Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Understandable for the (F) since even after it got the R160s during the R160 phase-in, they still had to run R46s on it for reasons XYZ.

 

there were nothing wrong with the R46's on the (F) when the line was 80-90% R160's, But when the r46's dominated the (F) it did suffer from dwell times. from June 2010 to mid 2011 the (F) was 100% R160, then they started popping up on the (F) again when they decided to run more R160's on the (R)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Understandable for the (F) since even after it got the R160s during the R160 phase-in, they still had to run R46s on it for reasons XYZ.

I think it's b.c of the (G) being moved to Coney Island Yard. It's easier space at Jamaica Yard or easy deadhead from Church Av to C.I Yard. And, the introduction of the Second Av Subway is how more R46s showed up on the (F) line. 

 

Back in September 2019, on a Saturday, the (F) had 1 R46 while the rest are tech train R160s. 

Edited by Calvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

 

there were nothing wrong with the R46's on the (F) when the line was 80-90% R160's, But when the r46's dominated the (F) it did suffer from dwell times. from June 2010 to mid 2011 the (F) was 100% R160, then they started popping up on the (F) again when they decided to run more R160's on the (R)

And let us not forget from August 2013 to September 2014 during the (R) train tunnel reconstruction. The (R) was all R160s and the (F) had 35 R46s + 10 R160s, and the (F) ran fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

And let us not forget from August 2013 to September 2014 during the (R) train tunnel reconstruction. The (R) was all R160s and the (F) had 35 R46s + 10 R160s, and the (F) ran fine.

The (F) didn't ran fine when it was mostly R46s, especially since the (F) has more ridership than the (R) does. There's a reason why they often ran way more R160s than R46s on the (F) during weekends (when the Montague Tunnel was closed) when train requirements are lower.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the R46s, when the (Q) had the "96 St/2 Av, via BRIGHTON and BROADWAY" codes added. Does it affect only the Coney Island group (5482-5877) or that it's out of all the R46s in the system (A/C lines with 5878-6258 group) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2021 at 5:44 PM, darkstar8983 said:

And let us not forget from August 2013 to September 2014 during the (R) train tunnel reconstruction. The (R) was all R160s and the (F) had 35 R46s + 10 R160s, and the (F) ran fine.

Ugh the (R) being R160s entirely during that closure isn't true at all. Yes it was for like the first few months or so of the closure but R46s started appearing again occasionally. I even remember there was a couple of times when a set or 2 of R46s was used in the Brooklyn section. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daniel The Cool said:

Ugh the (R) being R160s entirely during that closure isn't true at all. Yes it was for like the first few months or so of the closure but R46s started appearing again occasionally. I even remember there was a couple of times when a set or 2 of R46s was used in the Brooklyn section. 

That is true. There were about 4-6 R46s on the (R) towards the end (even on Sundays despite the risk of R46s ending up in Brooklyn), so that the (F) could be more 50/50 with its car assignments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-mta-board-david-mack-covid-vaccine-20210106-7wh2clmeovfvlb22e6zvbvphea-story.html

 

Quote

 

MTA board member reportedly accused of helping rich pals get COVID-19 vaccine

DKX24GPRQVCIPERLBAKO5RG3AI.JPG

An MTA board member has reportedly been helping older wealthy friends obtain COVID-19 vaccinations at a Florida nursing home.

David S. Mack, a real-estate developer from Long Island, used his influence as a board member of affiliates of the MorseLife system of long-term care homes to obtain the shots, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

Mack and others associated with the MorseLife system have offered the shots to elderly and wealthy Floridians — bumping them to the front of the line while other people wait their turn, the newspaper said.

Mack’s influence with the high-end MorseLife homes is such that a street on the company’s campus in West Palm Beach, Fla. is named for him.

Members of the Palm Beach Country Club — located in one of the city’s wealthiest areas, near the former Palm Beach home of the Kennedy family — have been offered the vaccine, the Washington Post said.

Mack is president of the Palm Beach Country Club Foundation, which since 2016 has given at least $75,000 to MorseLife Home Care Inc., according to IRS public records checked by the Daily News.

Federal officials have recommended giving priority for vaccines to front-line medical workers. But Florida has set aside that guidance, and prioritized elderly people.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has not been clear about the rules, The Washington Post said — and other news outlets have reported the vaccine has not been available at some Florida long-term care facilities.

