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.
Sign in to follow this  
MattTrain

Renaming the Staten Island railway

Recommended Posts

The Staten Island railway, which train line has no letter or number code, should be renamed (T) or be given a letter name. It's like the present day (G) train, only four cars. The R44's as some friends tell me don't make as much noise as the ones you'd see on the (A) and Rockaway Park (S).

 

It's like having a mini-subway in Staten Island, because it's grade-separated from streets.

 

These stations need improvement

Clifton

 

Richmond Valley

 

Atlantic

 

Atlantic shouldn't be a station, it only fits one car, well the last one in both directions. This is a safety concern, because there's no train crew member in the last car. B) Both directions.

 

St. Geroge bound trains only have three cars fitting in Clifton.

 

Trains in both directions only have three cars fitting in Richmond Valley.

 

Well this is just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The designation (T) is being saved for the Second Avenue subway line if it is ever built down towards the Hanover Square area of lower Manhattan. The Atlantic station is supposed to be closed along with the Nassau station and a new one built in the middle of where they both exist. The other stations don't have enough users to warrant the expense of making them longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say keep it SIR instead of wasting a letter since it's only one line on the island. What type of cars do you think the (T) will get? R160's??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I say keep it SIR instead of wasting a letter since it's only one line on the island. What type of cars do you think the (T) will get? R160's??

That or R179s. Who knows but its going to be NTTs.

 

But as for renaming the SIR, I say keep it as it is. And as someone said already, the (T) is the Second Avenue Subway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the SIR doesn't make any connections with the subway then it should remain called the "Staten Island Railway".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nearest possible connection with the Staten Island Railway would be the (R) at Bay Ridge.

 

Connect the (R) and have it run on the bridge that connects Brooklyn and Staten Island, and you have a five-borough subway.

 

Or make a tunnel between the two boroughs.

 

I'm not sure if the bridge can handle the train car's weight though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The nearest possible connection with the Staten Island Railway would be the (R) at Bay Ridge.

 

Connect the (R) and have it run on the bridge that connects Brooklyn and Staten Island, and you have a five-borough subway.

 

Or make a tunnel between the two boroughs.

 

I'm not sure if the bridge can handle the train car's weight though.

The bridge doesn't have provisions for a subway or any kind of rail to run on it so it'll have to be a tunnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i bet by the time the T is completed, R160's will be the oldest train in the subway, so they should go on the T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bridge doesn't have provisions for a subway or any kind of rail to run on it so it'll have to be a tunnel.

 

Yep, Mr. Robert Moses, the leader of the whole Verrazano Narrows bridge construction operation, made sure to try his best to stop any Rapid Transit Growth. He went as far to build a Bridge to Staten Island that in many retrospects disallowed a train from operating over it. As stated no provisions for train operation were created and Moses made the grade so steep, train operation would be inefficient to operate over the bridge. Moses was responsible of the removal of El's and the lack of growth of mass transit during the 1950s- 1970s era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, Mr. Robert Moses, the leader of the whole Verrazano Narrows bridge construction operation, made sure to try his best to stop any Rapid Transit Growth. He went as far to build a Bridge to Staten Island that in many retrospects disallowed a train from operating over it. As stated no provisions for train operation were created and Moses made the grade so steep, train operation would be inefficient to operate over the bridge. Moses was responsible of the removal of El's and the lack of growth of mass transit during the 1950s- 1970s era.

 

If all his dreams were realized NYC would be a mess today.

 

- Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If all his dreams were realized NYC would be a mess today.

 

- Andy

 

Yep, what with the Trans-Manhattan Expressway, Battery Park Bridge, etc. Unrealistic ideas. Ribbon parks? Feh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That or R179s. Who knows but its going to be NTTs.

 

But as for renaming the SIR, I say keep it as it is. And as someone said already, the (T) is the Second Avenue Subway.

 

160s, since the Quincy is going to run them. if the mta decides to fit PSDs at the stations, its going to be for one type of rolling stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Staten Island railway, which train line has no letter or number code, should be renamed (T) or be given a letter name. It's like the present day (G) train, only four cars. The R44's as some friends tell me don't make as much noise as the ones you'd see on the (A) and Rockaway Park (S).

 

It's like having a mini-subway in Staten Island, because it's grade-separated from streets.

 

These stations need improvement

Clifton

 

Richmond Valley

 

Atlantic

 

Atlantic shouldn't be a station, it only fits one car, well the last one in both directions. This is a safety concern, because there's no train crew member in the last car. B) Both directions.

 

St. Geroge bound trains only have three cars fitting in Clifton.

 

Trains in both directions only have three cars fitting in Richmond Valley.

 

Well this is just a thought.

 

The Staten Island Railway cannot be renamed to (T) because the (T) line is reserved for the Second Ave subway line. The Staten Island Railway should ethier be renamed ethier (H),or (K) or U,or X or Y these are ethier routes that SIRT should be renamed since it is unsued and not planned.

Edited by Kexpress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ur right. the atlantic Station on the (SIR) line is way too deserted. its very scary at night. that station shouldnt be open at all if only ONE car fits in the station.

 

Clifton however, they should fix the gap at the St.George platform. the last car doesnt open bacause of the wide gap it has in the last car, but the train fits perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staten Island would not see any (T) in the future.

Only 8, (9), (H), I, (K), O, P, U, X, Y can replace the numbering and lettering of line but I'd leave the Staten Island Railway naming as it is. That feel more comfy to hear...

 

They will not use I or O... it would be too confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Certainly "O/0", but depending on typeface, "I" could be passable as it could look more different than a "1".

 

I would say, give it an ironbar I. By yeah, it depends on the typeface. The MTA generally uses Helvetica. Which is similar to Arial.

An Arial I is: I, it looks like a 1. The MTA won't switch to Times New Roman, eh? I mean I know this works: I, but they are not going to switch it to that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only the MTA used a better font, I would be a good choice [i for Island?] But since it's not a part of the system, I don't think they'll ever name it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you would want to rename it, it's still clearly a railway, and not a part of the system, also it doesn't have multiple branches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lately, I've been toying with NTT route rollsign bullets (which are essentially the descendants of the part time route bullets used on maps) and I was thinking of the typeface used for them when I posted. The OCR font used has a ironbar I, and even though it wouldn't be used, there's a Ø used in the font which would be the OCR of differentiating between a O and 0.

 

75pxnycsr160bulltransixcv7.png75pxnycsr142bulltransspui4.png

 

Compared to a (1), that's distinctive enough for me. The Ø is also fairly recognized internationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lately, I've been toying with NTT route rollsign bullets (which are essentially the descendants of the part time route bullets used on maps) and I was thinking of the typeface used for them when I posted. The OCR font used has a ironbar I, and even though it wouldn't be used, there's a Ø used in the font which would be the OCR of differentiating between a O and 0.

 

75pxnycsr160bulltransixcv7.png75pxnycsr142bulltransspui4.png

 

Compared to a (1), that's distinctive enough for me. The Ø is also fairly recognized internationally.

 

On the route rollsign bullets they appear as an ironbar. But, the problem is that the typeface the MTA uses in typical signage is Helvetica. A Helvetican I is not an ironbar.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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