of subway lines have this problem, and they don’t have an extra pair set, the idea of the 11 Car set (7) was for the worlds fair only, I could be wrong tho

    But going back to 10-car trains won’t make it better. Unless those 10-car trains were made up of 60-foot long cars. But even then, they’d still have to be the same width as the current R188 cars thanks to the very narrow Steinway Tunnels. Though I very much believe the idea of 60-foot, narrow-width cars for the (7) line should be strongly considered. I mean, unless the curves on the (7) line in LIC are so tight that they make the ones that prevent 75-foot cars from operating on the  (J)(L)(M)(Z) trains look gentle by comparison, then I fail to see why longer (7) line cars shouldn’t be considered.

    On 4/6/2023 at 4:18 PM, Lawrence St said:

    Why was the Flushing line even built with 11 cars to begin with?

    It wasn’t. But one of the MTA’s predecessor agencies, the Board of Transportation, gave the go-ahead to lengthen the platforms on the Flushing Line in 1949, after joint IRT/BMT El car operations ended. 

    On 4/6/2023 at 5:45 PM, darkstar8983 said:

    I think it was piloted once back in the 90s with just 10-car (7) trains, but was not successful. I think the idea was to see if more (7) trains could run on the line with 10-cars opposed to 11-cars because of the faster time in clearing a signal block. 

    It wasn’t. They first ran 11-car trains for the 1964 World’s Fair. They did go back to 10-car trains in the Redbird era, but only during the summer months. The equipment used to air condition the rebuilt Redbirds couldn’t be housed in a single car, so they kept the single R33 World’s Fair yarded full time in the summertime - until the late 1990s when ridership skyrocketed on the (7).

    17 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

    I think it was because of World's Fair iirc. Ig we're somewhat lucky in the sense that today the (7) is a crowded line that could use the extra capacity.

    They started running 11-car trains during the World’s Fair. But the decision to lengthen the platforms was made well before then. 

    16 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

    I was at Queensboro Plaza today, and I feel like it's underrated just how many people transfer and how lopsided the transfer is towards people using the (N)(W) to get to/from Manhattan and the (7) to/from Flushing.

    One problem during the evening rush is that the (N)(W) run at pretty irregular intervals, and because of this uneven spacing, you'll get a crowded (N) or (W) train that dumps a ton of people who cross platform to the (7), and then that (7) has like a minute+ dwell time which is capacity constraining.

    Morning rush tends to be ok because even though the (7) and <7> are crowded and not always evenly spaced, the (N)(W) seem to be on more even spacing coming from Astoria, they just have larger capacity cars, and there only running trains about every 3 minutes so extra dwell time isn't as problematic.

    Yes, the problem really tends to be worse in the northbound direction, because that’s when you have the riders swarming off the longer (N)(W) trains cramming onto the shorter (7)<7> trains at QBP. An eight-car train of R46s or R68s is quite a bit longer than an 11-car train of R188s you know.

  4. 7 hours ago, zacster said:

    I saw the pair at Industry City just a little while ago. 

    Today is day 26 of the 30 day test.  AFAIK no issues.

    Woot! Just four days left. Keep it going!

    5 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

    If it is, I haven't noticed. They rock and jerk just the same as the R160s.

    Yep, they didn’t feel like they rode any different than the other New Tech trains. Except maybe the Bombardier ones (R142 and R179), which do seem to me to have quieter, smoother rides than the others.

  5. 13 hours ago, Calvin said:

    That is true, the R160s aren't moved at Jamaica Yard. Except there was a last minute change because it's at April 1st. Despite that delay that happened this week, nothing has changed. :) 

    Got some April Foolin’ going on here, I see…

  6. Don’t you just love how one train at QBP with BIE can completely bork the entire Broadway Line?

    (N)(W) trains are running with extensive delays in both directions after we removed a train from service that had its brake activated at Queensboro Plaza. 

    Northbound (N)(R)(W) trains have resumed making regular stops. 

    Northbound (R) trains are running with delays. 

    While we get trains back on schedule:

    For service between Queens and Manhattan consider using (7)(E)(F)(M)(R) trains. 

    For service in Manhattan consider using (Q)(R) trains.  

    Posted: 03/31/2023 05:39 PM

     

  7. On 3/24/2023 at 8:35 PM, darkstar8983 said:

    Good thing everything is going well so far. Also for those who still want to find it, there’s a Reddit page still advertising the live location of the R211 on its various trips. They run it on the Lefferts (A) train until the very last trip.

