SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[Abba]

6 hours ago, quadcorder said:

Looks like no? Maybe they were installing bluetooth modules just in case?

It’s inaccurate.Dosent work correctly at least not tonight .I tested it.

[VIP]

4 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

If there's only 4 set of 32s on the they were all in service today, and all on the Lefferts Blvd branch, 2 of them was back to back and their was 2 sets of 32s at the In wood terminal at the same time.

There’s typically 6 or 7 R32’s on the  . This weekend there’s 4 sets, 2 signed up to Lefferts and 2 signed up to Rockaways Queens, And Far Rockaway. Yesterday there were 3 R32’s back to back to Lefferts Boulevard last night. 1 was taken out of service after. (Side note) Passengers are noticing the common appearance of the 32’s... and just like the  riders, they don’t mind. 

[Bosco]

1 hour ago, VIP said:

There’s typically 6 or 7 R32’s on the  . This weekend there’s 4 sets, 2 signed up to Lefferts and 2 signed up to Rockaways Queens, And Far Rockaway. Yesterday there were 3 R32’s back to back to Lefferts Boulevard last night. 1 was taken out of service after. (Side note) Passengers are noticing the common appearance of the 32’s... and just like the  riders, they don’t mind. 

If anything, I'd sooner take an R32 on the than an R46 (better ride quality, and more doors per train).

As more R46s go to the , R32s on the will be more and more common.

[Porter]

On 12/26/2017 at 9:21 PM, Around the Horn said:

In an interesting development, the new signage for the  transfer refers to the  station as Chambers Street

As did the original signage:

[Abba]

I’ve been seeing lots of complaints of trains not opening door when they are halfway in a station and there’s is a BIE. Does everyone really have to sit the 20 min or however long it is? .I don’t think is fair.

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

The foam levels are real especially when you're laughing at 2:00 in the morning, its so bad it actually get's good but then it gets bad again.

What a way to start 2018! This is probably the latest i'll ever be up on this forum, HAPPY NEW YEARS! and I really need rest.... 

 

[Q64 To Forest Hills]

The LED screens on the Gs r68s 2860-2863 are out of service. It has two notes on it “prototype display under test” and “display will be temporarily unavailable.” Does this mean the test is done or are they actually out of service, because I thought the contract was for 1 year and the they are removed. The “display will be temporarily unavailable” part is throwing me off as it makes it sound like they will be reactived at a later date. 

[boweryboy]

It still annoys me that the digital announcements at 59th street on the IRT Lexington Avenue lines still say "transfer is available to the N Q R W...a free transfer is also available to the F train by walking to the Lexington Avenue-63rd Street station..." It is misleading to customers who want to transfer to the Q for SAS service, but do not know that they also have to walk out of system to where the F train is also located. Since Q service used to also serve this station, it is even more confusing! I thought this would have been updated by now...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

6 minutes ago, boweryboy said:

It still annoys me that the digital announcements at 59th street on the IRT Lexington Avenue lines still say "transfer is available to the N Q R W...a free transfer is also available to the F train by walking to the Lexington Avenue-63rd Street station..." It is misleading to customers who want to transfer to the Q for SAS service, but do not know that they also have to walk out of system to where the F train is also located. Since Q service used to also serve this station, it is even more confusing! I thought this would have been updated by now...

I think what's really annoying is how deep that 63rd street station is.  I'm always going down when I go into that station, but the amount of stairs is staggering nonetheless.  Why were the SAS stations built so deep? I know the 63rd street station existed, but still.

[Porter]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I think what's really annoying is how deep that 63rd street station is.  I'm always going down when I go into that station, but the amount of stairs is staggering nonetheless.  Why were the SAS stations built so deep? I know the 63rd street station existed, but still.

The river, perhaps?

