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.

SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic


Recommended Posts

There is a Siemens R160 operating on the (G) so far yesterday. So, Crosstown line is another portion that had a Siemens R160 over there. Currently, they are on the Queens Blvd, 6 and 8 Av lines, and Broadway with somewhat of Brighton. They had been on the Sea Beach and Fulton/Rockaways line back then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 26.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

16 minutes ago, Calvin said:

There is a Siemens R160 operating on the (G) so far yesterday. So, Crosstown line is another portion that had a Siemens R160 over there. Currently, they are on the Queens Blvd, 6 and 8 Av lines, and Broadway with somewhat of Brighton. They had been on the Sea Beach and Fulton/Rockaways line back then. 

If you're talking about where R160B Siemens have operated in terms of running revenue service, I'd like to add onto that. You forgot to mention West End during the times (F)(N) and (Q) trains were rerouted, Inwood Portions of the (A) and Lefferts Branch when the R179's were taken out of service because of that coupling incident including Central Pkwy West during that time as well as reroutes/extensions for of the (E)(F) and (M) during times incidents happened along QBL or because of a GO, and along Grand Concourse during a Women's March which Coney Island gave the to the (D) for extra service.

Honestly love the R160B Siemens. They got the best propulsion compared to other NTT's, I honestly can't tell if it's my favorite since I also gotta love Bombardier's propulsion system, ones found on the R142A, R143, and R188. I really hope that when the base order of the R211's come in for the (A) and (C) for 8 Av CBTC as well as for Jamaica (depending on if they want to go through the same process as they did with the R160's for QBL CBTC) that they give back Coney Island their R160's to give to Concourse so (D) trains wouldn't have an issue if they were to ever be rerouted via 8 Av. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they plan on assigning them to first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Calvin said:

There is a Siemens R160 operating on the (G) so far yesterday. So, Crosstown line is another portion that had a Siemens R160 over there. Currently, they are on the Queens Blvd, 6 and 8 Av lines, and Broadway with somewhat of Brighton. They had been on the Sea Beach and Fulton/Rockaways line back then. 

I caught it this morning 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven’t had a chance to get over to Culver or Fulton this weekend. Anyone have notes on ridership? Seems like Twitter is a flutter with the (G) to Stillwell Avenue.

I do remember when I lived on Fulton Street, the (F) was very popular and carried people on both ends of Jay Street, though I guess since it’s staying on Eighth Avenue that’s moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lawrence St said:

Anyone else think that extending the (G) to Coney Island during summer weekends is worth it?

While I have no idea what the logistics would be, I always think increasing subway access to Coney Island, both Rockaway Branches, and Pelham Bay during the summers is a good idea. How many people an extended Crosstown would pick up is debatable though. Maybe if you ran QBL, Crosstown, and Culver to Coney Island? Idk. I also thought of increased D or N service that runs through Stillwell via the N platform and uses Brighton Beach as a southern terminal, since terminal capacity is low at Stillwell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jammerbot said:

While I have no idea what the logistics would be, I always think increasing subway access to Coney Island, both Rockaway Branches, and Pelham Bay during the summers is a good idea. How many people an extended Crosstown would pick up is debatable though. Maybe if you ran QBL, Crosstown, and Culver to Coney Island? Idk. I also thought of increased D or N service that runs through Stillwell via the N platform and uses Brighton Beach as a southern terminal, since terminal capacity is low at Stillwell.

Actually, I was thinking of running the (G) between Forest Hills & Coney Island during the weekend, that way it can boost ridership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Actually, I was thinking of running the (G) between Forest Hills & Coney Island during the weekend, that way it can boost ridership.

From Forest Hills? I doubt people along QBL would want to take the (G) over the (F) since that is express and they could easily transfer to a (D) from there to get there faster. If it was extended to Coney only, maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Anyone else think that extending the (G) to Coney Island during summer weekends is worth it?

Yes – G 71 to CI and M 96th to Metropolitan would be my ideal layout in the summer. I actually think the increased demand would counteract the increased cost. The M to 96 is a really good idea, and the G to CI has a lot of merits too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, jammerbot said:

Why exactly does the (4) skip 138 St-Grand Concourse in the peak direction during rush hours? Is it just a matter of skipping a stop to save a bit of time?

It's to avoid train traffic with incoming # (5) trains stopping at the station. Avoiding bunching from one another.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, jammerbot said:

Why exactly does the (4) skip 138 St-Grand Concourse in the peak direction during rush hours? Is it just a matter of skipping a stop to save a bit of time?

They do this because of the limitation with the Mosholu interlocking south of 149 on the Bronx Park level and the merge from the Bronx Park which affects the (2) train. The cause is further up north at the Jackson Avenue interlocking on the Bronx Park side. There was a time that the (5) train bypassed 138 as well, but that was later given to the (4) train to do. It is just not ideal because all the stops north of 149 on the (4) train have more passenger volume.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Calvin said:

It's to avoid train traffic with incoming # (5) trains stopping at the station. Avoiding bunching from one another.

 

57 minutes ago, 4 via Mosholu said:

They do this because of the limitation with the Mosholu interlocking south of 149 on the Bronx Park level and the merge from the Bronx Park which affects the (2) train. The cause is further up north at the Jackson Avenue interlocking on the Bronx Park side. There was a time that the (5) train bypassed 138 as well, but that was later given to the (4) train to do. It is just not ideal because all the stops north of 149 on the (4) train have more passenger volume.

