SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[texassubwayfan555]

Is there any news the R142/a upgrade and is it still happening?

Also, will the R143, R142, and R142a ever receive FIND displays?

[Calvin]

5 minutes ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Is there any news the R142/a upgrade and is it still happening?

Also, will the R143, R142, and R142a ever receive FIND displays?

The upgrades on the R142 is only on 7021 and 7171 happened on the exterior with the signs. For now, nothing yet. 

R142, R142A, R143: FIND Displays aren't really needed (inside the train where the maps are) bc they are usually only on 1 (2/5 lines are merged) route. If it's on another route, then it's on a weekend that the map is turned off. 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Calvin

[texassubwayfan555]

3 minutes ago, Calvin said:

only on 7021 and 7171

I was referring to this future upgrade of all the R142's and R142A's.

7 minutes ago, Calvin said:

only on 1...route

Would having the FINDs on the R142/a and R143 not be useful during reroutes / general orders?

[Vulturious]

31 minutes ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

I was referring to this future upgrade of all the R142's and R142A's.

Would having the FINDs on the R142/a and R143 not be useful during reroutes / general orders?

Upgrading the FINDs would be useful to allow them to show other routes that are running instead of just a static, strip maps FIND. Unfortunately, the R142/A's, R143's, along with the R188's at this point doesn't really give the much incentive to have them upgraded.

The R143's already got newer strip maps that that show both the / and , plus they don't run on other routes outside of them. The last time the R143's ran on any line outside of those three was on the , but that was a few years back and they can't run on it anymore because of QBL CBTC.

The IRT and Eastern Division don't have much alternatives in terms of routes compared to the rest of the B Division. Who knows, maybe the  will upgrade them later on down the line, but right now there's really not that much incentive like I said.

[texassubwayfan555]

Speaking of the R142a, I found this last week: R142a Contract

[Calvin]

I know that most of the  trains over at the Rockaways with the Shuttle that runs between Broad Channel and Rock Park are at 15-20 min headways bc of low ridership. Was it also measured because of the drawbridge that usually opens for cargo ships to go through the Jamaica Bay?

Edited August 31, 2022 by Calvin

[trainfan22]

10 minutes ago, Calvin said:

I know that most of the  trains over at the Rockaways with the Shuttle that runs between Broad Channel and Rock Park are at 15-20 min headways bc of low ridership. Was it also measured because of the drawbridge that usually opens for boats to go through the Jamaica Bay?

I don't think the drawbridge has anything to do with capacity. The Northeast Corridor has a draw bridge (portal bridge) and it runs a LOT of trains from NJT and Amtrak.

 

If the drawbridge was hindering capacity NYCT would probably push for an replacement bridge with higher elevation that didn't need to be opened to let boats pass though.

Edited August 31, 2022 by trainfan22

[texassubwayfan555]

Are the front rollsigns on the R46 still manually changed? And does anyone know how the electronic destination signs are set/changed on the R46?

[trainfan22]

3 hours ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Are the front rollsigns on the R46 still manually changed? And does anyone know how the electronic destination signs are set/changed on the R46?

The front rollsigns are changed manually.

 

There's an electronic keypad inside the cabs for the electronic signs. You put in the code and designation shows up. 

[texassubwayfan555]

1 minute ago, trainfan22 said:

electronic keypad inside the cabs

Are there any pictures?

[trainfan22]

1 minute ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Are there any pictures?

Look in the middle towards the top, that's the keypad

 

[texassubwayfan555]

Was this system installed during GOH?

[Wallyhorse]

On 8/18/2022 at 1:57 AM, R32 3838 said:

I'm used to it, This is why it's better to take the Q60 at night. But nothing is worse than missing the train at 9pm at night and waiting between 15 to 30 mins.

And this is one of numerous reasons I would basically split the into a NASSAU  and  with the  becoming brown and running 95th to a new terminal at Canal Street on the at all times that would be considerably shorter (this as noted before is something that was not possible before the work was done to have the current setup at Canal) and the  becoming 71-Continental to Whitehall except overnights (some trains during rush hours would end and begin at the Tunnel level of Canal Street).  For those specifically looking for the Broadway stations in lower Manhattan via Montague, you can have a handful of addition  trains supplement those running over the Bridge so there is full service to Astoria (these trains would be local from 59th in Brooklyn and in Manhattan). 

This  would as noted before be based out of East New York yard and have yard runs in-service that would end and begin at Broadway Junction on the throughout the day. Late nights and weekends, this  would be extended to Metropolitan Avenue to absorb the late night and weekend shuttles.  