    Which is worth its weight in gold (or blue, I guess)! Because thanks to that Reddit page, today I was able to get to Chambers and walk down to the platform right as the R211 (A) train was pulling in at 5:44 PM. I had intended to catch it at Fulton, but when I saw how quickly it went from High to Fulton (only three minutes), I figured I’d better just get it at Chambers (I waited it out for about 20 minutes at Barnes and Noble on Warren St). Apparently that train can move, baby! This was the rare night I was on my own for dinner, so it was R211 hunting for me today. Rode from Chambers to 59th. Little slow entering 59th, but that’s probably due to waiting for a (D) to clear the station. It was worth it!

  8. 3 minutes ago, Reptile said:

    Now that you bring up the yard I think the (R) should run Astoria-Fulton and the (W) Forest Hills to Bay Ridge. Otherwise the (W) would have Jamaica and Pitkin yards while the (R) would have nothing.

    Wouldn’t the (R) still have Jamaica Yard if it runs from Forest Hills to Bay Ridge? I’d keep the (R) doing that with a swap of the (F) and (M)‘s river tunnels, so that there’s much less merging at 36th St and Queens Plaza.

  9. On 3/24/2023 at 7:49 PM, Reptile said:

    I like this plan but I think the (B)(D) should run on 4th Avenue and the (N)(Q) should run on Brighton. To avoid the (N) just becoming a <Q> they would branch off in the Bronx.

    Also the (W) could be extended to Euclid Av through a new connection splitting from the (R) in Brooklyn. This would also allow (J)(Z) trains and future  (T) trains access to the Fulton St Line. Then the (H)(K) would merge into one service.

     

    I fully agree it‘s better to have the (B)(D) via 4th Ave express and the (N)(Q) via Brighton. Since there seems to be a stronger demand for Broadway from Brighton, it may result in fewer passengers transferring at Atlantic. I also like the idea of connecting the (W) to Fulton to run to/from Euclid, which wouldn’t just eliminate the need for both 8th Ave services to merge at Schermerhorn, but would also allow Astoria Line trains to have a yard at one end (Pitkin). 
     

  10. 23 hours ago, NBTA said:

    Reading into this..makes me think that the (M) and (F) are definitely gonna get swapped after everything is done. Makes the QBL mergers a lot easier. 

    It would definitely eliminate the madness at 36th and QP, but then again this is the MTA we’re talking about here. Only time will tell if riders at Queensbridge and Roosevelt Island adjust to having shorter and less-frequent (M) trains come May through October.

  11. 6 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

    Something i forgot to highlight in this GO is why the (F) is getting weekday access in both directions via 53 St and the (M) is getting rerouted to 63 St in the open direction? Does this work also include a study for swapping the (F)(M) lines in the tunnel crossing?

    Was wondering that myself. 

  12. Just now, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

    Nobody wants some noisy overhead thing in their neighborhood.  Would you like an AirTrain overhead in Whitestone?  Likely not.

    No, but if I had an extended (7) or (11) train to Whitestone, I’d switch from the QM20 bus to it in a second. Big gap in buses + heavy LIE traffic = late to work again this morning. Hell, I’m sitting in very slow BQE traffic right now. 

    Besides, the majority of the extended (N)(W) route would likely have been via 19th Avenue, which is a mostly industrial area with a substantial amount of parking lots.

  13. On 3/11/2023 at 12:53 AM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

    The issue with both expresses going via 53rd is that you're denying local commuters who get on between Jackson Heights and Queen Plaza access to the numerous transfers in downtown Long Island City area without backtracking and transferring to the express at Jackson Heights, which only puts more of a strain on the expresses.

    That's only if both locals go to Manhattan via the 63rd St Tunnel. If only one of them goes that way, then riders at the inner QBL local stops would just have to wait for the other local train for Long Island City. 

    On 3/10/2023 at 3:12 AM, Mtatransit said:

    The main issue with rerouting the express to 63rd St is less about the (G) train transfers but more about the important and very well used (6) train transfer at Lex/53rd.

    Transfers are not usually a bad thing. The problem is unreliable service. If you can consistently run QBlvd locals every 5 minutes, then the transfer penalty is minimal. If you have to transfer to something resembling (R) train reliability, no commuter would like that. Nobody wants to get off the (E) at Roosevelt Ave and wait 25 minutes for the (R)

    In reality, what is more likely to happen is both express will go via 53rd and one of the local will go via 63rd. 
     

