Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

Recommended Posts

On 1/30/2018 at 10:30 PM, Calvin said:

Passed by Westchester Yard during the PM rush and there's no R62A leftover with 3 5-car R142As in-storage. 

 

I passed by a couple weeks ago, the same scene. They really don’t have spares. And the R142A’s look like odd balls. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, B46 via Utica said:

 

20180131_114043_zpsn2axpdyl.jpg 

 

They look like they're just chillin right now.

 

Ironically the oldest fleet is stored right beside them and are utilized more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, P3F said:

You can't see the (2)(3) tracks from the 7th Avenue platforms, but the sound of those lines rumbling by is surprisingly pronounced. I wonder if people waiting on the platform get confused, since they're waiting for a train on a two-track line, but hear trains that they can't see.

When a train passes on the IRT lines by 7th Avenue station it clearly sounds more dampened than trains passing through the station. As a regular user of the station it isn't all that confusing, but maybe that's just me. Also, if you look closely from the north end of the northbound platform it is just barely possible to see the (2) and (3) pass by if you stand in the right spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 4 via Mosholu said:

I think it's due to the former (K) train. The :CC: initially ran as ten 60 foot cars from the Grand Concourse Yard while the (K) was only eight 60 foot cars since it was the 168 to WTC service from the 207th Street Overhaul Shop. When the (C) was moved to run in the former (K) train service pattern during the weekend in 1995, that was when it was decided to decrease the car length from ten to eight cars. Therefore, it all comes down to YARDS because some lines cannot accommodate longer train lengths in the car shops.

Thanks for the critical thinking. Appreciate it. It’s really a shame to be honest because subway ridership in general always grows yearly and yet we still have armchair transit experts on social media who say otherwise. Hopefully they’ll do something about the length at the shops at 207th Street real soon. I just find it utterly stupid that the Central Park West, 8th Avenue, and Fulton Street local stations (disregarding the (B) and (E)) that they get short-length 480 feet long trains during the daytime and evening hours and full-length 600 feet long trains at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 4 via Mosholu said:

I think it's due to the former (K) train. The :CC: initially ran as ten 60 foot cars from the Grand Concourse Yard while the (K) was only eight 60 foot cars since it was the 168 to WTC service from the 207th Street Overhaul Shop. When the (C) was moved to run in the former (K) train service pattern during the weekend in 1995, that was when it was decided to decrease the car length from ten to eight cars. Therefore, it all comes down to YARDS because some lines cannot accommodate longer train lengths in the car shops.

The (K) and former (AA) came out of CIY because during the rush hours the (B) ran to 168th st and during the midday those cars ran as (AA) and post 1985 (K) trains until December 1988. If you look at the rollsigns on the R32's and pre 2001 R40-46 signs the (B) is right next to the (K).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Missabassie said:

Was on a (1) train this morning with two conductors..... never seen that before :blink:

Once could have been TSS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rode the (1) train today.. train was late so it did a skip from 96th to 72nd, (3) train comes in across the platform but the (1) train leaves first getting a huge head start, despite that, when we skipped 86th street the (3) train STILL blew pass us as we were pulling out of 86th street and the (3) train was moving much faster than we was and by the time we got 79th, that (3) train was long gone.

 

 

When we got to 72nd the (3) train was closing its doors and pulling out before my (1) came to a complete stop. One of the most impressive express runs I ever seen, it also further strengthen my suspicion that the 62s are slightly faster than the 62As. Even when I rode the 62A on the (4) recently it didn't seem as fast as when the 62s were on the line. I'm talking about the ride though the underwater tube between Bowing Green and Borough Hall. Miss those 62s on the (4).

Edited by trainfan22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

Rode the (1) train today.. train was late so it did a skip from 96th to 72nd, (3) train comes in across the platform but the (1) train leaves first getting a huge head start, despite that, when we skipped 86th street the (3) train STILL blew pass us as we were pulling out of 86th street and the (3) train was moving much faster than we waswere and by the time we got 79th, that (3) train was long gone.

 

 

When we got to 72nd the (3) train was closing its doors and pulling out before my (1) came to a complete stop. One of the most impressive express runs I ever seen, it also further strengthen my suspicion that the 62s are slightly faster than the 62As. Even when I rode the 62A on the (4) recently it didn't seem as fast as when the 62s were on the line. I'm talking about the ride though the underwater tube between Bowing Green and Borough Hall. Miss those 62s on the (4).

You might also consider that the locals would have a lower speed limit and that the local T/O would likely slow down passing platforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quadcorder said:

You might also consider that the locals would have a lower speed limit and that the local T/O would likely slow down passing platforms.

The train did slow down for the platforms, but I didn't think it would make much of a difference as my train had a decent head start, the (3) train was loading/unloading passengers as my (1) was pulling out of 96th.

 

The N.Y. Subway doesn't have a speed limit on straight, flat track unless posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

The train did slow down for the platforms, but I didn't think it would make much of a difference as my train had a decent head start, the (3) train was loading/unloading passengers as my (1) was pulling out of 96th.

