LIRR And MNRR Random Thoughts Thread

[kosciusko]

Just saw the most bizzare train in my entire life. It was going the opposite direction from me over the harlem river bridge so I didn't get a very long look at it. 

 

MNRR Comet V - Unmarked (I think) Amfleet - MNRR GE Genesis - MARC I railcar.

Edited April 16, 2018 by kosciusko

[GojiMet86]

That is a test train for Amtrak. They will borrow MARC coaches, and those cabs will lead the trains into Grand Central. One plan had them revive the Metro-North FL-9, but that went to the wayside.

 

Not my video:

 

 

[MNR Beacon Line]

On 4/15/2018 at 10:37 PM, GojiMet86 said:

That is a test train for Amtrak. They will borrow MARC coaches, and those cabs will lead the trains into Grand Central. One plan had them revive the Metro-North FL-9, but that went to the wayside.

 

Not my video:

 

 

Are they putting passengers on these cars? I'd be more than pissed to be put on a MARC coach after paying Amtrak ticket prices.

[kosciusko]

On 4/15/2018 at 10:37 PM, GojiMet86 said:

That is a test train for Amtrak. They will borrow MARC coaches, and those cabs will lead the trains into Grand Central. One plan had them revive the Metro-North FL-9, but that went to the wayside.

Weird. So it was a MARC I leading, not a comet. But why can't the Genesises lead the trains into GCT? it happens all the time on the Hudson line, and it happened last summer with the A-interlocking reconstruction.

Edited April 25, 2018 by kosciusko

[trainfan22]

6 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Weird. So it was a MARC I leading, not a comet. But why can't the Genesises lead the trains into GCT? it happens all the time on the Hudson line, and it happened last summer with the A-interlocking reconstruction.

The Amtrak P32s don't have an escape hatch on the front, so they can't lead a train in the Park Ave tunnels as there isn't enough space for the engineer to exit from the side of the locomotive in an emergency.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

The fact that there were conductors charging people for the shuttle buses to Bridgeport yesterday was annoying. I thought the shuttle buses would be free, but instead I had to pay for a ride extension to Waterbury ($3.00).

That also explains why the local shuttle bus was scheduled to take an hour and 15 minutes to get to Waterbury. From what it looked like, one bus was reserved to carry train crews non-stop from Bridgeport to Waterbury at the same time as the express to Waterbury, so that they can start ticketing people on the non-stop to Bridgeport (and then ride the local bus along the way). Like, they could have done without that extra bus and just let people ride for free. None of the other bustitiutions do that.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

10 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The fact that there were conductors charging people for the shuttle buses to Bridgeport yesterday was annoying. I thought the shuttle buses would be free, but instead I had to pay for a ride extension to Waterbury ($3.00).

That also explains why the local shuttle bus was scheduled to take an hour and 15 minutes to get to Waterbury. From what it looked like, one bus was reserved to carry train crews non-stop from Bridgeport to Waterbury at the same time as the express to Waterbury, so that they can start ticketing people on the non-stop to Bridgeport (and then ride the local bus along the way). Like, they could have done without that extra bus and just let people ride for free. None of the other bustitiutions do that.

I thought I could hasss me a free ride, but nope! 

[paulrivera]

57 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The fact that there were conductors charging people for the shuttle buses to Bridgeport yesterday was annoying. I thought the shuttle buses would be free, but instead I had to pay for a ride extension to Waterbury ($3.00).

That also explains why the local shuttle bus was scheduled to take an hour and 15 minutes to get to Waterbury. From what it looked like, one bus was reserved to carry train crews non-stop from Bridgeport to Waterbury at the same time as the express to Waterbury, so that they can start ticketing people on the non-stop to Bridgeport (and then ride the local bus along the way). Like, they could have done without that extra bus and just let people ride for free. None of the other bustitiutions do that.

Connecticut’s hard pressed for money (which is why they want to reduce the branch services to rush hour only and hike fares 20% over the next 2 years) so they gotta take what they can get.

Very weird setup tho. I’ve never heard of train crews boarding shuttle buses to collect fares, not even on the inferior LIRR.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

7 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

Connecticut’s hard pressed for money (which is why they want to reduce the branch services to rush hour only and hike fares 20% over the next 2 years) so they gotta take what they can get.

Very weird setup tho. I’ve never heard of train crews boarding shuttle buses to collect fares, not even on the inferior LIRR.

This is what happens when you tax people to death.  Absurd to have some of the highest tax rates in the country and still be scrounging for money.