     

    I'd be fine with that too. Unfortunately, even that idea gets pooh-poohed by some formers here and on the NYC rail subreddit, even though it would clear up the madness at 36th St with the (E) and (F) and the madness one stop away at QP with trains on the local and express merging. There seemed to be a lot of discussion not long ago about the MTA actually considering moving the (M) to 63rd and running the (F) back in 53rd on weekdays while the (M) is running. 

    I get it, it would mean running less-frequent, 8-car (M) trains on weekdays, which is, well, a service cut. However, is the current delay-prone service pattern with its many merges all that much better? I honestly don't think it is. And I rode the QBL line regularly for over three years, so I know how bad it can get.

  14. 2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

    The TA puts themselves in a car shortage because they want to retire old trains “as quickly as possible”.

    I am still one that believes they did a big mistake hastily retiring the R32’s and R42’s with the R179 order. We’re still in the middle of a car shortage that won’t be solved until the entire order of R211’s get delivered.

    Same here. They have a long history of both retiring cars early and messing up new car orders that force them to keep older cars in service longer than they should. The R17s were gone after 32 years in service (including the handful painted into the Redbird scheme). The R21s and 22s were gone after just 30 years in service. The R30s were also withdrawn early. For the R30s, I can understand why - equipping them with A/C would have made them too heavy to operate on the many elevated structures we have and there's no way they would have restricted them to just the entirely-underground (C) (which was shortened to Euclid Ave just after the R30s were retired),(E) and (R) lines. Unfortunately, ridership on the B Division began to bounce back heavily just a few years later, especially in the East, and the MTA were caught flat-footed with a car shortage. Even after increasing the R143 order from 100 to 212 cars, it proved to be insufficient for the (L) line. 

    11 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

    my only issue (MTA) needs to fix is the constant equipment shortages. Thankfully the R211s will fix that. I'm just tired of people getting on others for criticizing the (MTA). There are things that they need to fix, Getting rid of shit before replacing them normally is one of the biggest reasons why we have seen service cuts over the years. I hope that ridership does grow because if it doesn't 70% of the R68 fleet knowing TA would be retired by the option order II R211s. (MTA) also needs to stop caving into political pressure when it comes to subway cars, This is one of the reasons why they killed off the R32s and had to deal with a car shortage. Other systems have their issues but i use this one and they need to stop making the same mistakes that have been done since the 70s. (MTA) can't afford to keep making these mistakes in 2023 and beyond, people aren't stupid and by NY state and the City trying to force people to take mass transit, They need to up their game.

     

    Also I took the R211s today, Not bad but these retards are annoying as hell, I got off at 59th st and went back home. I'll catch it during the week when most of these clowns are in school.

    Same here. There really seems to be quite a bit of "defending the MTA" here. I've noticed it from my earliest days on this forum, especially after the 2010 service cuts. 

  15. 2 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

    There's a live update thread on NYC Rail Reddit mentioning the whereabouts of the R211 while it’s in service.

    That’s much more than what I had 30 years ago when trying to catch the R110A/B trains. Or even 21-23 years ago when trying to catch the R142/A/R143 trains. 

  16. 41 minutes ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

    Aspects of the railfan community that I despise, and there are numerous, is this insistence in taking unconfirmed information as absolute truths. I've always been a naturally inquisitive person, so the gullible are among those who tick me off pretty bad. These "events" attract a lot of weird ass people who are pronounced enough in their ways that's led me to create a pact with myself to downright refuse attending these things. I'm not convinced that the R211s were going to run today at all, nor did I believe there were any plans to do so today either. When I see those trains in passengers service with my own eyes, then I'll check them out. Until then, I'm not going to sweat a hypothetical. I actually wish this thing were done at complete random so the odds are even amongst anyone seeing it, but only time will tell. One thing is clear, and that's me seeking out that train long after it's inaugural run. I like my personal space, lol.

