MattTrain Posted May 28, 2008 Share #1 Posted May 28, 2008 The Staten Island railway, which train line has no letter or number code, should be renamed or be given a letter name. It's like the present day 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 and Rockaway Park . 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 More sharing options...
Mr. Night Train Posted May 28, 2008 Share #2 Posted May 28, 2008 The designation 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 More sharing options...
East New York Posted May 29, 2008 Share #3 Posted May 29, 2008 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 will get? R160's?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo M 201 Posted May 29, 2008 Share #4 Posted May 29, 2008 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 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 is the Second Avenue Subway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted May 30, 2008 Share #5 Posted May 30, 2008 If the SIR doesn't make any connections with the subway then it should remain called the "Staten Island Railway". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTrain Posted May 30, 2008 Author Share #6 Posted May 30, 2008 The nearest possible connection with the Staten Island Railway would be the at Bay Ridge. Connect the 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 More sharing options...
Pablo M 201 Posted May 31, 2008 Share #7 Posted May 31, 2008 The nearest possible connection with the Staten Island Railway would be the at Bay Ridge. Connect the 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 More sharing options...
error46146 Posted June 2, 2008 Share #8 Posted June 2, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R33WF SLC Posted June 29, 2008 Share #9 Posted June 29, 2008 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 More sharing options...
metsfan Posted June 29, 2008 Share #10 Posted June 29, 2008 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 More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted June 29, 2008 Share #11 Posted June 29, 2008 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted July 28, 2008 Share #12 Posted July 28, 2008 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 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 More sharing options...
Kexpress Posted August 7, 2008 Share #13 Posted August 7, 2008 The Staten Island railway, which train line has no letter or number code, should be renamed or be given a letter name. It's like the present day 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 and Rockaway Park . 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 because the line is reserved for the Second Ave subway line. The Staten Island Railway should ethier be renamed ethier ,or 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 More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted November 24, 2008 Share #14 Posted November 24, 2008 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis1985 Posted November 24, 2008 Share #15 Posted November 24, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Forest Glen Posted November 24, 2008 Share #16 Posted November 24, 2008 The SIRT is not a conventional subway line. It should not be given a subway designation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted November 25, 2008 Share #17 Posted November 25, 2008 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted November 28, 2008 Share #18 Posted November 28, 2008 Staten Island would not see any in the future.Only 8, , , I, , 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 More sharing options...
Radioguy Posted November 28, 2008 Share #19 Posted November 28, 2008 Certainly "O/0", but depending on typeface, "I" could be passable as it could look more different than a "1". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted November 28, 2008 Share #20 Posted November 28, 2008 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 More sharing options...
RokuSix Posted November 28, 2008 Share #21 Posted November 28, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul P Posted November 28, 2008 Share #22 Posted November 28, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radioguy Posted November 29, 2008 Share #23 Posted November 29, 2008 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. Compared to a , that's distinctive enough for me. The Ø is also fairly recognized internationally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted November 29, 2008 Share #24 Posted November 29, 2008 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. Compared to a , 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 More sharing options...
metsfan Posted November 29, 2008 Share #25 Posted November 29, 2008 SIR isn't going to be renamed. - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.