Chris89292 Posted April 10 Share #30701 Posted April 10 I’ve seen another transit system on instagram with platform barriers that are designed better than the cheap hideous ones on our subways, it’s located in Japan and the design is similar to ours but built with iron metal, it has space for doors to open, it’s not fully closed off but it looks very modern type, unlike ours with yellow paint on it, looks like something out of the 60’s, MTA is downgrading so bad now a days 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted April 10 Share #30702 Posted April 10 (edited) New inside lighting are being done on the R142As on the . Seen one pair, 7756-7760 and on video, a train: 7781-7785 with 7696-7700 with this work done. Edited April 10 by Calvin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris89292 Posted April 10 Share #30703 Posted April 10 40 minutes ago, Calvin said: LED lighting are being done on the R142As on the . Seen one pair, 7756-7760 and on video, a train: 7781-7785 with 7696-7700 with this work done. what LED, the new Interior car lights or the Signage light? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted April 10 Share #30704 Posted April 10 4 minutes ago, Chris89292 said: what LED, the new Interior car lights or the Signage light? New Interior car lights. It's like a tint of blue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsbridgeviewer382 Posted April 10 Share #30705 Posted April 10 5 minutes ago, Chris89292 said: what LED, the new Interior car lights or the Signage light? interior 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted April 12 Share #30706 Posted April 12 On 4/10/2024 at 5:59 PM, Chris89292 said: I’ve seen another transit system on instagram with platform barriers that are designed better than the cheap hideous ones on our subways, it’s located in Japan and the design is similar to ours but built with iron metal, it has space for doors to open, it’s not fully closed off but it looks very modern type, unlike ours with yellow paint on it, looks like something out of the 60’s, MTA is downgrading so bad now a days I think we once again need to go over what being a “pilot program” is. the gates we have up now are not designed to be permanent. They are testing the concept. the gates in Japan are supposed to be permanent. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zacster Posted April 12 Share #30707 Posted April 12 Yea, but it looks like they don't want these gates to work and no thought went into them. They were forced to do something. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris89292 Posted April 12 Share #30708 Posted April 12 13 hours ago, Kamen Rider said: I think we once again need to go over what being a “pilot program” is. the gates we have up now are not designed to be permanent. They are testing the concept. the gates in Japan are supposed to be permanent. Doesn’t seem to be the case when the MTA is adding them randomly on the , the pilot test should’ve occured on just the original 3 stations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsbridgeviewer382 Posted April 12 Share #30709 Posted April 12 35 minutes ago, Chris89292 said: Doesn’t seem to be the case when the MTA is adding them randomly on the , the pilot test should’ve occured on just the original 3 stations. That's too small of a testing pool to determine the effectiveness of the barriers. Not all stations were created equal so it's better to test it out on multiple stations to see where the barriers could be most effective. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted April 15 Share #30710 Posted April 15 There's a change in the train schedule that took effect on April 1st, when the was back at 63rd St, Roosevelt Island and 21 St-Queensbridge: * There are only 2 trains during the AM rush that goes out of service, the usual to Coney Island from the tripper to 96 St and just 7:47 AM from Forest Hills to 59 St, Brooklyn. They both come back from the Coney Island Yard PM hours as a 3:17 and 3:48 from 36 St station where the and are at. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted April 15 Share #30711 Posted April 15 5 hours ago, Calvin said: There's a change in the train schedule that took effect on April 1st, when the was back at 63rd St, Roosevelt Island and 21 St-Queensbridge: * There are only 2 trains during the AM rush that goes out of service, the usual to Coney Island from the tripper to 96 St and just 7:47 AM from Forest Hills to 59 St, Brooklyn. They both come back from the Coney Island Yard PM hours as a 3:17 and 3:48 from 36 St station where the and are at. Because all those drop outs were the extra R jobs that were added for the GO. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkstar8983 Posted April 15 Share #30712 Posted April 15 3 hours ago, Kamen Rider said: Because all those drop outs were the extra R jobs that were added for the GO. Before there were 3 drop-outs (two 59 St trips in addition to the 96 St trip). I think there are less drop-out trips now since midday service is every 8 minutes instead of every 10 minutes, and likely before the service increase, there were trains that get taken out of service at 71 Av as well after the rush hour. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkstar8983 Posted April 21 Share #30713 Posted April 21 I just had a thought. Observing the ridership trends on Queens Blvd, it doesn’t seem like the train is as full as it could be, but yet service between 6 Av Stations and Brooklyn seems well utilized. Why doesn’t transit consider the following changes 1. Split rush hour service between 96 St/2 Av and Forest Hills-71 Av (keep the 71 Av trips via the 53 St tunnel), so that way each branch runs every 12 minutes during peak times. Midday service can be every 8 minutes (again either split to 96 St and 71 Av), or keep every 10 minutes and all trips to 96 St. Evening service until 10PM to 96 St and run weekend service there too. Night service can stay at Myrtle Av. 2. Swap the during the s Queens Blvd hours of operation then swap the to 63 St all other times. it Just seems that the isn’t as busy and having the service suspended for 7 months showed that the can handle Queens Blvd for the most part with not as much service on that end of the line, but the 6 Av-to-Metropolitan Av section needs at the very least the service it’s getting, if not more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchytectAnthony Posted April 21 Share #30714 Posted April 21 (edited) 2 hours ago, darkstar8983 said: I just had a thought. Observing the ridership trends on Queens Blvd, it doesn’t seem like the train is as full as it could be, but yet service between 6 Av Stations and Brooklyn seems well utilized. Why doesn’t transit consider the following changes 1. Split rush hour service between 96 St/2 Av and Forest Hills-71 Av (keep the 71 Av trips via the 53 St tunnel), so that way each branch runs every 12 minutes during peak times. Midday service can be every 8 minutes (again either split to 96 St and 71 Av), or keep every 10 minutes and all trips to 96 St. Evening service until 10PM to 96 St and run weekend service there too. Night service can stay at Myrtle Av. 2. Swap the during the s Queens Blvd hours of operation then swap the to 63 St all other times. it Just seems that the isn’t as busy and having the service suspended for 7 months showed that the can handle Queens Blvd for the most part with not as much service on that end of the line, but the 6 Av-to-Metropolitan Av section needs at the very least the service it’s getting, if not more. 1. I feel like doing all of this would be pretty messy and confusing on many levels: riders perspectives, additional interlining etc. Altho I agree should continue to 6th Ave on weekends, whether to Forest Hills or 96 st. ( trains really needs that help on weekends in my experience lol) 2. Pretty sure this was discussed a lot in the 63rd st closure thread. As much as I think letting run to Forest hills on weekends can reduce the late night switcheroo confusion a little but idk. 3. I have some doubts about that, both and on 53rd, probably, but the is well known for many common issues, so itll need the help, even if riders doesn't take the on QBL local as much as other routes. Edited April 21 by ArchytectAnthony 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S78 via Hylan Posted April 21 Share #30715 Posted April 21 2 hours ago, darkstar8983 said: I just had a thought. Observing the ridership trends on Queens Blvd, it doesn’t seem like the train is as full as it could be, but yet service between 6 Av Stations and Brooklyn seems well utilized. Why doesn’t transit consider the following changes 1. Split rush hour service between 96 St/2 Av and Forest Hills-71 Av (keep the 71 Av trips via the 53 St tunnel), so that way each branch runs every 12 minutes during peak times. Midday service can be every 8 minutes (again either split to 96 St and 71 Av), or keep every 10 minutes and all trips to 96 St. Evening service until 10PM to 96 St and run weekend service there too. Night service can stay at Myrtle Av. 2. Swap the during the s Queens Blvd hours of operation then swap the to 63 St all other times. it Just seems that the isn’t as busy and having the service suspended for 7 months showed that the can handle Queens Blvd for the most part with not as much service on that end of the line, but the 6 Av-to-Metropolitan Av section needs at the very least the service it’s getting, if not more. Hard pass. It’s been explained numerous times by RTO employees here why the is needed on Queens Blvd and not 2nd Ave. Just because trains don’t seem to be utilized on a particular corridor doesn’t they aren’t. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted April 21 Share #30716 Posted April 21 7 hours ago, darkstar8983 said: I just had a thought. Observing the ridership trends on Queens Blvd, it doesn’t seem like the train is as full as it could be, but yet service between 6 Av Stations and Brooklyn seems well utilized. Why doesn’t transit consider the following changes 1. Split rush hour service between 96 St/2 Av and Forest Hills-71 Av (keep the 71 Av trips via the 53 St tunnel), so that way each branch runs every 12 minutes during peak times. Midday service can be every 8 minutes (again either split to 96 St and 71 Av), or keep every 10 minutes and all trips to 96 St. Evening service until 10PM to 96 St and run weekend service there too. Night service can stay at Myrtle Av. 2. Swap the during the s Queens Blvd hours of operation then swap the to 63 St all other times. it Just seems that the isn’t as busy and having the service suspended for 7 months showed that the can handle Queens Blvd for the most part with not as much service on that end of the line, but the 6 Av-to-Metropolitan Av section needs at the very least the service it’s getting, if not more. A while back, I had proposed this myself by splitting the into and "Orange ." with the trains operating as they do now and the "Orange " trains operating to 96th Street-2nd Avenue. What likely would need to be done there would be if split the into and as I would do it, probably have every other train run to 71st-Continental to fill in the void of the being split (or course, CBTC work between Court Square and Queens Plaza on the would have to be completed before this could be accomplished). In this, the "Orange " would run at all times to 96th/2nd and eliminate the night and weekend shuttles. 