T to Dyre Avenue

14 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

It terms of which section of the  is more needed, Manhattan takes the cake because it handles all those extra loads from CPW and 6th Ave.

Maybe you can end the  at Prospect Park instead.

Can’t end the  at Prospect Park without either fouling up the  or having to run the  even less frequently than now, so relaying  trains don’t get in its way. We’ve (collectively - not just us railfans, but also the MTA and elected officials) got to think about better ways than just cutting service.  

2 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

J & Z line ridership is too high to eliminate the . When the TA suggested to eliminate it in 2010, they realized they would have to replace all of the train runs with runs to meet the demand, the line is that busy during the rush.

 

 

 

No way the would be able to handle Brighton by itself on weekdays, it can barely handle the Brighton on weekends! 

 

 

I don't think closing two stops for one day saves much money, Fulton is probably busy on Sundays

It really didn’t (and still doesn’t) surprise me that their original 2009 plan was to eliminate skip-stop and have even MORE trains dead-end in Lower Manhattan. The decision a year later to combine the  and  into the current  service may have been one of the few times in recent history (after 1975) that the  thought outside the box. 

Agreed that the  alone would be insufficient for the Brighton Line. I wouldn’t mind if the  ran express there instead of the , but getting rid of the Brighton Express entirely should definitely be a non-starter. There is a whole swath of south Brooklyn east of the Brighton where people take buses to connect with the subway at Sheepshead Bay and Kings Highway and if the only option there is a not-very frequent local , that’s going to encourage even more people to drive. That’s the LAST thing we should be doing.

1 hour ago, darkstar8983 said:

I have a question - I know that Queens Blvd now has 3 Queens-Manhattan tunnels, but I wonder how they did reroutes and weekend GOs before the 63 St connector

They’d do  reroutes over the . They’d reroute the  over the  (in 53rd), then the  to DeKalb. As for the, it was rerouted over the  in the event of a disruption in the 53rd St Tunnel itself. 

11 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Anyone who suggests cutting the from Broad to Chambers should be laughed out of the room. Point blank period end of discussion.

To be fair, the actually did it back in 1990. To Canal St, in fact. I mean, it was only on weekends and there was no Fulton Transit Center like today, but still. But I agree, cutting the  back to Chambers is the wrong way.

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Don’t give me that “you don’t use this line” excuse. I’m looking at the ridership numbers to justify my opinion, just like they did back in 2010. Unfortunately if they don’t get money, they are going to cut service where it’s least used. This isn’t a “foamer” mentality, it’s buisness.

And to just to recap what they might do if they get into another budget crisis:

No  service in Brooklyn.

Weekend  service ends at Myrtle Ave-Wycoff Ave.

Fulton St & Broad St  closed during Sundays.

 eliminated except TPH would be decreased.

 eliminated. Again.

 late night service eliminated. 

Because there aren’t other options for saving money besides cutting subway service back to dreaded 2010, 1990 or 1976 levels? Is there not enough money to be saved by streamlining operations or cutting back on managerial positions? I mean, it’s not by accident that the  has a reputation for being known as an agency with “lots of generals and not enough soldiers.” Maybe if some of these “generals” could either retire or be made to leave the agency some other way, we could start making the most of existing infrastructure instead of taking the knee-jerk attitude of “cut cut cut” every time there’s a budget crisis (some of which were self-inflicted, like 1975-76, 1990 and 2008-10).
 

15 hours ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

If the  were to permanently terminate at Chambers Street, you're going to screw over lots of people that take the train to Fulton Street for the . I lived off the  for over 25 years and being able to make those transfers when they became available full-time at Fulton Street really helped. Also, I would take the  to Broad Street and walk to the Staten Island Ferry after work, as did many other people. Closing those last two stations on the line would affect lots of people that depend on it. Do you have experience taking the  in Lower Manhattan at several different times of day over the past few years?

Agreed. The  is not a useless line. Maybe it doesn’t have the ridership it once had, but yes, it gets ridership. And it would do even better if we had a transit agency that would learn how to cooperate better with the City and learn from the best practices of other transit agencies. 

So the same dual-ping PA chime is being added to the R179s? That is interesting. I wonder if it’s going to be added to the other NTTs too.

Interestingly, in other US cities, they use a tone similar to the R44-68s door closing chimes for PA announcements. I’ve heard it in Boston (old Red, Orange and Blue line cars), Philly (Broad Street Line) and LA (Red and Purple line cars).

Also, Boston’s Type 8 LRVs on its Green Line have the same single ping for the PA as our NTTs.

