LRG Posted July 31, 2009 Share #26 Posted July 31, 2009 Still though. If the find is malfunctioning, or it's an older car without station information, all they have to do is look out the window when the train is entering the next station to see where they are. If they don't do that, no matter how badly the technology fails, it's their own fault when their stop goes whizzing by in the background. People have become, er "synonyms for cats", and they want someone else to do EVERYTHING for them. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past. "Mommy dearest" needs to set all the signs for them so they know where to go. Couldn't agree more. It's a shame what technology is doing to us. I love it, don't get me wrong, but its getting ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTrainExp Posted August 1, 2009 Share #27 Posted August 1, 2009 Couldn't agree more. It's a shame what technology is doing to us. I love it, don't get me wrong, but its getting ridiculous. So you would rather have no LCD screens or FIND screens? Keep in mind that one reason why the R160s even have those things is to help VISUALLY IMPAIRED PEOPLE. Unlike you and almost everybody on these forums, there are some people who need the automated announcements and the technology because of their disability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt91 Posted August 1, 2009 Share #28 Posted August 1, 2009 Still though. If the find is malfunctioning, or it's an older car without station information, all they have to do is look out the window when the train is entering the next station to see where they are. If they don't do that, no matter how badly the technology fails, it's their own fault when their stop goes whizzing by in the background. People have become, er "synonyms for cats", and they want someone else to do EVERYTHING for them. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past. "Mommy dearest" needs to set all the signs for them so they know where to go. Agreed. People need to READ SIGNS AND PAY ATTENTION!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted August 1, 2009 Share #29 Posted August 1, 2009 So you would rather have no LCD screens or FIND screens? Keep in mind that one reason why the R160s even have those things is to help VISUALLY IMPAIRED PEOPLE. Unlike you and almost everybody on these forums, there are some people who need the automated announcements and the technology because of their disability. Don't get me wrong, I definitely find the FINDs helpful. But people just need to be aware of their surroundings and not be too dependent when all else fails. If the FINDs fail, they can't blame it on that if they missed their stop, that's on them because they weren't paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted August 2, 2009 Share #30 Posted August 2, 2009 If you rely on technology you are relying on human error because humans program and design machines. Wouldn't you rather rely on your own human error than someone else's? Don't get me wrong, those things are nice and all, but it's like the guy that listened to his GPS when it told him turn right (in 500 feet, but he didn't assume that part), turned onto railroad tracks, and decided the best course of action was to, in the dark of night, get out of the car, and jump up and down waving his arms at the train as it smashed through his car. Luckily for him he was smart enough to get out. But he still turned onto railroad tracks because a machine told him too. Is that really the machine's fault? I say absolutely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgedPolaris Posted August 2, 2009 Share #31 Posted August 2, 2009 Here's my little rendition of how I think a slightly more interesting version of the R160 might appear. Although I love it's styling, retaining the route logo/color on the front would be cool - and also displaying the destination like the old school cars. Also, the MTA's current logo (IMO) is pretty boring compared to the previous one, and the "TA" logo that's still on that building by Coney Island. This is a system with such a rich history, I wish it would be shown more visually on revenue cars. I loved that about the R38 - the old school logos and such. Well anyway, it's just a thought - not saying it's 100% practical nor cost efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted August 2, 2009 Share #32 Posted August 2, 2009 Here's my little rendition of how I think a slightly more interesting version of the R160 might appear. Although I love it's styling, retaining the route logo/color on the front would be cool - and also displaying the destination like the old school cars. Also, the MTA's current logo (IMO) is pretty boring compared to the previous one, and the "TA" logo that's still on that building by Coney Island. This is a system with such a rich history, I wish it would be shown more visually on revenue cars. I loved that about the R38 - the old school logos and such. Well anyway, it's just a thought - not saying it's 100% practical nor cost efficient. Hmm, that doesn't look too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted August 2, 2009 Share #33 Posted August 2, 2009 I don't know... the fact that there is an (NYCT) logo at all on this kills it for me. It's not the logo itself, but it just doesn't look right having two things on the left side. For me it would look better if the letter sign were moved down to the level of the T/O window and the (NYCT) logo eliminated completely from the front. Or even better, put both the letter and destination signs up top, a la Redbird/pre-GOH R32/38 etc. except make it a single color-capable LED screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmcconnell Posted August 2, 2009 Share #34 