     

    Yep, same here. I mean, that’s sort of what I did with the R110A and R110B trains, as well as when all of the production New Tech Trains first went into service. And with the R110A/B trains, I didn’t have any internet sites to guide me on how to find them. Thirty years ago, I had to rely on good ol’ Lady Luck to catch those trains. Though for a while in early 1994, she was pretty good to me with catching the R110A on the (2) at Burke Ave damn near every weekday morning at 7:15. There were those couple times the R110A (2) got rerouted via the (5) when I rode. And then there was that one time it actually ran as a (5) train. Going home or trying to catch the R110B on the  (A) was a different story, especially because I didn’t live anywhere near the (A), although I could take the (D) and transfer, of course. Though I gotta say that riding the R142 on the (2) years later really felt like a much different experience than riding the R110A. Maybe it’s because the R110A had those colorful, forward facing seats and speckled gray walls that weren’t retained on the R142 or any subsequent NTT’s. And the R142 had much quieter motors and rounder cab windows.

  17. 16 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

    I think part of the IND's original plan was to connect to extend the Culver Line to the Fort Hamilton Line which then branches and goes into Staten Island. Looking at it now, even though the train would've been express along Culver, it still is a bit of a "roundabout" route that might be less than ideal.

    Agreed. The (B) proposal in Vanshnookenraggen's blog post would be much a more direct route, unless you're headed to Downtown Brooklyn or the Financial District, because a route from Bay Ridge straight up 4th Avenue is just more direct. And it has the advantage of being at least a semi-express service, unlike the all too often-proposed idea to just extend the all-local (R).

     

  18. 2 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

    Def a fair point; I think your proposal works well except presumably the (F)(M) and (V) would all share the 6th Av local track, hence meaning an overall reduction for QBLVD express service.

    What sucks about Queens BLVD is the theoretically maximized service pattern would have all locals go via 53rd down 8th Av and all expresses go via 63rd down 6th Av, possible with a Broadway rush-hour supplement. However, in practice, that would be extremely unpopular due to the expresses missing key transfers like Court Square and generally just limiting options.

    Not exactly…the V would run down 2nd Ave, not 6th, so only the (F) and (M) would share the 6th Ave local tracks. 

    At one time not so long ago, I did suggest unsnarling QBL with an (E)(F)(M)(V) service pattern ( (E)(F) express via 53rd; (M)(V) local via 63rd) with the (V) on 6th alongside the (F) and (M). The ideas were so that there could be enough trains in South Brooklyn for a (F) local and a (V) express and the ability to run more (E) trains. But I quickly realized what a tight squeeze on 6th Ave that would be, that it wouldn’t yield any additional trains on QBL, and that it would make rerouting (A)(C) and/or (E) trains virtually impossible. 

    Yes, running all express service via the 63rd Street Tunnel means all QBL express riders would have to transfer to a local train to get to Court Square. But I really don’t see how that could be a dealbreaker. I mean, percentage wise, how many (E) riders transfer to the (G) there? And any (F) line riders who need to get there already have to transfer to the (E) (or the (M) or (7) at 74th St), and have had to do so since December 2001.

  19. 22 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

    COVID has helped overcrowding issues just about everywhere, CBTC also seems to have done a lot to help the (7).

    QBLVD is under heavy construction for CBTC, hopefully after that it's much better. At least Queen BLVD, you should always heavy 1 or 2 tunnels into the city even if one is undergoing construction. Still though, you are right that the lack of alternatives for QBLVD is problematic. I think the one thing that's good is that currently, the express trains ((E) and (F)) seem to have the worse crowding issues, but population growth suggests people are moving to places in and around Long Island City which would favor the (M) and (R) who have capacity to give. If SAS Phase III were ever to be completed in some form, you could also run another local service down 2nd Avenue via 63rd.

    There are two problems with this. One is there really isn't sufficient capacity to run three local services on QBL. 71st Ave already has trouble turning the (M) and (R), Throwing a Queens-SAS service into the mix will only make it worse. Two is the new local service would then be merging with the (F) express at 36th St. That area is already bad with the (E) and (F) merging there. It'll be much worse with a local service merging in/out with the (F). It would be best if said SAS service runs express alongside the (F) and then replaces the (E) to/from Jamaica Center, putting the (E) onto the local.

    Perhaps something like this:

    (E)(M) - QBL local to/from 71st Ave via 53rd St Tunnel

    (F) - unchanged

    ( V )  - QBL express to/from Jamaica Center via 63rd St and 2nd Ave

  20. 18 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

    Honestly I wouldn't do a tunnel directly under the Bay to St. George because it's going to be extremely long and expensive and still leave a forced transfer at St. George, and I feel like the 2 Av local would be better off being connected to Court St as a Fulton St local than running one stop to Staten Island. I'd probably be more likely to suggest extending the (R) under the Narrows and then along the northern half of the old East Shore Branch to St. George, and maybe if I was feeling crayon-ish an extension of the (G) under 15 Av, 39 St, and Fort Hamilton Parkway, then under the Narrows and in the median of the Staten Island Expressway as far as South Av.

