SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[Vulturious]

Dumb question, but why couldn't the MTA pull a split  moment, have one either the  or  run along Brighton with either of them making shuttle service along whichever respective branch is affected? If they could run shuttle service along Brighton and reroute the  entirely elsewhere, I don't see why they can't do the same to the  or .

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

31 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

Dumb question, but why couldn't the MTA pull a split  moment, have one either the  or  run along Brighton with either of them making shuttle service along whichever respective branch is affected? If they could run shuttle service along Brighton and reroute the  entirely elsewhere, I don't see why they can't do the same to the  or .

I was thinking something similar, one of those 4th Avenue services should have been split in order to maintain the headways. The and collectively cover large parts of the system in Queens by themselves, and they're both running on this shit headway, all because of something in Brooklyn that they couldn't plan better. I get work needs to be done, but you gotta be f**king kidding me with cutting the whole , , and lines by that much, to fit on one track. 

To make matters worse, the train isn't running into Manhattan, pushing people onto the and the , among other lines. Complete absurdity and lack of judgement (at the very least) from whoever came up with and approved it. 

I would have gone with the , have it run 161-Prospect Park (or Brighton Beach if that would create too many issues) on the northern split. The southern split would be 36th Street to Coney Island. There would be merging involved if the was split, around the 36th Street area. 

Edited February 12, 2023 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[darkstar8983]

9 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

I was thinking something similar, one of those 4th Avenue services should have been split in order to maintain the headways. The and collectively cover large parts of the system in Queens by themselves, and they're both running on this shit headway, all because of something in Brooklyn that they couldn't plan better. I get work needs to be done, but you gotta be f**king kidding me with cutting the whole , , and lines by that much, to fit on one track. 

To make matters worse, the train isn't running into Manhattan, pushing people onto the and the , among other lines. Complete absurdity and lack of judgement (at the very least) from whoever came up with and approved it. 

I would have gone with the , have it run 161-Prospect Park (or Brighton Beach if that would create too many issues) on the northern split. The southern split would be 36th Street to Coney Island. There would be merging involved if the was split, around the 36th Street area. 

yes, I agree the  should have ran via Brighton this weekend (12 minute headways and to/from Brighton Beach), and have a  shuttle between 36 St and Stillwell Av (or 9 Av to Stillwell Av if the express track to turn trains around at 36 St are not available.

[CenSin]

16 hours ago, Vulturious said:

There's a planned service change that's forcing all three to run local.

More to it than that. There were more problems further down along Sea Beach.

14 hours ago, Calvin said:

On the way home from the city, I was on that said  running via the Brighton line. Got on at Prince St waiting for the  but took that Nancy instead because the clocks show the next  was 20 minutes away. As I got off at Brighton Beach, that said  was now 30 minutes away. 4th Av must be really bad with all that 15 minute traffic each line. 

Pretty good speed: less than 30 minutes from DeKalb Avenue to Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue (diagonal line added by me). But the was certainly not 30 minutes behind the .

[Lawrence St]

Before the rebuild, did they use to run a pair of R32's coupled to an R11?

[darkstar8983]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Before the rebuild, did they use to run a pair of R32's coupled to an R11?

I find it amazing that back then (pre 1990s) it was commonplace to run mixed equipment (I.e R32, R38, R42) and the R40/R40Ms

[Trainmaster5]

1 hour ago, darkstar8983 said:

I find it amazing that back then (pre 1990s) it was commonplace to run mixed equipment (I.e R32, R38, R42) and the R40/R40Ms

Should have seen the line back then. Variety in a nine car consist every day. 

[JustTheSIR]

2 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

I find it amazing that back then (pre 1990s) it was commonplace to run mixed equipment (I.e R32, R38, R42) and the R40/R40Ms

The MTA should have made the NTTs interoperable with each other, or even the R46/68s. Imagine an R68 consist pulling into Canal with the other half being an R179, or an R46 leading an R211

Edited February 13, 2023 by JustTheSIR

[Vulturious]

19 minutes ago, JustTheSIR said:

The MTA should have made the NTTs interoperable with each other, or even the R46/68s. Imagine an R68 consist pulling into Canal with the other half being an R179, or an R46 leading an R211

That is literally impossible...

You do realize how incompatible SMEE's to NTT's and vice versa they are, right?

