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.

Renaming the Staten Island railway

MattTrain

By MattTrain,
in MTA Railroads

Recommended Posts

MattTrain

MattTrain 3,120

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Night Train

Mr. Night Train 0

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pablo M 201

Pablo M 201 35

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattTrain

MattTrain 3,120

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pablo M 201

Pablo M 201 35

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
R33WF SLC

R33WF SLC 0

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
metsfan

metsfan 2

Posted
Posted
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
MTR Admiralty

MTR Admiralty 4

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Kexpress

Kexpress 0

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
Luis1985

Luis1985 1

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MTR Admiralty

MTR Admiralty 4

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MTR Admiralty

MTR Admiralty 4

Posted
Posted
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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radioguy

Radioguy 2

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MTR Admiralty

MTR Admiralty 4

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept