MTR Admiralty Posted January 19, 2009 Share #51 Posted January 19, 2009 Hey thanks a lot. By the way, if train cars had enough room just for people to stand that would be better than those sitting, because sitting passengers would often have a difficult time leaving the train because he or she would have to get up, probably not having enough room to even move an inch with all those passengers around. Standing, the passenger could just move around easily out the set of doors. I'd suggest taking a seat if you're going the long distance, but if it's just a few stops, then just stand and hold on the rail. Tell that to all the passengers. This lady sat for one stop, pissing the crap out of me that day on the 4. And that was 59th Street. I was supposed to head to BEDFORD PARK BLVD. I still have some distance in front of me. Worse yet, that was 6 something and I was barely awake. (Sleepstanding, almost) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTrain Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share #52 Posted January 19, 2009 Tell that to all the passengers. This lady sat for one stop, pissing the crap out of me that day on the 4. And that was 59th Street. I was supposed to head to BEDFORD PARK BLVD. I still have some distance in front of me. Worse yet, that was 6 something and I was barely awake. (Sleepstanding, almost) That's not a fun experience. You did stand for quite a while. Were you able to get a seat sometime before you had to get off? I hope you did. Here's another rule of thumb. If you are carrying something, such as a backpack, suitcase, or luggage, other passengers should give up their seat to you. People should be willing to give up their seats to a passenger who is pregnant and elderly. I don't see people complain about that issue too much. Back to the topic, I can't wait for the R179's final design to come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Julio Posted January 19, 2009 Share #53 Posted January 19, 2009 Exactly. And I agree with you on the A, the A is very packed during rush hours. It's really hard to get out anywhere between Jay and B'way Jct. especially on the R44s because of fewer doors. This makes dwell times longer. It has nothing to do with the amount of doors. I ride from Jay Street to Broadway-Junction 5 days a week, to and from work. The problem is that the and suffers from chronic idiots that stand by the doors and don't move. I see it all the time at Jay Street, Nostrand Avenue, Utica Avenue and Broadway Juction. The problem is worse @ Nostrand Avenue and Utica Avenue. Especially on the first car of all Queens bound trains. When people don't block the doors, the flow of passengers in and out of the cars is pretty quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 19, 2009 Share #54 Posted January 19, 2009 It has nothing to do with the amount of doors. I ride from Jay Street to Broadway-Junction 5 days a week, to and from work. The problem is that the and suffers from chronic idiots that stand by the doors and don't move. I see it all the time at Jay Street, Nostrand Avenue, Utica Avenue and Broadway Juction. The problem is worse @ Nostrand Avenue and Utica Avenue. Especially on the first car of all Queens bound trains. When people don't block the doors, the flow of passengers in and out of the cars is pretty quick. You could argue the same for the 4. However on the 4, it will continue to be 3 doors per car. The R179s which are intended to be on the A should logically use 5 doors per car, not matter how many people find it awkward. Okay, now say if those "chronic idiots" like you described move into the middle between 2 doors, do you think the situation is any better? And you know why they crowd near the doors? Because they need to exit and there are less doors. If you tell them to all stay in the middle, when they need to exit at East New York it would be a chaotic fight, probably worse than now. It constricts the flow in and out. Having 5 doors per car may alleviate such problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exseed Posted January 19, 2009 Share #55 Posted January 19, 2009 Also, I made a better diagram showing how both a 5-door R179 and an R160A/B would align with platform edge doors. Note: The image is um... somewhat large... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTrain Posted January 19, 2009 Author Share #56 Posted January 19, 2009 Also, I made a better diagram showing how both a 5-door R179 and an R160A/B would align with platform edge doors. Note: The image is um... somewhat large... Yes that image is really big, are you suggesting that the R179 cars is just a 75 foot variation of the R160 subway car series? That is interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 19, 2009 Share #57 Posted January 19, 2009 Yes that image is really big, are you suggesting that the R179 cars is just a 75 foot variation of the R160 subway car series? That is interesting. Apparently, yes and with 5 doors per side. It shows that if PSDs were ever installed throughout the system there would be compatibility between the R160s and the R179s he's picturing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exseed Posted January 20, 2009 Share #58 Posted January 20, 2009 Yes that image is really big, are you suggesting that the R179 cars is just a 75 foot variation of the R160 subway car series? That is interesting. Nobody knows now, but i'm guessing they probably will be similar to the R160's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTrain Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share #59 Posted January 20, 2009 Nobody knows now, but i'm guessing they probably will be similar to the R160's. Yeah, me too, maybe with a R68 or a R46 feel to it, with bucket seats, but then that version only has four sets of doors on each