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

150 years ago today, the first transcontinental railroad was completed. Happy birthday, Promontory!

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2019 at 8:53 AM, Q23 via 108 said:

The Subway is going to have two types of cars. The NTTs and the open gangway R2XXs. Its going to be really bland since the post 90s cars are so similar. A Transit fan will tell the difference. But to the average person, they are nearly identical. The only main thing separating the NTTs are the Propulsion sounds. Other than that, they look the same on both the interior and exterior.

Besides sound (and maybe some little things here and there)

What's different about a R142 - R142A - and R188?

What's different about an R143, R160A, R160B, R179. 

To me, they are all the same train. And the subway system is getting more stale by the day. 

Eh, it’s all cyclical in my opinion. Go back 60 years and you could say the same thing about all of the R-series in service at the time. Aside from the color scheme on the various cars and slight variations in the cars’ design, they all looked quite similar. Even the 32s and 38s with their stainless steel builds were not that much of a departure from the previous car design. It wouldn’t be until the 40s were debuted that a major shift in car design occurred.

On 5/9/2019 at 1:51 AM, NewFlyer 230 said:

Does anyone think that the weekend (M) extension along 6th Ave to 96th street will become a permanent thing after the whole (L) project is done? I feel that having a 3rd service along will perhaps be something that is requested especially if more people from 2nd Ave use it to access Midtown/ 6th Ave and northern Brooklyn.  I also think that it’s good having another along 6th anyways. 

 

I just wonder why the MTA has not updated station signs to reflect that the (M) goes to 96th Street late evenings and weekends. Those pink fliers that they are placed in the stations are already falling down and I think not having proper signage will confuse people. The (M) to 96th is not even on the map so it makes me wonder if they ever plan to put it on there. 

It’s quite possible that the weekend M will prove popular even after the Canarsie work wraps up. It all depends on the MTA’s finances whether the extension sticks around beyond next year.

As for the weekend route not appearing on the maps, that’s not surprising since the map clearly notes that it displays weekday service only. Weekend and late-night service is denoted in the box. However, there’s no reason why the overhead signs haven’t been updated. They should reflect what’s in the schedules.

On 5/9/2019 at 7:42 AM, JeremiahC99 said:

I am also proposing both the (M) and (R) be extended to Jamaica-179th Street and have the (F) moved off the express tracks at all times except late nights, when it would continue to make the slow switching maneuver at 75th Avenue (which delays (E) train service). This would allow for direct service between Hillside Avenue and the Broadways corridor for Broadway theater goers and those looking to see The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. 6th Avenue riders would see an increase in trip time by 3-5 minutes but everyone else would save time.

I’m ambivalent on the rest of your post, but sending both the M and R to 179 Street just moves the fumigation problem at Forest Hills there. While 179 Street is more than capable of turning that much service, the entire line will be slowed down by the increased amount of relaying required for the F, M and R lines. Also, such an extension serves very little purpose as riders will bail the locals at the first opportunity, especially from that far along the line. The only ones who’d benefit are Hillside riders seeking Queens Blvd local stops and vice-versa, which I’m sure is a relatively low amount of riders on the line.

21 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

There's a new program for the (J) on one of the R179s and I have no idea what they were thinking...

(J) JAMAICA SKIP-STOP

(ok good)

(J) BROADWAY LOCAL

(um... what...)

(J) BROAD ST 

(meh, it said that before)

They sure do love to change the signs, don’t they? And yet, the super-abbreviated displays on the 188s remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

How would NYC Subway would have look like now, if September 11th Terror Attacks never happened?

Dirtier & less modern looking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Dirtier & less modern looking.

are you talking about just the Cortlandt St? or just the NYC Subway in general?

if you talk about the NYC Subways in General, why would it be Dirtier and less modern looking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Dirtier & less modern looking.

I thought, it would look the Same except the Cortlandt St it would look dirtier and less modern looking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, subwayfan1998 said:

are you talking about just the Cortlandt St? or just the NYC Subway in general?

if you talk about the NYC Subways in General, why would it be Dirtier and less modern looking?

General.

