T to Dyre Avenue

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.

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)?

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

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!

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.

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?

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.

Not really. can operate in two sections - Ditmars to Lexington/59th (or Queensboro Plaza) and Whitehall to Stillwell. can be cut back to Atlantic.

Maybe even back then, the TA wanted the and to have the same cars for flexibilityat Flatbush Avenue, so the got passed over for R62As, even after they were tested there.

Riders from "Chinatown, Brooklyn" can't transfer from the N to the 7 at Times Square like so many other riders do? Yes it's a huge station with a lot of stairs and passageways. But it's not like they have to go on a long odyssey to make that transfer. And plenty of N riders from Brooklyn already change for the 7 at Times Sq. If they do decide to put in switches north of 57th to allow Broadway Local trains access to 2nd Ave, then I'd be ok with sending the W up that way. It would be similar to the A/D and B/C merges at Columbus Circle.

That's why I suggest running all Broadway Express trains to 2nd Avenue and running all Broadway Local trains to the 60th St Tunnel. By running both the N and the Q to 2nd Ave, you eliminate the time-consuming switching that is currently done in two locations on the Broadway Line (Prince and 34th) and you can run more trains per hour per line. Just resurrect the W and have it serve the Astoria Line once 2nd Ave opens.

Except that the front LED route sign on the R142/143/160 (and most likely the R179s) is always the same reddish-orange color, regardless of route. Now if the NTT cars used front rollsigns like the R42/46/62/68 cars, that would certainly be true.

The MBTA and SEPTA still paint their subway and trolley cars. Neither of those transit authorities have gone belly-up yet. And both are facing major funding issues in their respective states. The MTA won't die if it paints at least the fronts of its NTT fleets different colors. Hell, it didn't kill them to paint the area around the head and tail lights red on the R142/142A fleet.

I didn't even know they could do all-amber LEDs. I thought red and green were the only options.

The biggest mistake the MTA made in all of this was not renovating Corona Barn to handle the R142As in the 90s. Why they didn't renovate Corona back then is beyond me. Had they done that, they could have put the R142As on the right from the start and not had to go through all this moving R62As around... twice.

The R62As are very good and reliable subway cars, but they are not CBTC- or ATO-capable so they should not stay on the line. They also don't handle the (7)'s heavy rush hour crowds well. And those bucket seats...they gotta go. Too many riders are under the impression that their bodies are made out of Silly Putty and that they can fit their big bodies into those tiny seats and will jam themselves into those seats. Ugh!

Well, it sure was nice riding R160s down to the Rockaways during the late summer and early fall of 2006. Damn shame that won't happen again for quite some time. Yes, the R110s were test trains. But I really would have preferred that the NTT cars looked more like the R110B, especially up front. Large roll signs up front are much more legible than small LED signs are and way more legible than the godawful flipdot signs the R32s and 38s got during GOH.

That's too bad. Post-GOH R32s are pretty dark on the inside, unlike before they were sent out for GOH. At the very least, they should have painted the seats, ceilings and walls the same colors as the R142s.

I still hope they can at least get Phase 2 done. Much of the tunneling for it was done in the 70s. A short section would need to be built between 105th and 110th Streets to connect the two existing sections. Probably the most significant new tunneling required in Phase 2 would be from 120th/2nd to 125th/Lex. Doesn't seem like a completely impossible, super-expensive project to do.

I can't see UES riders waiting that long during rush hours for a train, when the runs far more frequently than that. Second Avenue will need more than just the . They should send the up there too, especially if they can get Phase 2 done.

I'm glad others on here agree that even with just Phase 1 open, the will not be sufficient to handle the potentially high ridership.

Switch and terminals in Queens, then? The runs in Queens and Manhattan 24/7 and extends to Bay Ridge during overnight hours to replace the shuttle. The overnight would then turn into a shuttle between Pacific and CI.

A train in revenue service in Queens. Yes, that would be a real sight. But then some other train would have to replace the in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx.