SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[RandomRider0101]

1 hour ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

No, I meant that each car has its own separate brakes, propulsion, HVAC, etc., so they probably can easily be disconnected from each other and rearranged into 3 car sets or even singles.

Oh okay, I see what you mean. 

The thing is that A-cars & B-cars can't operate on their own; they need each other in order to operate. A-cars have cab controls for the crews, while the B-cars don't.

So two A-cars need at least one B-car in between them; I'm just not sure if one B-car is enough.

[texassubwayfan555]

12 minutes ago, RandomRider0101 said:

A-cars & B-cars can't operate on their own

PATH PA5 B cars have hostler controls so they can operate on their own.

Anyways, as I was saying, NTTs can probably be arranged in 3 car sets for the shuttle.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 9/1/2022 at 12:22 PM, Wallyhorse said:

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.  

Yes and no. I could see running an  service alongside the  between 63rd St and Houston with the  diverging at a reconfigured Chrystie St connection to continue along the current  route to Metropolitan. But how would you fit the  and  above 63rd? There isn't enough capacity for all three services (unless you limit them to 10 tph or less apiece) and the current operational segment of the SAS isn't designed to be easily converted to a 4-track line. Neither are the existing tunnels further north that are meant to be incorporated into Phase 2. It would be best if only two of those services operate north of 63rd and the other one goes to Queens, either via the 63rd St Tunnel or its own separate tunnel.

Edited September 7, 2022 by T to Dyre Avenue
Repeated word "the"

[trainfan22]

Masks are now optional on MTA services! Personally I been stopped wearing a mask on public transit regularly as wearing a mask in hot, humid weather is a miserable experience. Mask sticks to your face and besides, most riders stopped wearing them anyway.

[texassubwayfan555]

Have the incidents of people wandering on the tracks and getting hit by trains finally gone down yet, and is the MTA still even considering PSDs?

[Vulturious]

2 hours ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Have the incidents of people wandering on the tracks and getting hit by trains finally gone down yet, and is the MTA still even considering PSDs?

Personally, when it comes to the MTA and PSDs, it just sounds like Damage Control, a PR stunt to quiet the public. Times Square on the , 14 St-Union Square on the , and JFK Airport on the  were supposed to get PSDs, but they still haven't put them in yet. They are very slow when something needs to be done, but somehow quick for other things that aren't necessary.

[texassubwayfan555]

5 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

a PR stunt

Then what should the MTA really be doing?

[darkstar8983]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Yes and no. I could see running an  service alongside the  between 63rd St and Houston with the  diverging at a reconfigured Chrystie St connection to continue along the current  route to Metropolitan. But how would you fit the  and  above 63rd? There isn't enough capacity for all three services (unless you limit them to 10 tph or less apiece) and the current operational segment of the SAS isn't designed to be easily converted to a 4-track line. Neither are the existing tunnels further north that are meant to be incorporated into Phase 2. It would be best if only two of those services operate north of 63rd and the other one goes to Queens, either via the 63rd St Tunnel or its own separate tunnel.

As I see it, there are three options:

1.  train via 2 Av starting from Essex St to whatever the northern terminal of SAS is, supplemented by the  train from Hanover Square (or whatever the south terminal is) to the north. This plan would cut the  train back to 57 St-7 Av though, and revert Broadway back to the June 2010-November 2016 service pattern.

2. Run the  via 2 Av as explained in proposal 1, but not create the  train at all. Just run the  and . The problem here is that stations between Essex St and 72 St will have very infrequent service seeing as how the  train already has to merge with the . Also, Lower Manhattan still would not have service east of Broadway / Centre St but then again, the island is already narrowing as we get closer to Lower Manhattan, so it may not be too big of a deal

3. Run the  and  only, and not move the  train. This proposal eliminates any prospect of any meaningful Culver Express service and leaves capacity in the Rutgers St Tunnel not utilized (useful for reroutes of  trains, but does not aid in the  train overcrowding). 

4. Create the connection between 2 Av lower (south of 55 St) and the 63 St tunnel, to allow the  to access Queens Blvd. Keep the  and train. This plan however, causes major congestion along Queens Blvd because you'll have a likely restructuring of the QB services as follows:

 via 53 St/Queens Blvd Express 

 via 63 St / Queens Blvd Local

 via 59 St / Queens Blvd Local

*Too many trains to fumigate at 71 Av

*The  in this case would have to detour via 63 St evenings, nights, and weekends to serve 57 St-6 Av, unless you plan that station to be served by a  shuttle or some other convoluted reroute. Otherwise, the alternative would be to close that station.

 

Alternatively, a messier plan would be

 via 53 St (one Queens Blvd Express, one Local)

 via 63 St (one Express, one local)

 via 59 St, Local

*Same fumigation issues AND causes a shit-show at Queens Plaza and 36 St interlocking.

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by darkstar8983

[Maxwell179]

Currently on 7535 on the  going to Manhattan. All the lights in the train are shut off but we are running in revenue service still, we were leaving court sq when the lights were cut, pulled into Hunters Pt & Vernon Blvd with the lights off . Ironically enough, there was a subway surfer on the last car.

