Jump to content

R179 Discussion Thread


East New York

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 10.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

This new (K) that is being talked about.....

 

Based on the leaks, the service will be a replacement of (F) local service between Coney Island and Queens via 63 St.

 

1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

179 to Coney via local= (K) 

179 to Coney via express= (F) 

(I would personally swap them)

Doesn’t the (F) already run local between Coney Island and Queens? Unless you meant the section in Brooklyn between Jay and Church to distinguish the express trains from the local, like @Around the Horn posted.

43 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

This (K) would essentially function similarly to the (Z) (and (9)) in a way. The (J)(Z) are the same line just as how our theoretical (F)(K) pairing would be. However the main difference is that the latters wouldn't do skip-stop. 

But if they were gonna do a pairing up for Culver Express service, then why not use the (F)(V) instead of (F)(K)? The (V) is more accustomed to passengers, since it only recently got axed whereas for the (K) it got discontinued nearly three decades ago. Plus before the budget cuts the (V) was proposed to be extended to Church. 

 

I agree. (V) would have made more sense, especially since they still have it on the R46 roll signs and probably still have a (V) 6th Ave Local program on the R160s. The K they have on the R46s is the blue one from 1985-88. 

26 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Guys, the (K) program is a test program like the (P) program to Plattsburgh. There is no (K) service being made as I just asked a friend who worked in planning.

P to Plattsburgh? For real? Of all the possible destinations within the subway to use for a test program, why would they do one for a part of New York State that’s not only not on the subway, but is nowhere near New York City?

Wait, never mind, I just saw @Around the Horn‘s newest post. Even so, they could have come up with something a bit more plausible.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Union Tpke said:

How much time did it take for you to make that?

It took me like a few minutes lol. I simply typed in Helvetica for most of it, put a large black square to serve as a background, and basically typed "K" over the orange circle. 

Long story short, I basically used Inkscape to design this. That's the software I use to make my fantasy maps, visual subway bullets, and profile pictures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

It took me like a few minutes lol. I simply typed in Helvetica for most of it, put a large black square to serve as a background, and basically typed "K" over the orange circle. 

Long story short, I basically used Inkscape to design this. That's the software I use to make my fantasy maps, visual subway bullets, and profile pictures. 

Can you create one for the (T) running along 3rd avenue in the Bronx?? Just for the fun of it, although I hope the MTA does decide some time in the future to extend the (T) to the Bronx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

That is what showed up for the K to CI. I thought that was on a separate P Plattsburgh code.

There are two, one for the (K) and one for the (P). The (K) was used to test announcements and the FIND playback, if I remember correctly.

Edited by Lawrence St
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

I wasn't sure if that was a guess.

I'll put it this way, someone showed me pictures of the exterior including the K to Coney Island. And that person told me it was supposed to replace the (F) local on Culver. No confirmation of the route coming anytime soon.

 

And based on previous posts, it may be fake.

Edited by MysteriousBtrain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

I'll put it this way, someone showed me pictures of the exterior including the K to Coney Island. And that person told me it was supposed to replace the (F) local on Culver. No confirmation of the route coming anytime soon.

 

And based on previous posts, it may be fake.

You know how quick people are to believe something. Just like that photoshopped 76th St picture, everybody hopped on the bandwagon and was convinced that 76th St was real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

You know how quick people are to believe something. Just like that photoshopped 76th St picture, everybody hopped on the bandwagon and was convinced that 76th St was real.

I think that the station does exist, but not because of that fake, and not to the extent it has been clamed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Has anyone tried to find out Wether or not the station ACTUALLY exists in the recent years?

If it's in Manhattan, it's fake. The only station that did exist way in the past in upper Manhattan is 91st/Broadway on the (1).

https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/IRT_West_Side_Line

Edited by subwaycommuter1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, subwaycommuter1983 said:

If it's in Manhattan, it's fake. The only station that did exist way in the past in upper Manhattan is 91st/Broadway on the (1).

76th Street and Pitkin in Queens. We need to go down into the tunnels past Euclid with tunnelrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2018 at 1:55 PM, Coney Island Av said:

The R62As on the (6) can't go to the (2) because the latter occasionally shares with the (5). This is evidenced by the combined (2)(5) strip maps on the R142s, as (2)s would often become (5)s at Flatbush and vice-versa, hence why they installed them. Like it or not, they'll have to stay on the (6) until retirement. 

If they put the CBTC on Lexington project on the fast track, then that could potentially justify swapping the (2)’s R142s and the (6)’s R62As, because they don’t want to go through the hassle of retrofitting SMEE cars with CBTC technology. This, in turn, could open the door to de-interlining Rogers, because then you can easily have the (2) and (3) sharing the same southern terminal, so then a (2) could become a (3) at Flatbush and vice versa. But they should do this if - and only if - they’re planning to fast-track CBTC on Lexington Ave.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If they de-interline Rogers, that could potentially justify swapping the (2)’s R142s and the (6)’s R62As, because then the (2) and (3) would both be sharing the same southern terminal, so then a (2) could become a (3) at Flatbush and vice versa. They should do this if - and only if - they’re planning to fast-track CBTC on Lexington Ave.

Yes, that's part of Byfords plan, which will also accelerate CTBC on 8th Avenue as well.

In other words, QBL, 8th Avenue and Lexington Avenue will be CTBC within the next five years.

Edited by subwaycommuter1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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