Q43LTD Posted June 26, 2016 Share #12826 Posted June 26, 2016 (edited) The and the will serve Dyre this weekend. Won't Dyre be a little over burdened? Edited June 26, 2016 by Q43LTD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 Lexington Ave Posted June 26, 2016 Share #12827 Posted June 26, 2016 The and the will serve Dyre this weekend. Won't Dyre be a little over burdened? It can handle a train approximately every 6 minutes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted June 27, 2016 Share #12828 Posted June 27, 2016 https://queenstransit.wordpress.com/2016/06/26/seattle-vs-new-york-transit-expansion/ Just an article I wrote that I thought I would share. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewYorkElevated Posted June 27, 2016 Share #12829 Posted June 27, 2016 (edited) Yesterday's Parade of Trains was very fun! I met alot of familiar faces. The BRT Gate Cars were the most popular. In fact so popular, they decided to do one more run with them. I'm happy the Transit Museum did this. Hopefully, events like this can happen again in the future. Edited June 27, 2016 by TheNewYorkElevated 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon2305 Posted June 27, 2016 Share #12830 Posted June 27, 2016 Yikes, the front rollsign on R62A 1725 has seen better days. The things been riped to shreds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1train2255railfan Posted June 28, 2016 Share #12831 Posted June 28, 2016 (edited) Today I saw a five car set of 1900 singles on the . The ends had full cabs. The consist was 1943-1944-1947-1948-1949. 1943 was leading Manhattan bound Edited June 28, 2016 by 1train2255railfan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted June 28, 2016 Share #12832 Posted June 28, 2016 (edited) Today I saw a five car set of 1900 singles on the . The ends had full cabs. The consist was 1943-1944-1947-1948-1949. 1943 was leading Manhattan bound the odd numbers have full cabs? I thought cabs are on end digits with 1,5,6, and 10 (except 1438) Edited June 28, 2016 by CH3348 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1train2255railfan Posted June 29, 2016 Share #12833 Posted June 29, 2016 the odd numbers have full cabs? I thought cabs are on end digits with 1,5,6, and 10 (except 1438) Yeah, all of the R62As excluding 1943 and 1949 have cabs on the cars ending in 1, 5, 6 and 10. Guess they're just linking the remaining singles as best as possible now 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegoBrickBreaker101 Posted June 29, 2016 Share #12834 Posted June 29, 2016 Today I saw a five car set of 1900 singles on the . The ends had full cabs. The consist was 1943-1944-1947-1948-1949. 1943 was leading Manhattan bound Caught that set as well today. By the way, I happened to catch an R62A heading up to Jerome this past Sunday. Does anyone know why it was heading up there? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon2305 Posted June 29, 2016 Share #12835 Posted June 29, 2016 Caught that set as well today. By the way, I happened to catch an R62A heading up to Jerome this past Sunday. Does anyone know why it was heading up there? Possibly for car wash reasons, the wash structure at Westchester yard must be going through periodic maintenance as it was recently painted with a light blue color. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted June 29, 2016 Share #12836 Posted June 29, 2016 I've always wondered what the subway system would have looked like in SE Queens had the LIRR Rockaway fire not happened in 1950. ALL rail service would have been via the LIRR to and from the Rockaways on the Rockaway Beach and Far Rockaway Branch(s). Probably Green Bus would have handled the surface part I guess. With all of that money saved from the NYCTA Rockaway rehab perhaps some of the long needed expansions would have happened ? The , extension along Hillside Avenue to the east ? Maybe an extension of the 15 El along Jamaica Avenue or maybe an extension of the BMT Fulton St El( today's ) past Lefferts Boulevard. If I remember my history right when the fire removed the Rockaway Beach Branch connection to the peninsuls the LIRR still ran service from Beach116 St to Mott Avenue and on to Jamaica and beyond through Nassau County. I don't know the fare structure back then but the time saved by today's route was probably a priority over those Queens extensions I mentioned. Just a thought. Comment's pro and con okay with me. Carry on.