Ah, makes perfect sense now, looking at the track diagram. I wonder why they built the junction that way. You don't really get that much more flexibility by having the (5) make the ridiculous curve just to meet up at Grand Concourse. Let's say it was instead built at a nice gradual curve to meet up with the (2) at 3 Av instead. You still have ample opportunity to transfer to the (4)

The merge at E 180 does look problematic, but could you elaborate when you get a chance? I'm curious what specifically is the issue there.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, jammerbot said:

 

Ah, makes perfect sense now, looking at the track diagram. I wonder why they built the junction that way. You don't really get that much more flexibility by having the (5) make the ridiculous curve just to meet up at Grand Concourse. Let's say it was instead built at a nice gradual curve to meet up with the (2) at 3 Av instead. You still have ample opportunity to transfer to the (4)

The merge at E 180 does look problematic, but could you elaborate when you get a chance? I'm curious what specifically is the issue there.
 

In a nutshell, it serves more people with the sharper curve.

The merge isn't too bad if all trains run local or if trains to/from Wakefield run express, but if Eastchester trains run express, then you effectively create a situation similar to what happened back when the (1) served Brooklyn and the (3) ran to South Ferry (both cross each other at the same junction in the same direction). If the merges were redesigned so Eastchester trains could more directly access either the local or express, this would become a non-issue. (Incidentally, it would actually make the overnight shuttle easier to run.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lex said:

In a nutshell, it serves more people with the sharper curve.

The merge isn't too bad if all trains run local or if trains to/from Wakefield run express, but if Eastchester trains run express, then you effectively create a situation similar to what happened back when the (1) served Brooklyn and the (3) ran to South Ferry (both cross each other at the same junction in the same direction). If the merges were redesigned so Eastchester trains could more directly access either the local or express, this would become a non-issue. (Incidentally, it would actually make the overnight shuttle easier to run.)

Or just run the (2) as WPR Express.

But (MTA) would rather do things the non-efficient way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Or just run the (2) as WPR Express.

But (MTA) would rather do things the non-efficient way...

Well people also got a say in this and would tear the (MTA) apart if they tried something. It's kind of why they haven't tried deinterlining certain services because there would be backlash. In all honesty, they really should do some testing like they did with the (V) when the 63 St connection to QBL was made. Last I checked, it was signed up as an (orangeS) basically running the same route as the (V) would but via 63 St before the (V) was fully introduced. People didn't like it so they ran it along 53 St instead.

Something like this should honestly happen more often. This way, not only would they get feedback, but at least they could try to get people to adapt to how the (MTA) wants to run their service to run trains more efficiently. I think I said this before, but this is just my idea, something that needs to be considered and with Cuomo out of the way, they might be able to have better people in charge without him getting involved.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Or just run the (2) as WPR Express.

But (MTA) would rather do things the non-efficient way...

Did the sentence in parentheses not show up on your radar or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, jammerbot said:

 

Ah, makes perfect sense now, looking at the track diagram. I wonder why they built the junction that way. You don't really get that much more flexibility by having the (5) make the ridiculous curve just to meet up at Grand Concourse. Let's say it was instead built at a nice gradual curve to meet up with the (2) at 3 Av instead. You still have ample opportunity to transfer to the (4)

The merge at E 180 does look problematic, but could you elaborate when you get a chance? I'm curious what specifically is the issue there.
 

I have two points to make about the Concourse connection rather than a Third Avenue one. Look at the history of the Third Avenue station and the WPR connections. You had a Third Avenue and a Second Avenue East Side lines before the subway construction via the station on 149th Street or the Bergen Bypass. That’s my first point. My second point concerns the present setup. Is the idea to eliminate the (5) from the Concourse station ? I’ve worked in the area before I got back to NYCTA and I used walk along 149th Street. I watched the hospital being built from the ground up. Before Hostos existed. Forget the track maps for a second. Better still let’s add another map to the picture. Just east of the Bronx GPO the Metro North tracks are located. The subway is below those tracks. You can hear the MNRR trains from the eastern end of the (2) and (5) platforms. Are you saying you want to build a connection to the existing tracks closer to Third Avenue ? Where would the connection be with the (4) in that case ? I’m asking because 138th St is actually Mott Haven, named for the railroad yard located there, and now the housing development. I doubt if the City and the railroad would look too kindly on any connection in that area. Just my take. I could be wrong. Carry on.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Well people also got a say in this and would tear the (MTA) apart if they tried something. It's kind of why they haven't tried deinterlining certain services because there would be backlash. In all honesty, they really should do some testing like they did with the (V) when the 63 St connection to QBL was made. Last I checked, it was signed up as an (orangeS) basically running the same route as the (V) would but via 63 St before the (V) was fully introduced. People didn't like it so they ran it along 53 St instead.

Something like this should honestly happen more often. This way, not only would they get feedback, but at least they could try to get people to adapt to how the (MTA) wants to run their service to run trains more efficiently. I think I said this before, but this is just my idea, something that needs to be considered and with Cuomo out of the way, they might be able to have better people in charge without him getting involved.

Well to be honest, riders didn’t like the (V) when it ran on 53rd. Same with the (M). And all the merging in between Queens Plaza and 36th St definitely isn’t helping matters.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Well to be honest, riders didn’t like the (V) when it ran on 53rd. Same with the (M). And all the merging in between Queens Plaza and 36th St definitely isn’t helping matters.

Riders also didn't like when service at 2nd Av was reduced in half when the (V) was discontinued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Calvin said:

https://www.modern-notoriety.com/supreme-new-york-city-mta-fall-2021/?fbclid=IwAR1kptEqqBMunsorGoBcNA68cvimDzCc0A_5jVQFdFbgsye-R-QMWBS4kC4

Around late September, a train of R143s will have the Supreme streetwear wrap for advertising. 

Looks like the wrap is already applied... So that R143 is gonna sit OOS until the fall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, trainfan22 said:

Looks like the wrap is already applied... So that R143 is gonna sit OOS until the fall?

Probably or earlier this month to showcase their fall and winter 2021-2022 merch. 

Link to comment
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.