 

The N.Y. Subway doesn't have a speed limit on straight, flat track unless posted.

Are you sure about the last part... Im pretty sure timers will force an operator to go SLOWER than the speed limit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did they ever remove R62s from the (4) around 2003/2004? That kinda took the heart and soul out of that express line. I dont think its ever been the same since the "This is a Manhattan bound 4 train, the next stop is ..." have overtaken the line...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 78 via Stew Leonards said:

Why did they ever remove R62s from the (4) around 2003/2004? That kinda took the heart and soul out of that express line. I dont think its ever been the same since the "This is a Manhattan bound 4 train, the next stop is ..." have overtaken the line...

Longer dwell times than the 142s/142As probably

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

Are you sure about the last part... Im pretty sure timers will force an operator to go SLOWER than the speed limit. 

I'm talking about flat straight track with no timers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 78 via Stew Leonards said:

Why did they ever remove R62s from the (4) around 2003/2004? That kinda took the heart and soul out of that express line. I dont think its ever been the same since the "This is a Manhattan bound 4 train, the next stop is ..." have overtaken the line...

A couple of sets of 62s stayed on the (4) until like like 08 or 09, I used to love catching those 62 (4) trains in the "NTT era". 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 78 via Stew Leonards said:

Why did they ever remove R62s from the (4) around 2003/2004? That kinda took the heart and soul out of that express line. I dont think its ever been the same since the "This is a Manhattan bound 4 train, the next stop is ..." have overtaken the line...

Heart and soul is all well and good, but if this heart is causing cardiac arrest every rush hour because its doors are too narrow, it’s time for a transplant. 

Sadly, car planning does not follow the rules of nostalgia. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 78 via Stew Leonards said:

Why did they ever remove R62s from the (4) around 2003/2004? That kinda took the heart and soul out of that express line. I dont think its ever been the same since the "This is a Manhattan bound 4 train, the next stop is ..." have overtaken the line...

It's one of the busiest lines in the system, newer trains also mean less breakdowns as well. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

One quick question:

What if the R32s/R42s were the ones to get REEFED, and R38s/R40s were the ones to STAY until the end of the Canarsie shutdown? 

You’d have slightly fewer, slightly lower capacity (in the case of the non-M R40s), slightly different looking SMEEs with slightly higher failure rates being made to soldier on past the 50 year mark. 

In essence, it wouldn’t make any functional difference — just an aesthetic one. 

The issue with the R32s has nothing to do with them intrinsically. It has to do with the R44s croaking early, and messing up the MTA’s fleet plans. Whether the fleet on life support was the R32, 38, 40, or 42 in the end of the day doesn’t make all that much of a difference. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

The train did slow down for the platforms, but I didn't think it would make much of a difference as my train had a decent head start, the (3) train was loading/unloading passengers as my (1) was pulling out of 96th.

 

The N.Y. Subway doesn't have a speed limit on straight, flat track unless posted.

There’s a timer and a curve south of 79th on the local track, while the express is a straight shot with no timers from 86th on down (idk if there’s also a timer SB on the express by 91st like there is on the NB.)

Plus it helps that the R62’s have been on a low stress line for the last 10-15 years. They’ve had better maintenance while on the (4) and less wear and tear on the (3).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RR503 said:

You’d have slightly fewer, slightly lower capacity (in the case of the non-M R40s), slightly different looking SMEEs with slightly higher failure rates being made to soldier on past the 50 year mark. 

In essence, it wouldn’t make any functional difference — just an aesthetic one. 

The issue with the R32s has nothing to do with them intrinsically. It has to do with the R44s croaking early, and messing up the MTA’s fleet plans. Whether the fleet on life support was the R32, 38, 40, or 42 in the end of the day doesn’t make all that much of a difference. 

If the R44’s weren’t retired, the (C) would have been full length and we’d have a 300 10-car R179 order instead of the mess we’re getting now. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

One quick question:

What if the R32s/R42s were the ones to get REEFED, and R38s/R40s were the ones to STAY until the end of the Canarsie shutdown? 

We'd likely be in worst shape than we are with the 32s and the 42s. The 38s and 40s, especially the slants, were in poor shape when they were retired. That's why they were among the first to go when we started receiving 160s in bulk.

4 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Huh, my brain can not comprehend what this means 

It's a Scooby Doo catchphrase. Almost once an episode, more so on the original series, the villain would utter something along the lines of "I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids."

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the 38s had the same A/C issues that plague the 32s. I could be wrong, but I recall those cars being mainstays on the (C) for years up until 2008 when they were replaced by the displaced 32s formerly on the (E) and (F) lines.

Shifting gears, there has been a slight update to the car assignments. It's available on Joe Korman's site, as well as an Excel file without the pesky math errors in the totals. The main update is the inclusion of the 179s to the roster and that those cars replaced two sets of 32s on the (J) line's requirements.

Edited by Lance
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.