Given how deep the station is, I think it's pointless to continue to offer the free out-of-system transfer to the , which isn't very close at all. Yes, it made sense when it was just the with a Lexington Avenue portal, but now that it's the with a second portal on Third Avenue, I think that it's perfectly sufficient for a self-contained station. Who, in 2017 and beyond, would actually use this transfer? It's especially punishing during winter days like these. Surely the number of people who use the transfer has plummeted, at least.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Skipper

[Via Garibaldi 8]

6 minutes ago, Skipper said:

The river, perhaps?

Given how deep the station is, I think it's pointless to continue to offer the free out-of-system transfer to the , which isn't very close at all. Yes, it made sense when it was just the with a Lexington Avenue portal, but now that it's the with a second portal on Third Avenue, I think that it's perfectly sufficient for a self-contained station. Who, in 2017 and beyond, would actually use this transfer? It's especially punishing during winter days like these. Surely the number of people who use the transfer has plummeted, at least.

I think a lot of people would use it.  It's an out-of-system transfer... So what? Plenty of people need to go West to East and vice versa.  I actually use that station a lot now when I want to make my way to say Herald Square.  Try doing that one from the Upper East Side without the  or ... 

Edited January 2, 2018 by Via Garibaldi 8

[RR503]

10 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I think a lot of people would use it.  It's an out-of-system transfer... So what? Plenty of people need to go West to East and vice versa.  I actually use that station a lot now when I want to make my way to say Herald Square.  Try doing that one from the Upper East Side without the  or ... 

Take the  to 59 for the , or take the  to 51 for the . 

That said, building an in system xfer from 63 to 59 would do worlds for the system by taking some load off of 53. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

15 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Take the  to 59 for the , or take the  to 51 for the . 

That said, building an in system xfer from 63 to 59 would do worlds for the system by taking some load off of 53. 

You could but I'm often around 65th... I don't feel like walking down to 59th. it's easier to board at 63rd... I've done it and it sucks.

[Porter]

15 minutes ago, RR503 said:

building an in system xfer from 63 to 59 would do worlds for the system by taking some load off of 53. 

The elevator bank on Third Avenue could open a floor above the platforms for such a transfer. The escalator mezzanine on the Lexington Avenue side would provide an even shorter route, though not ADA compliant.

[Calvin]

Anyone notice that the train's countdown clocks are similar to the B Division? 

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

25 minutes ago, Calvin said:

Anyone notice that the train's countdown clocks are similar to the B Division? 

When were they installed? I don't ride the  but I do know CBTC is being initiated and at 2018 when newer, cheaper much better B division clocks are already active.

[Jchambers2120]

38 minutes ago, Calvin said:

Anyone notice that the train's countdown clocks are similar to the B Division? 

I've seen pics. From my understanding the 7 doesn't use ATS like the rest of the mainline IRT and the 42 street shuttle so that  isn't much of a surprise IMO.

[Lance]

5 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I think what's really annoying is how deep that 63rd street station is.  I'm always going down when I go into that station, but the amount of stairs is staggering nonetheless.  Why were the SAS stations built so deep? I know the 63rd street station existed, but still.

To add on to what @Skipper mentioned, 63rd Street is built deep to avoid running into the Metro-North lines beneath Park Ave and to run under the bi-level Lexington Ave line. The line was likely built at such a depth to minimize any potential impact construction would have with these services.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

4 minutes ago, Lance said:

To add on to what @Skipper mentioned, 63rd Street is built deep to avoid running into the Metro-North lines beneath Park Ave and to run under the bi-level Lexington Ave line. The line was likely built at such a depth to minimize any potential impact construction would have with these services.

Speaking of Metro-North I've always thought that there should be a stop at 86th street. That could be another way to take some of the strain off of the  line. I've surprised it hasn't been brought up before.