 

Quote

Despite being the richest state in the country, by per-capita income, Connecticut’s budget is a mess. Its pensions are woefully under-funded. Its deficit is projected to surpass $2 billion, or 12 percent of its total annual tax revenue. Hartford is approaching bankruptcy. Conservatives look at Connecticut and see a liberal dystopia, where high taxes have ruined the economy. Liberals, on the other hand, see a capitalist horror show, where the rich dwell in gilded mansions, ensconced in sylvan culs-de-sac, while nearby towns face rising poverty and bankruptcy. Why is America’s richest state floundering?

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/connecticut-tax-inequality-cities/532623/

[R68OnBroadway]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

This is what happens when you tax people to death.  Absurd to have some of the highest tax rates in the country and still be scrounging for money.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/connecticut-tax-inequality-cities/532623/

In Florida there is no state income tax (which is why so many flock here), and to make up for it, there is a tourist tax, which taxes tourist-related resources. Considering how many tourists head to NYC, why can't we (NYC) have a tourist tax instead? It would help lower other taxes and keep the middle and upper classes from flocking to other states for tax relief.

 

On a side note, we really need to cut down on programs and handouts... taxes are too damn high and they are going to waste.

Edited April 30, 2018 by R68OnBroadway

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

In Florida there is no state income tax (which is why so many flock here), and to make up for it, there is a tourist tax, which taxes tourist-related resources. Considering how many tourists head to NYC, why can't we (NYC) have a tourist tax instead? It would help lower other taxes and keep the middle and upper classes from flocking to other states for tax relief.

It's long overdue.  We bring in a lot from them, but we also spend a ton for them to come here.  Marketing/advertising, more street cleaning and garbage pick-up (Midtown and Downtown are a mess during peak seasons), etc.

New York City has a crisis now because we are spending too much to address things like homelessness.  NYC has a unique housing policy that says that anyone who comes here has a right to free shelter, so people are flocking here from all over, and we the taxpayers are stuck paying for it.  It's absurd.  

[R68OnBroadway]

7 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It's long overdue.  We bring in a lot from them, but we also spend a ton for them to come here.  Marketing/advertising, more street cleaning and garbage pick-up (Midtown and Downtown are a mess during peak seasons), etc.

New York City has a crisis now because we are spending too much to address things like homelessness.  NYC has a unique housing policy that says that anyone who comes here has a right to free shelter, so people are flocking here from all over, and we the taxpayers are stuck paying for it.  It's absurd.  

To deal with the homeless problem, I would first try to get any homeless people on the streets into shelters. There you could test there mental and physical fitness. Mentally unstable ones go to hospitals, physically disabled ones can get put in assisted living homes or get wheelchairs/canes, etc. I think that to combat homelessness, rather than try to get them do a ton of programs, I would just give them jobs and provide them maybe a studio apartment and require them to have good hygiene for a few months, then let them live on their own. All these programs now make them too dependent on the system and while they do need help, they need sensible help for a short time, not a bunch of free crap for 20 years. 

Another big problem is that welfare is too loose. In my view welfare should only be given to those that are physically disabled and are unable to work. Thanks to former redlining, we have minorities in terrible projects with no future and having s*x galore with others, who then get pregnant and now need welfare for their kid. Rather than do all this program sh*t, just have the worst projects get their own precincts (heavily armed and protected ones) , encourage birth control, and crack down on bad schools. All these programs aren't doing anything and we need straightforward programs.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

5 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

To deal with the homeless problem, I would first try to get any homeless people on the streets into shelters. There you could test there mental and physical fitness. Mentally unstable ones go to hospitals, physically disabled ones can get put in assisted living homes or get wheelchairs/canes, etc. I think that to combat homelessness, rather than try to get them do a ton of programs, I would just give them jobs and provide them maybe a studio apartment and require them to have good hygiene for a few months, then let them live on their own. All these programs now make them too dependent on the system and while they do need help, they need sensible help for a short time, not a bunch of free crap for 20 years. 

Another big problem is that welfare is too loose. In my view welfare should only be given to those that are physically disabled and are unable to work. Thanks to former redlining, we have minorities in terrible projects with no future and having s*x galore with others, who then get pregnant and now need welfare for their kid. Rather than do all this program sh*t, just have the worst projects get their own precincts (heavily armed and protected ones) , encourage birth control, and crack down on bad schools. All these programs aren't doing anything and we need straightforward programs.

lol... Wishful thinking. People don't want to go into shelters here because they're worse than living on the streets.  There's also a shortage of monies to deal with people with mental illness.  Giving people apartments... That's expensive, hence all of the "affordable housing" the City is trying to do, but no one wants homeless shelters in their backyard or affordable housing for that matter.  Constant people coming and going, some with mental issues or other illnesses. The real issue is we have too many people coming here for benefits.  If each State addressed their own homeless problem it wouldn't be as bad.  You have people from as far away as California coming here because we have such a liberal housing policy.  