1 hour ago, R68ACTrain said:

What is your point  with this? CPW has three services that sound alike and there is no communication issues? That's why operators and dispatch have code names for the subway lines. ancy uincy elta etc.

Just a personal preference. I’m sorry if you have a problem with it.

It would have been great if they introduced trains like this back in the 90s. They remind me very much of the X2000 train that was brought here from Sweden and was tested on the Northeast Corridor, then barnstormed the rest of the country, and parts of Canada too.

4 hours ago, JustTheSIR said:

Why doesn’t anyone talk about making the R express on QBL and the E local

or making more services fully local/express like sending the F full express, and B full local except Brighton

I've suggested running the  local and the  express in the past. With the  running to/from 71st Ave and the  replacing the  at Jamaica Center. I seem to get crickets for a response every time I bring that up. Not sure why. I mean, it would clear up the three big choke points (36th St, QP, 11th St Cut) that kneecap QBL and Astoria service. 
 

To be fair, this topic has been really quiet since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, probably because the  have been hemorrhaging money and riders for much of the past two years, so few people, if any, want to talk about expansion or revising current services in the face of the current circumstances.

Quote

Sending the Express on QBL would require rerouting it via 63rd. Which wouldn't solve the problem with trains merging at 34th-Broadway. 

But it doesn't have to be the . It could be the  or . I prefer the  because from a communications standpoint, it wouldn't be so great if QBL had three services that sound alike (F (eff), M (em), N (en)). But if it's just easier to extend the  since 2nd Ave riders are already used to the , then I'm fine with that.

18 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

The 2nd option order will include 8 car trains, but it is still unclear if those 8 car trains will be r211As or r211T's. If those 8 car trains will consist of r211Ts, then it would make sense to put them either on the G, L or M due to ridership and CBTC, while the JZ can keep all the 8 car r179's.

I’d honestly like to see them try 9-car trains on the . If I’m not mistaken, the BMT ran 8-car trains of Standards (67’-6” long apiece), which were 540’ long, same as a 9-car train of 60 footers, so it should be possible with R211s (or even R160s).

14 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

The R211s will come with CBTC installed I think, which is why I think all the cars that are coming in should do test runs on Queens Blvd before getting shipped out to their assigned lines. The 30-day test should be done on the  or , then when the particular set passes, shift to the planned assigned line.

Definitely they should test the pilot R211T train on the  and . But since the R211A is planned to be assigned to the  and  lines, the 30-day test should be done there. The closed gangways on the R211A cars will mean those cars will get to crush loads faster than the R160s because all R211s will have wider doors and fewer seats versus the older cars. The R211T’s will have less of an issue with that thanks to their open gangways, so QBL is a fine place to test them.

The R211T seems like it handled those ENY curves good. And I like how they signed it up as an , even though R211-series trains will likely not operate on the  or the other ENY Yard-based lines for anytime soon. 

Agreed. Much of the weekend service is bad, but people often opt for - and crowd - the  because it runs more frequently and consistently than the . On weekends, there should really be more of an attempt to run the  more frequently. The  and  too, but as the sole weekend CPW local, the  could really use more service.   

On 12/6/2022 at 6:48 AM, darkstar8983 said:

Ehhh not 100% true, because then why would the DOT have condensed the BQE to two lanes in both directions ar the promenade to “extend the useful life” of the highway instead of starting a highway replacement project. I would do a highway tunnel under 3 Av that starts from the Gowanus straight to Tillary St, and keeping the promenade section as 2 lanes because of the reduced demand for the scenic route and higher demand for direct Brooklyn/Queens flow. Those going to manhattan and don’t want the scenic route can use the Battery Tunnel since by then congestion pricing will have leveled out the pricing tolls on all crossings between Queen/Brooklyn and Manhattan 

The reduction of the BQE from six lanes to four is more of a maintenance issue than anything else. And it appears that the City now wants to reopen the two closed lanes to traffic, plus possibly add a shoulder lane in both directions, which would indeed be a widening - https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/12/13/city-may-restore-bqe-to-six-full-lanes-of-nastiness-sources-say/

Personally, I liked Scott Stringer’s proposal to restrict the BQE to just trucks on the lower level with a park on the upper level in the Heights while decking over the roadway in Carroll Gardens and Cobble Hill with a park. Though I’d like to include express buses on the truck-only BQE combine that with expanded  and extended  service into South Brooklyn as alternatives to driving in cars on the BQE. Stringer’s proposal, interestingly is still on the Comptroller’s website, even though Stringer isn’t Comptroller anymore - https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/comptroller-stringer-proposes-new-vision-for-bqe-reconstruction/

On 12/12/2022 at 10:15 AM, Lawrence St said:

With the amount of ridership Broadway has I just don’t think it’s feasible to have express service anymore. Not to mention the express only save 1-2 minutes, if any.

