SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[NewFlyer 230]

Somebody explain to me this:

 

The right now runs to three different terminals am I correct? You got one heading towards Ozone, The other towards Rockaway Park and the other towards Far Rockaway.

 

This is very confusing, since tourists will want to lets say go to the Rockaways, although they have never been on the subway before. On the R46's, some of the conductors forget to change the LCD sign so you would have a uptown train having its LCD's saying "To FAR ROCKAWAY", with others, some people mistake a Ozone Park train for a Far Rockaway Bound train.

 

Now, lets change the train fleet to change the same situation. If the had R160's, it would be better to see on the FIND maps if the train is heading towards ethier 3 of its terminals, and with the Automatic Signs and non glitchy exteior signs, it would be great for disabled people and tourists. However, since R160's are getting sent over to the , the least the MTA can do is add strip maps to the R46 fleet of the .

I understand what you mean with the R46 LCD's being confusing and all. There are several of them with broken LCD's or LCD's stuck on a specific destination. I see this all the time on Jamaica's R46's.

On the train going to 71st Ave you can see signs that say "95 at" and then another could have the regular

"Forest Hills- 71 Ave" . Some are completely blank. I don't know why some say To and some don't. Like some R46's on the say To Jamaica 179st and then other just say Jamaica 179st.

I noticed a mistake on the signs. R46's say "via 60th" and R160's say " via 59" so I feel like the R46's have very buggy LCD signs. I don't think they have updated those signs in a while. You may find old destination signs and I doubt they have destinations via Bridge because every that went via the Manhattan bridge had to be an R160.

 

Back to what you were saying if R160's were to run on the I could see some people become less confused but you are always going to have those people who don't pay attention at all and still ride the wrong train. R160's could technically run on the Lefferts Branch because the sometimes runs to Lefferts on G.O's but I heard they are banned from the Rockaways for now.

[Javier]

Banned? Wasn't the first R160 ever in service ran on the to Far Rockaway for test purposes? And wasnt there an E train that was rerouted to Far Rockaway to?

 

Now, the reason why I wanted the R160's on the is because they have that "Transfer at Rockaway Av" announcement.

[NewFlyer 230]

Banned? Wasn't the first R160 ever in service ran on the to Far Rockaway for test purposes? And wasnt there an E train that was rerouted to Far Rockaway to?

 

Now, the reason why I wanted the R160's on the is because they have that "Transfer at Rockaway Av" announcement.

Well we would have seen R160's in the Rockways if there wasn't an power issue. or trains rerouted would go to either Euclid Ave or Lefferts Blvd.

[Daniel The Cool]

Well we would have seen R160's in the Rockways if there wasn't an power issue. or trains rerouted would go to either Euclid Ave or Lefferts Blvd.

There was an that went to Far Rockaway Last Year due to huge incident on the lines.

 

And yes R160s are banned from the Rockaways again due to those voltage issue being back after a went there in June

[CTK246]

Why not just extend the to Ozone Park so there's only two terminals? Or, if you want to get more radical, eliminate service to Rockaway Park so the only has one terminal.

 

(Waiting to get crucified for this post)

Edited August 15, 2015 by CKhaleel

[ttcsubwayfan]

The Lefferts Blvd riders are supposedly entitled to an express ride, so you can forget about having the run there.

[RollOver]

The Lefferts Blvd riders are supposedly entitled to an express ride, so you can forget about having the run there.

 

That's why all three branches will always have the crappiest headways in the entire subway system: 15-20 minutes off-peak (although rush hour headways on all three branches are slightly less than that, however).

 

I feel bad for riders at Aqueduct, Howard Beach, Broad Channel and Far Rockaway (busiest stations on the IND Rockaway Line, generally speaking) who have to wait a long ass time for the off-peak. I can understand if headways were 10 minutes, but not more than that.

 

Oh well.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

If the was extended to Lefferts, you could have the serve both Rockaway Park and Far Rockaway during off peak hours, and you'd need less Rockaway Park Shuttles, and easier for Rockaway Park Riders to get on the . Lefferts riders can get on at Rockaway, and there shoild still be a seats left for the riders to sit if they want to use it. It also gives a boost towards the Howard Beach stop.