I refuse to believe that the drive to willingly initiate as many subway construction projects (aesthetic or otherwise) that took place post 9/11 (save for any other catastrophies that occurred after the fact... like that of Sandy) would've existed otherwise..... Which would mean matters would've continued to linger (in terms of filth) & for damn sure we wouldn't have ended up with as many newer (or, more modern) looking stations that we have now - not counting the "new" South Ferry & the new SAS stations.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2019 at 8:53 AM, Q23 via 108 said:

The Subway is going to have two types of cars. The NTTs and the open gangway R2XXs. Its going to be really bland since the post 90s cars are so similar. A Transit fan will tell the difference. But to the average person, they are nearly identical. The only main thing separating the NTTs are the Propulsion sounds. Other than that, they look the same on both the interior and exterior.

Besides sound (and maybe some little things here and there)

What's different about a R142 - R142A - and R188?

What's different about an R143, R160A, R160B, R179. 

To me, they are all the same train. And the subway system is getting more stale by the day. 

There is a reason why people mainly fan on the :A: and (C). There's mad diversity (R32, R46, R68, R179, R211 in the future) Compare it to the (2) where it just has 1 car type. 

Liked it better when you could on any line and expect anything to show up. Now I don't hate NTTs, but when we got a fleet that has very cars similar on almost every subway line, its going to become stale. Like besides the noise it makes, what's the difference of catching an R160 Alstom vs a R160 Siemens on the (N). Or catching a R143 or R160 on the (L). Its all the same.

50 years from now I'm probably going to find the Subway Stations more interesting than the actual rolling stock we will have. (I love the newly updated  28 St, the stations in 50 years are going to look great).

But the NTTs do their job, and I hope they last long, but you gotta admit that the subway is loosing its "charm".

Oh please. There have PLENTY of stock in the past that have been near identical to other fleets. Compare the R33s to the R36s, R32s to R38s, R40M to R42, R44 to R46, R62 to R62a, etc. Most of these share the same propulsion, and some (R32 and R33) have essentially the same interior. Let’s take off the nostalgia goggles, huh? The R211 is already evidence that the MTA is still open to new designs, no reason to expect that they won’t keep experimenting moving forward.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Random question: why are the elevateds painted green? Is it a not durable color or is it just because it's a cheap color? Why not make them navy blue, which I think would look better.

Edited by ABOGbrooklyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

General.

I refuse to believe that the drive to willingly initiate as many subway construction projects (aesthetic or otherwise) that took place post 9/11 (save for any other catastrophies that occurred after the fact... like that of Sandy) would've existed otherwise..... Which would mean matters would've continued to linger (in terms of filth) & for damn sure we wouldn't have ended up with as many newer (or, more modern) looking stations that we have now - not counting the "new" South Ferry & the new SAS stations.....

so without 9/11, there wouldn't be no "New" South Ferry and the New SAS Stations??

In my scenario, I Think there would still be SAS and but no New South Ferry since New South Ferry was part of recovery effort for 9/11.

SAS and (7) to Hudson Yards has nothing to do with 9/11 at all, it was planned and constructed long before 9/11 but it came to a halt due to fiscal crisis during 1970's. SAS would still be built anyways even without 9/11 and also Hurricane Sandy has nothing to do with 9/11. 

Also there would still be ESI as well even without 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maxwell179 said:

Is the (7) super-express still a thing ?

after Mets games or some kind of big event at Citi Field

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, subwayfan1998 said:

so without 9/11, there wouldn't be no "New" South Ferry and the New SAS Stations??

Re-read the post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 7:42 AM, JeremiahC99 said:

Yeah why not? It would be really great for the Upper East Side. Provides direct service between the Myrtle Avenue corridor and all of the weekend shopping that exists in SoHo and Midtown (Essex Street is not even close to SoHo).

I am also proposing both the (M) and (R) be extended to Jamaica-179th Street and have the (F) moved off the express tracks at all times except late nights, when it would continue to make the slow switching maneuver at 75th Avenue (which delays (E) train service). This would allow for direct service between Hillside Avenue and the Broadways corridor for Broadway theater goers and those looking to see The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. 6th Avenue riders would see an increase in trip time by 3-5 minutes but everyone else would save time.

Also, late night (M) service should also be extended to Essex Street to permit easy travel between Brooklyn and the nigh life that exists in the Lower East Side.

To accompany this, I would also propose either extending the (J) / (Z) lines together to Bay Ridge-95th Street or a separate route from the (J) / (Z) that would either operate between Broadway Jct and 95th Street or overlay the current (M) (NOT replace it) and operate between Metro Avenue and 95th Street. This would improve service.

