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  
2Line1291

2Line1291's R188 & R62A Proposal

Recommended Posts

While the 6's R142A trains are converted to R188 for the (7), I proposal the 7's R62A trains to the (2) and the 2's R142 trains to go to the (6). All Lexington lines would be R142/A and Seventh lines would be all R62/A. Me as a average 2 rider, the R142 is alright but I wouldn't freak out if there was change. So what do yah think?

 

http://www.ttmg.org/photos/tlogan/NYCS_Bombardier_2270.jpg

www.railfanwindow.com/gallery2/d/134968-2/r62a_var00041.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I agree, I want r62A's Singles on the (2), it would be fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like it could work, except for the fact that the (2) and (5) often switch trains with each other. It's much easier to do that with computers than with rollsigns. But that's really the only problem I see, other than the multitude of yard switching that would take place.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems like it could work, except for the fact that the (2) and (5) often switch trains with each other. It's much easier to do that with computers than with rollsigns. But that's really the only problem I see, other than the multitude of yard switching that would take place.

 

That's a big reason not to do it though because the headways are too short at Flatbush to change rollsigns. Plus that means 239th yd and E180th would have to have parts on hand for both car types as they can often end up with each other's equipment here and there.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (5) isnt gonna need R62As since its supplemental to the (2) and it runs on the overcrowded Lex line AND its a shuttle late nights. The (2) can run mainly R62As and occasionally R142s to interchange w/ the (5) @ Flatbush Ave for midday & AM/PM rush hour service @ Flatbush. Also run occasion R142 (2) trains just incase the (5) needs backup trains @ Flatbush B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While the 6's R142A trains are converted to R188 for the (7), I proposal the 7's R62A trains to the (2) and the 2's R142 trains to go to the (6). All Lexington lines would be R142/A and Seventh lines would be all R62/A. Me as a average 2 rider, the R142 is alright but I wouldn't freak out if there was change. So what do yah think?

 

http://www.ttmg.org/photos/tlogan/NYCS_Bombardier_2270.jpg

www.railfanwindow.com/gallery2/d/134968-2/r62a_var00041.jpg

 

That idea is super awsome!!!! If the (2) got 62As I would ride it more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just want my 2 dollar fare back at this point.

 

- A

 

I don't think that will happen anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG!!!, how often does the 2 & 5 switch trains and where. Cause the 2 & 5 is too much alike if they have the same rolling stock and have the same headways (except the 2 goes westside and the 5 goes eastside).

 

#6 fans were complaining about a hugh downgrade from R142As to R62As - Thats how I came up w/ the R142s on the 6 idea. Its a downgrade but its minor though.

Edited by CJ_2Line91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that will be intresting that (R)(6)(2)(A) go to (2) line

and (2) R142 go to (6) line. R142 is very most important thing

to run on the (6) line. (E)(1)80 street yard have bombarider equipment to handle the R142. ( ? while R62a go to (2) line.? ( R62A is built

by Bombarider. E180 street yard and 239 street yard

could handle R62A ( still is it bombardier car)? that E180 street

and 239 street yard could handle. (6) line still need R142A or R142.

that will be upset if (6) line dont keep (R)(1)(4)(2).

i am (6) line rider. i like riding R142 on the (6).

(6) line need R142 not R62.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a (6) train fan & rider, I'd be down with getting R142 from the (2) but it's not a necessity. Hell, I'd be alright with R62A's being on the (6) but I like the idea of 7th Ave being 100% R62/R62A. There is one big issue with that happening that's been adressed already. The (5). They need to make switches to some trains sometimes at Flatbush, that's the big problem. Even with that issue, I like the plan 2Line1291.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in my opinion, I say the (6) should be left as it is and that the (2)/(5) could donate their R142s to the (7). But I guess the MTA has their heart set on getting the R142As out to Corona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post moderated.

 

Posts containing offensive or objectionable content will be deleted in part or in full without warning.

 

"Those immigrant people" as you called them in the post i deleted are the people who built NYC and this country and you have no right to bring a negative tone to this site concerning immigrants. if i see anything else like this pop up your membership status will be put under review. Respect, it's not just a word, it's a way of living.

 

- (A)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seeing R62A (100%) on 7th Avenue line is better.

when R142/ R142A stay on Lexington Avenue line.

E180 street yard/ 239 street yard could handle R62A

while it part of bombarider car .seeing R142 of (4) running on the (2) line in rush hours. that better. when (6) line still keep R142A or R142 from the (2).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (2) can run R62As most of the time (all of the time late nights) but im also considering running occasional or some R142 2 trains to Flatbush so it can switch to 5 trains easily during rush hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'l laughing at all this speculation. First of all, nothing is set in stone. Secondly, the contracts haven't been signed. Lastly, we don't even know what the TA has up their sleeve.

 

You and me both... :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You and me both... :cool:

 

I'm laughing because this is about the IRT, the land of toy trains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that will be messed up. If (6) line get R62A.

corona yard dont need R142A for the immigrant people.

 

 

Wow...a racist...

______

 

I think your proposal will not work. The (2) and (5) switch trains ALL the time. That's why 1 out of every 4 trains that you see on the (2) line have the (5)'s stripmaps and vice-versa.

 

R62As on the (2)? Get out of here. Almost every yard north at that point have R142 maintenance equipment, most notably East 180th street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm laughing because this is about the IRT, the land of toy trains.

 

Says the person who's favorite subway car is 6688 B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OMG!!!, how often does the 2 & 5 switch trains and where. Cause the 2 & 5 is too much alike if they have the same rolling stock and have the same headways (except the 2 goes westside and the 5 goes eastside).

 

#6 fans were complaining about a hugh downgrade from R142As to R62As - Thats how I came up w/ the R142s on the 6 idea. Its a downgrade but its minor though.

People will always complain. That doesn't mean anything though. The R62As are only 20 or so years old. The spoiled UES riders can ***** and moan all they want about 20 year old cars. If you closed down one of the three Starbucks on every corner of the street and replaced it with a 7-Eleven they'd call it a "huge downgrade" too. At least they're not getting R33s. Also, the R142 and the R142A are almost the same thing. How can the change of one to R62A be a huge downgrade, and the other a minor one? And trains frequently change trains at Flatbush. The reason the route signs on both lines are always messed up is because the trains are on different routes.

 

I'l laughing at all this speculation. First of all, nothing is set in stone. Secondly, the contracts haven't been signed. Lastly, we don't even know what the TA has up their sleeve.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PPLZ stop doubtin and thinkin logically. Have a little imagination. My proposal isn't even that bad and I already know that the 2 & 5 switch trains, but that isnt gonna make me uneasy about my idea though.

Edited by CJ_2Line91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Says the person who's favorite subway car is 6688 B)

 

Well it is the only SMEE up there. My mother always says that when I got up there, I'. playing with my toy trains so it does work, kinda sorta. Now if BERA got several million dollars and epanded the tracks and got an R46, it would be a very different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PPLZ stop doubtin and thinkin logically. Have a little imagination. My proposal isn't even that bad and I already know that the 2 & 5 switch trains, but that isnt gonna make me uneasy about my idea though.

Thinking logically is exactly what I am doing. You can't have a (2) signed up at a (5) on all signs except for the front sign at Nevins St. going towards Manhattan. People will wonder why they are on 7th Ave. when they will be on Lex. That's even worse than the (7)<7>. The lack of time allotted to change the rollsigns is too much and will cause confusion. It's not like this only happens once or twice a day either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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