 

I dont see what makes them so special. They got multiple bus options to the Queens Blvd Line for midtown,and the village. They have express buses to midtown, and they have a possibility to transfer to the express if they want. Besides, isn't it pointless to wait for the over the anyways?

 

This political pressure bullshit has to stop. I understand political pressure in the sense that it will help the community overall in a good way, and address actual issue. This type of "I'm entitled to this" mentality when it's already known that service is inefficient is what makes it impossible to benefit more people. Many services run like this because of that.

Edited August 15, 2015 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[RollOver]

Why not just extend the to Ozone Park so there's only two terminals? Or, if you want to get more radical, eliminate service to Rockaway Park so the only has one terminal.

 

The idea is great. Nothing wrong with it at all. All riders at Lefferts Blvd, 111th, and 104th just have to transfer at Euclid Avenue or Broadway Junction if they really want an express train so bad. Meanwhile, Far Rockaway Branch customers get reliable 5-10 minute headways, including riders at Broad Channel (transferring from the shuttle), Howard Beach-JFK Airport and Aqueduct. The Rock Park shuttle can also run every 5 or 10 minutes too.

 

Those stubborn Lefferts passengers should be ashamed of themselves. I guess they don't deserve reliable and shorter headways at all then.

If the was extended to Lefferts, you could have the serve both Rockaway Park and Far Rockaway during off peak hours, and you'd need less Rockaway Park Shuttles, and easier for Rockaway Park Riders to get on the . Lefferts riders can get on at Rockaway, and there shoild still be a seats left for the riders to sit if they want to use it. It also gives a boost towards the Howard Beach stop.

 

Yeah, but why not keep the Rock Park Shuttle so it can run every 5-10+ minutes like the ? Do you prefer waiting 15-20+ minutes throughout the entire off-peak on both Far Rock and Rock Park branches? No. You really don't need to have the alternate between Far Rock and Rock Park branches if means keeping the same crappy 15-20 minute headways on both Far Rock and Rock Park bracnhes. I've been saying this many times.

[R3216068E]

IMO the should be extended to Lefferts that way the can have less work to do and you can increase service to far rockaway while you can have some (A)'s help the Rockaway park out. Also when the becomes nearly full of NTTs it should run over night

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

The idea is great. Nothing wrong with it at all. All riders at Lefferts Blvd, 111th, and 104th just have to transfer at Euclid Avenue or Broadway Junction if they really want an express train so bad. Meanwhile, Far Rockaway Branch customers get reliable 5-10 minute headways, including riders at Broad Channel (transferring from the shuttle), Howard Beach-JFK Airport and Aqueduct. The Rock Park shuttle can also run every 5 or 10 minutes too.

 

Those stubborn Lefferts passengers should be ashamed of themselves. I guess they don't deserve reliable and shorter headways at all then.

 

 

Yeah, but why not keep the Rock Park Shuttle so it can run every 5-10+ minutes like the ? Do you prefer waiting 15-20+ minutes throughout the entire off-peak on both Far Rock and Rock Park branches? No. You really don't need to have the alternate between Far Rock and Rock Park branches if means keeping the same crappy 15-20 minute headways on both Far Rock and Rock Park bracnhes. I've been saying this many times.

The would definitely stay, just operate every 20 minutes instead of every 12-20 minutes, alternating with the train.

[RollOver]

IMO the should be extended to Lefferts that way the can have less work to do and you can increase service to far rockaway while you can have some (A)'s help the Rockaway park out. Also when the becomes nearly full of NTTs it should run over night

 

That's correct. The   would be the overnight Lefferts shuttle. However, it doesn't need to run its full route overnight because subway ridership overnight isn't as high as during the day.

Edited August 15, 2015 by RollOver

[R3216068E]

 

That's correct. The would be the overnight Lefferts shuttle. However, it doesn't need to run its full route overnight because subway ridership overnight isn't as high as during the day.

 

Yeah,They should extend the out to somewhere In Manhattan like 2 av on the to help out the in Brooklyn late nights.