[Maxwell179]

Just now, Maxwell179 said:

Currently on 7535 on the  going to Manhattan. All the lights in the train are shut off but we are running in revenue service still, we were leaving court sq when the lights were cut, pulled into Hunters Pt & Vernon Blvd with the lights off . Ironically enough, there was a subway surfer on the last car.

For the rest of the ride through the tunnel , the lights kept flickering on and off for seconds at a time

[Chris89292]

 Line station renewal project is on the “active solicitation” page on the MTA website, project could start soon

[LGA Link N Train]

6 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Personally, when it comes to the MTA and PSDs, it just sounds like Damage Control, a PR stunt to quiet the public. Times Square on the , 14 St-Union Square on the , and JFK Airport on the  were supposed to get PSDs, but they still haven't put them in yet. They are very slow when something needs to be done, but somehow quick for other things that aren't necessary.

Not a fan of adding PSD's in NYCT but I do wish to see how they'd look. Also it was 3rd Avenue on the that was included in the Pilot, not Union Square

[trainfan22]

3 hours ago, Maxwell179 said:

For the rest of the ride through the tunnel , the lights kept flickering on and off for seconds at a time

Maybe someone was trespassing in the cab playing with the controls? Might be possible the crew wasn't aware the lights were off/being tampered with.

 

In like 2006 I rode an R68 train that had its lights off underground. Double whammy as it was a rare ride on an R68 (was rare for that time period as R40s dominated the line at the time) and the lights was off!

Edited September 8, 2022 by trainfan22

[LGA Link N Train]

3 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

In like 2006 I rode an R68 train that had its lights off underground. Double whammy as it was a rare ride on an R68 (was rare for that time period as R40s dominated the line at the time) and the lights was off!

Reminds me of the one time I saw an NIS 160 with its lights off while I was doing some training in my flagging class, and that wasn't even that long ago.

[texassubwayfan555]

Why did no subway train ever have pneumatic doors? And why is each panel driven by its own motor instead of both being driven by a single motor?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

22 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

As I see it, there are three options:

1.  train via 2 Av starting from Essex St to whatever the northern terminal of SAS is, supplemented by the  train from Hanover Square (or whatever the south terminal is) to the north. This plan would cut the  train back to 57 St-7 Av though, and revert Broadway back to the June 2010-November 2016 service pattern.

2. Run the  via 2 Av as explained in proposal 1, but not create the  train at all. Just run the  and . The problem here is that stations between Essex St and 72 St will have very infrequent service seeing as how the  train already has to merge with the . Also, Lower Manhattan still would not have service east of Broadway / Centre St but then again, the island is already narrowing as we get closer to Lower Manhattan, so it may not be too big of a deal

3. Run the  and  only, and not move the  train. This proposal eliminates any prospect of any meaningful Culver Express service and leaves capacity in the Rutgers St Tunnel not utilized (useful for reroutes of  trains, but does not aid in the  train overcrowding). 

4. Create the connection between 2 Av lower (south of 55 St) and the 63 St tunnel, to allow the  to access Queens Blvd. Keep the  and train. This plan however, causes major congestion along Queens Blvd because you'll have a likely restructuring of the QB services as follows:

 via 53 St/Queens Blvd Express 

 via 63 St / Queens Blvd Local

 via 59 St / Queens Blvd Local

*Too many trains to fumigate at 71 Av

*The  in this case would have to detour via 63 St evenings, nights, and weekends to serve 57 St-6 Av, unless you plan that station to be served by a  shuttle or some other convoluted reroute. Otherwise, the alternative would be to close that station.

 

Alternatively, a messier plan would be

 via 53 St (one Queens Blvd Express, one Local)

 via 63 St (one Express, one local)

 via 59 St, Local

*Same fumigation issues AND causes a shit-show at Queens Plaza and 36 St interlocking.

 

Number 4 is the best service plan IMHO. Number 3 is basically the MTA's current plan, which will leave the SAS south of 72nd with much less frequent service, though not as bad as in Number 2's  plan. At least in Number 1, you can have frequent service with both the  and  for most of 2nd Ave. But I'd much rather leave the 2010-16 Broadway service pattern in the scrap heap of subway service plans where it belongs. Broadway was a complete shit show during those years with both the 34th and Prince switches in regular use. Let's not revisit that again. 

I think if there's a 63rd St-SAS service, it should run express alongside the . So perhaps

 via 63rd and Queens Blvd express with the  replacing the  to Jamaica Center.* The  would remain unchanged.

  via 53rd and Queens Blvd local, with both turning at 71st-Continental and the  continuing to South Brooklyn via the  line.

 rerouted to Astoria. In order for it to have a yard at one end, either build connecting tracks from the 4th Ave local tracks to 38th Street Yard in South Brooklyn, or do the Vanshnook reroute proposal like so,

Deinterlining with One Switch

*However, if the  replaces the , then it has to run 10-car trains, which would require lengthening the current  platforms in Brooklyn and South Queens to accommodate 10-car trains. So one possible way around that could be to run the  as the 63rd-SAS service and run the  from Essex all the way up 2nd Ave. I think you could get away with 8-car  trains if it's running alongside the  on upper 2nd Ave and the  on lower 2nd Ave.

