I find it interesting that so many decades after unification, the division names of the subway live on. Not only with "old timers" as well as subway fans such as us, but also on offical MTA signage. I noticed this morning (WAY too early -- at 4am on my way into work!) that a relatively new sign leading to the [N]/[R] tracks from the World Trade Center lobby says, "Subway-BMT." However, the signs pointing the way to the [A]/[C]/[E] DON'T say "Subway-IND!"
Well, since all the routes currently in operation and of historical note were built in eras of the "Divisions", I am sure that the names will stick until the young people now are the oldtimers of the future.
And, The Division Line names will go on until the distinations or street route names become ancient history.
You need something other than the route letter and numbers because the same train will go to many places, and many trains go to the same place. The D can take you to the Bronx or Coney Island. The 4 or the 5 will get you from Grand Central to Wall St. Etc. Take the Lexington IRT is better info.
Hello again, folks.
At the 161st St. station, across from Yankee Stadium, there is a sign that says "IRT token booth open . Token required at other times, or use IND entrance for escalator to IRT." The sign is standard MTA white-on-black lettering. OK, it predates Metrocards, but it is clearly from the era after the division names were supposedly abolished.
While working on a little report for Wayne W. a question hit me. In the good old days on the BMT, with MULTIs, and BLUEBIRDS, and TRIPLEXes there were a bunch of, shall we say NON-STANDARD, car lengths. With 20 years of riding the Canarsie Line in my past, I don't recall any special markers being used for "Motorman stop" or "Conductor Boards" indicators.
Did they exist, or did they use the normal markers with crew known
conversion factors?
Doe not todays 75 foot R46s and R68s present the same problem when serving on joint use trackage with the 60 footers, or has Line assignments kept them apart?
with respect for station stop markers here's the conversion
8- 75 foot cars = 10 60 foot
6- 75 foot cars = 8 60 foot
4- 75 foot cars = 6 60 foot
Thanks for the feedback. I gather you're saying that the train crew is responsible for knowing the conversion and using the appropriate indicator.
I suspect this was the method back in the '40's and '50'. I have no recollection of special markers for the various sized articulateds, but I don't think I was ever specifically looking for them.
In essence, the crews are responsible for knowing where to stop when operating with 75' cars. In the 'old days' I remember seeing one set of ar markers on the BMT, usually odd numbers. I suppose that they were for one particular type and as is today, the crews had to do the conversion.
Trying to dredge up some very old memories of train stop markers, I seem to remember the BMT having numbers from '2' through '8,' white on blue or black, round, about five inches in diameter. For the Triplexes (D-type) routes, there was a black '8' on a white background, a one-piece metal or wood sign perhaps five inches wide and about ten high--it was square-shaped with a downward-pointing equilateral triangular bottom part.
The Broadway (Manhattan) express stops southbound had some extra markers because the doors or each of the expresses had to match up with the wooden door indicator signs along the platforms. I think those extras were marked with the name of the line, but I wouldn't bet my 1939 BMT World's Fair subway and el map on the accuracy of my memories of this.
The extra 'R' indicators (put in during the late 1940s, in part because of running the R-1s on the Fourth Avenue (2/RR/R), only had
markings for 6 or 8 cars; I don't recall any for 4 or 2.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Don't forget the yello S OPTO markers, sometimes no where near the regular 4-6-8-10 markers because of track (curve) configuration in the train station.
In today's Washington Post----there's an article about someone who tried to set a fire on Metro train. The train was a Red Line train headed towards Glenmont. As it headed into the Judiciary Square station, this looney started pouring gasoline down the center aisle of the last car of the train---when he got to the center of the train he tried to light it but his Bic wouldn't light--It was on the 6th try that he got a flame but all it did was smoulder due to the fire resistant carpeting, then, the station attendant who was alerted by fleeing passengers, got an extinguisher and got the smouldering out---there was some smoke damage but very little made out of the car itself.----First the capitol, now the Red Line----this is getting real personal--what next, the llight rail in Baltimore or the PRT in Morgantown, WV at the WVU campus?
Does SEPTA have any active interlocking towers in the Philadelphia area? If so, where and are they good spots to railfan??
Does anybody know why "shed-like" structures are being built at the ends of Ave. H and Ave. J?
They are "EDR" Rooms and "Reserve EDR" Rooms. That is all I know. They are being built at many stations if they have not already been built.
(I dont know the purpose or what they did before these rooms were deemed to be needed.)
There is an earlier post on the topic of EDR that can be found by searching the Subtalk archives.
--mhg
I feel that it is my civic duty to let this information be known:
This afternoon, (about 3PM) Dave P. and I encountered a very VERY
warm R-68, car #2857, on the "N", whose air blowers were going
great guns BUT - blowing very warm, very muggy, very superheated air.
MOST UNCOMFORTABLE! Others in train seemed OK.
Note: on "L" NYCT rebuild #4859 A/C just fine; (someone said that
NYCT rebuilds 4840-4949 A/C was not up to snuff, just reporting)
also Slant 40s on "L" 4432-3; 4442-3, 4444-5, 4430-1 all
nice and cool, as were R42s and R40Ms (various) on "J" - except
R40M #4506/4507 - needed a slight tweak; just a TINY BIT warmish.
ALSO - for LIRR squad: 4th car #9021 on 4:31 to Babylon :
as Buster Poindexter said: HOT, HOT, HOT!!! Only guy riding in it
had horns, a pitchfork & cloven hooves.
Ah yesh, this was a grey letter day... "S"s & "L"s.
Wayne
Hahahah. We do very little tweaking during the summer but I'll pass the info on to the appropriate managers. Next time ride the 'D'. I can use a few extra eyes and ears.....
Hey! You guys are spoiled!! When I was a kid (you know, walked 12 miles to school uphill both ways, etc.) we didn't have anything except those R1/9 headchopper fans. I remember a few fainters on those wonderful summer days.
Now I live in southern Arizona. Seems that was good training afte all.
Oh yessssss I remember THEM all too well - Sept 11 1973's experience
still fresh in my mind. R6 on the "F" with 3000 aboard after
a 6th Avenue delay, and I had to get on at Lexington! - car #1277 -
96 degrees in the street God knows how hot underground - AND THE
HEAT WAS ON IN THE CAR! GE fans twirling limply just overhead...
people passing out and fainting all round ... no room to breathe,
let alone move... when we got to Q.P. people fell out of the car just like in "A Night At The Opera".
Wayne
I guess you had to be there. I can remember boarding those old cars on a few hot summer days with the fans whirling away. Were the venerable R-1/9s still running on the F line that late? I figured that those still remaining on the IND were used for rush hour service only (CC; E to the Rockaways).
BTW, I also remember September 11, 1973 - I got my driver's license that day - it was nice and sunny, but I don't think it got quite that hot. Not in Connecticut, anyway.
I worked in NYC from Sept.1972 to August 1974, commuting via N-6 bus
and "F" train. The R-6 began to phase out as the R-44 began to phase
in. Right up to the end, I remember as least a few R-6s on the "F",
but mostly they were on the "E". Again, they were NOT in the majority
on either line, but they did show up fairly regularly.
I think we here in NYC were suffering from what they call a
"weather inversion" on 9/11/73...anyway, it either tied or set a
record for the date. It could have been 10 to 15 degrees cooler
in CT and NJ because of this weather quirk. I saw 96 degrees on
the sign at the Daily News Building, about 4:30pm that day.
Wayne
One time in the summer several years ago, I was on an R-68 on the Q that had no A/C running. It happened that the cab door was open and I could see that the switches (cooling and fan) simply were off. I flipped them and the problem was over.
WARNING !!! That was a very poor idea. Sometimes the circuit breakers are off for a reason. They are normally tagged but tags can either fall off or be removed. There,s 600 volts at 100 amps in that panel and I've heard of and seen people severely burned throwing one of those breakers which happened to be grounded. Personally, I would never turn one on by hand and since you would not be covered by Workman's Comp. I'd strongly advise that you play Bob Villa at home.
Well said. Let me also add that the presence of a non employee in a cab is regarded by the police as trespassing,and will be dealt with harshly. Even the best of intentions can be hard to explain with
handcuffs on.
If you see what you believe to be a problem, politely inform the crew
and let them deal with it. With few exceptions,I've found them to be
appreciative,as it might prevent a minor problem from becoming a major one.
I must protest this action and warn others against doing anything like this.
As railfans we have more advanced knowledge of equipment and operations than the average rider. However, as RESPONSIBLE railfans, we should refrain from using that knowledge to try to make corrections to equipment and/or operations.
First, we are ordinary riders, and are not authorized to perform such adjustments. Secondly, when we so, it encourages other ordinary riders to do the same. Most ordinary riders do not have the knowledge we possess, and can damage equipment, and worse, sustain injury.
Keep in mind, as railfans we should always conduct ourselves in a responsible manner. Unless given permission by an operating employee to do so we should refrain from any tampering or making adjustments to equipment. Tampering with equipment can cause accidents and injury, and thereby reflect negatively on the railfan community.
I welcome any constructive comments or opposing point's of view.
I must protest this action and warn others against doing anything like this.
As railfans we have more advanced knowledge of equipment and operations than the average rider. However, as RESPONSIBLE railfans, we should refrain from using that knowledge to try to make corrections to equipment and/or operations.
First, we are ordinary riders, and are not authorized to perform such adjustments. Secondly, when we so, it encourages other ordinary riders to do the same. Most ordinary riders do not have the knowledge we possess, and can damage equipment, and worse, sustain injury.
Keep in mind, as railfans we should always conduct ourselves in a responsible manner. Unless given permission by an operating employee to do so we should refrain from any tampering or making adjustments to equipment. Tampering with equipment can cause accidents and injury, and thereby reflect negatively on the railfan community.
I welcome constructive comments and opposing point’s of view.
Well said, you won't find any argument from me. This is another example of the sort of thing a few days ago regarding getting access to abandoned stations.
The difference was, I did this years ago. I wasn't saying I was goingto do it, or asking how to do it. :-)
If this thing is that dangerous, does the crew have to wear gloves to turn things on? How does electricity go through the switches which are made of nonconducting material?
The point that Dave and everybody else was trying to make was: doing wat you did was foolhardy, but worse, somebody else (public type) might have seen you and tried to do the same thing late and got phisically or legally burned.
As Richard Nixon was fond of saying, "I'm glad that you asked that question." The circuit breakers are made of plastics of various kinds. Plastic is a very good insulator. However, when a switch or circuit breaker begins to fail, they sometimes become very hot. This will eventually cause the plastic to carbonize and as we all remember from physics 101, carbon is a pretty good conductor. In addition, because of the constant metal to metal of wheel & rail there is an enormous amount of steel dust in the air. TThe circuit breakers tend to attract this dust which then, if permitted to build up, will also become a conductive threat.
As for what I use, or the crews use, that varies. I like to use a Shoe Paddle (one of those yellow boards that the motormen use to keep the cab window up or the cab door open). Others perfer to use the end of a flashlight. Some disregard the warnings and use their hand.
Nixon also said, "People have a right to know if their President is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook." We all know what happened shortly after that. Enough said. Anyway, I've noticed that many operators wear what appear to be leather gloves. Is that more for personal comfort, or safety reasons? I used to see conductors on the R-1/9s and R-10s wearing gloves; since they worked the doors from the outside on those cars, their hands were visible. Do conductors still wear gloves today?
Hear hear!
You won't see the likes of ME playing around where I shouldn't be!
If I get a hot car there is ONLY ONE THING to do -
REPORT IT via a post here or notify the conductor if the situation
is really bad. (The hot car on the LIRR - both conductors made
an effort to steer passengers AWAY from it). There's a right thing
to do and a wrong thing to do - you know which side of the fence I am
on.
I will continue to inform via SubTalk only of any more "hotboxes".
(old RR term gets recycled!)
Wayne
Hello to all -
Just a little 'for your information' - it appears that the
Broadway Junction station (and the ramp leading to it) is
getting a 70th-birthday present - a new roof. However, this
little project has resulted in all kinds of wooden walls and
barriers all up and down the northbound platform. No info was
available via poster as to how long this will take. While they're
at it - they got a few lamps at the north end of the station to
fix - missing sockets and shades.
We all had a real good time!
Wayne
Say Wayne
Did you guys ever get together to do the Franklin while I was in Alaska?
Check your mailbox! I missed that one but made up for it Sat.
Wayne
I have been looking at a New Haven Line Schedule. Does anyone know why their is no rush hour service to NYC on the Waterbury branch? Given that Metro North main reason for being is to take commuters to New York why don't they have trains that arrive at GCT prior to 8:30am or leave for Waterbury prior to 6pm? The Waterbury station has convenient access to I-84 and a large parking lot. It seems to have potential as a major draw for central Connecticut commuters to NYC, what gives?
[I have been looking at a New Haven Line Schedule. Does anyone know why their is no rush hour service to NYC on the Waterbury branch? Given that Metro North main reason for being is to take commuters to New York why don't they have trains that arrive at GCT prior to 8:30am or leave for Waterbury prior to 6pm? The Waterbury station has convenient access to I-84 and a large parking lot. It seems to have potential as a major draw for central Connecticut commuters to NYC, what gives?]
As best I can tell, most of the Waterbury Branch riders are headed not for Grand Central, but rather for intermediate stops in Fairfield County such as Bridgeport, Stamford and Norwalk. Looked at from the perspective of intra-state commuting, the Waterbury schedule makes somewhat more sense.
Some years ago there was through-train rush hour service to Grand Central. Ridership was poor, and the service was discontinued. Whether the time is ripe for a new attempt at this service is another matter. Doing so would require additional equipment, but the state of Connecticut (which pays part of the Branch's costs) has little interest.
One more thought occurred to me after I posted my first response. It might be thought that Waterbury is just too far from Manhattan (almost 100 miles) to attract many commuters. That overlooks the fact that there are several other stations on the branch that are somewhat closer, such as Derby-Shelton. But most of all, thinking that Waterbury is too far disregards the NJ Transit - Metro North service from Port Jervis, which does quite well despite being about as far (considering the Hoboken transfer) from Manhattan and despite serving an area with a much smaller population than Waterbury.
This is the case with my Second Avenue line it will be a joint division line between the IRT,BMT,IND being the first of it's kind. Here is how it goes the Trippers will be on the Left side like in the IRT the cars will be the size of the BMT,IND cars. The drivers booth and the conductors will be on the right signaling. Now I want this line to be a breez for the drivers on the line so I decided that I will use the IRT signaling style it is a breez to understand. If another line in the Future need to coonect to this line that is BMT,IND that section of tracks will have trippes on both side but it will still have the signalling of the original IRT.
Christopher Rivera
H (6th Avenue Local) From/to 57th Street (M) or Rockaway Park (Q). Everyday 6AM-12AM. 6th Avenue Local. Fulton Street Express. Liberty Avenue Local; peak direction (Euclid Avenue (B) or Aqueduct North Conduit).
57th Street (6th Avenue) Q
47-50th Street (6th Avenue) B, D, F, K, Q
42nd Street (6th Avenue) B, D, F, K, Q, 7
34th Street (6th Avenue) B, D, F, K, N, Q, R, 7, PATH
23rd Street (6th Avenue) F, PATH
14th Street (6th Avenue) F, L
West 4th Street (6th Avenue) A, B, C, D, E, F, K, Q
Spring Street (6th Avenue) C, E
Canal Street (Church Street) A, C, E
Chamber Street/WTC (Church Street) A, C, E, 2, 3
Broadway Nassau (Fulton Street) A, C, J, M, Z, 2, 3, 4, 5
High Street Brooklyn Bridge (Cadman Plz. East) A, C
Jay Street Borough Hall (Fulton Mall) A, C, F
Hoyt & Schermerhorn Steets - A, C, F
Nostrand Avenue (Fulton Street) A, C
Utica Avenue (Fulton Street) A, C
Broadway East NY (Fulton Street) A, C, J, K, L
Euclid Avenue (Fulton Street) A, C
Aqueduct (North Conduit Avenue) A
Howard Beach JFK Airport (159th Avenue) A
Broad Channel - A
Beach 90th Street (Rkwy Freewy) S
Beach 98th Street (Rkwy Freewy) S
Beach 105th Street (Rkwy Freewy) S
Rockaway Park (B. 116th Street) S
Support this plan, Contact MTA!
K (6th Avenue Express) From/to 179th Street (Q) or Canarsie (B). Rush hours. Hillside, Queens Blvd, 6th Avenue, Broadway Express.
179th Street (Hillside Avenue) F
Parsons Blvd (Hillside Avenue) F
Union Turnpike (Queens Blvd) E, F
71st/Continental Avenue (Queens Blvd) E, F, G, R
Roosevelt Avenue (Broadway) E, F, G, R, 7
23rd Street (44 Drive) E, F, G
Lexington Avenue (53rd Street) E, F, 6
5th Avenue (53rd Street) E, F
47-50th Street (6th Avenue) B, D, F, H, Q
42nd Street (6th Avenue) B, D, F, H, Q, 7
34th Street (6th Avenue) B, D, F, H, N, Q, R, PATH
W. 4th Street (6th Avenue) A, B, C, D, E, F, H
Broadway Lafayette (Houston Street) B, D, F, 6
Essex Street (Delancy Street) F, J, M, Z
Marcy Avenue (Broadway) J, M, Z
Myrtle Avenue (Broadway) J, M, Z
Broadway Eastern Parkway - A, C, H, J, L, Z
Atlantic Avenue (Snediker & Van Sinderen Avs.) L, LIRR
New Lots Avenue (Van Sinderen Avenue) L
Beach 105th Street (Turnbull Avenue) L
Rockaway Park (Canarsie) L
Please support plan, contact MTA!
