SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[Trainmaster5]

43 minutes ago, jon2305 said:

If this becomes a common occurrence (God forbid) this city is in for a new dark era. The homeless situation around the has gotten worse and worse and worse....... SMH very toxic environment to say the least.

Almost every station uptown on the is full of junkies and homeless on both ends of the platform. It's something that has truly surpassed what I've seen in my life. It is crazy & toxic and in my opinion it's despicable that this bs has gone on and on. What is our beloved city or state doing about this? Were is all this rhetoric of "more cops on station platforms and train cars?

They've become soo focused on telling people what to do...... to wear a mask, get vaccinated or face consequences like (losing your job) but there's no immediate action on treating the homeless-mental health crisis.  My time on the subway has become limited within this last year alone. I don't even bother with it especially on weekends. It's become a jungle. I only hope and praying for my loved ones whenever they have to ride the subway for work or anything else that they making there safe.

You should have been around in the early '80's on the  line. I was pounding the road late nights and overnights back then and every station from 191St  to 103St  except 125th St had homeless encampments at the end of them. Some folks were bold enough to unscrew the lighting at the station's ends. I had never seen that situation before and it fascinated me. The difference between then and now is back then there were homeless families gathered together who were mostly nonviolent rather than the EDP population who need mental help. The '80's began the shutdown of inpatient facilities. The strange thing (at least to me) was that this situation was confined to this part of the IRT back then. The  Seventh Avenue and  Lex line didn't have this problem and neither did the  below 96th St. Just my recollection. Carry on.

[YankeesPwnMets]

1 hour ago, jon2305 said:

If this becomes a common occurrence (God forbid) this city is in for a new dark era. The homeless situation around the has gotten worse and worse and worse....... SMH very toxic environment to say the least.

FTFY. This is not an issue isolated to the subway. It's concentrated in the subway now because the winter weather have sent hordes of these people underground. Our city and state government is choosing to actively ignore the problem. Combine that with "advocacy" organizations who sue the MTA for EDPs to have the right to rot away on the subway and you get exactly what we have now.

Edited February 3, 2022 by YankeesPwnMets

[biGC323232]

12 hours ago, jon2305 said:

If this becomes a common occurrence (God forbid) this city is in for a new dark era. The homeless situation around the has gotten worse and worse and worse....... SMH very toxic environment to say the least.

Almost every station uptown on the is full of junkies and homeless on both ends of the platform. It's something that has truly surpassed what I've seen in my life. It is crazy & toxic and in my opinion it's despicable that this bs has gone on and on. What is our beloved city or state doing about this? Were is all this rhetoric of "more cops on station platforms and train cars?

They've become soo focused on telling people what to do...... to wear a mask, get vaccinated or face consequences like (losing your job) but there's no immediate action on treating the homeless-mental health crisis.  My time on the subway has become limited within this last year alone. I don't even bother with it especially on weekends. It's become a jungle. I only hope and praying for my loved ones whenever they have to ride the subway for work or anything else that they making there safe.

New dark city...hopefully not...But i cant agree with u more...Our city has become a joke lately....Cops being shot,housing problems,subways resorting back to the 80s era,Its to the point the president is visiting NY....I been staying off the subways and off the streets lately...Just to much going on

[Calvin]

A mixed R68 and R68A was on the  today as one full train, 8 75 ft cars. R68 2896-2899 has a  sign front/back but sides has  while the R68A 5106-5109 has  signs on the sides but rear/front has  . 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Calvin

[CenSin]

Coney Island-bound R46 come in, immediately turns around as a via Sea Beach with the signs intact. Is there even a good reason why the announcements should mention that the train “is a operating over the line?” It serves nobody except those getting on at Times Square–42 Street and 57 Street–7 Avenue or off at 5 Avenue and beyond.

[darkstar8983]

The MTA should just print new schedules showing the true service frequencies. It’s frustrating that the published schedule is so different from what truly runs.

example:

the  now runs every 10 minutes all day, also does the . The  and  are now every 12 minutes all day. Trains are now super overcrowded not just because ridership is back to 50%+ of what it was in 2019, but because the trains only come half as often during rush hours.