Edited September 8, 2022 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Vulturious]

18 hours ago, LGA Link N Train said:

Not a fan of adding PSD's in NYCT but I do wish to see how they'd look. Also it was 3rd Avenue on the that was included in the Pilot, not Union Square

I think you're mistaking the older one, not the recent one. It was definitely Union Square with the other 2 stations.

[Wallyhorse]

On 9/8/2022 at 3:34 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Number 4 is the best service plan IMHO. Number 3 is basically the MTA's current plan, which will leave the SAS south of 72nd with much less frequent service, though not as bad as in Number 2's  plan. At least in Number 1, you can have frequent service with both the  and  for most of 2nd Ave. But I'd much rather leave the 2010-16 Broadway service pattern in the scrap heap of subway service plans where it belongs. Broadway was a complete shit show during those years with both the 34th and Prince switches in regular use. Let's not revisit that again. 

I think if there's a 63rd St-SAS service, it should run express alongside the . So perhaps

 via 63rd and Queens Blvd express with the  replacing the  to Jamaica Center.* The  would remain unchanged.

  via 53rd and Queens Blvd local, with both turning at 71st-Continental and the  continuing to South Brooklyn via the  line.

 rerouted to Astoria. In order for it to have a yard at one end, either build connecting tracks from the 4th Ave local tracks to 38th Street Yard in South Brooklyn, or do the Vanshnook reroute proposal like so,

Deinterlining with One Switch

*However, if the  replaces the , then it has to run 10-car trains, which would require lengthening the current  platforms in Brooklyn and South Queens to accommodate 10-car trains. So one possible way around that could be to run the  as the 63rd-SAS service and run the  from Essex all the way up 2nd Ave. I think you could get away with 8-car  trains if it's running alongside the  on upper 2nd Ave and the  on lower 2nd Ave.

One thing to remember:

You might need to move the switches into Metropolitan Avenue to extend that station to 600' feet as part of a longer-term plan to do that with ALL stations in the Eastern Division.  Short-term, that would I think allow for nine-car trains on the  between Metropolitan and Essex since the other stations used to handle eight-car trains of Standards that were 67' feet or 536' total.  That might allow a 2nd Avenue  to run the proposed route to 63rd and with the  to Queens Boulevard while the  becomes a local to 71-Continental at all times (this  as I would do it would run to Archer Avenue at all times).  

[texassubwayfan555]

Are there still controls in the unused half cabs in the R62/a and R68/a? and why are there still roll signs on the half cab ends/cars?

[trainfan22]

1 hour ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Are there still controls in the unused half cabs in the R62/a and R68/a? and why are there still roll signs on the half cab ends/cars?

The R68s on the still have the master controllers in the corner cabs.... funny you bring this up as I was waiting for the train at 59th Street today and noticed that lol.

 

 

Only the Kawasaki built R62s still have rollsigns on the half cabs, they have been removed on the R62As in linked five car sets and on the R68/68A fleets.

 

 

[texassubwayfan555]

Also, how exactly do SMEE master controllers work? (AKA communicate to the propulsion and apply brakes)

[RandomRider0101]

Rode R142A 7721 during work-to-home commute, and it was the usual bucking and screeching. But today it was on another level: the scrape-n-grind sounds (usually caused by worn-out brake pads) were so loud that they drained out the station annoucements as the train was pulling in the station. Last week I rode on 7630, and it was a similar issue with excessive screeching, though not the same as this one.

Those cars are in horrible condition, and nothing seems to be getting done about it. How bad do these cars have to get before real change is made? I heard about the broken car wash, but come on already.

[texassubwayfan555]

Supposedly the R142 and R142A are both getting overhauled/upgraded soon as discussed here. But the last update in that thread was from 2020, and I don't think the MTA has released any more updates about the status of the project.

27 minutes ago, RandomRider0101 said:

bucking and screeching

Do you mind describing or providing any examples of this, as I have never noticed this in any videos of R142a's.

[trainfan22]

26 minutes ago, RandomRider0101 said:

Rode R142A 7721 during work-to-home commute, and it was the usual bucking and screeching. But today it was on another level: the scrape-n-grind sounds (usually caused by worn-out brake pads) were so loud that they drained out the station annoucements as the train was pulling in the station. Last week I rode on 7630, and it was a similar issue with excessive screeching, though not the same as this one.

Those cars are in horrible condition, and nothing seems to be getting done about it. How bad do these cars have to get before real change is made? I heard about the broken car wash, but come on already.

Noisey brakes is common on all the current day IRT car classes except for the Bombardier built R142s. The other day I noticed clean trucks on an R188 set conversion set so maybe the R142As are due for an SMS soon which will help a bit.

[RandomRider0101]

25 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

Noisey brakes is common on all the current day IRT car classes except for the Bombardier built R142s.

Yeah I know, but this last incident stood out.

The other day I noticed clean trucks on an R188 set conversion set so maybe the R142As are due for an SMS soon which will help a bit.

I would hope so, because I can't express enough how much this stuff irritates me.