What happened to Queens Plaza?
Forgot!
Queens Plaza (Queens Blvd) E, F, G, R
Wha happened to Livonia Avenue?
Wha happened to Sutter Avenue (wuz it cause the lites dont work
at the north end of the station)/
And, (nit pick) aint no beach at 105th St - just a junk yard.
Have a nice night,
Wayne. thanks for the plug!
A (8th Avenue Express) From/to 207th Street (M) or Francis Lewis Blvd (Q). Weekends 6AM - 12AM. 8th Avenue Express. Fulton Street, Liberty Avenue, Linden Blvd Local.
207th Street (Broadway)
Dyckman Street or 200 Street(Bwy)
190th Street (Ft. Washington Avenue)
181st Street (Ft. Washington Avenue)
175th Street (Ft. Washington Avenue)
168th Street (Broadway) C 1/9
145th Street (St. Nicholas Avenue) B, C, D
125th Street (St. Nicholas Avenue) B, C, D
59th St. Columbus Circle (8th Ave.) B, C, D, 1/9
42nd Street (8th Avenue) C, E, N, R, S, 1, 2, 3, 7, 9
34th Street (8th Avenue) C, E
14th Street (8th Avenue) C, E, L
W. 4th Street (6th Avenue) B, C, D, E, F, H,
Canal Street (6th Avenue) C, E, H
Chambers Street (Church Street) C, E, H, 2, 3, PATH
Broadway Nassau (Fulton Street) H, J, 2, 3, 4, 5
High Steet Bklyn Bridge (Cadman Plz. E.) H
Jay St. Borough Hall (Fulton Mall) F, H
Hoyt Schermerhorn Sts. - G, H
Lafayette Avenue (Fulton Street)
Clinton/Washington Avs. (Fulton Street)
Franklin Avenue (Fulton Street) S
Nostrand Avenue (Fulton Street) H
Kingston/Throop Avs. (Fulton Street)
Utica Avenue (Fulton Street) H
Ralph Avenue (Fulton Street)
Rockaway Avenue (Fulton Street)
Bwy East NY (Fulton Street) H, J, L
Liberty Avenue (Pennsylvania Ave)
Van Siclen Avenue (Pitkin Avenue)
Shepherd Avenue (Pitkin Avenue)
Euclid Avenue (Pitkin Avenue) A, H
Grant Avenue (Pitkin Avenue) H
80th Street (Liberty Avenue) H
88th Street (Liberty Avenue) H
Rockaway Blvd (Liberty Avenue) A, H
104th Street (Liberty Avenue)
111th Street (Liberty Avenue)
Lefferts Blvd (Liberty Avenue)
128th Street (Liberty Avenue)
111 Avenue (Van Wyck Expwy)
Sutphin Blvd (Linden Blvd)
Guy R. Brewer Blvd (Linden Blvd) E, J
Merrick Blvd (Linden Blvd)
Farmers Blvd (Linden Blvd) LIRR
Francis Lewis Blvd (Linden Blvd)
Support this plan, contact the MTA.
J/Z (Nassau Local) From/to Broad Street (M) or JFK Airport (Q). All the times. Nassau Street Express and Broadway Express AM or PM rush hours in peak direction. Note: During Rush hours, skip stop service b/t Mytle Avenue or Sutphin Blvd. Jamaica Avenue and Guy Brewer Blvd Local.
E (8th Avenue Local) From/to World Trade Center (M) or JFK Airport (Q). All the times. 8th Avenue Local. Queens Blvd & Guy R. Brewer Blvd Express.
After Jamaica Center:
Jamaica Center/Parsons & Archer Avs - E, J
107th Avenue (Guy R. Brewer Blvd) J
Linden Blvd (Guy R. Brewer Blvd) A, E, J
Foch Blvd/Baisley Park (Guy R. Brewer Blvd) J
Baisley Blvd (Guy R. Brewer Blvd) J
137th Avenue (Guy R. Brewer Blvd) J
Farmers Blvd (Farmers Blvd) J
JFK Airport - E, J
Elevated, subway or taking over the LIRR at Grade? I'm not sure a subway is such a good idea in such swampy land. I doubt the neighbors would like an elevated. Running it in the LIRR ROW gets you close, but not all the way. What do you suggest?
It could be underground the whole trip (J and E). As for the A, it should be elevated, since, it is elevated at Lefferts Blvd. Of course, I prefer elevated over underground.
The neighbors will be delighted to have transportation in this area. They have been fighting for it for years! This is the the plan to extend subway lines.
(Queens neighbors want transportation). I believe people in Queens are organizing to fight the proposed rail connections to the airports. Perhaps nine out of ten residents want transportation service, but if the 10 percent can hire a lawyer they can stall it even so. And with transportation investment being a low political priority in the city, they wouldn't have to stall it for long before something else grabs the money.
3 (7th Avenue Express) From/to 148th Street (M) or JFK Airport (Q). No Nighttime Service (see 4). 7th Avenue Express, BKLYN Local.
Start at New Lots Avenue:
New Lots Avenue (Livonia Avenue)
Shepherd Avenue (Livonia Avenue)
Linden Blvd (Fountain Avenue)
Flatlands Avenue (Fountain Avenue)
Cross Bay Blvd (160th Avenue)
102nd Street (160th Avenue) A, H
JFK Airport
3 (7th Avenue Express) From/to 148th Street (M) or JFK Airport (Q). No Nighttime Service (see 4). 7th Avenue Express, BKLYN Local.
