T to Dyre Avenue

 They should make the Madison Avenue Line  (P) (U) & (Y) trains. & (P) trains come in from Queens with the Trains from the 53rd Street Tunnel and the train meets at 50th Street with the (U) while the (P) train meets at 42nd Street Grand Central with the (U) (Y) & . The (U) & (Y) trains run on Madison Avenue Line starting at 125th Street.

And just how often would and trains would be able to run if they have to share the 53rd Street Tunnel with these other trains? It can't be the same number of trains per hour as now.

Now I'd be very surprised if no one suggested extending the east, but http://queenstransit.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/tomorrows-subway-7-line-extension-northern-line/

 

A new would take over the Port Washington Line from Great Neck to Port Washington

 

 

I don't know, I just don't think people around here would go for a subway extension. The noise, the people it brings, I don't think thats wanted. The LIRR has been enough for these people for years and there never really has been an outcry for more public transportation in addition to the Port Washington line.

 

As a former resident of Bayside (lived there from 2010-12) who works in Lower Manhattan, I would have welcomed a subway extension either along Northern Blvd or the PW Line with open arms. The Q12 and Q13 buses are very well-used routes that make a lot of stops on the way to or from Main Street, Flushing. Because peak fares on the LIRR are very costly and a monthly LIRR pass doesn't include any transfers to the subway, I took the bus to/from the subway at Flushing to cut down on commuting costs. Well, you get what you pay for. Pleasant, fast and convenient are not words I would use to describe that commute. And Heaven help you if there's a sick passenger or signal problem on the line. Now if the were extended eastward, there would still be problems with sick passengers or signal problems, but at least it would eliminate a slow bus ride and transfer for many people.

 

As for the people who would protest and fight a subway extension because of the noise or the people it would bring, that's just NIMBY paranoia. Sorry to sound dismissive of people's concerns, but really, that's what it is. What would stop troublemakers from driving to Bayside or Douglaston to cause problems? Or what would stop them from taking a bus there? Subway trains don't automatically equal crime, drugs and shootings. This is not the 1970s or 80s. Maybe some folks like to think the rest of the City hasn't changed since then, but they are wrong. What hasn't changed since then is the City's rail and transit infrastructure and it's struggling to keep up with the demand of a city that has a lot more people than it did 30, 40 years ago. And much of that increased demand is right here in Queens. We have to do something to address it. Ignoring it is not going to make it go away. 

 

Maybe a subway extension to northeastern Queens is not the answer, I don't know. But what I do know is the PW line is underutilized, especially west of Bayside. Occasionally, I took peak local trains home to Auburndale when I was fortunate enough to learn about train troubles ahead of time. To my surprise, these trains had plenty of seats available. Perhaps increased service west of Bayside at more affordable fares (really, LIRR, $9.50 from Bayside to Penn one way?) with transfers to the subway and buses at Woodside and Penn Station would put more people on those trains. And it might help relieve some of the crowding on the and speed up the bus commutes for people who are only headed to Flushing, either as a destination or to transfer to another bus.

You mean a " to Dyre Avenue"? I would be in favor of doing that over hooking the into the Concourse Line, mostly because it also offers more travel options to the eastern Bronx. Really, the Concourse line doesn't need two full-time services and they would have to boot the rush-hour off the Concourse Line to make room for the . Running up 3rd Avenue would be an excellent option too; it would replace the long-gone 3rd Avenue el service.

 

(It's why I choose that as my handle.)

I also think SAS should have at least three tracks, but with Phase 1 already dug, isn't it already too late to add a third track there? Perhaps future phases can have at least three tracks.

I remember a few years back, 68s were taken off the Q and replaced with slants only because it gave CI time to have new door strips installed on the 40 slants when the Q wasn't running (this was back when the D ran on Brighton). There were complaints by riders about that car switch which was continuously reported on the news. It doesn't happen often, but there are some instances of complaints. Now don't let that open up the flood gates saying every car switch is met by complaints. This one was one of those rare times where the majority of riders complained.

 

And the MTA must have ignored their complaints because R68s didn't return to the until it came home to the Broadway Line in 2001. Even then, the express still ran with slants. And when the returned to Brooklyn in 2004 and replaced the , it ran with - you guessed it...slants!

R211 (since the contract hasn't been put out to bid yet):

 

Length: 75 ft

Width: 10 ft

Configured in pairs that operate in 4-car sets. In other words, a 4-car set that can be uncoupled easily and quickly. This way, if one car within the set has mechanical or structual damage, only two cars have go out of service instead of four and the other two cars can be coupled to another pair and continue in service. This also makes it possible to operate 6-car trains if ridership warrants it via an A-B-B-A-B-A configuration.