Finally, I am proposing that (M) service have headway increases. During weekdays, service would operate with 14 trains per hour, with (J) / (Z) service operating at 10 trains per hour. This would provide more frequent service for (M) riders. (F) service may be reduced, but given how passengers north of Church Avenue has the (G) train and south of Church Avenue have an easy crosstown walk or bus ride to other train lines, like the (D)(N) and (B)(Q), all of which can take on additional riders, they’ll be fine.

Guys, I have a New Idea

I Prefer (M) and (R) to be extended underneath Union Turnpike to Floral Park - Langdale St.

(D) to be extended to Co-Op City via Gun Hill Road.

(B) to be extended underneath Tremont Ave, Eastchester Rd, then into Gun Hill Rd to Co-Op City.

(F) to be extended to Floral Park - Little Neck Pkwy.

(V) from Hanover Sq to Throgs Neck - Lawton Ave via 2nd Ave, Avenue C, 2nd Ave, Third Ave, Longwood Ave, Lafayette Ave and to E Tremont Ave.

(H) from Hanover Sq to Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St via 2nd Ave, Avenue C, 2nd Ave, 63rd St Tunnel, Newly Built Queens Superexpress (Underneath LIRR Line) and Former LIRR Rockaway Branch

(K) from WTC to Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St. via QBL and Former LIRR Rockaway Branch (Rego Park to Ozone Park),

(N) to Little Neck - Little Neck Pkwy via New Elevated line north of Ditmars Blvd then turn towards 19th Ave, New Tunnel Portal between 45th Street and Hazen St, Ditmars Blvd at Jackson Heights/Corona, underneath Flushing/Corona Park into Booth Memorial Ave, 64th Ave and 60th Ave.

(Q) to Co-Op City via Third Ave and Gun Hill Rd.

(W) from Staten Island to College Point.

(G) Train from Fort Hamilton - 92nd Street to Whitestone - 150th Street via New the Flushing Trunk Line underneath Sunnyside Yards and Northern Blvd then turn into 154th St at Flushing.

(J) from Broad St to Rosedale - Hook Creek Blvd.

(Z) to run 24/7 Hours except weekends and late nights from from Chambers St. to Rosedale - Hook Creek Blvd.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

Guys, I have a New Idea

I Prefer (M) and (R) to be extended underneath Union Turnpike to Floral Park - Langdale St.

(D) to be extended to Co-Op City via Gun Hill Road.

(B) to be extended underneath Tremont Ave, Eastchester Rd, then into Gun Hill Rd to Co-Op City.

(F) to be extended to Floral Park - Little Neck Pkwy.

(V) from Hanover Sq to Throgs Neck - Lawton Ave via 2nd Ave, Avenue C, 2nd Ave, Third Ave, Longwood Ave, Lafayette Ave and to E Tremont Ave.

(H) from Hanover Sq to Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St via 2nd Ave, Avenue C, 2nd Ave, 63rd St Tunnel, Newly Built Queens Superexpress (Underneath LIRR Line) and Former LIRR Rockaway Branch

(K) from WTC to Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St. via QBL and Former LIRR Rockaway Branch (Rego Park to Ozone Park),

(N) to Little Neck - Little Neck Pkwy via New Elevated line north of Ditmars Blvd then turn towards 19th Ave, New Tunnel Portal between 45th Street and Hazen St, Ditmars Blvd at Jackson Heights/Corona, underneath Flushing/Corona Park into Booth Memorial Ave, 64th Ave and 60th Ave.

(Q) to Co-Op City via Third Ave and Gun Hill Rd.

(W) from Staten Island to College Point.

(G) Train from Fort Hamilton - 92nd Street to Whitestone - 150th Street via New the Flushing Trunk Line underneath Sunnyside Yards and Northern Blvd then turn into 154th St at Flushing.

(J) from Broad St to Rosedale - Hook Creek Blvd.

(Z) to run 24/7 Hours except weekends and late nights from from Chambers St. to Rosedale - Hook Creek Blvd.

 

Why does Rockaway Park need two lines for a line that has barely anybody on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

Guys, I have a New Idea

I Prefer (M) and (R) to be extended underneath Union Turnpike to Floral Park - Langdale St.

(D) to be extended to Co-Op City via Gun Hill Road.

(B) to be extended underneath Tremont Ave, Eastchester Rd, then into Gun Hill Rd to Co-Op City.

(F) to be extended to Floral Park - Little Neck Pkwy.