So you’d want to kneecap  and  service by forcing all three of them onto the local tracks between Prince and 57th? And you’d still have delays at Prince and 57th, because trains would need to be split between the bridge and the tunnel at Prince and at 57th between Queens and 2nd Ave. 

Broadway is too popular of a route in Queens and South Brooklyn, so you can’t fit all of its branches on just the local tracks without substantially reducing service to each branch.

10 hours ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Do other systems not have problems with money?

Nearly all, if not all, of them do. Whether it’s not receiving enough funding or completing spending money foolishly, I don’t think there’s a transit system that doesn’t have a problem with money.

It’s not like they didn’t try. The MTA’s predecessor agency, the New York City Transit Authority, tried to about 60 years ago…

https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/IRT_Times_Square-Grand_Central_Shuttle

Scroll down to Section 5 for the details, including why it failed.

16 hours ago, subwaykid256 said:

Some ideas I've been working on 

Bedford Pk Blvd or 145 St - Bay Ridge 95 St late nights shuttle from 95 St-36 St

 Weekdays only

Brighton Express

Astoria Ditmars - Euclid Av via new track on Flatbush & Fulton

Forest Hills 71 St Av- Coney Island via Brighton Local

 Runs to Flatbush Av-Brooklyn College replacing . Weekdays only

Weekends and Late Nights use shuttle bus or M7/M102 for 145 & 148 Sts

 To New Lots Av all times

 To Crown Heights Utica weekdays

Running the  weekdays only and closing 148 and 145 is a non-starter. Transit tried closing those two stations overnight and got blowback from the community over it and ultimately stopped closing the stations overnight (and extended the late-night  to Times Sq - which even survived the 2010 "Doomsday" cuts). Plus, it will result in severely overcrowded  trains on weekends. Just about the only way you could possibly get away with running both the  and  to Flatbush is if the plan to deinterline the Brooklyn IRT with CBTC studied in early 2020 were to be implemented. For more discussion, go here - https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/60024-8-train-coming-back

On 12/1/2022 at 7:39 PM, ActiveCity said:

It's officially public. Here's the new link: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1bE-NgnA0sJF_A3za6ox1shNcfPp5Dl8&ll=40.730581762745274%2C-74.00968297443626&z=10 However, I am not done yet. I'm still making some revisions to these routes.

 

I like the  extensions into NE Queens (would one of them be the  train?), but I've been angling for that ever since I moved there almost 13 years ago. Most of the Brooklyn stuff, I have to disagree with, as well as the  replacing the  to Dyre and having the  replace the . I honestly don't think those will be very beneficial to most riders.

3 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

1. Yes some form of de-interlining should happen if it is cost effective and doesn’t force 99% of passengers to transfer

2. dropping the  this time just keeps the prince street switches in service 24/7 but the 34 St switches are now locked in place since the  goes up to 2 Av and only the  goes to Astoria.

3. A lot of the midday trains have been carrying air lately.

4. The reason why rush hour service (with the exception of the  in Astoria) cannot be cut is because even though the ridership is ~65% of what it was in 2019, the trains are still packed like sardines since the trains are still reaching their peak loading point in the outer boroughs and in working class neighborhoods. For example, eliminating even ONE  train trip would spell pandemonium because of how well ridership has rebound on the line. The issue is that as ridership continues to pick back up, the trains are no longer going to fit passengers and people will now start being left on the platforms waiting for multiple trains to pass by.

5. new funding sources are needed like in other metro systems - the MTA is providing a public service yet is being treated as if it were offering Botox injections that are not subsidized by the government and entirely covered by private debt and fares/revenue from the passengers.

6 A PSA to those who ride the subway - those of you farebeaters?! This is partly your fault - costing the agency 1/2 a BILLION $$$ in just this year, and then you complain why your service gets cut. They need an automatic system to enforce fare payment that is cost effective, maybe like harsh penalties for those caught.

I’d rather the Prince St switches not be used either and leave the  express. There always seems to be a delay when they are in use.

Agree that the State needs to change how they treat the MTA. Because whenever they want to widen a highway - it’s, “Hey look! We’ve got money for that!”

On 11/6/2021 at 1:29 PM, R32 3838 said:

 

The R142A's were converted since they weren't built with CBTC in mind. They were going to do 50% of the conversions in house but decided to let Kawasaki do it instead.This is why they have a big cabinet on the left side outside the cab.