[ActiveCity]

In order to construct the Red Hook subway line, I highly recommend the MTA to construct 2 new East River tunnels underneath the existing Montague Street tunnels or alongside them. In order to do that, the MTA must start by using the provisions which are located just south of the Whitehall St station. These provisions can then be used as an extension of the current  train. However, the MTA is planning on using the Montague St tubes for the train extension instead of constructing new ones which will prevent Nassau St service from accessing the Montague St tunnels ever again unless the MTA want 3 trains on 1 track which is a terrible idea because it will cause longer waiting times and over capacity just like the current 59th St tubes. Based on my personal experience, I had to wait 20 minutes for a Queens bound train at the Lexington Av-59th St on a weekday and it was ridiculous which is why I'm against using the Montague St tunnels. Also, for those who aren't familiar with the plan, the BMT Red Hook subway line will be running underneath the streets of Brooklyn at Columbia Place, Columbia Street, Van Brunt Street, Wolcott Street, Lorraine Street, and 9th Street.

Edited August 31, 2022 by ActiveCity

[ActiveCity]

Here's proof that the MTA will be using the Montague St tunnels instead of constructing 2 new tunnels which I'm afraid is going to happen. https://new.mta.info/20YN

"W line extension to Red Hook

Extending the  line from Whitehall St. in Manhattan through the Montague Street Tunnel to Red Hook, Brooklyn, including new stations at Columbia Waterfront (Columbia and Kane streets.), Atlantic Basin (Van Brunt and Verona streets), and Red Hook (Lorraine and Hicks streets), as well as a possible continuation to the existing station at 4th Ave-9th St."

Edited August 31, 2022 by ActiveCity

[Trainmaster5]

2 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

Here's proof that the MTA will be using the Montague St tunnels instead of constructing 2 new tunnels which I'm afraid is going to happen. https://new.mta.info/20YN

"W line extension to Red Hook

Extending the  line from Whitehall St. in Manhattan through the Montague Street Tunnel to Red Hook, Brooklyn, including new stations at Columbia Waterfront (Columbia and Kane streets.), Atlantic Basin (Van Brunt and Verona streets), and Red Hook (Lorraine and Hicks streets), as well as a possible continuation to the existing station at 4th Ave-9th St."

I hope you're not too enthusiastic about your plan. I believe there's a lot of folks waiting for the opening of the South 4th St complex, the extensions past Parsons-Archer, the  to Gateway Center, the Utica Avenue line, and the SAS unfinished business. Join the line. Welcome to Fantasy Island my friend. Carry on.

[LGA Link N Train]

The to Red Hook isn't a serious proposal IMO.

[trainfan22]

6 hours ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Was this system installed during GOH?

Yes. R46 had rollsigns on the side prior to GOH.

 

[ActiveCity]

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I hope you're not too enthusiastic about your plan. I believe there's a lot of folks waiting for the opening of the South 4th St complex, the extensions past Parsons-Archer, the  to Gateway Center, the Utica Avenue line, and the SAS unfinished business. Join the line. Welcome to Fantasy Island my friend. Carry on.

I guess you're right.

[CenSin]

6 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

In order to construct the Red Hook subway line, I highly recommend the MTA to construct 2 new East River tunnels underneath the existing Montague Street tunnels or alongside them. In order to do that, the MTA must start by using the provisions which are located just south of the Whitehall St station. These provisions can then be used as an extension of the current  train. However, the MTA is planning on using the Montague St tubes for the train extension instead of constructing new ones which will prevent Nassau St service from accessing the Montague St tunnels ever again unless the MTA want 3 trains on 1 track which is a terrible idea because it will cause longer waiting times and over capacity just like the current 59th St tubes. Based on my personal experience, I had to wait 20 minutes for a Queens bound train at the Lexington Av-59th St on a weekday and it was ridiculous which is why I'm against using the Montague St tunnels. Also, for those who aren't familiar with the plan, the BMT Red Hook subway line will be running underneath the streets of Brooklyn at Columbia Place, Columbia Street, Van Brunt Street, Wolcott Street, Lorraine Street, and 9th Street.

With the way things are going, no under-river tubes will be laid in our lifetimes. Take it or leave it—the MTA’s scaled-back fantasy.

[CenSin]

Quote

Second Avenue Subway, phase 3

Extending the Second Avenue Subway south by three miles, from 72nd Street to Houston Street, including construction of six new subway stations at 55th, 42nd, 34th, 23rd, 14th, and Houston streets.