side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 5278 Posted January 20, 2009 Share #60 Posted January 20, 2009 If there's five doors, then let it have transverse benches only in a style similar to those on the R110As. All the space in place of the side benches would be used as standing room. Like the R160Bs, let there be no flip seats in the cab cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exseed Posted January 20, 2009 Share #61 Posted January 20, 2009 Oh and BTW: If I'm not mistaken, the widest the PSD's can be is 7 feet, because the doors in the open position would touch other adjacent doors. If so, then the trains would have to stop right on the mark. Maybe, the 2 screen doors of each doorway can be placed offset seach other to allow the doors to overlap in the open position. This would enable the doors to be wider, therefore allowing more leeway for the train to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted January 20, 2009 Share #62 Posted January 20, 2009 So just because they're open you feel the need to go through them? It's against the rules to cross cars as it is a safety precaution to enforce this rule and the does not want to be sued for someone who's dumb enough to cross cars. Well, you know what they say, RULES ARE MEANT TO BE BROKEN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted January 20, 2009 Share #63 Posted January 20, 2009 And one more thing. About the overcrowding thing mentioned earler, Instread of the MTA Worring about cost(Which they Shouldent because they aint really paying for anything) Build more lines. How about an extra line running up ninth avenue from Throgs neck to South Ferry. THAT CAN BE DONE SO I DONT WAND TO HEAR ANY EXCUSES TO WHY IT CANT BECAUSE IT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE. AND IF THE IS WORRYING ABOUT COST, BUILD AN eL. WE COULD USE ONE. BUILD TWO BRANCH LINES TO BROOKLYN AND QUEENS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 21, 2009 Share #64 Posted January 21, 2009 Well, you know what they say, RULES ARE MEANT TO BE BROKEN These are rules for your own safety dude. If you fall through when you cross between cars by accident, who's responsible? It's your doing, not the MTA's fault then. The MTA wants to prevent these happenings from occurring, plus these incidents delay subway service. And one more thing. About the overcrowding thing mentioned earler, Instread of the MTA Worring about cost(Which they Shouldent because they aint really paying for anything) Build more lines. How about an extra line running up ninth avenue from Throgs neck to South Ferry. THAT CAN BE DONE SO I DONT WAND TO HEAR ANY EXCUSES TO WHY IT CANT BECAUSE IT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE. AND IF THE IS WORRYING ABOUT COST, BUILD AN eL. WE COULD USE ONE. BUILD TWO BRANCH LINES TO BROOKLYN AND QUEENS. It's easy to say OKAY, BUILD MORE LINES. I would like to see it done. However... 1. Will it really have a positive impact on the congestion on existing subway lines 2. Will it benefit the communities? Which communities would benefit? 3. There are many steps to go through before a subway line could be realised. There has to be public consultation, preliminary engineering, the DEIS, the FEIS, then bidding for the contracts, then getting the contracts, then start work. This does not happen in a second, minute, hour, day, week, month or year. It's years! 4. Look at the financial situation we are in. Are you telling me we have the dough to build a gazillion subway lines in the city like Mainland China? 5. Materials? Say we are in a recovering economy (which under President Obama, we hope to have one this year), there would be many cities WORLDWIDE competing to have the materials. And this includes rail, concrete etc... it's not that easy. 6. Construction impact? Quality of life before and after construction? I know we all don't want congestion, but, it's reality. We can't build 10 subway lines overnight and say, PROBLEM'S FIXED. "Rome wasn't built in a day." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted January 21, 2009 Share #65 Posted January 21, 2009 Well, you know what they say, RULES ARE MEANT TO BE BROKEN I agree fully with MTR. And plus, you're still in high school! You may get away with that now, but go into the real world with that attitude and you will be kicked around. And one more thing. About the overcrowding thing mentioned earler, Instread of the MTA Worring about cost(Which they Shouldent because they aint really paying for anything) Build more lines. How about an extra line running up ninth avenue from Throgs neck to South Ferry. THAT CAN BE DONE SO I DONT WAND TO HEAR ANY EXCUSES TO WHY IT CANT BECAUSE IT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE. AND IF THE IS WORRYING ABOUT COST, BUILD AN eL. WE COULD USE ONE. BUILD TWO BRANCH LINES TO BROOKLYN AND QUEENS. pays for just about every project it starts. Which is why the SAS isn't finished yet. 9th Avenue is too close to Central Park West to be of any use as a subway line. Els are too noisy for some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 21, 2009 Share #66 Posted January 21, 2009 I agree fully with MTR. And plus, you're still in high school! You may get away with that now, but go into the real world with that attitude and you will be kicked around. In real life, you have to live with the rules, otherwise you will face the ramifications. The rule says: Your blood alcohol level cannot exceed .08. The rule says you can't go past 45 mph (just for kicks) You break both, by doing 65 mph on a city street and your blood alcohol level is .12. What will likely happen? Car crash. You're going to kill someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted January 21, 2009 Share #67 Posted January 21, 2009 When rules dont make sense, i dont follow them. if they did not want people to cross through, why are they open?. 2. The MTA dont pay for anything. Thats OUR MONEY. If the government can buy 700 Billion, buy another 700 Billion and give it to NYC. 3. Alchohol and Cars dont always lead to crashes. Look at the Autobahn. 