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

29 minutes ago, Lex said:

I can't say I agree. Those cars command longer dwells just to handle the same number of people, and with Second Avenue being a hit with just three of all planned stops, the last thing we should be doing is hampering commutes just for that. (Ideally, we'd have 60-footers for all non-IRT operations, but it'll still be a while before we even remotely reach that point. In the meantime, the R68s 75-footers should be kept off of Broadway except in a bind.)

We'd have 6 car R46s on the (J) and R32s/R42s on the (N) and (W) to this day if they would've fit thru their respective restricted clearance points (especially the 75 footers on the (J). The 32/42 thru Montague issue was more due to ineptness)

Edited by paulrivera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

The (N)(W) should be ALL R160.

There's not enough cars for that...

14 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

Maybe I wouldn't have 20+ minute waits during rush hour on my way to work. Always have to get up and rolling an hour earlier to ensure I'm on-time AND on a R160.

I have a hard time believing you, a grown adult, is playing childish games like this just because you don't like 75 foot cars. If I've got to deal with these pieces of shit R46s on the (R) everyday, you can suck it up and ride an R68/A once in a while. Grow up. 

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know right they are just trains to provide services for us so it really doesn't matter which type train to use or ride. All train models experience some kind of delays just like cars on the street. All of the train cars actually are good otherwise they would not be using in the subways for us to ride.

Edited by bwwnyc123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is enough cars they just need to swap (Q) could use R68/R68A and R160, (N)(W) could use only R160 and be treated like (2)(5) with NTTs only. Because currently they use some R68/R68A and R160 on (N)(W) , R160 only on (Q) .

Edited by bwwnyc123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

There's not enough cars for that...

I have a hard time believing you, a grown adult, is playing childish games like this just because you don't like 75 foot cars. If I've got to deal with these pieces of shit R46s on the (R) everyday, you can suck it up and ride an R68/A once in a while. Grow up. 

I Wish R46s and R68s doesn't exist at all

Share this post


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

I Wish R46s and R68s doesn't exist at all

K.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I do like about R46 and R68 is because they have longer cars and the seats arrangements feel more comfortable than the other subways with standard seats. Like whenever I ride R32, R42, and all NTTs and those bench seats after awhile my butt starts to hurt. And when I ride R62/R62A my butt doesn't hurt because of the bucket seats on those cars feel comfortable. R46 and R68 also has bucket seats plus the arrangements. That's when I'm traveling far.

Edited by bwwnyc123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2018 at 1:57 PM, Union Tpke said:

Project: T7041423

Description: Fare Control Upgrade at Sutphin Boulevard-Archer Avenue-JFK Airport on the Archer Avenue Line (SBDP)

Category: Passenger Stations

Element: Passenger Stations

xxxxxxxxxx

...

As part of a larger MTA initiative, the fare control area at Sutphin Boulevard-Archer Avenue-JFK Airport station in Queens is to be reconfigured to more easily allow luggage-bearing customers to enter/exit the NYCT station. Construction of this project is part of the MTA's small business development program. Some schedule dates are not available, due to project being under development.

$3 million

New York City Transit 

 

Project: T7041417

Description: Planning & Engineering Study at Sutphin Blvd-Archer Av

Category: Passenger Stations

Element: Passenger Stations

xxxxxxxxxx

...

The project will undertake a feasibility study and other planning and design efforts for improvement of the interconnection between the Sutphin Boulevard/Archer Avenue/JFK Airport subway station, located on the Archer Avenue line in Queens, and the adjacent LIRR Jamaica Stati on and JFK AirTrain facilities. Improvements to be considered include the addition of elevator/escalator vertical circulation capacity, replacement/upgrade of some station finishes, and system enhancements. Schedule dates are not available, due to project being under development.

$7 million

I found what this project would entail

https://www.ellana.net/sutphin-archer-station-archer-line-ind-interconnection-to-the-lirr/airtrainterminal-complex

This project attempts to provide passengers with a seamless transition from one of the three possible transportation options to any of the other two. The three options available at this station are the AirTrain, LIRR, and NYCT. It also attempts to upgrade the stations ADA capabilities through modernization. This project size varies from 50,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet based on the scheme/option chosen by the owner. 

Three conceptual schemes are offered in which meet the projected needs of the station. They vary in the number, size, and location of stairs and escalators. Each scheme is accompanied with an operational and structural analysis, from which is derived a summary listing advantages and disadvantages. Three options are presented regarding the retrofitting of existing and/or installation of new elevators. Two of these fulfill the projected needs of the station while the third one is repair in kind.

