Javier Posted February 12, 2015 Share #8901 Posted February 12, 2015 Found It... Would anyone know what is the diameter for the sign above? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted February 12, 2015 Share #8902 Posted February 12, 2015 Would anyone know what is the diameter for the sign above? Rectangular shapes are measured using width+height or diagonal+ratio. Diameters, radii, and circumferences are for circles. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q113 LTD Posted February 12, 2015 Share #8903 Posted February 12, 2015 I was watching the news about the passing of Bob Simon and I notice that in one of his report(I think it was in the 70s or 80s) he was reporting about the subway and in the background, I saw a R46 with the blue stripes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted February 13, 2015 Share #8904 Posted February 13, 2015 I was watching the news about the passing of Bob Simon and I notice that in one of his report(I think it was in the 70s or 80s) he was reporting about the subway and in the background, I saw a R46 with the blue stripes. great catch! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted February 13, 2015 Share #8905 Posted February 13, 2015 EVIDENCE OF OLD R46 PRE-GOH NUMBERING IN CAR 5495 Posted by Union Tpke on Wed Feb 11 18:56:02 2015IN CAR 5495 THERE IS THE RESIDUE OF THE STICKER THAT SHOWED IT WAS CAR 1027.ALSO UNDER THE CAR EVACUTION STICKER YOU CAN SEE THE OLD CAR. Where in the car? If you've got any pictures, I'd love to see, as I didn't know any R46s kept traces of that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m7zanr160s Posted February 13, 2015 Share #8906 Posted February 13, 2015 Do R143's use cool white bulbs on the inside like R160s, or are they still using soft white? Soft white light gave those cars a different feel when I rode them after riding the 160s, on the regular. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted February 14, 2015 Share #8907 Posted February 14, 2015 I don't understand why some more (4)'s cant go to New Lots.There is a switch right after Utica.The only merging problem would be the .The best thing though would be yes build another merge track at Utica. There used to be a switch s/b before Utica Avenue to do exactly what some of you are proposing. It was removed because the New Lots line didn't need the switches at both ends of the station. Why pay to maintain 2 sets of switches to route trains toward New Lots ? The extra service out there is not warranted at this time. What you seem to be proposing is a plan to speed up the between Franklin and Utica at the expense of New Lots riders.The and don't need any more service to New Lots which would screw up the existing line.I think the same reasoning was used when the switches were removed between Borough Hall and Hoyt Street which connected the Lexington and 7th Avenue lines. More switches= more potential problems seems to be their reasoning. Think about the Freeman Street interlocking for example. G-O-N-E. Poof. Remember In Transitland it always boils down to cost. I've read some proposals on this forum that seem well thought out and logical, threads that garner a lot of support from other posters, but only a few people realize that the proposals are DOA if only because of cost. The is broke and if the politicians give them any more money the SAS and ESA are bigger photo ops than a switch or 2 out in the boonies. Carry on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted February 14, 2015 Share #8908 Posted February 14, 2015 There used to be a switch s/b before Utica Avenue to do exactly what some of you are proposing. It was removed because the New Lots line didn't need the switches at both ends of the station. Why pay to maintain 2 sets of switches to route trains toward New Lots ? The extra service out there is not warranted at this time. What you seem to be proposing is a plan to speed up the between Franklin and Utica at the expense of New Lots riders.The and don't need any more service to New Lots which would screw up the existing line.I think the same reasoning was used when the switches were removed between Borough Hall and Hoyt Street which connected the Lexington and 7th Avenue lines. More switches= more potential problems seems to be their reasoning. Think about the Freeman Street interlocking for example. G-O-N-E. Poof. Remember In Transitland it always boils down to cost. I've read some proposals on this forum that seem well thought out and logical, threads that garner a lot of support from other posters, but only a few people realize that the proposals are DOA if only because of cost. The is broke and if the politicians give them any more money the SAS and ESA are bigger photo ops than a switch or 2 out in the boonies. Carry on.With the way the IRT lines gets hammered, less switches increase reliability. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted February 16, 2015 Share #8909 Posted February 16, 2015 http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1339795 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted February 16, 2015 Share #8910 Posted February 16, 2015 http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1339795Seems like the actually will open it sometime in April like they said they would after years of delaying this one station extension for BS reasons. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTA Dude Posted February 16, 2015 Share #8911 Posted February 16, 2015 It's just gonna confuse passengers with it being installed so early. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10 2952 Posted February 16, 2015 Share #8912 Posted February 16, 2015 I was just thinking, has the MTA given any consideration to putting some R-42s back on the line? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted February 16, 2015 Share #8913 Posted February 16, 2015 I was just thinking, has the MTA given any consideration to putting some R-42s back on the line?Those R42 are mad old and barely even alive. They would not work well on the at this point. They are likely gonna stay on the and live there remaining lives there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted February 16, 2015 Share #8914 Posted February 16, 2015 IMHO, the greatest thing about the / summer swap was that it made the latter a full-length 600 feet unit train like almost all the other IND & BMT B Division routes (aside from the , , , and ) while it made the former decrease dwell times due to more doors on the 60 feet cars than on the 75 feet cars and having a better RFW on the full version of the instead of the shorten version of it. The aforementioned swap will forever remain in my dreams. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S78 via Hylan Posted February 17, 2015 Share #8915 Posted February 17, 2015 I see what you're saying, but I like the newer swap better because it allows the R32s to operate above ground on the while the gets the R160s which have better A/C units. Sure, the isn't full length, but it's still a win-win. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowblock Posted February 17, 2015 Share #8916 Posted February 17, 2015 Why does the need to be 600 ft when most of the customers just ride in the south car as it is? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted February 17, 2015 Share #8917 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Why does the need to be 600 ft when most of the customers just ride in the south car as it is? So? All the other supplemental part-time lines don't even have much ridership either. Are you going to say that they need to be shorter length too? In that case, how about we just revert the back to 9-cars permanently (which I certainly don't see happening at all)? Or, how about we just slash the 's headway from 10 minutes to 20-25 minutes so that way it's no longer delayed by the other three lines that it interacts with as well as its long local run? It's really annoying to see the stopping all the way at the front in both directions at Clinton-Washington Avenues and people from the other end at the northbound side have to make a mad dash for it, which happens at almost every other local station on 8th Avenue/Fulton Street, but not just at one end, but at BOTH ends too. That's specifically the case during rush hours and occasionally during the off-peak, especially during events at Central Park West or Barclays Center. With the being entirely R46s year round, you don't even have to use any of the equipment from Concourse for that purpose. This is why I believe that they should have kept a bit more R32s and why I believe that the needs the R32s more than the does, mainly because of rush hour/weekend crowding (and sometimes at nights too) and the R46s can cause longer dwell times at times during the hours that the is busy. Edited February 17, 2015 by RollOver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted February 17, 2015 Share #8918 Posted February 17, 2015 As I've said time and again, hindsight is always 20/20. When the 44s structural deficiencies manifested themselves, most of the 32s and 42s were already retired and being stripped of parts. If everything had gone according to plan, some of the currently remaining 32s would've likely gone to the J-line when the M was routed up 6th Ave in 2010. The 44s would've went to the C, which would have made the line full length. Alas, C riders will have to deal with the mad dash for a while longer. If the 179s were ordered in mostly 10-car sets, they wouldn't be able to increase service on the C-line. They can remedy this with the 211 order, and shift the 179s over to another line. In the meantime, the MTA can take the same approach they did with the G-line and mark where C trains stop at stations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewFlyer 230 Posted February 17, 2015 Share #8919 Posted February 17, 2015 Same with me' are you using the mobile version? Yes I use the mobile version because I don't like using the computer for stuff anymore. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q113 LTD Posted February 17, 2015 Share #8920 Posted February 17, 2015 Around 8:30am today, the was not running in Far Rockaway due to the draw bridge at Broad Channel got stuck. Right now, it is working fine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted February 17, 2015 Share #8921 Posted February 17, 2015 As I've said time and again, hindsight is always 20/20. When the 44s structural deficiencies manifested themselves, most of the 32s and 42s were already retired and being stripped of parts. If everything had gone according to plan, some of the currently remaining 32s would've likely gone to the J-line when the M was routed up 6th Ave in 2010. The 44s would've went to the C, which would have made the line full length. Alas, C riders will have to deal with the mad dash for a while longer. If the 179s were ordered in mostly 10-car sets, they wouldn't be able to increase service on the C-line. They can remedy this with the 211 order, and shift the 179s over to another line. In the meantime, the MTA can take the same approach they did with the G-line and mark where C trains stop at stations. The shorten doesn't even need more service. A full-length train/long headway=much cheaper than a shorter train/short headway. Why would it need more service when there's already the full as well as the , and B25 bus? Just why? I seriously hate this plan that the will be doing all along. With a full-length train on the local all year round, riders no longer have to run for it and any possible crowding would be greatly eased. Hence why I suggest all the things I previously did for the / here in this thread and a past couple of threads. I just hope years later, the has enough funding to buy ten-car sets for the local (or better yet, the more busier express) so that way, they realize there wouldn't be a need a boost in local service on the Fulton Street Line in Brooklyn after all. Man. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted February 17, 2015 Share #8922 Posted February 17, 2015 (or better yet, the more busier express) The won't need 8 car sets as long as it's running 75 footers - an 8 car train of 75 footers is equal to a 10 car train of 60 footers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted February 17, 2015 Share #8923 Posted February 17, 2015 I know that. I was referring to the part where the can get just as crowded compared to the and during rush hours and weekends, which is why I suggested that it should also have 60 footers as well. Not to mention that the roughly has the same headways like the and both do (surprise, surprise...). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N6 Limited Posted February 17, 2015 Share #8924 Posted February 17, 2015 I know that. I was referring to the part where the can get just as crowded compared to the and during rush hours and weekends, which is why I suggested that it should also have 60 footers as well. Not to mention that the roughly has the same headways like the and both do (surprise, surprise...). Why does the A have 2 branches and why aren't they just given different letter designations. to Lefferts to Far RocKaway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted February 17, 2015 Share #8925 Posted February 17, 2015 Why does the A have 2 branches and why aren't they just given different letter designations. to Lefferts to Far RocKaway.It's just an arbitrary decision. There's no good reason to make it the same letter given that we're not short on letters, and the point of having different letters is to differentiate routes that run along different lines. The , for example, should really have a different designation when running to Gun Hill Road or Nereid Avenue–238 Street (such as ). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.