(V) from Hanover Sq to Throgs Neck - Lawton Ave via 2nd Ave, Avenue C, 2nd Ave, Third Ave, Longwood Ave, Lafayette Ave and to E Tremont Ave.

(H) from Hanover Sq to Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St via 2nd Ave, Avenue C, 2nd Ave, 63rd St Tunnel, Newly Built Queens Superexpress (Underneath LIRR Line) and Former LIRR Rockaway Branch

(K) from WTC to Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St. via QBL and Former LIRR Rockaway Branch (Rego Park to Ozone Park),

(N) to Little Neck - Little Neck Pkwy via New Elevated line north of Ditmars Blvd then turn towards 19th Ave, New Tunnel Portal between 45th Street and Hazen St, Ditmars Blvd at Jackson Heights/Corona, underneath Flushing/Corona Park into Booth Memorial Ave, 64th Ave and 60th Ave.

(Q) to Co-Op City via Third Ave and Gun Hill Rd.

(W) from Staten Island to College Point.

(G) Train from Fort Hamilton - 92nd Street to Whitestone - 150th Street via New the Flushing Trunk Line underneath Sunnyside Yards and Northern Blvd then turn into 154th St at Flushing.

(J) from Broad St to Rosedale - Hook Creek Blvd.

(Z) to run 24/7 Hours except weekends and late nights from from Chambers St. to Rosedale - Hook Creek Blvd.

 

nice ideas! wrong thread

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

Guys, I have a New Idea

I Prefer (M) and (R) to be extended underneath Union Turnpike to Floral Park - Langdale St.

(D) to be extended to Co-Op City via Gun Hill Road.

(B) to be extended underneath Tremont Ave, Eastchester Rd, then into Gun Hill Rd to Co-Op City.

(F) to be extended to Floral Park - Little Neck Pkwy.

(V) from Hanover Sq to Throgs Neck - Lawton Ave via 2nd Ave, Avenue C, 2nd Ave, Third Ave, Longwood Ave, Lafayette Ave and to E Tremont Ave.

(H) from Hanover Sq to Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St via 2nd Ave, Avenue C, 2nd Ave, 63rd St Tunnel, Newly Built Queens Superexpress (Underneath LIRR Line) and Former LIRR Rockaway Branch

(K) from WTC to Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St. via QBL and Former LIRR Rockaway Branch (Rego Park to Ozone Park),

(N) to Little Neck - Little Neck Pkwy via New Elevated line north of Ditmars Blvd then turn towards 19th Ave, New Tunnel Portal between 45th Street and Hazen St, Ditmars Blvd at Jackson Heights/Corona, underneath Flushing/Corona Park into Booth Memorial Ave, 64th Ave and 60th Ave.

(Q) to Co-Op City via Third Ave and Gun Hill Rd.

(W) from Staten Island to College Point.

(G) Train from Fort Hamilton - 92nd Street to Whitestone - 150th Street via New the Flushing Trunk Line underneath Sunnyside Yards and Northern Blvd then turn into 154th St at Flushing.

(J) from Broad St to Rosedale - Hook Creek Blvd.

(Z) to run 24/7 Hours except weekends and late nights from from Chambers St. to Rosedale - Hook Creek Blvd.

 

-A lot of these ideas just create route that are long and unreliable, specifically the (M) , (R) , (W) , and (G) 

-Any route originating from Whitestone deserves to go to Manhattan, otherwise it'll just end up being an (R) situation where the majority of riders will have to constantly transfer

-For that (B) route, my proposal would be to go via Fordham Rd instead, seeing as that is the busier corridor (with the Bx12 SBS)

-Is it really necessary to have the line go all the way to Avenue C just to get back on 2nd? I get you'd want to serve East Village and Stuyvesant Town better, but why not just move the line to 1st Av for that portion at least? This would add so much more extra travel time

-If you're going to have the (K) go to Rockaway Park, then at least eliminate the (S) there. It wouldn't be needed anymore.

-For the (W) , can you provide more information about how exactly you plan to connect those two destinations?

-Your (D) , (F) , (N) , and (Q) ideas I like... only thing about (N) is that it would be long and indirect for those living east of Corona Park

Edited by Bay Ridge Express

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

General.

I refuse to believe that the drive to willingly initiate as many subway construction projects (aesthetic or otherwise) that took place post 9/11 (save for any other catastrophies that occurred after the fact... like that of Sandy) would've existed otherwise..... Which would mean matters would've continued to linger (in terms of filth) & for damn sure we wouldn't have ended up with as many newer (or, more modern) looking stations that we have now - not counting the "new" South Ferry & the new SAS stations.....