 

and if this change is going to be for a long while it could be an opportunity to put some R46s out to pasture (even if it is into long term storage until ridership and the crews are up for running regular service again).

Example: some of The ‘s additional R143s/R160s apart from spares could be moved to the  along with some from the . This could temporarily move the R179s to the  and give some R46s a break. Same for the  and it’s R160s temporarily moving to the  to put some it’s R46s down and the  could be 50/50 with R68/R46, while the  is 50/50 with R46/R160.

[Daniel The Cool]

1 hour ago, darkstar8983 said:

The MTA should just print new schedules showing the true service frequencies. It’s frustrating that the published schedule is so different from what truly runs.

example:

the  now runs every 10 minutes all day, also does the . The  and  are now every 12 minutes all day. Trains are now super overcrowded not just because ridership is back to 50%+ of what it was in 2019, but because the trains only come half as often during rush hours.

 

 

You do realized those changes are not permanent and they're supplement schedules until further notice due to the crew shortage. 

[Lil 57]

2 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

The MTA should just print new schedules showing the true service frequencies. It’s frustrating that the published schedule is so different from what truly runs.

example:

the  now runs every 10 minutes all day, also does the . The  and  are now every 12 minutes all day. Trains are now super overcrowded not just because ridership is back to 50%+ of what it was in 2019, but because the trains only come half as often during rush hours.

 

and if this change is going to be for a long while it could be an opportunity to put some R46s out to pasture (even if it is into long term storage until ridership and the crews are up for running regular service again).

Example: some of The ‘s additional R143s/R160s apart from spares could be moved to the  along with some from the . This could temporarily move the R179s to the  and give some R46s a break. Same for the  and it’s R160s temporarily moving to the  to put some it’s R46s down and the  could be 50/50 with R68/R46, while the  is 50/50 with R46/R160.

 

56 minutes ago, Daniel The Cool said:

You do realized those changes are not permanent and they're supplement schedules until further notice due to the crew shortage. 

I do agree with the fact the new schedules don’t have to be made but they should mention the temporary headways on MTA.info. i.e.  trains will run every 8-10 minutes off peak instead of every 4-5 minutes. We are running as much service with the crews we have available. The  Does do this during peak hours with the 20 minute headways.

 

[Lil 57]

5 hours ago, CenSin said:

Coney Island-bound R46 come in, immediately turns around as a via Sea Beach with the signs intact. Is there even a good reason why the announcements should mention that the train “is a operating over the line?” It serves nobody except those getting on at Times Square–42 Street and 57 Street–7 Avenue or off at 5 Avenue and beyond.

Iirc northbound  trains to 96th street are signed up as  in order to ease confusion along the Broadway line. IMO it makes no sense since there are a lot not  stops compared to  stops and other routes that go to alternate terminals don’t do this. i.e. you don’t see New Lots Ave bound  trains signed up as  trains or 179th street bound  trains signed up as trains.

 

 

[darkstar8983]

28 minutes ago, Lil 57 said:

Iirc northbound  trains to 96th street are signed up as  in order to ease confusion along the Broadway line. IMO it makes no sense since there are a lot not  stops compared to  stops and other routes that go to alternate terminals don’t do this. i.e. you don’t see New Lots Ave bound  trains signed up as  trains or 179th street bound  trains signed up as trains.

 

 

At that point they should just have the trains labeled as  trips. And announce that the particular  will be going to 96 St and to wait for an Astoria bound  /  for service to queens. Similarly announcements would be made when the short turn s ended at 57 St-7 Av or Times Sq-42 St AND had to run Broadway Express, despite all Astoria s running local in Manhattan (July 2010-November 2016)

[R32 3838]

5 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

The MTA should just print new schedules showing the true service frequencies. It’s frustrating that the published schedule is so different from what truly runs.

example:

the  now runs every 10 minutes all day, also does the . The  and  are now every 12 minutes all day. Trains are now super overcrowded not just because ridership is back to 50%+ of what it was in 2019, but because the trains only come half as often during rush hours.