Start at New Lots Avenue:
New Lots Avenue (Livonia Avenue)
Shepherd Avenue (Livonia Avenue)
Linden Blvd (Fountain Avenue)
Flatlands Ave/Starret City (Fountain Avenue)
Cross Bay Blvd (160th Avenue)
102nd Street (160th Avenue) A, H
JFK Airport
Chris, Nice plan for EXTENDING the IRT 3/4.
It might make more since as a follow on AFTER the current plan as conncetion to the route, i.e. with a station on the Van Wyke route. And as a second phase continute the route further East, there sure is a big hole in the city's system in that part of Queens.
Mr t__:^)
The 3 plan is good, but not great! Because, I would have like to cover the south eastern part of queens in oppose to the airport. However, the 3 will have been to close to the A, which will make it usesless. Therefore, I dropped it below Flatlands Avenue where starret city, and then into the A at Howard Beach. If this plan is implemented it will give passengers who live in the southern and central part of Brooklyn an option.
In additional to service to the airport, express service should be provided. It might mean widening the tracks after Utica Avenue, from three to four.
As for the Van Wyck plan, I assigned the E and J to the Airport. In the meantime, thank's Thurston for your comment.
Good Idea! May I offer a suggestion or two: (will save some on track
construction): use part of the yard lead (along Elton Street)
(I have my Hagstrom in front of me) - stop at Stanley Avenue (for the
Boulevard Houses), Flatlands (closer to Starrett City by about 3/10
of a mile) THEN go east along Vandalia Avenue and out to Howard
Beach that way. No stops along the way. (nothing but a dump out
there) Use 159th Ave instead of 160th Avenue (160th has a kink in it
between 79th & 83d St.). Other plan may have problems finding a way underground along New Lots Ave - also Shepherd station could move up a block or two to Atkins or Montauk if you plan to keep that route -
Shepherd is just a little bit too close to New Lots - also:
what part is elevated, what part is underground? If any part is underground, where to put the portal and how to connect to the existing #3, both tracks of which curve into the yard. Use Dumont Avenue as a shunt to lessen curve into Fountain Ave? Not sure if there's much of anything out at Flatlands & Fountain...
My plan will stay elevated right up to the Belt Parkway, then go
into open cut (under parkway) then into a tunnel portal just west of the corner of 78th St & 159th Avenue, right in the crook of the Belt Pkwy.
A little fine tuning and this will work wonders.
Have you finalized your new IND plans? Just let me know...
Thanks
Wayne
The #3 to the Airport is a very new idea. Therefore, more studying needs to be made. Also, I'm not familiar with the area.
Too many curves in the route slows down service, so, I made sure it was as straight as possible.
No major difference b/t 159 Street and 160th street.
Flatlands Avenue is too far up, some how, Queens drops about 10 block where the Howard beach station is at.
Shephard Avenue is not to bad, although another three blocks would be better.
After hearing so many postings about extending the #3 line, I decided to send it to the Airport where it is needed. Only one problem, the whole route from Utica Avenue to New Lots Avenue Avenue will have to be reconstruction for four tracks in oppose to two track. Express service is needed for the Airport, although, maybe the A or H might be a better bet, except these lines suffer the same senario. No express service outside Euclid Avenue.
I'm not sure about where the train should go underground. All I know is that it must, so that, it doesn't interfer with Air travel or the parking lot.
The dumping area is good. Maybe the train can go underground there.
As for the H plan, no further work on it is necessary. I think I'm clear what it should do. Perhaps, the K plan, A Lefferts Blvd plan, E and J plan to Airport, might need some work.
Thanks Wayne for your feedback.
Hate to beat a dead horse, and maybe this was bought up: While a door modification is going on with the R32's in Jamaica barn, this is no reason to swap so many cars between the two lines, as both lines have equal access to the yard. Rather, because of the nightime G.O., it is better to run 46's on the E due to the ability to have a proper side sign, made possible by the many different codes which could be used. To change 20 signs manually per R32 train from World Trade Center to Whitehall St. would take a significant amount of time. The TA would have to" hire" at least 2 platform conductors every nite for this task. Digital signs eliminate this need. Let's see when this G.O. is over at the end of this month if R32's will return to the E.
I hate to disagree with you but that explanation simply does not hold up. If it were true, the R-46s would have been swapped between the E & F lines rather than the R line. Under normal circumstances, the R line has signs changed more times every day than the E. The move was made to improve On Time performance on the E line.
I prefer the train over bus for two reasons. First of all, it doesn't polute the air. And second, it's a faster means of transportation.
I will continue to post, mail, and petition new plans for subway service in areas that doesn't have any.
Chris,
I prefer the train over the bus also. But unless your train runs by telekinesis, it gets its power from something that pollutes the air -- an electrical generating station.
The average subway ride supposedly uses the equivalent of about 1 cup of gasoline. I'm not sure what the comparison was supposed to be -- energy output, cost, pollution? And, I've never seen the figure compared to consumption of diesel fuel in buses.
I do suspect that Con Ed's power plants are cleaner, on the whole, than Grumman buses.
--mhg
We don't only get our electricty from fossil fuel plants nor are all buses fossil as well (but there aren't enough alt. fuel buses to matter!
Con Ed must generate by law (I forget the percentage 15% to 30%) within the city limits. All the other power comes from upstate (Indian Head and beyond from the NYPA (Power Authority)). One of the things ConEd wants is out of the generating biz, it is not that big a profit maker.
Lou,
Naturally, matters are complicated. An interesting point about the power grid: There are two categories of generating stations in the industry. One is more or less a steady-state, e.g. hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal, and nuclear. Not that these facilities can't be shut down or made to produce more or less power, but they run continuously and therefore it costs very little extra to make them generate electricity.
The other type of facility is an "on demand" facility that has to be fired up in some way in order to work. Oil, gas and coal plants fall into this category because they have to be turned on to make power.
Since the hydroelectric, etc., plants run all the time at no extra cost, they are always there, providing some amount of "clean" power. When demand increases during daylight hours, the on demand plants are brought on line (or, when lightening threatens the power grid -- results of the '77 blackout). So, if you take the subway late at night, you make less pollution that if you take it during daylight hours, as a greater % of the power comes from clean sources.
Once again, a seemingly easy comparison is complicated by an ugly fact.
--mhg
-mhg
Does anyone have any info about the old Broad Street line cars that ran in Philly before the new (well, since the 80's) cars? They seem pretty similar to the R9 NYC cars, but I could be mistaken.
If you can be more specific, I could probably help a little. There were two different classes of cars built for the line - 1-150, built in '28 (Brill), and 151-200, built in '38 (Pressed Steel). The "Bridge Line" cars, 1001-1026, built in '36 (Brill), were purchased in '70 for the line once they were no longer needed by PATCO, which took over the Bridge Line.
I know I've asked this before, but I don't feel I've got a definative answer. How many trains per hour (max) can be accomodated on a track?
What are the factors that determine capacity?
I had heard the answer was 25, and a recent news article said the block signals are the limiting factor, and new rolling block signals will increase capacity to 40. On the other hand, based on the MTA schedule there are already 30 trains going through 53rd St and along the express tracks of the Queens line. In another thread, I read that the bottleneck on this line is the switch at 53rd and 6th. Someone said that merging services causes back-ups which reduce capacity. But in another thread, someone suggested that the F could be run through Cranberry and merged back into 6th Ave at W. 4th. That's 35 trains per hour (21 = 14). Are switches a limiting factor? Does the number of stations have anything to do with it -- ie. dwell time backs up the line on locals?
I realize the answer to a question like this is it depends. But it depends on what?
The trains-per-hour figures, based on what the signal systems could handle safely, inherited from the IRT and BMT and used by the City and continued by the TA after the takeover were 30 trains-per-hour on IRT and BMT routes, with 34 trains-per-hour on IND routes and 34 also the goal for upgraded lines. (That's two minutes or one and three-quarter minutes, respectively.)
I'm sure that the 1950s upgrading of the Steinway/Flushing (7) allowed for at least the 34 trains per hour from Times Square to Queensborough Plaza, but don't know for certain.
I've heard over the years that long stretches without stations (river tunnels in particular, since they usually don't have stations) could handle one-minute or minute-and-a-quarter-headways. If that's true, 63rd Street might have been completely unnecessary and the Rutgers tube might be able to handle three times the service it handles now--and we could forget the Manhattan Bridge nonsense.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
(Manhattan Bridge Nonsense) That's exactly what I'm wondering about. It seems the MTA, if anything is to be done all, wants to hook up the bridge tracks to the Rutgers tunnel on the Brooklyn side only. If you can get up to 34 trains per hour, that would allow them to squeeze all the BMT southern trains through the Montigue/Rutgers tunnels, especially if new signals push capacity up from 34 to 40.
The problem, and from posts on other subjects I'm sure you agree, is that all the trains would then have to make lots of extra stops -- East Broadway, Delancy and 2nd instead of just Grand, and Lawrence, Boro Hall, Whitehall, Rector, Cortland and City Hall instead of just Canal. With added delays thrown in for merging, that's a massive, planned, reduction in service as the bridge rots.
But, if what you (and Steve) say is true, if the Rutgers tunnel were connected on both ends so the express tracks could be accessed -- with no stations in the way -- the problem would be solved -- for half the cost of the new Yankee Stadium, or one-eight the combined city and state surplus. Its pretty infurianting that they haven't just done it, under the circumstances.
I haven't seen any postings on this, or perhaps I missed them, but would it be feasible to run a connector from the Manhattan end of the Rutgers tunnel to the BMT Broadway express tracks before the Canal St. bridge station? I take it that's what is being referred to when speaking of access to express tracks. If that could be done, along with a connection to DeKalb, you could run the N and Q lines through the Rutgers tunnel, and have Broadway express service to boot.
My idea is a little different.
I'd use the Rutgers to connect DeKalb with the 6th Avenue express tracks at Grand Street station, with the tracks branching off at the Manhattan landfall, running under the street which runs alongside the bridge, then meeting up with the existing tracks at Grand. I've checked out the grade, and it wouldn't be a problem, although the connector would have to run under the Chinatown Pathmark or make a couple of sharp turns onto and off of Cherry St.
This connection would be the top priority, because it would allow existing service to be preserved if the bridge were lost. The MTA wants a Brooklyn connection only, which would increase trip times and reduce capacity, since every train would have to pass through the East Broadway, Delancy and 2nd Ave Stations before moving to the express. We don't need planned shrinkage. With a link-up split-off, on the other hand, the trains would only be merged in the tunnel -- which comments in this thread indicates could then accomodate 40 - 60 trains per hour.
I'd use the Cranberry Tunnel to hook the DeKalb tracks with the BMT express. They could branch off where Fulton Street is wide an an apartment building plaza is available -- West of Water St, which would not have to be torn up. Since the Brooklyn-Bound track would be below the Manhattan bound track anyway as a result of going under the Fulton line, it could stay that way (a la 53rd St) and squeeze up Ann Street (which only has loading bays and a couple of rundown builidngs, and is about a subway car plus supports wide). Then you'd stick it into the Lower Level of City Hall Station -- which would then be extended into the BMT express tracks. You might have to close half of Park Row for a spell, but based on where the BMT City Hall station is I'd bet there'd be no construction on Broadway. In fact, if you run it through the two tail tracks south of the IRT City Hall Station, you might not have to tear up anything but one block of Fulton and three blocks of Ann.