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted June 29, 2016 Share #12837 Posted June 29, 2016 The conversion from rail to subway service would've probably still happened, though the transition may have occurred a bit later than 1956. The IND and later the Board of Transportation intended to capture the entire Rockaway Beach branch from the LIRR as indicated in the Second System plans from 1929 and 1939, the former of which was to build a line that ran parallel to the RBB, along with the 1951 BoT proposals. With the LIRR, like most railroads, losing revenue in the '50s and '60s, they would've likely sold off the RBB to cut their losses. Even if the Rockaway Beach line remained under the control of the Long Island Railroad, I still do not see any elevated line extensions stemming from the money saved on converting the RBB to subway service. An extension of Hillside Ave may have happened, perhaps, but Fulton St and Jamaica would like end at their respective terminals at Lefferts Blvd and 168 Street regardless. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted June 29, 2016 Share #12838 Posted June 29, 2016 The conversion from rail to subway service would've probably still happened, though the transition may have occurred a bit later than 1956. The IND and later the Board of Transportation intended to capture the entire Rockaway Beach branch from the LIRR as indicated in the Second System plans from 1929 and 1939, the former of which was to build a line that ran parallel to the RBB, along with the 1951 BoT proposals. With the LIRR, like most railroads, losing revenue in the '50s and '60s, they would've likely sold off the RBB to cut their losses. Even if the Rockaway Beach line remained under the control of the Long Island Railroad, I still do not see any elevated line extensions stemming from the money saved on converting the RBB to subway service. An extension of Hillside Ave may have happened, perhaps, but Fulton St and Jamaica would like end at their respective terminals at Lefferts Blvd and 168 Street regardless. I noticed that I mentioned the Els in my post a few hours later and I should have re-worded my idea about the and the extensions. I actually meant extending the routes eastward but I wasn't thinking of elevated extensions. Unlike our "elevated" friend I wouldn't advocate any el construction anywhere in this day and age and even going back to 1950 or so. The two improvements done in that era were the IND to BMT connections to existing elevated lines, the Fulton and the Culver. I'm sure the people in Eastern Queens would be up in arms if anyone even proposed building an El out there. You're entirely correct about the Pennsylvania/LIRR financial woes back then when the LIRR was such a money pit that NY State had to put in money to keep the line running. Many people don't realize that the was formed, in part, to keep the LIRR running after the Pennsylvania RR cut it's losses and sold it to New York State. The NYCTA buses and subways were added to mix later on. Now that I think about it maybe the was formed 20 years too late to accomplish what I had in mind. Most posters are probably too young but I was in my late teens when New York State, Governor Rockefeller, and the came out with their plan for action. Talk about excitement. Those proposals had something for everyone in the Downstate region. Fast forward 50 years and all we have is a few bits and pieces to show for it. Financial downturns and conflicting political agendas in NYC, NYS, and DC have dampened, if not extinguished, the optimism many of us shared. Carry on. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIP Posted June 30, 2016 Share #12839 Posted June 30, 2016 Interesting how East New York's R32's run better than 207th's. riders don't seem to mind them, and I don't Know if its the R143/160's in rotation that's helpful to them dealing with older cars. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewYorkElevated Posted June 30, 2016 Share #12840 Posted June 30, 2016 Posting this quick before I got to sleep. I saw a Facebook post, and it showed this petition. https://www.change.org/p/metropolitan-transportation-authority-do-not-give-the-r211-contract-to-bombardier What's the point of this when it's been stated that Bombardier has already been disqualified from the order? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainfan22 Posted June 30, 2016 Share #12841 Posted June 30, 2016 Posting this quick before I got to sleep. I saw a Facebook post, and it showed this petition. https://www.change.org/p/metropolitan-transportation-authority-do-not-give-the-r211-contract-to-bombardier What's the point of this when it's been stated that Bombardier has already been disqualified from the order? That is one of the most foamy things I ever saw In regards to this hobby, the only thing worth starting a petition about is something that relates to persevering a Transit Vehicle for a museum, or changing a photography law IMO. This is just silly, and the paragraph that goes along with it has even more foaming.... R32s are extremely slow? I can see pointing out there unreliable A/C units as a reason they should be retired ASAP... but the cars accelerate the same as the other remaining SMEE cars. 207th and Pikin doesn't take care of them as good as Jamaica yard? How old is this kid? It was posted online back then that the R46 had priority in the barn over the 32s prior to the 160s coming there. Jamaica yard in general was known for having less than stellar maintenance period back then... 160s on the , bad idea? line riders constantly complained about they're route only using the R32s, splitting the line in half with 160s year round was a great way to shut them up for the time being. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted June 30, 2016 Share #12842 Posted June 30, 2016 I noticed that I mentioned the Els in my post a few hours later and I should have re-worded my idea about the and the extensions. I actually meant extending the routes eastward but I wasn't thinking of elevated extensions. Unlike our "elevated" friend I wouldn't advocate any el construction anywhere in this day and age and even going back to 1950 or so. The two improvements done in that era were the IND to BMT connections to existing elevated lines, the Fulton and the Culver. I'm sure the people in Eastern Queens would be up in arms if anyone even proposed building an El out there. You're entirely correct about the Pennsylvania/LIRR financial woes back then when the LIRR was such a money pit that NY State had to put in money to keep the line running. Many people don't realize that the was formed, in part, to keep the LIRR running after the Pennsylvania RR cut it's losses and sold it to New York State. The NYCTA buses and subways were added to mix later on. Now that I think about it maybe the was formed 20 years too late to accomplish what I had in mind. Most posters are probably too young but I was in my late teens when New York State, Governor Rockefeller, and the came out with their plan for action. Talk about excitement. Those proposals had something for everyone in the Downstate region. Fast forward 50 years and all we have is a few bits and pieces to show for it. Financial downturns and conflicting political agendas in NYC, NYS, and DC have dampened, if not extinguished, the optimism many of us shared. Carry on. Noted on the subject of new subway lines as opposed to extensions of the existing elevated lines. However, I still feel that the subway system would've still been the same regardless of who ran the Rockaway Beach line whenever. If the LIRR didn't sell it off before the MTA came into existence in '68, converting the line for subway use would've become part of the Program for Action. Prior to the MTA, the IND and later the BoT had a hard-on for recapturing lines from other operators around at the time, rather than expanding the system beyond the reach of the former IRT and BMT and even the LIRR within the city limits if the proposals to take over both the Port Washington and Rockaway Beach branches are to be believed. The BoT may have made a token effort for expansion of the Hillside, Jamaica and Fulton St lines, much as it did when it came to Second Ave, but I believe the funds saved from not buying and rehabilitating the southern half of the Rockaways line would've simply gone into maintaining the system. After all, that is what they did with the funds that were supposedly allocated for the Second Avenue line in the late '40s and early '50s. Posting this quick before I got to sleep. I saw a Facebook post, and it showed this petition. https://www.change.org/p/metropolitan-transportation-authority-do-not-give-the-r211-contract-to-bombardier What's the point of this when it's been stated that Bombardier has already been disqualified from the order? Change.org - has anything ever been accomplished by that website? As for the issue at hand, I'd take the wait and see approach. The MTA has been known to change their minds at whim and how the R179s operate and mitigation of any teething problems may determine whether Bombardier will be considered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted June 30, 2016 Share #12843 Posted June 30, 2016 The BoT may have made a token effort for expansion of the Hillside, Jamaica and Fulton St lines, much as it did when it came to Second Ave, but I believe the funds saved from not buying and rehabilitating the southern half of the Rockaways line would've simply gone into maintaining the system. After all, that is what they did with the funds that were supposedly allocated for the Second Avenue line in the late '40s and early '50s. Which is another reason the SAS/East Side Access experiments of the past 20ish years have been so interesting, given extensive federal money has been allocated that cannot be put into the rest of the system. Once, you could do that. It's a smart move on the Feds' part, publicly speaking, given the MTA essentially has to self-fund cost overruns or else appear to have wasted extensive subsidy. The East Side Access, by itself, has destroyed the opportunity for more federal money in the SAS or other extensions in the coming years, which is a depressing reality about one of the less important MTA projects on a grand