A spokesman for Mack told the Post the vaccinations were “conducted in full accordance” with an executive order DeSantis had issued.

Mack was appointed to the MTA board by Gov. Cuomo in 2019 at the recommendation of Nassau County Executive Laura Curran. He serves on MTA committees of interest to Long Islanders — including those devoted to the Long Island Rail Road and the MTA Bridges and Tunnels. His term ends in June.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drew up a hypothecial situation on What if the (MTA) had decided to completely shutdown the Rutgers Tube until Rehabilitation was complete. I wonder how much money and resources they could've saved by implementing a complete shutdown. But knowing them, they probably haven't considered this option. Other than that, here's what would've been changed in my opinion:

(F) Trains would've terminated at Delancey Street instead of the (E)

(G) Trains could've been sent to Coney Island on Weekdays in Place of the (F), maybe running some 160's in the process. Maybe some trains could've terminated at Jay Street to then wrong rail into Bergen Lower Level. (Not sure how feasible that is)

*Work in the Rutgers Tubes could've gone by much sooner, and assuming that the budget allocated to this tunnel rehabilitation stayed the same, a CBTC conversion of signals could've been added into the mix. (So that the signals could at least be CBTC Ready)
*East Broadway I know is getting a rehabilitation, would've been nice if York Street got one too. Now, ADA Accessibility, while I think that both stations should receive it, its a shame that it outside of the scope of the Rutgers Tube Shutdown (even though thats not the main focus)
 

Here's the map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1s8MbZWOpUMy7mpFgXZ0dzUOt-1EKUnVz&usp=sharing

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Drew up a hypothecial situation on What if the (MTA) had decided to completely shutdown the Rutgers Tube until Rehabilitation was complete. I wonder how much money and resources they could've saved by implementing a complete shutdown. But knowing them, they probably haven't considered this option. Other than that, here's what would've been changed in my opinion:

(F) Trains would've terminated at Delancey Street instead of the (E)

(G) Trains could've been sent to Coney Island on Weekdays in Place of the (F), maybe running some 160's in the process. Maybe some trains could've terminated at Jay Street to then wrong rail into Bergen Lower Level. (Not sure how feasible that is)

*Work in the Rutgers Tubes could've gone by much sooner, and assuming that the budget allocated to this tunnel rehabilitation stayed the same, a CBTC conversion of signals could've been added into the mix. (So that the signals could at least be CBTC Ready)
*East Broadway I know is getting a rehabilitation, would've been nice if York Street got one too. Now, ADA Accessibility, while I think that both stations should receive it, its a shame that it outside of the scope of the Rutgers Tube Shutdown (even though thats not the main focus)
 

Here's the map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1s8MbZWOpUMy7mpFgXZ0dzUOt-1EKUnVz&usp=sharing

 

If you're talking about having the (G) dive between Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Jay Street, well, let's just say that John Hylan never envisioned anything of the sort.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Drew up a hypothecial situation on What if the (MTA) had decided to completely shutdown the Rutgers Tube until Rehabilitation was complete. I wonder how much money and resources they could've saved by implementing a complete shutdown. But knowing them, they probably haven't considered this option. Other than that, here's what would've been changed in my opinion:

(F) Trains would've terminated at Delancey Street instead of the (E)

(G) Trains could've been sent to Coney Island on Weekdays in Place of the (F), maybe running some 160's in the process. Maybe some trains could've terminated at Jay Street to then wrong rail into Bergen Lower Level. (Not sure how feasible that is)

*Work in the Rutgers Tubes could've gone by much sooner, and assuming that the budget allocated to this tunnel rehabilitation stayed the same, a CBTC conversion of signals could've been added into the mix. (So that the signals could at least be CBTC Ready)
*East Broadway I know is getting a rehabilitation, would've been nice if York Street got one too. Now, ADA Accessibility, while I think that both stations should receive it, its a shame that it outside of the scope of the Rutgers Tube Shutdown (even though thats not the main focus)
 

Here's the map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1s8MbZWOpUMy7mpFgXZ0dzUOt-1EKUnVz&usp=sharing

 

It’s not feasible, especially if (G) trains are coming from the north. (G) trains coming from the south can relay at Bergen Lower, but would have to go out of service at Carroll St, which would make them useless. You can have some (G) trains coming from the south can stop at Jay St, but they can’t turn at Jay because they would be the outside tracks there. They’d have to continue to York before they can turn back south.