Not only that, but to keep the turn gentle the TA (if it acted immediately) could buy the empty lot on the NE corner of Park Row and Ann. It is the future home of yet another extension of J&R Music World. And, the TA should be aware college educated people are moving into the industrial area near where the Bridge and Tunnel tracks cross in Brooklyn. They are very politically active, having moved into and industrial area illegally and had it rezoned to increase their property values. You're not going to get away with an improvement in their neighborhood unless you act soon.
What I like best about the tunnel connection scenario is that it requires four connections, but each connection helps you even if you don't do anything else.
Connect the bridge tracks to the Rutgers on the Brooklyn side only, and you could switch the F to the Cranberry and run the current bridge trains through the Rutgers tunnel. In the bridge were unavailable, service would be cut, slower, and less reliable, but it would be spread around and no one would be cut off completely. If the bridge stayed open, the connection could allow improved service. Even if you do nothing else.
If you then connect the Rutgers with the 6th Avenue express tracks on the Manhattan side, your service is as least as good as it is now no matter what happens to the bridge.
Then connect the westerly Manhattan Bridge tracks to the Cranberry and you could run another service into Manhattan while avoiding the Montigue Tunnel slowdown -- it would run up 8th Avenue.
Make the 4th connection, from the Cranberry to the BMT express tracks, and Brooklyn service is back to its post-Chrystie St pre-collapse heyday.
How brief that pinnacle most have seemed -- except that at the time people were probably moving out of Brooklyn too fast to notice, and those moving in didn't need the subway because they didn't work. 1965 to 1980 population and employment data for Brooklyn is so bad I'm glad I wasn't around.
The primary factor in how many trains per hour a track section can handle is the speed through that section. Lets say trains operate at 40 MPH through a particular section, thats 60 feet per second. A 600 foot train will pass in ten seconds. If there is a minimum of 1200 feet of seperation between trains, that means that the track section will handle one train every 60 seconds or 60 trains per hour. This, of course, does not take into account station stops etc. but you get the idea.
The closest rapid transit headway that I’ve experienced was the evening rush hour on the MKT-FKD line in Philadelphia. Keep in mind that the MKT-FKD line is an end-to-end run with only one service. The only real constraint is the Bridge-Pratt Terminal, which is a stub end, and trains need to change ends. The 69th Street end has a turning loop, and thus, is just a continuation of the cycle. However, the PTC scheduled trains to operate every 1 ¾ minutes during the evening rush period when A/B skip-stop service was operated. This was documented in a hand out that I have that was sent to me by the PTC. That is 34 trains an hour in one direction. I actually witnessed this many times during the 1960’s and early 1970’s. Riding the A/B trains during the evening rush hour was thrilling for this, then young, old boy. Stationed at my usual vantage point, the front door window, you trains leader was always in sight. Many times the train I was riding followed its leaders’ "just cleared" yellow block into the stations east of 15th Street. Remember running eastbound, after 15th Street the stations are 13th, 11th, 8th, 5th, and 2nd. Back in those days 2nd Street was an "A" Station.
Another favorite vantage point was standing at the "old" Fairmount Station. For those of you who don’t realize, the Frankford El didn’t always run in the median of I-95, or stop at Spring Garden Street. In the days before 1976 (I believe), the trains made a very hard northward turn out of the tunnel to climb onto the elevated structure over Front Street. The Fairmount Station, a "B" station, was located on a downgrade from Girard Avenue. The "A" trains would seem to just fly by as they headed for the Market Street Subway to pick up their westward bound passengers. An "A" train would usually be right on the heels of the "B" train that had just pulled away from doing its station work.
And talk about equipment utilization. The evening rush hour equipment requirements called for 44 six car trains on the line at that time. In the early years of the Budd Cars service the PTC used 264 cars out of the 270 on the roster. That leaves a shop margin of six. In those times I can remember seeing the yards at Bridge-Pratt and 69th Street completely void of any cars during the rush. Amazing you say, well the PTC was a private business that didn’t have the money to have extra equipment around.
Does anyone know if there exists anywhere a list of the different R-units and the lines they served in their lifetime? I mean something like this: R-46: E (1981-1991) F (1980-present) GG (1982-present) N (1982-1992), etc... (I just made up the years, but you get the point...)
Does anyone know where I could find SOME LIRR Track Maps
Today on the way home from work I entered the turnstile with my wife close behind. "Hun, Oh Dear" and I turn around. She swipes her card and the display says "Insuffient Funds". I said WHAT, this is a 7day unlimted. My wife goes to the token booth (directly behind the turnstiles) and tells the clerk what the message said.
First the clerk says that there was no such message. She reads my wife's card and said she just used it to swiped me in and that she had to wait 18minutes. I hold up my own metrocard and YELL from the paid side that I swiped myself and that I too saw the message "INSUFFICENT FUNDS". The clerk in a demanding voice says that NO WAY CAN THAT MESSAGE BE DISPLAYED IMMPOSSIBLE, that my wife swiped me in.
I'm about to pass my card back to my wife so the clerk can read it when the clerk throws up her hands (threre is no line or anyone else waiting, sorry to bother her reading a book) and hits the paypass on the special entry turnstile saying "You can't swipe a 7day card more than once in 18minutes".
I urge my wife to come through the turnsitle, she is complaining about lost $17 since the first use of this card was only 8 hours ago. As we walk down to the platform and she is putting away her card I notice another metrocard in her purse....(Boom Lighting Strikes)
Yup you got it, both cards were unlimited, one was expired.
Now why didn't the turnstile say Expired Card (I guess insufficent funds is a true message) did the TA never get around to programing this message, code change at the turnstile level >G<.
How come the clerk didn't pick up on it, don't tell me the terminals in the booth can't display experation dates?? (The clerk just had to get back to the book?)