 

Car bodies will be stainless steel. They will have on both sides four pairs of double doors plus one single door near the No. 2 (rear) end of each car. A-cars (cab cars) will have blue fronts that will look like the ones on the M7A cars on Metro-North. A and B (non-cab cars) will have a blue beltline strip along the sides and ends (like the R44s and R46s used to have).

 

Interiors will have speckled light gray walls except for the wall separating the cab which will be red. Seating will be mostly tranverse with aisle-facing seats limited to right by the doors. Seats will be painted in red and have taller seatbacks to better support the backs and necks of taller people. Floors will be tiled dark gray with two lengthwise rows of red tiles near the seats. There will also be red tiles at each doorway that connect to the rows of red tiles. This will facilitate being able to locate where the exit doors are.

 

 

Once again, you're making it sound really simple. It's not.

 

The R160s were SUPPOSED to be compatible with the R143's, but that was out of the MTA's control once the cars were delivered and tested. A lot of things can go wrong in the designing and contracting out to third party vendors process that would render a car type incompatible with another.

 

And you're also forgetting that the R143's are WAY out of warranty and procurement contracting dates. In order to procure a replacement car, the MTA would have to go through a huge binding legal tender process that would cost a lot of money, just to get one car to render a single 4 car set revenue capable again. Not worth their time.

 

The MTA could have written it into the R160 contract that the cars be compatible with the older R143s. They did it in the past. Every B Division car from R16 to R42 was capable of running in the same train under normal circumstances. Same with A Division cars from R12 to R36. Even post-GOH, R32s ran with R38s and R40ms ran with R42s. There was even a married pair made up of an R40m and an R42 (put together because their original mates, ironically, were in a collision). Now we have three R143s sidelined because "it's not worth it" to produce another car that can run with them. Ridiculous, that's what it is.

I'm going to have to agree with Threxx....

 

While the is not really in dire need in the BX, It will certainly help out here.... The failed due to the fact that it skipped stops that were usually packed with people.... Had there been more stations like Burnside (Two island platforms) it would have certainly worked....

 

Buses around Beford do infact get packed.... Ex: The Bx1, Bx2, Bx10, Bx26, Bx28 and the Bx34... This is coming from a guy who frequents the area....

 

I do think the should come up here... At least during rush... I know that will give an issue with the though.... express is pathetic up here....

 

I'd say we should focus on the first phase of the SAS for now... Worry about the BX when the time comes....

 

 

It's too bad the MTA isn't considering converting Bedford Park into an "express" stop. By extending the southbound platform over the southbound local track and rerouting the southbound local track to the outside of the southbound platform (sort of a "reverse image" of the layout at Willets Point ), they could have another station where trains on all three tracks can platform. And with Bedford Park being a major transfer point, it might justify the existence of a service. Plus, the land west of the station is occupied by Concourse Yard, so it's MTA property.

I find it cheesy and highly unlikely for the 207th to be the home for the , unless it shares with the . Chances are for the fleet to still use older trains so they can retire the day they die at 207th.

 

Cheesy? How would it be "cheesy" if 207th became the new home for the train?

I'm guessing the white P, T, U, X and Y bullets are (or were) arranged the same way as the bullet on that roll sign. I once rode in an R32 car with its bottom rolls set on P with the P all the way to the left like that.

People should know where the goes and what route it does.

 

They already do. That's what the side destination signs on the trains and the overhead platform signs are for.

But they will not be able to use four-car R179 sets on the . That's what we get for the MTA insisting on ordering permanently linked four- and five-sets of trains (and linking the R62s and R68s into permanent four- and five-car sets) and for not buying new cars that can operate in the same train with the older ones.

Either way if the rollsign has no info on the rollsign, if they put it on the , it's only one trip then goes NIS. It's not an all day thing. All this for a damn rollsign...shit

 

Anyhow, regardless of what the route description roll on the 32s displays, as long as the north and south terminals are correct and route bullet is there on the third line, the MTA will run the trains on the line(s) they want to. All this crap about the 32s being unable to run on the Z because of a lack of a route description is simply that. Crap. I will direct you to about two or three years ago when one set of 32s ran on the B. The lower sign either displayed "6 Avenue/West End" or "Washington Hts/6 Avenue", both of which are technically incorrect. However, since the bullet still showed B and the north terminal was signed "145 St, Manhattan" or "Bedford Park Blvd" and the south was "Brighton Beach", no one really cared. Besides, outside of the Manhattan trunks, most riders don't even know the old line names anyway.

 

Exactly. Just because most R32 rolls have just without any route info on them, doesn't mean they can't ever run on the . That is all you need to see to know that your train is a train. The R42, R62, R68 and retired R40 roll signs only show the route letter or number; nothing about what streets or lines the train runs on. Lack of route info has never been a problem with those trains. Setting the R32 rolls on without "Jamaica/Nassau St" next to it wouldn't be any different. I mean, it's not like the was rerouted to 6th Avenue and got a different line color.