4 hours ago, S78 via Hylan said: Hard pass. It’s been explained numerous times by RTO employees here why the is needed on Queens Blvd and not 2nd Ave. Just because trains don’t seem to be utilized on a particular corridor doesn’t they aren’t. And the is utilized and why if they can do the necessary CBTC work between Court Square and Queens Plaza on the , I would return half of the service to QBL to compensate for the loss of the and in this case go back to having the operate entirely to 71-Continental when the is not running on QBL (with the late nights returning to be an express). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiznit1987 Posted April 21 Share #30717 Posted April 21 As a QBL rider, let me just say this: Only having one local was hell. The issue is that the does carry light from 5th av/53rd st up to Roosevelt, but once at Roosevelt it becomes packed again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted April 22 Share #30718 Posted April 22 5 hours ago, shiznit1987 said: As a QBL rider, let me just say this: Only having one local was hell. The issue is that the does carry light from 5th av/53rd st up to Roosevelt, but once at Roosevelt it becomes packed again. Which would be covered in an split to and "Orange " by having (once necessary CBTC work is done) having half of the trains operate to 71-Continental to during the week and at all times nights and weekends. This gives with the "Orange " 2nd Avenue riders a one-seat option on 6th Avenue while having half each of the current and trains cover QBL local with the . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted April 22 Share #30719 Posted April 22 Can we keep this nonsense in the other thread…? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkstar8983 Posted April 22 Share #30720 Posted April 22 19 hours ago, shiznit1987 said: As a QBL rider, let me just say this: Only having one local was hell. The issue is that the does carry light from 5th av/53rd st up to Roosevelt, but once at Roosevelt it becomes packed again. Ohhh. Didn’t know that. I’ve only seen the west of Roosevelt Av and that’s why I made that comment. Sorry about that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted April 23 Share #30721 Posted April 23 I asked a question way back around Thanksgiving and I’ve yet to see anyone answer it. Looking at the website from way back then I pointed out that most delays were not caused by equipment troubles but other issues. We’ve had disruptive passengers. We’ve had people on the tracks. We’ve had signal and switch problems. I haven’t even mentioned the network communication breakdown problems that seem to crop up intermittently. Meanwhile I keep seeing posts about the R211 cars and how the anticipation has increased for the introduction. I’m trying to figure out what the justification is for this. I don’t see anything that shows that the R211 will eliminate the present day problems. The problems that I’ve pointed out have nothing to do with car equipment. There’s nothing wrong with being a pom pom waver but it’s time to come back to reality, IMO. I don’t think the introduction of the new equipment will help improve the quality of service to any degree. Stevie Wonder can probably see my point. Just my opinion though. Feel free to disagree. Carry on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted April 23 Share #30722 Posted April 23 43 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said: I don’t think the introduction of the new equipment will help improve the quality of service to any degree. For a lot of people, it's often also what comes with the new equipment. In the case of the R211s, that would be CBTC on 8th Avenue, which means retirement of much of the legacy signal hardware that is often the root cause of problems. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted April 23 Share #30723 Posted April 23 10 minutes ago, Kamen Rider said: For a lot of people, it's often also what comes with the new equipment. In the case of the R211s, that would be CBTC on 8th Avenue, which means retirement of much of the legacy signal hardware that is often the root cause of problems. Actually I'm not in disagreement with you on the basics. Where I come from the infrastructure, not the equipment, is the most important component. Signals, switches, rails, CBTC overide the NTT cars. It's the "other" things that are holding things back. My opinion. Carry on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted April 24 Share #30724 Posted April 24 On 4/22/2024 at 11:39 PM, Trainmaster5 said: Actually I'm not in disagreement with you on the basics. Where I come from the infrastructure, not the equipment, is the most important component. Signals, switches, rails, CBTC overide the NTT cars. It's the "other" things that are holding things back. My opinion. Carry on. In case people misunderstand what I’m getting at just go back to the website and read what I’m talking about. People on the tracks, pulled cords, disorderly behavior and the like. What I mean is that no matter what equipment is present , R9-R211, the delays will still happen. My opinion. Carry on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
46Dover Posted April 24 Share #30725 Posted April 24 I saw the what looked to be the first R211 cars for the Staten Island Railway at the Kawasaki Yonkers while riding Metro North’s Hudson Line with PA Paul 😁 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.