[RR503]

There was at one time. Reopening it would cost a bunch though -- what with ADA, and the need for the platforms to handle more than 2 cars. I also doubt it'd do much for the Lex -- 125 to GCT via MNR is = to via Lex. It'd really just help reverse commuters/ppl heading north from the UES. 

http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/86st.html

Edited January 2, 2018 by RR503

[Porter]

53 minutes ago, RR503 said:

There was at one time. Reopening it would cost a bunch though -- what with ADA, and the need for the platforms to handle more than 2 cars. I also doubt it'd do much for the Lex -- 125 to GCT via MNR is = to via Lex. It'd really just help reverse commuters/ppl heading north from the UES. 

http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/86st.html

When I think of abandoned subway stations, I always assume that they were shuttered no earlier than WWII. 1903? Holy crap the system is old.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

There was at one time. Reopening it would cost a bunch though -- what with ADA, and the need for the platforms to handle more than 2 cars. I also doubt it'd do much for the Lex -- 125 to GCT via MNR is = to via Lex. It'd really just help reverse commuters/ppl heading north from the UES. 

http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/86st.html

I think you'd be surprised. I use MNRR to 125th over the subway and vice versa a lot. It's very quick... 10 minutes and one stop versus up to 30 minutes via the subway when it is really delayed and I think some would be willing to use it over the subway at 86th street, even with the higher fare. They could at least get on a train. They already do it at 125th...

Edited January 2, 2018 by Via Garibaldi 8

[RR503]

7 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I think you'd be surprised. I use MNRR to 125th over the subway and vice versa a lot. It's very quick... 10 minutes and one stop versus up to 30 minutes via the subway when it is really delayed and I think some would be willing to use it over the subway at 86th street, even with the higher fare. They could at least get on a train. They already do it at 125th...

I’m all for greater utilization of commuter rail within the city, I just don’t think MNR on the east side is the best situation for such an increase. Lex express covers many of these markets with better (frequency wise)/cheaper service, and is actually equally fast when running properly. Yes, in delayed situations it could be faster, but realistically few will give up their 2.75 and then pay another 8.50 for MN to GCT — where in all likelyhood they’ll have to catch another subway. MN also doesn’t technically allow boarding on S/B trains/discharging on n/b ones at 125. Now, if you can show there’s a large enough market for UES-points north travel to justify reopening the station, then this is a whole different matter, but until that happens, I think it’s best to leave those stations dead. 

PS I know — 1903 — crazy! 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

3 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I’m all for greater utilization of commuter rail within the city, I just don’t think MNR on the east side is the best situation for such an increase. Lex express covers many of these markets with better (frequency wise)/cheaper service, and is actually equally fast when running properly. Yes, in delayed situations it could be faster, but realistically few will give up their 2.75 and then pay another 8.50 for MN to GCT — where in all likelyhood they’ll have to catch another subway. MN also doesn’t technically allow boarding on S/B trains/discharging on n/b ones at 125. Now, if you can show there’s a large enough market for UES-points north travel to justify reopening the station, then this is a whole different matter, but until that happens, I think it’s best to leave those stations dead. 

PS I know — 1903 — crazy! 

As it stands now the Lex line can't handle the crowds. That's my point.... That was one reason why representatives of the UES opposed getting rid of the express bus that served the UES citing overcrowding on the Lex line. I think it should be looked at.  The MNRR via Amtrak would have a stop at 62nd on the West Side, and I'm sure it wouldn't just be for MNRR riders either. Subway riders would use it too.  I already know of car services being utilized on the UES for points south, and those people pay far more than $2.75.  I'd argue that there is a market... It's just a question of how much and how service would you run.  Now the issue I would see is the established folks on Park raising hell about it.  

Edited January 2, 2018 by Via Garibaldi 8

[RR503]

Just now, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

As it stands now the Lex line can't handle the crowds. That's my point.... That was one reason why representatives of the UES opposed getting rid of the express bus that served the UES citing overcrowding on the Lex line. I think it should be looked at.  The MNRR via Amtrak would have a stop at 62nd on the West Side, and I'm sure it wouldn't just be for MNRR riders either. Subway riders would use it too.

I understand your point, I just question whether or not adding the stop would be effective in any way. 

West side is a different matter — 62nd street will attract riders who don’t want to trek over to broadway. Here, where MN and subway run a block apart, and where subway is equally fast as MN, the case for use isn’t nearly as strong.