scale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted June 30, 2016 Share #12844 Posted June 30, 2016 160s on the , bad idea? line riders constantly complained about they're route only using the R32s, splitting the line in half with 160s year round was a great way to shut them up for the time being. Those 4-car 8600s and 9900s aren't going anywhere once they're at 207 St and that was confirmed last year in the week of memorial day 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N6 Limited Posted June 30, 2016 Share #12845 Posted June 30, 2016 160s on the , bad idea? line riders constantly complained about they're route only using the R32s, splitting the line in half with 160s year round was a great way to shut them up for the time being. The R160's make the ride much better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted June 30, 2016 Share #12846 Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) Posting this quick before I got to sleep. I saw a Facebook post, and it showed this petition. https://www.change.org/p/metropolitan-transportation-authority-do-not-give-the-r211-contract-to-bombardier What's the point of this when it's been stated that Bombardier has already been disqualified from the order? This is one of the cringiest things I have ever seen. Some of my favorite bits include: You expected them to deliver 300 subway cars by the end of 2015 and so far, 0 cars out of the 300 have been delivered yet. The J train has a majority of these R32s now, but the J train works hard with them, unlike with the C's R160s. What the hell does this even mean? I'm trying to wrap my head around what he's trying to say here and I can't seem to figure it out. Works hard with them... does that mean the R32s are being worked harder than they were on the ? Because that sounds like bullshit, the is shorter. I wish I could find some ridership figures, because it seems to me like the is busier than the as well. As a subway reviewer, Edited June 30, 2016 by ttcsubwayfan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon2305 Posted June 30, 2016 Share #12847 Posted June 30, 2016 Wow, so this is what the R179 fiasco has come to... Last I checked the WORLD hasn't ended, yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainfan22 Posted June 30, 2016 Share #12848 Posted June 30, 2016 What the hell does this even mean? I'm trying to wrap my head around what he's trying to say here and I can't seem to figure it out. Works hard with them... does that mean the R32s are being worked harder than they were on the ? Because that sounds like bullshit, the is shorter. I wish I could find some ridership figures, because it seems to me like the is busier than the as well. I assume he thinks the line 32s work "hard" because its a 24/7 line where's the is a part time line.. Technically the line 32s are worked harder than the 160s, on the overnights the line's 160s are layed up where's there's a few 32s sets running on the line in the wee hours of the morning. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3838 Posted June 30, 2016 Share #12849 Posted June 30, 2016 That is one of the most foamy things I ever saw In regards to this hobby, the only thing worth starting a petition about is something that relates to persevering a Transit Vehicle for a museum, or changing a photography law IMO. This is just silly, and the paragraph that goes along with it has even more foaming.... R32s are extremely slow? I can see pointing out there unreliable A/C units as a reason they should be retired ASAP... but the cars accelerate the same as the other remaining SMEE cars. 207th and Pikin doesn't take care of them as good as Jamaica yard? How old is this kid? It was posted online back then that the R46 had priority in the barn over the 32s prior to the 160s coming there. Jamaica yard in general was known for having less than stellar maintenance period back then... 160s on the , bad idea? line riders constantly complained about they're route only using the R32s, splitting the line in half with 160s year round was a great way to shut them up for the time being. Well he's gonna be quite butthurt when he finds out most or all of the R32 fleet is staying. From what i heard what line the R32's possibly going to when all the 179's are delivered, they are gonna need the whole fleet or atleast 200 cars to cover for this line 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted June 30, 2016 Share #12850 Posted June 30, 2016 I assume he thinks the line 32s work "hard" because its a 24/7 line where's the is a part time line.. Technically the line 32s are worked harder than the 160s, on the overnights the line's 160s are layed up where's there's a few 32s sets running on the line in the wee hours of the morning. Yeah, but line service times aren't the only element. The is nearly 19 miles long, while the is only 12. 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.