But with Rutgers, I think you can have a split (F), like the split (R) we had when Montague was being rehabbed. On weekdays, you run the (F) to Delancey, like you proposed. Then you have a second (F) service from York to Stillwell. Then on weekends/late nights, have one continuous (F) service that diverts via the (C) from West 4th to Jay (like how the weekend (R) went over the bridge in 2013-14). It would require East Broadway to be closed full time and Delancey and 2nd Avenue to be closed on weekends and overnight hours.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Idea for split F service
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

It’s not feasible, especially if (G) trains are coming from the north. (G) trains coming from the south can relay at Bergen Lower, but would have to go out of service at Carroll St, which would make them useless. You can have some (G) trains coming from the south can stop at Jay St, but they can’t turn at Jay because they would be the outside tracks there. They’d have to continue to York before they can turn back south.

But with Rutgers, I think you can have a split (F), like the split (R) we had when Montague was being rehabbed. On weekdays, you run the (F) to Delancey, like you proposed. Then you have a second (F) service from York to Stillwell. Then on weekends/late nights, have one continuous (F) service that diverts via the (C) from West 4th to Jay (like how the weekend (R) went over the bridge in 2013-14). It would require East Broadway to be closed full time and Delancey and 2nd Avenue to be closed on weekends and overnight hours.

York Street has a ✖️ switch south of the station. Totally feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

It’s not feasible, especially if (G) trains are coming from the north. (G) trains coming from the south can relay at Bergen Lower, but would have to go out of service at Carroll St, which would make them useless. You can have some (G) trains coming from the south can stop at Jay St, but they can’t turn at Jay because they would be the outside tracks there. They’d have to continue to York before they can turn back south.

But with Rutgers, I think you can have a split (F), like the split (R) we had when Montague was being rehabbed. On weekdays, you run the (F) to Delancey, like you proposed. Then you have a second (F) service from York to Stillwell. Then on weekends/late nights, have one continuous (F) service that diverts via the (C) from West 4th to Jay (like how the weekend (R) went over the bridge in 2013-14). It would require East Broadway to be closed full time and Delancey and 2nd Avenue to be closed on weekends and overnight hours.

 

4 hours ago, CenSin said:

York Street has a ✖️ switch south of the station. Totally feasible.

You wouldn’t have to close 2 Av and Delancey-Essex, because you could still do the (E) / (F) switch on weekends, while keeping the split (F) idea weekdays. Otherwise, the (M) would have to extend to Chambers to provide connecting service to midtown-bound lines (Broadway and Lexington Av)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a shame that the Enhanced Station Initiative was scrapped. I understand that the money could be spent somewhere else, but damn...

I went to the Astoria Lines Stations and they were absolutely amazing.  Then I went back to my home line the (7) and the local stations look like they are about to fall apart (they are falling apart). 

Seems like the MTA never got to renovating those Flushing local stations (52,69,82,90,103 and 111 St) even during the mass station renovation of 2010.

But to have something as good as those on the Astoria Line on the (7) , it would be awesome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mtatransit said:

Its a shame that the Enhanced Station Initiative was scrapped. I understand that the money could be spent somewhere else, but damn...

I went to the Astoria Lines Stations and they were absolutely amazing.  Then I went back to my home line the (7) and the local stations look like they are about to fall apart (they are falling apart). 

Seems like the MTA never got to renovating those Flushing local stations (52,69,82,90,103 and 111 St) even during the mass station renovation of 2010.

But to have something as good as those on the Astoria Line on the (7) , it would be awesome

Those elevated stations on the (7) are due for "station renewal work" through the 2020-2024 capital program. However I believe there isn't and actual date or time on when that will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

Its a shame that the Enhanced Station Initiative was scrapped. I understand that the money could be spent somewhere else, but damn...

I went to the Astoria Lines Stations and they were absolutely amazing.  Then I went back to my home line the (7) and the local stations look like they are about to fall apart (they are falling apart). 

Seems like the MTA never got to renovating those Flushing local stations (52,69,82,90,103 and 111 St) even during the mass station renovation of 2010.

But to have something as good as those on the Astoria Line on the (7) , it would be awesome

To be honest, the Enhanced Station Initiative was way overhyped; the renovations the MTA did on the Fourth Ave Line were something of a disappointment- the stations retained the hideous '60s refrigerator tiles and the original BMT platforms mosaics were never restored.  Huge letdown for those of us who spent years anticipating the restorations.