200mph and no crash. 4. If els are too noisy for people, WHY DOES CHICAGO's STILL EXIST? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 22, 2009 Share #68 Posted January 22, 2009 When rules dont make sense, i dont follow them. if they did not want people to cross through, why are they open?. 2. The MTA dont pay for anything. Thats OUR MONEY. If the government can buy 700 Billion, buy another 700 Billion and give it to NYC. 3. Alchohol and Cars dont always lead to crashes. Look at the Autobahn. 200mph and no crash. 4. If els are too noisy for people, WHY DOES CHICAGO's STILL EXIST? 1. They do make sense. It's for your safety. When something happens to you between cars, you will understand why the MTA wants every one of us to stay our bottoms in, and switch between cars APPROPRIATELY. 2. $700 BILLION DOLLARS you are talking about here. 700 HUNDRED BILLION. Do you know how much that is? Do you honestly believe that we need that much?? And that's TAXPAYERS money. 3. That is Germany. People know if they don't speed up they're in trouble. This is America. You can safely say they don't always lead to crashes. But, what happens when you mix alcohol with driving??? Try it yourself. 4. Why do Chicago el's exist? Because it would cost a lot to tear them all down and build underground replacements. And, the Loop tracks are iconic to Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted January 22, 2009 Share #69 Posted January 22, 2009 When rules dont make sense, i dont follow them. if they did not want people to cross through, why are they open?. 2. The MTA dont pay for anything. Thats OUR MONEY. If the government can buy 700 Billion, buy another 700 Billion and give it to NYC. 3. Alchohol and Cars dont always lead to crashes. Look at the Autobahn. 200mph and no crash. 4. If els are too noisy for people, WHY DOES CHICAGO's STILL EXIST? OK, to add on to MTR's post... 1. That kind of attitude is what gets people hurt. They're open for emergencies, nothing more. 3. That's what you think. Reality begs to differ. There's a reason it's against the law to drink and drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted January 22, 2009 Share #70 Posted January 22, 2009 OK, to add on to MTR's post... 1. That kind of attitude is what gets people hurt. They're open for emergencies, nothing more. 3. That's what you think. Reality begs to differ. There's a reason it's against the law to drink and drive. Why is it that whenever someone thinks outside the box or around the rules, they get ridiculed? By the way, my kind of attitude dosent get people hurt, this is what gets people hurt: Laws existense tempting people to break it because they feel restricted. Money. Police. Nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted January 22, 2009 Share #71 Posted January 22, 2009 Why is it that whenever someone thinks outside the box or around the rules, they get ridiculed? By the way, my kind of attitude dosent get people hurt, this is what gets people hurt: Laws existense tempting people to break it because they feel restricted. Money. Police. Nature. Because, sometimes thinking outside the box puts either yourself or other people in danger. Those laws are there to protect everyone, not to be broken. This is getting too off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTA1992 Posted January 22, 2009 Share #72 Posted January 22, 2009 Because, sometimes thinking outside the box puts either yourself or other people in danger. Those laws are there to protect everyone, not to be broken. . Thinking outside the box is what made the device you are using now. If there were no laws, there would be no reason to break them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeLow Posted January 22, 2009 Share #73 Posted January 22, 2009 5 door sets means 4 more doors per car, 32 more doors per 8 car train, more door mechinisms, wiring, motors, electronics, and maintenance hours, which transfers into more down time and less revenue time. 5 door sets means less seating but more standing room. 5 door sets will add more cost to build each car (more doors and mechs and tronics, etc). That could mean less cars bought total. 5 door sets...blessing or curse? :eek::)B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTrain Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share #74 Posted January 22, 2009 5 door sets means 4 more doors per car, 32 more doors per 8 car train, more door mechinisms, wiring, motors, electronics, and maintenance hours, which transfers into more down time and less revenue time. 5 door sets means less seating but more standing room. 5 door sets will add more cost to build each car (more doors and mechs and tronics, etc). That could mean less cars bought total. 5 door sets...blessing or curse? :eek::)B) One good thing about five door sets is that passenger loads can move in and out of the train more quickly, despite having less seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted January 22, 2009 Share #75 Posted January 22, 2009 Thinking outside the box is what made the device you are using now. If there were no laws, there would be no reason to break them. I did say sometimes, did I not? And if there were no laws, anarchy would reign and the world could be in mass chaos, making life worse for many people. Do you want a world where it's perfectly fine for someone to slit your throat from behind you because there's nothing forbidding it? Again, this is getting too off topic. On topic I say yes to the 5-door cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.