R3216068E Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10201 Posted August 23, 2015 Small track fire on the today it wasn't a huge mess things actually went smoothly with the evacuation 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priincenene Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10202 Posted August 23, 2015 Small track fire on the today it wasn't a huge mess things actually went smoothly with the evacuation You was on a SMEE. Good so an NTT didn't cause this. So what caused the fire, garbage? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIP Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10203 Posted August 23, 2015 Why is "E177 Street" covered on most to all R142A's on the ?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulrivera Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10204 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Finally they got around to fixing the announcement glitches on the . No more glitch sounds, but on the late night program when it gets to 125 the M60 is mentioned twice with both the old version and the SBS version played. Also, the started running local early northbound because of alleged "emergency track work." Yeah, that wasn't an emergency they probably just wanted to close the northbound so that they could do the planned work they were already doing southbound uninterrupted. The gap in service probably had something to do with it too. Edited August 23, 2015 by paulrivera 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10205 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) You was on a SMEE. Good so an NTT didn't cause this. So what caused the fire, garbage? Really bruh, REALLY? Why is "E177 Street" covered on most to all R142A's on the ?? I always wondered that too Edited August 23, 2015 by Fresh Pond 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10206 Posted August 23, 2015 One of those station name changes the TA's made--always getting rid of the numbers from certain stations, going by neighborhood instead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewYorkElevated Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10207 Posted August 23, 2015 I was thinking, since our elevated trestle are aging, would it be possible in the next 20,30 or even 40 years from now that these lines may have to be place underground? I would think if would build a new subway line, it will be below ground rather that make the line elevated. Most likely not. Some of the sections of those lines are elevated for geographical reasons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10208 Posted August 23, 2015 Why is "E177 Street" covered on most to all R142A's on the ?? I always wondered that too One of those station name changes the TA's made--always getting rid of the numbers from certain stations, going by neighborhood instead. There isn't a 177 Street at Parkchester. There hasn't been one in that location since the Cross Bronx Expressway was built many moons ago, but obviously the name stuck around much longer, similar to 238 St/Nereid Av. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javier Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10209 Posted August 23, 2015 Moons ago? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10210 Posted August 23, 2015 Moons ago? He means years/decades ago. It's called figurative language. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJC Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10211 Posted August 23, 2015 Nope only reason why they didn't go the back then in 2002 is because the steinway tunnel was to narrow so when the R142A's were tested the tunnels scrapped the side of the trains... that is why the R62A's had to be taken off of the and and were sent to the . That is also why between 2004- around 2012 or so they worked on the tunnels to extend them so that the R142A's can fit through without any Issues. Had the R142A's been succesful back in 2002 the R62A's would of never left the and the could of likely been running CBTC right now. However bloomberg is the reason why the R62s left the to go to the . Complete and utter nonsense. The R142's are in 5 car sets, and the 7 runs 11 car trains. A 30 tph test was run one day in 2002 on the 7, to see if the line could get by with 10 car trains running more frequently. The test failed. So the R142's, as initially configured, couldn't go to the 7. Believe it or not politics has a role in service. That's why they haven't done the to Lefferts. It was supposed to happen back in 2011. Lefferts riders complained that they wanted their one seat Express Ride to Manhattan and they have pretty high political people. If you are seriously claiming that, one year after a major round of service cuts, NYCT was proposing to implement a major service boost in Rockaway service, then surely you can provide links to documentation of said proposal and of the alleged complaints. Incidentally, both the A and the C would have required many more cars for this service plan - where would these cars have come from? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10212 Posted August 23, 2015 Complete and utter nonsense. The R142's are in 5 car sets, and the 7 runs 11 car trains. A 30 tph test was run one day in 2002 on the 7, to see if the line could get by with 10 car trains running more frequently. The test failed. So the R142's, as initially configured, couldn't go to the 7. If you are seriously claiming that, one year after a major round of service cuts, NYCT was proposing to implement a major service boost in Rockaway service, then surely you can provide links to documentation of said proposal and of the alleged complaints. Incidentally, both the A and the C would have required many more cars for this service plan - where would these cars have come from? Only the was supposed to get like 3-4 extra sets. And it was mentioned on here by employees many of times it was supposed to happen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10213 Posted August 23, 2015 Complete and utter nonsense. The R142's are in 5 car sets, and the 7 runs 11 car trains. A 30 tph test was run one day in 2002 on the 7, to see if the line could get by with 10 car trains running more frequently. The test failed. So the R142's, as initially configured, couldn't go to the 7. If you are seriously claiming that, one year after a major round of service cuts, NYCT was proposing to implement a major service boost in Rockaway service, then surely you can provide links to documentation of said proposal and of the alleged complaints. Incidentally, both the A and the C would have required many more cars for this service plan - where would these cars have come from? That R62AR33/junjun guy is just posting misinformation as always just so he can sound knowledgeable. Ignore him. Only the was supposed to get like 3-4 extra sets. And it was mentioned on here by employees many of times it was supposed to happen And where would those so-called 3-4 extra trainsets come from? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJC Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10214 Posted August 23, 2015 Only the was supposed to get like 3-4 extra sets. And it was mentioned on here by employees many of times it was supposed to happen The A to the Rockaways is a much longer run than the A to Lefferts. Running all A's to the Rockaways would require significantly more cars and more crews than the current split service. Where would those cars have come from and why on earth would NYCT have proposed a major service increase during a budget crisis? Lots of stuff that has no basis in fact is mentioned here by employees. If this alleged proposal made it to the local communities, it also undoubtedly made it into the press. Can you find me one single link to an article, anywhere, regarding this alleged proposal and the alleged community uproar that followed? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10215 Posted August 23, 2015 The A to the Rockaways is a much longer run than the A to Lefferts. Running all A's to the Rockaways would require significantly more cars and more crews than the current split service. Where would those cars have come from and why on earth would NYCT have proposed a major service increase during a budget crisis? Lots of stuff that has no basis in fact is mentioned here by employees. If this alleged proposal made it to the local communities, it also undoubtedly made it into the press. Can you find me one single link to an article, anywhere, regarding this alleged proposal and the alleged community uproar that followed? Who said it was the Rockaways? Far Rockaway isn't the entire Rockaways and just because stuff hasn't hit the press doesn't mean it was never planned. Not everything hits the press you know unless its finalized 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10216 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Who said it was the Rockaways? Far Rockaway isn't the entire Rockaways and just because stuff hasn't hit the press doesn't mean it was never planned. Not everything hits the press you know unless its finalized You specifically said that there was a plan to extend the to Lefferts and reroute the to the Rockaways in 2011. That's what he was calling you out on. EDIT: You yourself know as well as Andrew and I do that the to/from Far Rockaway is the longest in the entire system and would have required a bit more cars than the run to/from Lefferts. The being extended to Lefferts would have also required a bit more cars. Why would there be such a plan back in 2008-2010? The was facing a ton of budget issues in those years. Edited August 23, 2015 by RollOver 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10217 Posted August 23, 2015 You said that there was a plan to extend the to Lefferts and reroute the to the Rockaways in 2011. That's what he was calling you out on. I said the to Lefferts. I never said anything about the to the Rockaways 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10218 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) I said the to Lefferts. I never said anything about the to the Rockaways Don't play around, Daniel. You know what you yourself said. If the goes to Lefferts, then that means all 's goes to the Rockaways, no? Also, look at my edited previous post above. I think you misunderstood what Andrew was trying to call you out on. Edited August 23, 2015 by RollOver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10219 Posted August 23, 2015 Believe it or not politics has a role in service. That's why they haven't done the to Lefferts. It was supposed to happen back in 2011. Lefferts riders complained that they wanted their one seat Express Ride to Manhattan and they have pretty high political people. Another one, the ran to 179th Street back in 1988. It only lasted less than a year because residents along Hillside Avenue local stations complained that they wanted their one seat Express Ride (And that was also proven in an article). So yeah there is truth to it Because RollOver added words to my mouth 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10220 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Heh, I see you've completely contradicted yourself. But it's cool. It's not like neither you nor R62AR33/junjun gave any solid proof anyway. There aren't enough cars for a extension to/from Lefferts (and the reroute to the Rockaways in general) anyway. No such was the plan during the years between 2008 and 2010 since the was facing budget issues. Keep posting more misinformation and hearsays. Edited August 23, 2015 by RollOver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10221 Posted August 23, 2015 Whatever back on topic. The trip to Far Rockaway seems longer than the trip to Rock Park from Manhattan. The good thing about it though is better than riding the to Jamaica-179th Street from Rockaway Park from what I heard. Although we already had an train that went to 179th Street back in 2013 which was from Far Rockaway. Does anyone else think the trip to Far Rock from Manhattan is longer than riding the to Rock Park? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3216068E Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10222 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) The from Rockaway park is about the same time as the from Far Rockaway but it is rare to catch an from Rockaway park since the serves that branch most of the time. Edited August 23, 2015 by R3216068E 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJC Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10223 Posted August 23, 2015 Who said it was the Rockaways? Far Rockaway isn't the entire Rockaways and just because stuff hasn't hit the press doesn't mean it was never planned. Not everything hits the press you know unless its finalized If not the Rockaways, then where do you claim the former-Lefferts A's would have gone? If "Lefferts riders complained that they wanted their one seat Express Ride to Manhattan" (your words) then Lefferts riders were aware of a proposal to take away their express ride. How did they become aware of said alleged proposal, and how did you become aware of their alleged complaints? Whatever back on topic. The trip to Far Rockaway seems longer than the trip to Rock Park from Manhattan. The good thing about it though is better than riding the to Jamaica-179th Street from Rockaway Park from what I heard. Although we already had an train that went to 179th Street back in 2013 which was from Far Rockaway. Does anyone else think the trip to Far Rock from Manhattan is longer than riding the to Rock Park? Hammels Wye to Far Rockaway is almost twice the distance of Hammels Wye to Rockaway Park. In the PM rush, the scheduled running time is 10-11 minutes from Broad Channel to Rockaway Park and 14-15 minutes from Broad Channel to Far Rockaway. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10224 Posted August 23, 2015 The from Rockaway park is about the same time as the from Far Rockaway but it is rare to catch an from Rockaway park since the serves that branch most of the time. Its not rare. If you read the timetable you will get one of the five trains. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3216068E Posted August 23, 2015 Share #10225 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Its not rare. If you read the timetable you will get one of the five trains. True, But it's pretty rare for me I've think I only caught the to rockaway park twice this year Edited August 23, 2015 by R3216068E 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.