Generally speaking of all three schemes; the entire station will be gutted, and reconstructed with possible mezzanine expansion. All the schemes will require various amounts of structural reworking of the station, new finishes similar to 2nd Avenue style, and a resized fare array area for costumer flow. All options also include platform edge demolition and reconstruction to be ADA compliant with current day regulations.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am honestly BAFFLED by the hatred for 75-foot cars I’ve seen on this forum for years. While I respect the R32/R42s, I’m actually more fond of the wider, longer R46s and R68s. Yes, they’re not perfect and their slowness is well-documented, but that’s more a flaw of design above all else. With today’s technologies, I’d actually like to see another 75-foot car introduced to the system, of course being much faster than the current ones. I was kind of bummed to learn that the R211 were switched from 75 to 60 feet. Just my 2 cents.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Cabanamaner said:

While I respect the R32/R42s, I’m actually more fond of the wider, longer R46s and R68s. Yes, they’re not perfect and their slowness is well-documented, but that’s more a flaw of design above all else. With today’s technologies, I’d actually like to see another 75-foot car introduced to the system, of course being much faster than the current ones. 

You're not going to get a "faster" 75 foot car.

Dwell times are going to be through the roof on an 75 foot car no matter what, and that's what really kills reliability on lines that use them. You're stuck with no more than 4 doors per 75 foot car because its not strong enough to support a 5th door (hence why the R211 design changed) 

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

I found what this project would entail

https://www.ellana.net/sutphin-archer-station-archer-line-ind-interconnection-to-the-lirr/airtrainterminal-complex

This project attempts to provide passengers with a seamless transition from one of the three possible transportation options to any of the other two. The three options available at this station are the AirTrain, LIRR, and NYCT. It also attempts to upgrade the stations ADA capabilities through modernization. This project size varies from 50,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet based on the scheme/option chosen by the owner. 

Three conceptual schemes are offered in which meet the projected needs of the station. They vary in the number, size, and location of stairs and escalators. Each scheme is accompanied with an operational and structural analysis, from which is derived a summary listing advantages and disadvantages. Three options are presented regarding the retrofitting of existing and/or installation of new elevators. Two of these fulfill the projected needs of the station while the third one is repair in kind.

Generally speaking of all three schemes; the entire station will be gutted, and reconstructed with possible mezzanine expansion. All the schemes will require various amounts of structural reworking of the station, new finishes similar to 2nd Avenue style, and a resized fare array area for costumer flow. All options also include platform edge demolition and reconstruction to be ADA compliant with current day regulations.

Sounds good to me... That station really has not aged well. Hopefully they can introduce wider turnstiles for people with luggage. 

I'd love to see renderings of the three options at some point.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

You're not going to get a "faster" 75 foot car.

Dwell times are going to be through the roof on an 75 foot car no matter what, and that's what really kills reliability on lines that use them. You're stuck with no more than 4 doors per 75 foot car because its not strong enough to support a 5th door (hence why the R211 design changed) 

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the turn radius negatively impacts posted speeds in the tunnels just to keep the 75-footers from slamming into the walls...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Dwell times are going to be through the roof on an 75 foot car no matter what, and that's what really kills reliability on lines that use them.

The (C) and (R) are the only exceptions, since passengers on those two lines dump them for an express train and/or are traveling only a shorter number of stops.

Crowded or not, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

You're not going to get a "faster" 75 foot car.

Dwell times are going to be through the roof on an 75 foot car no matter what, and that's what really kills reliability on lines that use them. You're stuck with no more than 4 doors per 75 foot car because its not strong enough to support a 5th door (hence why the R211 design changed) 

Sounds good to me... That station really has not aged well. Hopefully they can introduce wider turnstiles for people with luggage. 

I'd love to see renderings of the three options at some point.

R46s on the (F) are dreadful. There is a reason why they are NEVER on the (E). You are more likely to see the TOMC on the (7) than that. This is the one thing I would FOAM the most over. My hopes got up a month back when the side signs on an R46 (R) leaving Forest Hills said E World Trade Center.

I think that wider turnstiles are part of the plan. Also, don't forget that the 75 footers, like the R32s and R42s can't go higher than about 45 mph, and take longer to accelerate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

R46s on the (F) are dreadful. There is a reason why they are NEVER on the (E). You are more likely to see the TOMC on the (7) than that. This is the one thing I would FOAM the most over. My hopes got up a month back when the side signs on an R46 (R) leaving Forest Hills said E World Trade Center.

