Jump to content

SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 30.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

One thought: Does anyone notice the sound of the rails from 96 St until 57 St-7 Av on the Broadway line and on the (7) from Times Square until 34 St-Hudson Yards?

Continuous welded rail, and a new type of track bed

For some reason, the wheels on (7) trains (doesn't matter if it's R188 or R62A) make a loud grating noise on the curve between 39 St and 10 Av. It's quieter than the screeching noise on other lines, but it's still a loud annoying buzz noise.

 

I haven't ridden the new (Q) in a while but I think the same annoying sound occurred.

Spotted a 68a (N) during the PM.

I rode a R68A (W) from Times Sq to Q-boro Plaza yesterday. While on that train, I saw two consists of R68/A (W) trains going in the opposite direction.

Edited by agar io
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing really new, but I've been seeing more R68/A (W) s than R68/A (N) s. In fact, today the (W) was half R68s and half R160. only 1 R68 N was spotted today from my journey, but that's my observation.

I may have seen an r68 (N) or two, but almost every day I luck out with catching an r68 (W). Speaking of r68's: Are they banned from the (Q), or are r160's just preferred on the (Q) because of the lack of new rollsigns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have seen an r68 (N) or two, but almost every day I luck out with catching an r68 (W). Speaking of r68's: Are they banned from the (Q), or are r160's just preferred on the (Q) because of the lack of new rollsigns?

 

 

They aren’t “banned” from the (Q). Just assigned to the (N)/(W) instead. No real reason, I think. 

 

Also, I think they prefer putting R68s on the (W) as the Sea Beach construction is better with R160 due to their informative FINDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ever happened to (F) express? Politics kill it? Or are they waiting for the culver rehab to finish...

 

Honestly, if they can (assuming they rebuild Kings Highway Interlocking and buy a few extra 211s), they should just run 2/3 of (F) trains express in the peak direction as far as KH, and extend the (G) with 10 cars there to add service at local stops. Then rebuild Bergen's lower level, and short turn whatever (F)s can't fit in CI at Avenue X (or even better, rebuild the crossovers at CI so all (F) service can go there). 

 

The only hitch I see is the crossings that will have to take place at Kings Highway...

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ever happened to (F) express? Politics kill it? Or are they waiting for the culver rehab to finish...

 

Honestly, if they can (assuming they rebuild Kings Highway Interlocking and buy a few extra 211s), they should just run 2/3 of (F) trains express in the peak direction as far as KH, and extend the (G) with 10 cars there to add service at local stops. Then rebuild Bergen's lower level, and short turn whatever (F)s can't fit in CI at Avenue X (or even better, rebuild the crossovers at CI so all (F) service can go there). 

 

The only hitch I see is the crossings that will have to take place at Kings Highway...

 

The same kind of crossing that the (6) has to do?

No problems doing that southbound, but there's no northbound switch from local to express at either end of Kings Highway. Yet there are two express to local switches NB (one at each end of the station)

 

Yea, they'll have to reconfigure the switches heading northbound if they want (F) express service (which they don't really want to run, which is why they say they're not adding any more trains if they do run express service)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ever happened to (F) express? Politics kill it? Or are they waiting for the culver rehab to finish...

 

Honestly, if they can (assuming they rebuild Kings Highway Interlocking and buy a few extra 211s), they should just run 2/3 of (F) trains express in the peak direction as far as KH, and extend the (G) with 10 cars there to add service at local stops. Then rebuild Bergen's lower level, and short turn whatever (F)s can't fit in CI at Avenue X (or even better, rebuild the crossovers at CI so all (F) service can go there). 

 

The only hitch I see is the crossings that will have to take place at Kings Highway...

That would get struck down immediately by Park Slope and Carroll Gardens. Any Culver Express plan would have to add express trains without reducing the number of local trains to Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, they'll have to reconfigure the switches heading northbound if they want (F) express service (which they don't really want to run, which is why they say they're not adding any more trains if they do run express service)

And you didn’t think I knew about this? It says it right in the post I replied to, not to mention I ride that train:

Honestly, if they can (assuming they rebuild Kings Highway Interlocking and buy a few extra 211s), they should just run 2/3 of (F) trains express in the peak direction as far as KH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would get struck down immediately by Park Slope and Carroll Gardens. Any Culver Express plan would have to add express trains without reducing the number of local trains to Manhattan.

 

They released a report for the F express a while back and as far as I know, while the Park Slope politicians aren't pleased overall (even though for Church Avenue & 7th Avenue it would provide a benefit, the overall wait times would increase for the district), they haven't shot down the plan completely. Plus, the southern Brooklyn politicians seem to want it.

 

And to put it to you this way, they say the express would be a little more crowded than the local in their analysis. Most non-railfans don't crowd trains for no reason.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me or are there more R62A's on the (7)? Today I took this set:

 

2075-2071, 1904, 2081-2085. Could of sworn it was on the (6)

2071-5, 81-5 and 91-5 are still on the (7) with the single units, there is an extra 5-car set from the (6) due to the derailment that occurred around Mets-Wilets Point this week.

They aren’t “banned” from the (Q). Just assigned to the (N)/(W) instead. No real reason, I think. 

 

Also, I think they prefer putting R68s on the (W) as the Sea Beach construction is better with R160 due to their informative FINDs.

 

I may have seen an r68 (N) or two, but almost every day I luck out with catching an r68 (W). Speaking of r68's: Are they banned from the (Q), or are r160's just preferred on the (Q) because of the lack of new rollsigns?

There's no East Side-96 St (or 96 St-2 Av) signs for the R68/As so that's probably why the (Q) is entirely R160 car class. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They released a report for the F express a while back and as far as I know, while the Park Slope politicians aren't pleased overall (even though for Church Avenue & 7th Avenue it would provide a benefit, the overall wait times would increase for the district), they haven't shot down the plan completely. Plus, the southern Brooklyn politicians seem to want it.

 

And to put it to you this way, they say the express would be a little more crowded than the local in their analysis. Most non-railfans don't crowd trains for no reason. ;)

That plan isn't likely to last long, but at the very least there's still half the (F) trains still running local unlike his plan where 2/3rds of (F) trains run express...

 

I still don't think the MTA's plan will last long as it's expressly designed for it to fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That plan isn't likely to last long, but at the very least there's still half the (F) trains still running local unlike his plan where 2/3rds of (F) trains run express...

 

I still don't think the MTA's plan will last long as it's expressly designed for it to fail.

 

Pun intended or no?  ;)

 

In any case, mathematically, it works out as an overall benefit to (F) train riders. And they didn't even calculate how many riders would benefit from taking a local (F) or (G) from Fort Hamilton Parkway or 15th Street to 7th Avenue and catching the express there (it assumes they all just stay on the local (F)). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pun intended or no?  ;)

 

In any case, mathematically, it works out as an overall benefit to (F) train riders. And they didn't even calculate how many riders would benefit from taking a local (F) or (G) from Fort Hamilton Parkway or 15th Street to 7th Avenue and catching the express there (it assumes they all just stay on the local (F)). 

Mathematically, sending the (2) to Dyre Avenue and (5) to Wakefield works out as well since the smoother merge increases throughput. Look what we have now: a signal improvement project just to keep the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.