Source: https://new.mta.info/20YN

Anyone notice how difficult it is to get to the planned 2 Avenue line from anywhere else? Suppose this is the last stretch of 2 Avenue the MTA will manage in our lifetimes, there are awfully few convenient ways to access it:

• : Lexington Avenue/53 Street — a long walk to the next avenue and streets
• 
  • Lexington Avenue/63 Street — a transfer to the for points north of 63 Street
  • 2 Avenue — a transfer to the for points between 63 Street and Houston Street
• : 3 Avenue
• : 57 Street–7 Avenue — a transfer to the for points north of 63 Street, backtracking on the otherwise
• 
  • 125 Street — only useful for those coming from the Bronx
  • Grand Central–42 Street — (see below)
• : Grand Central–42 Street — an even longer walk than the and riders will have to suffer

That leaves out which will require a two-legged transfer. Granted, they are all one transfer away from a Lexington Avenue alternative running two blocks west of the Second Avenue line. That’s unfortunate for the new line, because every other north south line in Manhattan currently has connections to every other north south lines—all of them tied together at Fulton Street and a subset of them in the South Bronx. Even assuming the line gets extended west, It makes me wonder if the MTA plans to have Second Avenue grow all of its ridership at the expense of the Bronx end of the Lexington Avenue and grow no further.

[mrsman]

8 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Source: https://new.mta.info/20YN

Anyone notice how difficult it is to get to the planned 2 Avenue line from anywhere else? Suppose this is the last stretch of 2 Avenue the MTA will manage in our lifetimes, there are awfully few convenient ways to access it:

• : Lexington Avenue/53 Street — a long walk to the next avenue and streets
• 
  • Lexington Avenue/63 Street — a transfer to the for points north of 63 Street
  • 2 Avenue — a transfer to the for points between 63 Street and Houston Street
• : 3 Avenue
• : 57 Street–7 Avenue — a transfer to the for points north of 63 Street, backtracking on the otherwise
• 
  • 125 Street — only useful for those coming from the Bronx
  • Grand Central–42 Street — (see below)
• : Grand Central–42 Street — an even longer walk than the and riders will have to suffer

That leaves out which will require a two-legged transfer. Granted, they are all one transfer away from a Lexington Avenue alternative running two blocks west of the Second Avenue line. That’s unfortunate for the new line, because every other north south line in Manhattan currently has connections to every other north south lines—all of them tied together at Fulton Street and a subset of them in the South Bronx. Even assuming the line gets extended west, It makes me wonder if the MTA plans to have Second Avenue grow all of its ridership at the expense of the Bronx end of the Lexington Avenue and grow no further.

This is true and it is a consequence of not having enough real connections to the east.  The crosstown subways do not have any entrance east of 3rd Ave.

This is one reason why I favor a 3rd Ave alignment in Midtown.  Even with the existing line in place, a new line could be branched from the existing  by going west on 68th and south onto 3rd.

The first station on 3rd would be at 61st street.  This platform would have a connection to  's Lexington station as well as  's Lexington station.  The new platform can be in use as a way to provide an in-system transfer between Lex/63rd and Lex/59.  The Northeast Midtown station complex would thus provide connections to SAS, Lex local and express, 63rd st line and 60th st line (which are currently connected with Broadway and 6th Ave services).  This would be well connected.  This one station complex would provide connection to every trunk line in Manhattan except 7th and 8th and allow access to all of the Upper East Side and much of Queens.

The next station at 53rd would provide direct connection to the current  station.

The next station at 42nd would provide direct connection to all the services at Grand Central with less walk.

I envision stations at 34th and 23rd.  In a nod to history, the line should turn east for a block at 23rd because the island gets significantly wider to the east at that point.  (This is why the old 2nd ave el moved from 2nd to 1st at 23rd.)  South of 23rd, the subway should get back to the 2nd Ave alignment to provide better connections to Houston  and Grand St  .

Further south, the promise of better connections, I feel, is a good reason why  should take over the Nassau line south of Chambers, so it has access to all the transfers at Fulton.  If that is not feasible, then at least, a station at Fulton/South Seaport should be consructed in such a way to make it an easier walk and a free transfer to the current Fulton St station.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

There should also be at least one other SAS service in addition to the  south of 63rd St. It would be ridiculous to spend $$$$ on the line south of 63rd and be forced to operate it well below capacity. 

[Wallyhorse]

12 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

There should also be at least one other SAS service in addition to the  south of 63rd St. It would be ridiculous to spend $$$$ on the line south of 63rd and be forced to operate it well below capacity. 

Agreed.  I would potentially look at that being the  that in this scenario could run Metropolitan via 2nd Avenue (moved from 6th Avenue) to at least 125/Lex (or if Phase 2 is extended along Broadway, 125/Broadway) or if a Bronx SAS line is built, wherever it would go in the Bronx even if such extension only went to 138th/3rd and a connection with the there.  

[Calvin]

Seen from a facebook transit group, credit to the photographer. The old 3189 R10 in teal green and white may makes it appearance to the parade on the weekend of the 17th and 18th. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Calvin