 

and if this change is going to be for a long while it could be an opportunity to put some R46s out to pasture (even if it is into long term storage until ridership and the crews are up for running regular service again).

Example: some of The ‘s additional R143s/R160s apart from spares could be moved to the  along with some from the . This could temporarily move the R179s to the  and give some R46s a break. Same for the  and it’s R160s temporarily moving to the  to put some it’s R46s down and the  could be 50/50 with R68/R46, while the  is 50/50 with R46/R160.

 

So the should do all of this just to put the R160's back on the because you can't stop coping over the fact they aren't on the anymore.

 

They aren't gonna do all of this when ridership is higher than what it was between Mid March 2020 and the early half of 2021.

 

 

 

[Calvin]

1 hour ago, Lil 57 said:

Iirc northbound  trains to 96th street are signed up as  in order to ease confusion along the Broadway line. IMO it makes no sense since there are a lot not  stops compared to  stops and other routes that go to alternate terminals don’t do this. i.e. you don’t see New Lots Ave bound  trains signed up as  trains or 179th street bound  trains signed up as trains.

It's basically to avoid confusion/questions for the passengers between Atlantic-Barclays, Canal St and Lex-63 St in Manhattan, thinking why/how the  ended up going over Second Av line. That goes for the  starting at 96 St, they quote it's via Second Av until 57/7 Av. 

There's also  to Crown Heights-Utica via Franklin Av, rush hour congestion on the Nostrand Av line and the ones that start at New Lots Av (limited AM trips) is b/c of traffic of the put-ins to start at the Flatbush terminal. 

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Calvin

[darkstar8983]

2 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

 

So the should do all of this just to put the R160's back on the because you can't stop coping over the fact they aren't on the anymore.

 

They aren't gonna do all of this when ridership is higher than what it was between Mid March 2020 and the early half of 2021.

 

 

 

Uhhh yes! Ubers are getting pretty expensive 

Edited February 4, 2022 by darkstar8983

[Lex]

1 hour ago, darkstar8983 said:

Uhhh yes! Ubers are getting pretty expensive 

I get the impression that you really didn't think this post through...

[CenSin]

5 hours ago, Calvin said:

It's basically to avoid confusion/questions for the passengers between Atlantic-Barclays, Canal St and Lex-63 St in Manhattan, thinking why/how the  ended up going over Second Av line. That goes for the  starting at 96 St, they quote it's via Second Av until 57/7 Av. 

At the very least, they could give these routings a different designation like . The current conventions are about as stupid as giving two of your kids the same name. They are clearly different.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

5 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

 

So the should do all of this just to put the R160's back on the because you can't stop coping cope over the fact they aren't on the anymore.

I got what you said, just a small fix there though. 

3 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

Uhhh yes! Ubers are getting pretty expensive 

Lemme just say, not only is this a extremely weak and ineffective argument, but the sheer ridiculousness of the argument being presented (and its context/implications) makes one want to strongly prefer the opposite of what you're wishing for here. If you don't understand why it's ridiculous, then I don't know what to tell you.

Edited February 5, 2022 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[Vulturious]

21 minutes ago, CenSin said:

At the very least, they could give these routings a different designation like . The current conventions are about as stupid as giving two of your kids the same name. They are clearly different.

I get the feeling either people will confuse this as express service along Sea Beach (maybe) or in general or see it as just another . 

[CenSin]

If we were to catalog all of the rush hour variants (excluding short turns/extensions), we’d have enough symbols to cover them all. The diamond shape in effect acts as a flag indicating “deviation” from normal service as they used to before the 2005 nomenclature overhaul narrowed it to apply only to supplemental express rush hour services.

• 
  • to/from New Lots Avenue
• 
  • express to/from Burnside Avenue
• 
  • to/from Nereid Avenue, Gun Hill Road, Crown Heights–Utica Avenue, or New Lots Avenue
• 
  • to/from Rockaway Beach
  • to/from Ozone Park–Lefferts Boulevard
• 
  • to/from Jamaica–179 Street
• 
  • to 96 Street via Sea Beach
• 
  • to Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue via Sea Beach

The last two () are the only ones fluid enough that choosing an appropriate letter for the variant is a toss-up between using the same letter as the Brooklyn side of service or the same letter as the non-Brooklyn side of service.

One clear problem I’ve had to content with in the mornings is not knowing which platform to use when I’m catching a train. Google Maps shows a train leaving in 3 minutes. (Sea Beach trains often leave 2 minutes earlier than what Google Maps indicates.) I run up to tracks 3/4 and the via Sea Beach departs from track 1. The letter designation is totally useless to me as a passenger in the morning and actively impedes decision making.

Edited February 5, 2022 by CenSin

[mrsman]

On 2/4/2022 at 3:13 PM, Calvin said:

It's basically to avoid confusion/questions for the passengers between Atlantic-Barclays, Canal St and Lex-63 St in Manhattan, thinking why/how the  ended up going over Second Av line. That goes for the  starting at 96 St, they quote it's via Second Av until 57/7 Av. 

There's also  to Crown Heights-Utica via Franklin Av, rush hour congestion on the Nostrand Av line and the ones that start at New Lots Av (limited AM trips) is b/c of traffic of the put-ins to start at the Flatbush terminal. 

 

Is there a way for trains to change their designation while along the route?  It would seem that such would be pretty easy to do with the computerized signs and designations.

So a train that runs along Sea Beach and then goes north on the Broadway express and contineus up 2nd Ave would seem to make sense to run as an N train in Brooklyn and then change its designation to Q before hitting Canal.  This train is identical to a Q train from Canal northward and any passenger boarding would just be happy to board a Q.  They don't care where the train originated, only where it is going.  For the passengers boarding in Mahnattan, a Q desgnation is easiser than a special-N.

For the passengers who are already on the train, they boarded a train along Sea Beach or 4th Ave that acts like an N train, but will eventually run like a Q train.  If they get off before or at Times Square, no problem.  If they are headed to 49th, 5th Ave, Lex-60, or Queens, then knowing that their train is headed to 96th like a Q is absolutely critical.  It would seem that a clear announcement that is made while the train is crossing from Brooklyn to Manhattan :

"Attention passengers.  This N train will now become a Q train.  This train will run express along Broadway and then head up along 2nd Avenue to 96th street.  This train will not stop at 49th or head to Queens.  If you need to reach those locations, please transfer to another N train at Times Square."

[Calvin]

 

3 hours ago, mrsman said:

Is there a way for trains to change their designation while along the route?  It would seem that such would be pretty easy to do with the computerized signs and designations.

So a train that runs along Sea Beach and then goes north on the Broadway express and contineus up 2nd Ave would seem to make sense to run as an N train in Brooklyn and then change its designation to Q before hitting Canal.  This train is identical to a Q train from Canal northward and any passenger boarding would just be happy to board a Q.  They don't care where the train originated, only where it is going.  For the passengers boarding in Mahnattan, a Q desgnation is easiser than a special-N.

For the passengers who are already on the train, they boarded a train along Sea Beach or 4th Ave that acts like an N train, but will eventually run like a Q train.  If they get off before or at Times Square, no problem.  If they are headed to 49th, 5th Ave, Lex-60, or Queens, then knowing that their train is headed to 96th like a Q is absolutely critical.  It would seem that a clear announcement that is made while the train is crossing from Brooklyn to Manhattan :

"Attention passengers.  This N train will now become a Q train.  This train will run express along Broadway and then head up along 2nd Avenue to 96th street.  This train will not stop at 49th or head to Queens.  If you need to reach those locations, please transfer to another N train at Times Square."

They can't change the letter of the route in the middle of the segment. It only announces the changes of the other line b/c of delay or service interruption. 

 

--

The R68/A from the  AM Rush starting from Bronx-Bedford Park to Harlem-145 St ending on the upper level  tracks, resting at 207 St Yard for the midday then doing one round trip on the  to/from Far Rockaway is back this week (ends at 207 St but goes back to Concourse Yard).  

[darkstar8983]

5 hours ago, Calvin said:

 

They can't change the letter of the route in the middle of the segment. It only announces the changes of the other line b/c of delay or service interruption. 

 

--

The R68/A from the  AM Rush starting from Bronx-Bedford Park to Harlem-145 St ending on the upper level  tracks, resting at 207 St Yard for the midday then doing one round trip on the  to/from Far Rockaway is back this week (ends at 207 St but goes back to Concourse Yard).  

Oh yeah, apparently the route letter cannot be changed mid-route. I once asked a long time ago the conductor of the 96 St/2 Av  train trip why he didn’t just change the route letter and designation to  vía Whitehall St/Broadway Local/96 St-2 Av, and this way people who are actually waiting for the  can take this train at stations in Manhattan. 
even though it would help people in Manhattan, it was against the rules of running the subways because of the need to identify your train along the route and the switch operators needed to know the true identity of your train for scheduling purposes. 
 

and even though some changes would be efficient, by this point commuters have now grown used to the nomenclature we have now and it would just add an extra layer of confusion

[shiznit1987]

Personally, I think the letter of a train should be determined by it's destination route regardless of it's orgin. In that case, any train going to 96st/2nd Ave should be signed as . My thing is if you are at a Sea Beach stop and are going to Manhattan even when that "" train slides in you're going to get on it since you pretty much know it's going to go to Manhattan (where else could it go?). The same is *not* true once in the city. People are in a hurry/in their own world and it's much simpler to see  and think "Second Ave". Going the other way, all SAS-Sea Beach runs should be signed as  since if i'm at 72nd/2nd Ave going downtown am I really going to question it? Yet, the poor guy at 34th St whose had a long day and needs to get home to Bensonhurst would sure appreciate seeing that big yellow  rather than having to listen to a garbled annoucement about "Q via Sea Beach"

Maybe it comes from living along Queens Blvd and all the re-routes that come along with that, but in my experience going into the city people generally just "get on" and figure it out, especally since if say the  is on the  or other sillyness you can walk two avenues. OTOH if you get on the wrong train leaving Manhattan you can end up somewhere totally different. 

 

[mrsman]

24 minutes ago, shiznit1987 said:

Personally, I think the letter of a train should be determined by it's destination route regardless of it's orgin. In that case, any train going to 96st/2nd Ave should be signed as . My thing is if you are at a Sea Beach stop and are going to Manhattan even when that "" train slides in you're going to get on it since you pretty much know it's going to go to Manhattan (where else could it go?). The same is *not* true once in the city. People are in a hurry/in their own world and it's much simpler to see  and think "Second Ave". Going the other way, all SAS-Sea Beach runs should be signed as  since if i'm at 72nd/2nd Ave going downtown am I really going to question it? Yet, the poor guy at 34th St whose had a long day and needs to get home to Bensonhurst would sure appreciate seeing that big yellow  rather than having to listen to a garbled annoucement about "Q via Sea Beach"

Maybe it comes from living along Queens Blvd and all the re-routes that come along with that, but in my experience going into the city people generally just "get on" and figure it out, especally since if say the  is on the  or other sillyness you can walk two avenues. OTOH if you get on the wrong train leaving Manhattan you can end up somewhere totally different. 

 

All of the above does make perfect sense.  In most cases, the destination is going to be the determining factor and the key factor for passengers, so that along the different ends of the route, seeing the destination would likely make the routing somewhat clear.

So to the extent that there are a handful of 2nd Ave - Broadway express - Sea Beach trains out there, it makes sense to be signed  southbound and  northbound.