I think that wider turnstiles are part of the plan. Also, don't forget that the 75 footers, like the R32s and R42s can't go higher than about 45 mph, and take longer to accelerate.

If my photographic memory is correct, @trainfan22 did mention a while back that with field shunting and/or good maintenance, the 75 footers along with the R32s and R42s can go faster no matter how old they are.

Right @trainfan22? Lol.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

If my photographic memory is correct, @trainfan22 did mention a while back that with field shunting and/or good maintenance, the 75 footers along with the R32s and R42s can go faster no matter how old they are.

Right @trainfan22? Lol.

Yes. While their not 75 footers Look how fast the museum Arnines were on CPW last year, so age doesn't matter.

 

If one thinks 75 footers are slow just ride SIR R44s which are quite fast. The SIR 44 seem to still have the field shunting, they clearly accelerate far faster than the SMEEs running in the subway today.

Edited by trainfan22

Share this post


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

The (C) and (R) are the only exceptions, since passengers on those two lines dump them for an express train and/or are traveling only a shorter number of stops.

Crowded or not, that is.

I strongly disagree about the (R)... Ride it from Lower Manhattan in the PM rush to Brooklyn and you'll see.

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Older cars with DC traction control generally perform worse than NTTs, which have AC traction (though of course there are certain conditions where the advantage is reversed). This is thanks to the less exacting control that is intrinsic in DC traction designs, which, when coupled with modifications made to acceleration performance in the 90s leads to degraded train performance. That’s an age related function, though, rather than something powered by age itself.

As others have said, car length has little to do with anything beyond dwell times. 

Edited by RR503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

I strongly disagree about the (R)... Ride it from Lower Manhattan in the PM rush to Brooklyn and you'll see.

Lol okay, and I’ll be sure to take some pictures and/or videos too while I’m at it.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2019 at 11:30 AM, Around the Horn said:

There's not enough cars for that...

I have a hard time believing you, a grown adult, is playing childish games like this just because you don't like 75 foot cars. If I've got to deal with these pieces of shit R46s on the (R) everyday, you can suck it up and ride an R68/A once in a while. Grow up. 

1. Believe it

2. It’s not like I don’t like the R68/R68A cars. I actually think they’re pretty neat cars. I just don’t want them on the (N) / (W).  I actually ride them on the (G) when heading home daily.

Edited by darkstar8983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2019 at 10:25 PM, Union Tpke said:

R46s on the (F) are dreadful. There is a reason why they are NEVER on the (E). You are more likely to see the TOMC on the (7) than that. This is the one thing I would FOAM the most over. My hopes got up a month back when the side signs on an R46 (R) leaving Forest Hills said E World Trade Center.

I think that wider turnstiles are part of the plan. Also, don't forget that the 75 footers, like the R32s and R42s can't go higher than about 45 mph, and take longer to accelerate.

I once caught an R46 (E) years ago (as in, around 2008). It was an (F) at Union Tpke that got turned into an (E) going to Manhattan for whatever reason. The crew changed the bullets and side signs and everything. If I go far back enough in my post history on here, I can find the post (it was probably one of the first things I ever posted). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking, would a POP system for the SIR work? Instead of installing turnstiles at every station, adding SBS like machines and having fare inspectors along the SIR would bring back more revenue from the SIR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lil 57 said:

I'm thinking, would a POP system for the SIR work? Instead of installing turnstiles at every station, adding SBS like machines and having fare inspectors along the SIR would bring back more revenue from the SIR.

Probably not. I think you’d need to go full-out turnstiles because people have ridden the SIR within the island for free for years (don’t know how many), and to suddenly implement a fare would catch them all by surprise. Sure they’d pay the first couple of days with the enforcer there to check but once the enforcer leaves, the fares will no longer be paid. Then you would need to reconfigure how fares are collected at Tompkinsville (don’t know if I spelled that correctly) or at St. George to avoid the double-fare

Edited by darkstar8983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

Probably not. I think you’d need to go full-out turnstiles because people have ridden the SIR within the island for free for years (don’t know how many), and to suddenly implement a fare would catch them all by surprise. Sure they’d pay the first couple of days with the enforcer there to check but once the enforcer leaves, the fares will no longer be paid. Then you would need to reconfigure how fares are collected at Tompkinsville (don’t know if I spelled that correctly) or at St. George to avoid the double-fare

IIRC, Tompkinsville originally was fare free before customers discovered a loophole by walking to St. George and not paying the exit fare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have also considered adding turnstiles at Grasmere due to the bus connection. Keep in mind that like 97% of riders use it to St. George. I wonder what they will do with OMNY.

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.