Edited April 30, 2018 by Via Garibaldi 8

[R68OnBroadway]

9 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

lol... Wishful thinking. People don't want to go into shelters here because they're worse than living on the streets.  There's also a shortage of monies to deal with people with mental illness.  Giving people apartments... That's expensive, hence all of the "affordable housing" the City is trying to do, but no one wants homeless shelters in their backyard.  Constant people coming and going, some with mental issues or other illnesses. The real issue is we have too many people coming here for benefits.  If each State addressed their own homeless problem it wouldn't be as bad.  You have people from as far away as California coming here because we have such a liberal housing policy.  

I'd get rid of the free shelter policy as part of this. As for the apartments thing, I would only look to select people who would be deemed worthy and could fit in (you wouldn't know they were homeless once if someone hadn't told you). I doubt a large number of homeless people would fit this category, and if you wanted you could house multiple people in foreclosed buildings apartments (these people would pay a sum of money each month to cover repairs, so the city only pays a few tens of thousands for housing for 4-5 people).

 As another side note, I think that we really can't keep going with being uber-liberal at everything. The unions are like Tammany now, we spend too much money on giving people mooching off welfare and handouts "what they deserve", and we are always taxing rich people thinking socialism will keep them here. If you want money from the rich, encourage donations which they can choose, not sky-high taxes. 

Edited April 30, 2018 by R68OnBroadway

[Via Garibaldi 8]

6 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

I'd get rid of the free shelter policy as part of this. As for the apartments thing, I would only look to select people who would be deemed worthy and could fit in (you wouldn't know they were homeless once if someone hadn't told you). I doubt a large number of homeless people would fit this category, and if you wanted you could house multiple people in foreclosed buildings apartments (these people would pay a sum of money each month to cover repairs, so the city only pays a few tens of thousands for housing for 4-5 people).

 As another side note, I think that we really can't keep going with being uber-liberal at everything. The unions are like Tammany now, we spend too much money on giving people mooching off welfare and handouts "what they deserve", and we are always taxing rich people thinking socialism will keep them here. If you want money from the rich, encourage donations which they can choose, not sky-high taxes. 

You can't.  That's the problem.  NYC is legally obligated to house anyone that comes here.  Goes back to when the whole thing was fought in court...

[R68OnBroadway]

2 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You can't.  That's the problem.  NYC is legally obligated to house anyone that comes here.  Goes back to when the whole thing was fought in court...

😕

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by R68OnBroadway

[Ntrainfave]

LIRR Question:

why are there M3s unused at what looks like an abandoned station in Long Island city, near where 5 points used to be? I've also seen a passenger car of the old LIRR diesel trains of the 80s and 90s end up there as well. What's that station's purpose and why aren't those trains in service?

[Orion6025]

On 5/2/2018 at 12:14 AM, Ntrainfave said:

LIRR Question:

why are there M3s unused at what looks like an abandoned station in Long Island city, near where 5 points used to be? I've also seen a passenger car of the old LIRR diesel trains of the 80s and 90s end up there as well. What's that station's purpose and why aren't those trains in service?

They're being scrapped

[trainfan22]

There's some damaged M7s parked at Arch Street, the glass is shattered on one of the cars and another is missing it's tail light bulbs.

[N6 Limited]

MTA now has a Departures page for LIRR stations. It's like the departures function in the Traintime App.

http://traintime.lirr.org/departure.php

[Via Garibaldi 8]

55 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

MTA now has a Departures page for LIRR stations. It's like the departures function in the Traintime App.

http://traintime.lirr.org/departure.php

Shocked they didn't have this before.  It's been available for Metro-North now for a while.

[NY1635]

2 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

MTA now has a Departures page for LIRR stations. It's like the departures function in the Traintime App.

http://traintime.lirr.org/departure.php

This will definitely come in handy for late nights when I have to catch the LIRR.

[OverlyObsessed]

I just saw an LIRR M3 with a blue-painter front to it, can anybody tell me why?

[paulrivera]

3 hours ago, OverlyObsessed said:

I just saw an LIRR M3 with a blue-painter front to it, can anybody tell me why?

If the train looks like this, it's normal to see from time to time:

Now, if the train looks like this.... I'm gonna need to take a trip out to at least Queens:

[OverlyObsessed]

No, it looked more like the MNRR M3, except no diagonal white stripes and no logo. and it covered the ENTIRE front, from the top to bottom, left to the right. It was in Hillside Support Facility.