Yes. I'm old enough (34) to remember those cars first going into service replacing beat-up, grafittied R15, R17, R21, R22, R29 and R33 cars (with the R29s and R33s getting overhauled and sent to the , and lines). What a relief it was to see these shiny new cars in 1984.

I'm surprised it moved under its own power. Maybe there's hope for it going back into service after all (I hope).

"What do New York City straphangers share in common with the folks in Plattsburgh, New York?

Both got some welcome news when the MTA and Bombardier Transportation inked the contract to manufacture 300 new R179 subways cars at Bombardier’s Plattsburgh facility. The order specifies10 prototypes for testing and approval, followed by 50 five-car sets and 10 four-car sets, with revenue service expected around late 2016.

For upstate residents, the $599 million deal will mean some 500 jobs and related revenue stimulus. For riders on NYC Transit’s lettered B Division lines, it will mean a fleet of state-of-the-art subway cars to retire the aging R32s and R42s, some of which are approaching 50 years old, well past the expected service life of a subway car. The R179s are also slated for use on the Second Avenue Subway.

What will the new cars look like?

“The 60-foot shell won’t look too different from the R160s you see on the lettered lines today,” says Michael Wetherell, vice president and chief mechanical officer, Division of Car Equipment, Subways. “Those design specifications have proven very successful. But as we work on this new order, we look forward to introducing a number of improvements.”

Lighting, climate controls, and digital voice announcements will all be upgraded. For riders, the most visible change will be in communications, including the strip map displays.

As Wetherell explains, “Instead of a display map that counts down the stops, the new cars will have a route indicator with more flexible messaging capacity. The new cars’ audio and text message displays will also have greater flexibility, allowing NYC Transit to quickly update service modifications and scheduling information.

Other improvements will be less visible. While the cars are not being purchased with closed-circuit television fully loaded, they will include the necessary wiring and conduits for future security camera installations. The new cars will also be lighter. By removing propulsion motors, lightening the floors, and making other materials changes, the trimmer R179s will improve overall energy efficiency.

“We are constantly looking for ways to reduce unnecessary weight,” Wetherell says. “It makes a real difference. Every pound of weight you can cut adds up to a significant energy saving over the life of a subway fleet.”

Though work in Plattsburgh has begun, much remains to be done before straphangers can actually enjoy their new ride.

 

I do have to admit, the front looks nicer than the present (and incompatible) R143s and 160s. Bu then again, it is a an artist's rendering. Won't know for sure if it will still look that way when Bombardier gets set to build the prototype cars.

If the SAS takes three stops under 3rd and is then annexed to Concourse, it makes more sense right there than the current terminal.

 

But if the SAS is joined to Concourse, the will most likely have to be booted off the Concourse Line and either the or SAS will have to run local. Concourse riders will likely go nuts at the thought of their train being made local during rush hours. If Concourse had four tracks, then I'd definitely say extend one of the SAS lines up that way. But with only three tracks, it would make more sense for the Bronx portion of the SAS to run on a separate route. If it's the or , a yard wouldn't have to be built in the Bronx; either line would just continue to be based out of Coney Island.

If you study the original proposal and the later revisions for the SAS, including the present phased construction plan, it's obvious that what is being constructed is a direct replacement for the els. There wasn't anything in the plan that mentioned Culver ,Fulton , or the Rockaways, IIRC. I can't deny the severe overcrowding on the Lexington lines but it appears the plan was to reduce the crowding on the upper Lex 4,5, and 6 trains, hence the phased work on SAS. IMO the Bronx would be more deserving of any extension of the line if one were to be constructed because they lost the services (2nd and 3rd Ave els) to begin with. Whether one promotes a Bronx, Brooklyn, or combinations of an extension it's my opinion that either way comes very close to the realm of fantasy in today's world. It should be noted that many plans, including some we have promoted on this forum, were scrutinized and dropped from consideration before this so-called 'final" plan was adopted and this round of construction on this SAS was approved. I can't begin to imagine how much litigation, how many environmental impact studies and the like, and how many decades it would take before any further extensions would take place. That's what I was trying to point out in my earlier post today. I've seen new tunnels, new routes, new services being promoted lately while I'm saying let's be realistic about this before this thread breaks down into arguments about what service goes where when phase one isn't completed yet. IMO phase two might be 50-50 but phases three and four are on shakey ground at the present. I'm still waiting for the IND Second System to be built in it's entirety so you can probably guess how much faith I have in the MTA and New York City and State to complete a transit project. Let's try to be civil to each other. Carry on.