Posted August 2, 2009 I don't think we need front destination signs. With a few exceptions (such as the ) trains only have two destination points that remain relatively static. Most riders don't care about the destination, but rather about the line. And if they want to know the destination, they can just look at the side sign. I also don't think that the LED route designators on the new tech trains should be replaced with rollsigns. They've been working fine for almost ten years and nobody outside of transit forums has ever complained about their lack of readability to the extent of my knowledge. Neither should they be replaced with LCD "TVs", as those are expensive to purchase, install and maintain, and I've seen quite a few of them on the R160s that either display garbled text or don't work altogether. In short, things work fine the way they are, so don't change them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted August 2, 2009 Share #35 Posted August 2, 2009 Here's my little rendition of how I think a slightly more interesting version of the R160 might appear. Although I love it's styling, retaining the route logo/color on the front would be cool - and also displaying the destination like the old school cars. Also, the MTA's current logo (IMO) is pretty boring compared to the previous one, and the "TA" logo that's still on that building by Coney Island. This is a system with such a rich history, I wish it would be shown more visually on revenue cars. I loved that about the R38 - the old school logos and such. Well anyway, it's just a thought - not saying it's 100% practical nor cost efficient. Good job! @rmcconnell: Front destination signs can deem necessary on single-branch routes. Especially during GOs. Sometimes, a train is being rerouted on a different route and stops at a different station, passengers would know that it is some other train in a certain direction. Or a train is being rerouted from its normal route, such as the going to Euclid, the to Coney, the to Atlantic only etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Julio Posted August 3, 2009 Share #36 Posted August 3, 2009 and away to the fantasy forum this goes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmcconnell Posted August 3, 2009 Share #37 Posted August 3, 2009 @rmcconnell: Front destination signs can deem necessary on single-branch routes. The and the are the only ones I can think of, the latter of which only goes to Nereid Avenue during rush hours. The majority of the passengers on both of those routes aren't affected by the final destination of the train, and if they are, they can just look at the side sign. All other routes have two static destinations that rarely* change. *except during GOs Especially during GOs. Sometimes, a train is being rerouted on a different route and stops at a different station, passengers would know that it is some other train in a certain direction. Or a train is being rerouted from its normal route, such as the going to Euclid, the to Coney, the to Atlantic only etc... True, but shouldn't the existing sidesigns be able to do that? If they usually can't program those correctly during GOs, how would they be able to achieve the correct result with a front sign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted August 3, 2009 Share #38 Posted August 3, 2009 Interesting changes Agedpolaris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted August 3, 2009 Share #39 Posted August 3, 2009 The and the are the only ones I can think of, the latter of which only goes to Nereid Avenue during rush hours. The majority of the passengers on both of those routes aren't affected by the final destination of the train, and if they are, they can just look at the side sign. All other routes have two static destinations that rarely* change. *except during GOs No not exactly. And by single branch routes, I mean routes with "so called static destinations" with no branches. The makes a few trips to Jamaica 179th during PM rush hours. The makes a few trips to New Lots during PM rush hours as well. A few trips end at Canal Street (and head into the lower level of City Hall). The goes to Chambers Street on certain hours, to Broad on certain hours, to Bay Parkway on certain hours and then to only Myrtle on certain hours. A few trips can end at Dyckman etc... And of course, GOs mean a lot to the destinations. True, but shouldn't the existing sidesigns be able to do that? If they usually can't program those correctly during GOs, how would they be able to achieve the correct result with a front sign? The essential point of this thread is to re-create something similar the front destination signs of the Redbirds and the pre-GOH R32s with modern day technology. If front destination signs were the norm for half a century of subwaying, there should be no problem putting them back on with new technology. Somebody may have said this, but passengers can benefit from them. Stand at Broadway Nassau for the A during PM rush. Hordes of passengers will fight to glance at the side signs in order to see whether the train is going to Lefferts, Rock Park or Far Rock, and you can hear the groans people will make. With the new technology, passengers could at least tell what train it is by reading (however small the signs could be) the destination without waiting for the train to stop before them so they could see where it is going to. I've seen side signs done correctly during GOs. To be frank, they sometimes are better done than the rollsigns during GOs. At least, things are computerised and do not have to be done manually. Remember, there is a reason why this thread is placed in the fantasy forum. It's fantasy for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.