[RollOver]

Yeah,They should extend the out to somewhere In Manhattan like 2 av on the to help out the in Brooklyn late nights.

 

Trains that come from Brooklyn cannot terminate at 2 Av and the doesn't need help from another line in neither Brooklyn or Manhattan overnight. But if you yourself insist. *shrugs*

Edited August 15, 2015 by RollOver

[R3216068E]

Trains from Brooklyn cannot terminate at 2 Av and the doesn't need help from another line in neither Manhattan or Brooklyn overnight. But if you yourself insist. *shrugs*

Yeah my mistake I wasn't thinking and yeah the does need help in Brooklyn overnights not Manhattan because you have alternates to help the out Edited August 15, 2015 by R3216068E

[NewFlyer 230]

The doesn't need to be running to Rockaway Park. Those stations have the least amount of ridership out of the rest of the stations in the whole system. They don't need 10 minute service. I could definitely say yes for Far Rockaway because even a Q52 LTD had to be created to help out the in a way

[Wallyhorse]

If the was extended to Lefferts, you could have the serve both Rockaway Park and Far Rockaway during off peak hours, and you'd need less Rockaway Park Shuttles, and easier for Rockaway Park Riders to get on the . Lefferts riders can get on at Rockaway, and there shoild still be a seats left for the riders to sit if they want to use it. It also gives a boost towards the Howard Beach stop.

 

I dont see what makes them so special. They got multiple bus options to the Queens Blvd Line for midtown,and the village. They have express buses to midtown, and they have a possibility to transfer to the express if they want. Besides, isn't it pointless to wait for the over the anyways?

 

This political pressure bullshit has to stop. I understand political pressure in the sense that it will help the community overall in a good way, and address actual issue. This type of "I'm entitled to this" mentality when it's already known that service is inefficient is what makes it impossible to benefit more people. Many services run like this because of that.

This is why if funds became available, one thing I would be looking at doing would be to do a partial build of what would eventually be Phase 4 of the SAS as a train that would operate (until the rest of Phase 4 were done) between Euclid Avenue and what will be the Seaport station on the .  This would operate via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would connect to the existing Transit Museum (with that moved elsewhere and Court Street turned back into a regular station) and coming in on the as-current unused track at Hoyt-Schermerhorn.  This would have the be the local to Euclid while the operates full-time to the Rockaways and the runs full-time to Lefferts (except overnights when the would be extended to Lefferts).  

 

This also would shorten the work required when Phase 4 of the SAS is built (if it ever is).

[Fresh Pond]

The doesn't need to be running to Rockaway Park. Those stations have the least amount of ridership out of the rest of the stations in the whole system. They don't need 10 minute service. I could definitely say yes for Far Rockaway because even a Q52 LTD had to be created to help out the in a way

Its only 5 or so trains to the city in the morning, and 5 or so back to Rockaway Park in the afternoon. Other than that, the is more than enough.

 

The Q52 LTD being made had nothing to do with the

[RollOver]

The doesn't need to be running to Rockaway Park. Those stations have the least amount of ridership out of the rest of the stations in the whole system. They don't need 10 minute service. I could definitely say yes for Far Rockaway because even a Q52 LTD had to be created to help out the in a way

Rock Park Shuttle, not the . Also, ridership levels can change years later. So 5 or 10 minute frequencies with the 4-car alone might be needed by then.

[Javier]

The R142's HAVE FINNALY STOPPED GLITCHING!!

[Q113 LTD]

Look at this: R142 with sign problems.

 

[trainfan22]

I don't think the sign is having a problem, I think the crews always do that on 142s during a put in, I assume that particular one was a put in from the back at Utica?

 

I seen a 142 do that on the layup tracks next to the E180th station a while back.

[MTA Bus]

Look at this: R142 with sign problems.

 

That's the test pattern.

[NewFlyer 230]

Do R142/A's still have codes or was that long replaced a decade ago.

[Priincenene]

The R142's HAVE FINNALY STOPPED GLITCHING!!

Okay, and?

Do R142/A's still have codes or was that long replaced a decade ago.

Not sure, they were on the New Techs cuz the existed before and after 9/11 Edited August 16, 2015 by Priincenene