And Culver was a complete joke- at many stations they only did a partial replacement of the concrete platform slabs, and some of the mezzanines were real half-assed..

Edited by R10 2952

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

To be honest, the Enhanced Station Initiative was way overhyped; the renovations the MTA did on the Fourth Ave Line were something of a disappointment- the stations retained the hideous '60s refrigerator tiles and the original BMT platforms mosaics were never restored.  Huge letdown for those of us who spent years anticipating the restorations.

And Culver was a complete joke- at many stations they only did a partial replacement of the concrete platform slabs, and some of the mezzanines were real half-assed..

Honestly, the job that was done at Bleecker Street for the southern extension of the northbound platform (including the replacement of the tiles on the southbound platform) should've been enough of a clue, and that wasn't even one of those ESI projects.

For what it's worth, I'd say the actual ESI look on Fourth Avenue meshes better than a theoretical tile restoration would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

To be honest, the Enhanced Station Initiative was way overhyped; the renovations the MTA did on the Fourth Ave Line were something of a disappointment- the stations retained the hideous '60s refrigerator tiles and the original BMT platforms mosaics were never restored.  Huge letdown for those of us who spent years anticipating the restorations.

And Culver was a complete joke- at many stations they only did a partial replacement of the concrete platform slabs, and some of the mezzanines were real half-assed..

The Fourth Ave & Astoria ESI looks a whole lot better than the rest of the ESI stations. I personally think 23rd Street (F)(M) is the biggest disappointment of them all. Minus  a few little additions, the concrete ground looks very dirty, the walls are somewhat dirty and it just makes it look like it were never done. I seriously thought that after seeing how good stops like 53rd Street & Prospect Ave on the (R) came out, that the other stations would receive similar upgrades. But I guess the cost was too high forcing the agency to cut corners and give a very minimal upgrade to the rest of the ESI stations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jon2305 said:

Those elevated stations on the (7) are due for "station renewal work" through the 2020-2024 capital program. However I believe there isn't and actual date or time on when that will happen.

With the coronavirus I am not even sure if that would be done now. All they are doing right now is fixing some of the stairs that are falling apart. 

I believe other than Intervale Avenue in the Bronx, the station along the 7 is the ones who still have the 1990 style steel walls

13 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

To be honest, the Enhanced Station Initiative was way overhyped; the renovations the MTA did on the Fourth Ave Line were something of a disappointment- the stations retained the hideous '60s refrigerator tiles and the original BMT platforms mosaics were never restored.  Huge letdown for those of us who spent years anticipating the restorations.

And Culver was a complete joke- at many stations they only did a partial replacement of the concrete platform slabs, and some of the mezzanines were real half-assed..

I think the Fourth Avenue renovations were one of the better ones of the ESI. Culver Line and the 23rd Street were definitely ones that were renovated during the tail end of the program, where MTA simply didn't try as hard. 

I am especially disappointed with the 23rd St station. That station looks almost the same as before (maybe except for brighter lighting). But anything is better than the ones on the 7 now

4 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

 But I guess the cost was too high forcing the agency to cut corners and give a very minimal upgrade to the rest of the ESI stations. 

I think this was the reason towards the end. MTA realized that there were structrual issues for some of the stations hence the bugets went there.

Edited by Mtatransit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

With the coronavirus I am not even sure if that would be done now. All they are doing right now is fixing some of the stairs that are falling apart. 

I believe other than Intervale Avenue in the Bronx, the station along the 7 is the ones who still have the 1990 style steel walls

I think the Fourth Avenue renovations were one of the better ones of the ESI. Culver Line and the 23rd Street were definitely ones that were renovated during the tail end of the program, where MTA simply didn't try as hard. 

I am especially disappointed with the 23rd St station. That station looks almost the same as before (maybe except for brighter lighting). But anything is better than the ones on the 7 now

I think this was the reason towards the end. MTA realized that there were structrual issues for some of the stations hence the bugets went there.

At least 138 St-Grand Concourse got a good tile restoration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

To be honest, the Enhanced Station Initiative was way overhyped; the renovations the MTA did on the Fourth Ave Line were something of a disappointment- the stations retained the hideous '60s refrigerator tiles and the original BMT platforms mosaics were never restored.  Huge letdown for those of us who spent years anticipating the restorations.

 

They were also never really maintained...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.