    Personally, while I welcome a tunnel connecting Staten Island to Brooklyn under the Narrows, I'm not a fan of extending the (R) through that tunnel because it's already a long, local line with a zillion merges. Maybe if it were an express or semi-express (B) train, like in this proposal (scroll down about two-thirds of the way for the (B) proposal), which builds on an earlier proposal to unsnarl the South Brooklyn BMT lines.

  21. Aaaaannnnd…here we go again…

    (E)(F)(M)(R)  trains are significantly delayed in both directions while we address a network communication issue in Queens. 

    Many trains will end early.

    (E) 

    Some northbound trains will run along the (C) line from 42 St-Port Authority Bus Terminal to 168 St. 

    The last stop on some northbound trains will be Court Sq-23 St or Queens Plaza.

    (F)

    The last stop on some northbound trains will be 21 St-Queensbridge

    (M) 

    The last stop on some Forest Hills-bound trains will be Chambers St on the (J).

    Gotta love that CBTC mixed in with all that merging in LIC!

  22. On 3/5/2023 at 10:37 PM, engineerboy6561 said:

    My initial thought was to have three 3-car sets arranged as triplets the way the R110B was arranged, but since apparently the Eastern Division can take eight 67' cars it might make sense to do sets of four and then sets of five (so that sets of four could be used anywhere and then sets of 5 would do non-Eastern Div work. You can have a 60' car with a more comfortable layout, though the way I would probably do it is similarly to the Class 345s, putting a couple bays of 2+2 near the ends of the set while leaving most of the middle as purely longitudinal seating. As far as the moquettes are concerned, I meant with an upholstered seat similar to what the Tube uses, so it would be soft to sit on. Part of why I pitched the hydrophobic coating is that they actively repel most water-based liquids (which includes most kinds of food as well as other bodily fluids that can end up on train seats if someone's having a bad day). Ideally you could design the seat covers to come off in a minute or two, and then once a month or so the covers get taken off and washed while the train's laying up in the yard.

    I remembered back when they announced that the R143s were going to be 60-foot cars and wondered why they went back to 60 after doing 67-foot R110Bs. This post from an archived thread from back in 2011 (skip down to post 27; the thread is archived so I can’t directly quote the post) helped explain why - 

    And it probably made more sense to go back to 60-foot cars from a practical standpoint anyway. I mean, the triplet sets that R110Bs came in were impractical right off the bat because nine-car trains of them would have been much too long for the Eastern Division, while six-car trains would have been much too short. So like you said, they would have had to be in four or five-car sets. But even so, there are some platforms in the East that can’t hold more than eight 60-footers (Metropolitan Ave and at least one track at Rockaway Pkwy - due to its offset bumper blocks - come to mind). So trains of eight 67-footers might not have even worked there.

    I like the idea of having 2+2 transverse seats at the ends of the cars, because I like transverse seats better than aisle-facing ones. But given the layout of the R143/160/179 cars, you likely wouldn’t have any more seats at the ends of the cars than you do now because there’s just not that much space between the bulkheads and the side doors. With the R211s’ wider side doors, there will be even less space there. 

  23. 1 hour ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

    This might be an unpopular opinion, but am I the only one who'd trade closing down some redundant subway lines late night in exchange for more frequent service on those actually up and running? For instance as is the MTA closes down the lower half of the Nassau line late nates on weekend nights. I'd be willing to reduce Manhattan down to 3 north-south trunks (Lexington Avenue, 1 of Broadway or 6th, and 1 of 7th or 8th). Also does something like the Franklin Avenue shuttle really need to be operating late at night?

    This would probably also improve safety cause people would be more concentrated.

     

    Obviously, this would face huge backlash as people wouldn't like their local lines closing, but this would only happen on extremely low ridership segments and/or lines with very direct and nearby alternatives.

    The MTA sort of tried this back in 1990 when they cut the weekend (J) to Canal. It proved very unpopular (especially because there was no (Q) at Canal and the (N) ran via the tunnel full time back then), so it was extended to Chambers. Even this wasn’t well received and eventually the (J) was extended back to Broad on weekends and has remained there ever since, even after the 2010 service cuts.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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