On 2/4/2022 at 9:02 PM, CenSin said:

 

• 
  • to/from New Lots Avenue
• 
  • express to/from Burnside Avenue
• 
  • to/from Nereid Avenue, Gun Hill Road, Crown Heights–Utica Avenue, or New Lots Avenue
• 
  • to/from Rockaway Beach
  • to/from Ozone Park–Lefferts Boulevard
• 
  • to/from Jamaica–179 Street
• 
  • to 96 Street via Sea Beach
• 
  • to Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue via Sea Beach

CenSin, this is a great idea and thank you for identifying the regularly scheduled alternate routings.  I agree that it would be nice if the diamond symbol were meant as "alternate" as opposed to "express", but given that that is most frequent connotaion, it would be hard to undo that.  Especially, given that the diamond's most widespread use is for  and  which are in fact expresses along those lines.

If I may, let's examine each of these alternate services and see what we can come up with that does not use the diamond symbol for anything other than an express version of the route.

241 - White Plains Rd - 7th Ave express - New Lots.  This train should be  Bronx bound and  Brooklyn bound if  cannot be used.

Express service along even parts of Jerome is rightfully  

The  is used so much all over the place that it is rightfully confusing! This needs a deep dive:  It seems that any Lexington train that doesn't go along Jerome or the Pelham line will be called 5.  As you indicated above, there are so many places where a 5 can go: northbound to either Nereid, Gun Hill, or Dyre; and southbound to either Bowling Green, Flatbush, Utica, or New Lots.  I think that we will need two different numbers to designate the services.  Northbound trains bound for Dyre Ave (or short turning on any segment before it) should be  .  Northbound trains bound for the White Plains Rd. elevated should be  .  Southbound trains bound for Bowling Green or Flatbush should be  .  Southbound trains bound for New Lots should be  and southbound trains bound for Utica should be <8>.

 to Rockaway Beach seems to be (was) accepted usage, even though it's not more express than regular  

I am a fan of an alternate letter to distinguish Far Rockaway and Lefferts services, so happy to contend with either  or  to denote Lefferts service without hearing from people that "you're putting too many services on CPW or 8th Ave."  Lableling the Lefferts service by a different letter is simply denoting a difference in the destination.  Running 10 TPH  and 10 TPH  is equivlaent to running 10 TPH  -FR and 10 TPH  -OP or 20 TPH of total currnet  service. [So while I am always a fan of the separate designation, many of my proposals do not make the distinction since it is easier in some people's mind to treat both as .]

 to 179th.  Yes, this is absolutely an express since it is the form of Hillside express.  While it is nice for the bus riders who transfer at 179th to have a HIllside express, I wish it ran more frequently and more reliably.  Ideally, 1/3 of all QBL express trains should run local along Hillside to 179th, 1/3 should run express along Hillside to 179th, and 1/3 should run to Jamaica Center.  I am even happy to entertain some  trains to 179th along Hillside express, but I know that it will be a little tricky since that designation is needed for Culver Express, so maybe we can't have both E and F run express along Hllside, but it's definitely something that would be appreciated in Eastern Queens. [Alternatively,  desingnation can be used for an F that is express along Hillside.

And as discussed above, the 2nd Ave - Broadway express - Sea Beach trains can be designated as  uptown and  Brooklyn-bound.

All of this is mostly because there is a slight imbalance in capacity and demand.  While it would be simpler if all  trains ran Astoria-Sea Beach, knowing that there is capacity and demand to run an  train occasionally to 96th will happen.  But it is best for passenger convenience to denote such Q/N hybrids based on their destination,  southbound and  nortbhound.  And similarly for the other alternate routings.

[QM1to6Ave]

I had the "joy" on Friday on the of experiencing some of the those "conquestor" teens or whatever they are called, who got into one of the C/R cabs, turned the lights off, then yelled "suck my d***" over the PA a few times. The C/R held the train at the next station and said "we are being held here for...an investigation" and they must've ran off after that, because we started moving a minute later

[paulrivera]

2 minutes ago, QM1to6Ave said:

I had the "joy" on Friday on the of experiencing some of the those "conquestor" teens or whatever they are called, who got into one of the C/R cabs, turned the lights off, then yelled "suck my d***" over the PA a few times. The C/R held the train at the next station and said "we are being held here for...an investigation" and they must've ran off after that, because we started moving a minute later

That  line's been quite the hotspot lately, for all the wrong reasons. smh