[Calvin]

8 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

That is literally impossible...

You do realize how incompatible SMEE's to NTT's and vice versa they are, right?

They aren't except one time, an R160 gave an R46 a push from being stranded or stuck on the line. This was before the CBTC Queens Blvd fleet swap. 

 

Edited February 13, 2023 by Calvin

[Lawrence St]

2 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

I find it amazing that back then (pre 1990s) it was commonplace to run mixed equipment (I.e R32, R38, R42) and the R40/R40Ms

Whats more interesting is in the earlier photos of the Franklin Shuttle, the abandoned track is covered by a platform extension. Prior to the rebuild, they took it out for an unknown reason. And there's two signals back to back with each other as well.

[Vulturious]

8 minutes ago, Calvin said:

They aren't except one time, an R160 gave an R46 a push from being stranded or stuck on the line. This was before the CBTC Queens Blvd fleet swap. 

 

Yes I remember, but they weren't interoperable, though. Like you said, it was the R160 pushing the dead R46, nothing more was happening.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

30 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Whats more interesting is in the earlier photos of the Franklin Shuttle, the abandoned track is covered by a platform extension. Prior to the rebuild, they took it out for an unknown reason. And there's two signals back to back with each other as well.

The Culver Av Shuttle I've always found fascinating for a variety of reasons. It's really the only remaining "useless" shuttle that hasn't been fully axed and a subway map without the shuttle just feels incomplete.

There were also so many ways the shuttle could've (and still could theoretically) be tied into the larger system, perhaps offering Brighton Expresses a fastrack into Manhattan, but that's never happening at this point

[Calvin]

R46 6150-6151 will be off to scrap from 207 Yard. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by Calvin

[Lawrence St]

7 hours ago, Calvin said:

R46 6150-6151 will be off to scrap from 207 Yard. 

Noooooo!

[Lawrence St]

Is there a reason why the R143’s don’t run on the  (prior to the CBTC activation of QBL)?

[Lawrence St]

12 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

The Culver Av Shuttle I've always found fascinating for a variety of reasons. It's really the only remaining "useless" shuttle that hasn't been fully axed and a subway map without the shuttle just feels incomplete.

There were also so many ways the shuttle could've (and still could theoretically) be tied into the larger system, perhaps offering Brighton Expresses a fastrack into Manhattan, but that's never happening at this point

They should have left the trackage in my opinion, although reduced from 3 tracks to 2. I’m certain at some point in the early 2000’s they would have put the shuttle back with how dense that area with ridership got.

[NBTA]

The R142As gotta be the worst maintained cars in the city (exterior wise). 

[JustTheSIR]

13 hours ago, Vulturious said:

That is literally impossible...

You do realize how incompatible SMEE's to NTT's and vice versa they are, right?

That’s why I said they should have made them interoperable

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

What's the point in having the SMEE's be compatible/interoperable with the NTT's? Spending millions of dollars to rebuild the SMEE's from the ground up just to say they could run linked to NTT's is a short-sighted idea since the cost to do so would be as much as it would be to just purchase new subway cars.

[RandomRider0101]

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Is there a reason why the R143’s don’t run on the  (prior to the CBTC activation of QBL)?

Likely 'cause the already had to share them with the  , especially before the r179s arrived. Even now, they still appear on the on an as-needed basis.

 

 

[Lawrence St]

6 minutes ago, RandomRider0101 said:

Likely 'cause the already had to share them with the  , especially before the r179s arrived. Even now, they still appear on the on an as-needed basis.

 

 

Don’t the  and  share equipment?

[RandomRider0101]

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

Don’t the  and  share equipment?

Yes they do; both the & the share their equipment with the .

 

 

[RandomRider0101]

8 hours ago, NBTA said:

The R142As gotta be the worst maintained cars in the city (exterior wise). 

From my observation, I would have to agree. The line in general is the biggest eyesore in the system when it comes to exterior cleanliness. I hope something gets done about it soon.

 

Edited February 13, 2023 by RandomRider0101

[Vulturious]

7 hours ago, JustTheSIR said:

That’s why I said they should have made them interoperable

If you're talking about making the SMEE's compatible having upgraded similar to what TFL did to their older stock cars, sure I guess. However, it's still probably going to be very unlikely that they could be interoperable.