 

The R143,R160,R179 had been built with CBTC in mind hence why they are designed the way they are.

But it was determined that it would be easier and more cost effective to convert the R142As versus the R62As on the . Otherwise, the R62As would have stayed on the .

On 12/3/2022 at 7:51 AM, darkstar8983 said:

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2022/11/30/mta-budget-proposed-fare-hike
 

 

here we go again - another fiscal cliff that the MTA must try to figure itself out of before we start hearing of catastrophic service cuts again.

 

if I had to interject, there are ways costs could be cut down but would require capital investment short term and some slight service scale backs.

1. look at operations on subway lines that have relays at their terminals to see if there’s a way to physically install crossovers before the end of the line to improve turnaround times.

2. some de-interlining 

3. Scaling back midday service (10:15AM to 3PM) on A division routes from 8 minutes ( on the IRT express ) to every 10 minutes. Scale back local service  and  to every 6 minutes (and all midday  trains to Pelham Bay + no express service from 10AM to 3PM). Also scale back B division services to every 12 minutes on the  and  trains, scaling back service on the  and  to every 10 minutes. Evening service needs a similar scale back.

4. Eliminate the  train and run  service local in Manhattan between 34 St and Canal St (unless ridership levels justify just having the  serve the local stops). I think the  can handle the local alone considering the  always bunch anyways. leave the  headway as is. 

5. Weekend service keep as is except the  - scale down to every 10 minutes weekends. Scale down the  trains to every 12 minutes.

 

6. As for buses and rail, maybe someone that is familiar with ridership and service scheduling there can post in the appropriate forum

Points 1 and 2, they should definitely consider. Points 3-5, not so much. Cutting midday and weekend service isn’t going to save much and it’s going to drive riders away…to their cars, if they have any. And cutting the  will be a drop in the bucket, just as it was in 2010. And the Broadway Line was a real shit show from 2010-16, what with all the excessive merging it had. 

On 11/24/2022 at 8:22 PM, trainfan22 said:

Today I did my annual tradition of riding the  up to Wakefield, caught an nice sunset on the S/B trip.

 

 

 

Riding the train on the EL's during sunset is such an underrated experience.... 

That it is. You get views of the city from a train on the el that you just don’t get any other way. I like it very much.

On 11/18/2022 at 4:03 PM, RandomRider0101 said:

Yeah, I've heard people say that the R142A is faster than the R142; so that's not surprising. At it's top speed, a 10-car R142A could probably pass by you in just under 5 seconds.

That’s one reason why they don’t operate R142s and R142As in the same train. They briefly tried that in the summer of 2001 in both  and  service. 

4 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

That's because they run the damn things to death with barely to no spares. About 3 R46s were taken OOS this weekend on the and lines. On Saturday i saw an R46 empty at times sq on the express track and then today this shit happened.

This is what happens when bites more than it can chew. They have to deal with this mess until the R211s are officially in service. 

 

Hopefully this wakes and car equipment up.

Then why don’t they get on with testing the R211 pilot train with passengers already? It’s been 15-16 months since those cars got here. What more tests or evaluation could they possibly need after all this time? How much more waiting truly is necessary before we really start seeing problems with the older cars? Get on with it already! 

Just now, JeremiahC99 said:

That could also be feasible as well though I feel that at this point, it would be better off just building a new station to replace two close ones in between, especially if we are also looking to lengthen platforms to accommodate 10-car trains.

That’s sort of what I had in mind. With the new Hewes platforms located further east, it would put the station much closer to Lorimer , so you can close Lorimer. Or you can even relocate the Lorimer platforms further west, putting them very close to the  at Union Ave and close the less-busy Hewes. This map shows how it could work. 

I also think the middle track should extend through Marcy Ave, with express trains bypassing the station, OR Marcy should be closed and replaced by a new dual-island platform station on the other side of Havemeyer St to better connect to the buses at Williamsburg Bridge Plaza. 

13 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Consolidating the Hewes Street and Lorimer Street will not negatively impact existing riders at these station and even with this one station consolidation, the stops will still be frequent.

There definitely should be a transfer between the  and the . And I think it’s feasible to have it a Hewes St. But most of the platforms would have to be relocated further east to minimize the length of the transfer.

Those barriers look like they need a lot of height in order to raise and lower properly, especially the one in the top video. I get the feeling a typical underground station in NYC built pre-MTA isn’t high enough to accommodate those barriers. Outdoor stations may be able to, but even then, would they be able to fit on the covered segments of the platforms?