SAS had the study initiated in the '90s. The "new" post 9/11 stuff was New South Ferry and Fulton St.

It's a shame Pataki never managed to pull the ultimate hoodwink over the feds and get them to fund LIRR to WTC, or that Port Authority decided to be a dick about combining the 6 with the PATH (which the MTA was actually not disinterested in).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

SAS had the study initiated in the '90s. The "new" post 9/11 stuff was New South Ferry and Fulton St.

It's a shame Pataki never managed to pull the ultimate hoodwink over the feds and get them to fund LIRR to WTC, or that Port Authority decided to be a dick about combining the 6 with the PATH (which the MTA was actually not disinterested in).

Wouldn't combining the (6) with the PATH be detrimental to both the (6) and PATH? Considering the fact that it would simply be a connection between the two lines without any capacity being added, it would reduce capacity on the PATH north of 9th Street and on the (6) south of wherever the connection would have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

-A lot of these ideas just create route that are long and unreliable, specifically the (M) , (R) , (W) , and (G) 

-Any route originating from Whitestone deserves to go to Manhattan, otherwise it'll just end up being an (R) situation where the majority of riders will have to constantly transfer

-For that (B) route, my proposal would be to go via Fordham Rd instead, seeing as that is the busier corridor (with the Bx12 SBS)

-Is it really necessary to have the line go all the way to Avenue C just to get back on 2nd? I get you'd want to serve East Village and Stuyvesant Town better, but why not just move the line to 1st Av for that portion at least? This would add so much more extra travel time

-If you're going to have the (K) go to Rockaway Park, then at least eliminate the (S) there. It wouldn't be needed anymore.

-For the (W) , can you provide more information about how exactly you plan to connect those two destinations?

-Your (D) , (F) , (N) , and (Q) ideas I like... only thing about (N) is that it would be long and indirect for those living east of Corona Park

(A) is the most Longest ride ever, Anyways I'm Happy to see some one agreeing some of my ideas and disagreeing with some of my idea. I respect your Opinions, (S) should e streched from Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St to Far Rockaway - Mott Ave.

Also there was a Plane Pre-WW2 and post-WW2 to extend Astoria Line to East of Corona Park underneath Long Island Expressway that time it wasn't a highway, I Prefer not building a Subway underneath a Highway.

If Any rout originating from Whitestone should go to Manhattan, then I Would extend the (W) train to Whitestone and eliminating the (G) to Just Corona.

For (M) and (R) Trains, There were Plans to Extend the Line underneath Jewel Avenue, but i prefer to extend underneath Union Turnpike.

For (F), There were plans as well to Extend to Hollis or Floral Park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, P3F said:

Wouldn't combining the (6) with the PATH be detrimental to both the (6) and PATH? Considering the fact that it would simply be a connection between the two lines without any capacity being added, it would reduce capacity on the PATH north of 9th Street and on the (6) south of wherever the connection would have been.

It's a pair of tracks leading to a pair of tracks. Today those pair of tracks end in an arbitrary fashion 2000 feet away from each other.

Presumably you would need to extend station lengths on the PATH to accommodate such a service but IIRC Parsons-Brinckerhoff considered it possible.

Edited by bobtehpanda

Share this post


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

SAS had the study initiated in the '90s. The "new" post 9/11 stuff was New South Ferry and Fulton St.

It's a shame Pataki never managed to pull the ultimate hoodwink over the feds and get them to fund LIRR to WTC, or that Port Authority decided to be a dick about combining the 6 with the PATH (which the MTA was actually not disinterested in).

Exactly, NSF and Fulton St. Hub was a 9/11 Recovery Effort, Without 9/11 there would be No New South Ferry nor perhaps Fulton St. Hub, the SAS and Hudson Yards would still be built. NYC Subways would look the Same but except the South Ferry, Cortlandt St and Fulton St.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

... or that Port Authority decided to be a dick about combining the 6 with the PATH (which the MTA was actually not disinterested in).

It's probably for the best that didn't happen. Port Authority would love for someone else (the MTA) to foot half the bill for PATH expenses seeing as that "railroad" costs much more per rider to operate than the subway. Not surprising since they never wanted to be the railroad business in the first place and only are because of the World Trade Center. I could quite easily see that happening should the MTA ever build a track connection to the PATH network. 

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.