 

I agree that the Bronx should be the next boro that the 2nd Avenue Subway travels to if the planners' goal of relieving overcrowding on the upper and lines is to be realized because those lines are crowded even before entering Manhattan. If they really want to relieve overcrowding, it might be better to have the line continue north into the Bronx rather than dogleg over to Lexington and 125th. Maybe start by having a short section in the Bronx with stations on 3rd Avenue at 149th and 138th Streets with transfers to the and at 149th and the at 138th. Yes, it would require tunneling under the Harlem River. Would it be significantly more expensive to build a prefabricated tunnel and sink it under the Harlem River, like they did with the 63rd Street tunnel (which is longer than this tunnel would be)?

 

 

However, Culver gets very crowded on weekdays. I can see short turning some (probably the current Kings Highway trains) to Church, but not all.

Good to know. In that case, I propose retaining service to Kings Highway on weekdays. I propose running it local KH to Jay St.

Bad idea, IMO. The could be as much as 18 TPH, we need to keep it out of Dekalb Junction. I say drop Phase 4 and connect it to Rutgers instead and send it to Avenue X. It could only be 15 TPH, but it is enough to service 2nd Avenue for now.

 

The will have to run less than 18 tph if ever joins the in the Rutgers tunnel. The is already at 15tph. The would have to be limited to 15tph.

 

As for Culver, running both the and trains south of Church would be overkill. The Culver el is already overserved with 15 tph. It would even more so with 15 's and 15 's (even if they originate at Avenue X). A better use for the in Brooklyn would be to run it express between Jay St and Church Ave and have the replace the to Coney Island. The would then run local from Jay to Church and terminate at Church with the . This way, the would have direct access to a train yard and the can run a shorter, more reliable route.

The R68s are indeed the B-Division R62s. Both fleets were ordered roughly around the same time. Both have a lot of similarities inside and out (especially interior-wise). There is no A-Division equivalent of the R32s, which is unfortunate (had the R39 contract been put out to order, there would have been). Perhaps the A-Division fleet in the 70s and early 80s would have looked less shabby than if there was.

Exactly. Every two-bit politician all over the city would be demanding that any subway lines running through their district gets the newest subway cars every time the MTA orders new cars. Buses too. The MTA would have to replace all of its rail cars and buses at the same time in order to please them all. Would these same pols be willing to give the MTA ample funding so they can replace all subway cars and buses in one shot? Of course they won't, so they really need to shut up about how the MTA assigns subway cars. Politicians, either put up or shut up!

Gonna say this again as before. Don't be surprised if this swap is temporary. Surely people on the Pelham Line won't be happy to see the R62As back on the , as I'm hearing and my personal belief. You MAY just see these head to ether the or (REGARDLESS of 2/5 Swap). You never know, for those who will say it will never happen!

 

Just like how those in Country Club won the extension of the Bx24 to the Square and Parkchester rez got there bus service back via Metropolitan Ave (BX4A).

 

Hopefully this swapping won't feud the politicians and communities the serve.

 

The MTA is not going to run different types of subway cars on the and lines because they need to have the flexibility to send a train back out of Flatbush as a train and vice versa. For decades the and have operated the same or compatible subway cars to allow and trains and crews to enter and leave Flatbush faster. They will not change that just to please a few loudmouth politicians in the East Bronx and/or Upper East Side whose giant egos will be hurt if the R62As return to the line. Perhaps if those clowns had been properly funding the MTA instead of cutting its funds, there could have been money to buy a whole new fleet of CBTC-compatible cars for the so that the could then keep its R142As.

After giving it some thought, all these supplemental service ideas could easily be solved by increased service on the primary lines (the and ). There's nothing (besides the current lack of available cars and money) limiting those line from running 15 TPH, thus solving the Astoria problem, the 4th Avenue local problem, the West End problem and the Second Avenue problem. Simple, straight-forward and without the use of the .

 

Remember, the express/local portion of the Broadway line isn't that long. There's only five local stops between 57 St-7 Av and Canal St and if the and lines were streamlined (the as the full express [skips 49 St all times] to 57 St-7 Av [later to 96 St/2 Av] and the and as the locals to their current terminals) the trains would move much faster and you could fit more trains on the line.

 

Coexisting with the A on CPW is most likely what prevents the D from running 15 tph. As for the N, Q and R, running 15 tph apiece is excessive, especially if you 're going to run both the N and R local all the way through Manhattan and Brooklyn. Do the Broadway and 4th Ave Local stations really need 30 tph?

What about keeping things simple?:

 

Weekend:

Astoria - Coney Island via Sea Beach, Broadway Local, via Bridge, 4 Av. Express

96 St. - Coney Island via Brighton, Broadway Express, via Bridge, Brighton Local

71 Av. - 95 Street, Broadway Local, via Whitehall, 4 Av. Local

Astoria - 9 Av. via West End, Broadway Local, via Whitehall, 4 Av. Local

 

Does Astoria really need both the N and the W on weekends? Does Broadway really need three locals on weekends? If anything, shouldn't 2nd Ave get more service. Maybe send the N to 96th with the Q and eliminate the needless switching at 34th or Prince Streets.