The only way to find out your experation date is the customer terminals?? (Not always located in the same spots, sometimes hard to notice in a busy station)
Still some bugs in the system, all this on a slow news day that had the papers once more headlinng the double swipe problem.....
Lou,
Sorry to read your tale of woe! According to the TA website, the turnstiles do not display expiration dates on unlimited-ride cards. Bus fareboxes do, and so do the readers in subway stations, but not the turnstiles. Not sure why that should be. It seems to me that the turnstile should give the expiration date or read "expired."
Did you see the article in yesterday's Daily News about 5000 people/month being charged an extra fare by swiping at two turnstiles? The problem (as we all know) is that the turnstile deducts the fare without opening the gate because it can't place all the necessary information on the card. The article makes it sound like people are unwittingly and inevitably trapped into paying two fares, but the example it gives is of someone who ignored the "swipe again at this turnstile" message and got burned that way. Also, in the style of the Daily News, the article decries the 5000 "extra" fares per month without mentioning that each month 80 million fares go through OK, or that with the token system, more than 5000 riders per month lost tokens in the turnstiles.
--mhg
Mark / Lou,
Do U remember when folks were bending the cards to get in free ?
Well they fixed that problem, but guess what ... it would seem that the guy that got fired for setting the readers up was right after all.
Mr t__:-o
Mark Goldey writes:
Mark, once you've seen that message two or three times, and you've kept swiping at the same turnstile, and it still doesn't work, and your train is pulling in, and it's a hundred degrees in the station, you're eventually going to ignore that message and go to another turnstile.
Or you could miss your train, and throw yourself on the mercy of the token clerk, and hope they're not too busy to deal with the problem.
Either way, it's a bad deal that ought to be fixed.
Tony, et. al., RE "Swipe Again"
A little technical info, it won't help your fustration and a tip:
The "Swipe Again" message usually means the equipment couldn't complete the "read/write" operation. AND it's usually on the "write" side (It has already taken your money so that's why it'll cost you double if you go to another Turnstile). Cause one of two things:
1. Your card has a bend, scratch, piece of dirt, etc. on it. Look at the magnetic portion, wipe it on your shirt.
Tip: If it happens at more then one turnstile, go to the agent ... tell him/her of your problem & ask that he/she move the remainng money to a new card. Unfortunatly if it's one of those monthly unlim "time" cards & it's the beginning of the month .... you'll only get a FORM to mail in.
2. The Turnstile is dirty:
- Carefully run the card through again (speed & position is important)
- Run the card back & forth really fast, then try again.
- Blow into the reader slot (you have to be desperate to do this, but it works)
- Carry a "Credit Card Reader Cleaner" pad with you. Yes such a thing exists. We use them all the time as part of our "PM" procedures. It's a white card the size of a credit card & has the appearance of those other disk cleaning devices ( so cut a CD/floppy cleaner to fit)
If you "service" the Turnstile ask the agent for a free ride :-o that was a joke ;-)
- Carry another card & use another Turnstile ... well at least it will only cost you 3.00 for the ride (unless Chris comes by) ... sorry Chris I couldn't resist.
Disclaimer: I don't work for the TA or any or it's divisions.
Mr t__:^)
Thurston, sounds like good advise. Clearly, to the extent this problem is caused by the turnstile hardware, it should be fixed. I also think that the TA probably made a conscious decision that the reader should charge the fare first, then write the time/date. I'll bet that there is a legitimate reason to do that, and it has something to do with preventing fraud.
Whatever the story is, it's still noteworthy that metrocards "jam" less frequently than tokens did, at least in my experience. (This may be because the turnstiles are better than they once were). And, just as with a "swipe again at this turnsile" message, token users are faced with a hot subway, a train pulling in, and a token that got stuck in the turnstile or wouldn't go it, etc. The token user is also faced with the dilemna -- miss the train or spend another fare. So, the fact that metrocards produce this problem is not evidence that things are worse than before.
--mhg
I thought I'd put my 2 cents in here:
I'm going to be completely serious (whereas every other posting was completly off the wall, and purposely so).
Being a computer engineer that works within the domain of computer architectures, it is interesting to wonder why the MTA doesn't seem to follow the basic fundamentals of ACID properties (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, and Durability). If you want I can go into each of these, but this problem goes directly into the problem of atomicity.
Atomicity says that you either allow a transaction to complete entirely, or it never occurred in the first place. This closely ties together the read/write operations of swiping the card. Now I will not pretend to be a domain expert on card-swiping or the way the MTA has decided to do it, but deciding a data format to preserve this seems critical to its successful operation. There is however a two phase commit protocol which is perhaps what should be used.
The transaction is attempted, and written to the card, however a verification is also done to make sure that the written information was actually written to the card. If the data is correctly written, a commit mark is written on the card and the transaction is finalized as far as the card and the reader are concerned. All unfinalized transactions act as if they never occurred. Fare is not removed, entry is not allowed. This essentially makes a metro card a time ordered log of all attempted transactions, rather than a rewritable depositary for fares and times.
This of course may be incompatible with the entire way Metro Card was designed, but perhaps that is a Metro Card design flaw in that ACID is not seemingly preserved as it stands now. I am not familiar with magnetic cards or the type of data that can be stored on them. I am also aware I have not addressed security concerns (such as mimicing the log structure to make it appear you have added fares), but perhaps a standard encryption algorithm on the data stored in the card would solve that problem. But it seems that other systems have been successful in implementing systems like this. For example, the last time I used the Washington METRO, the card appeared to be a log of transactions as I had indicated, at least on the card itself since every transaction was physically printed on it.
Serious mode off:Question:What's the 8th Avenue transit buff's favorite shampoo?Answer:Tresumé... it has Vitamins A, C, and E!
I know...
Jersey Boy, The Washington D.C. system is ALSO mfg by SAME firm ! As is NJ Transit and a few others in this area.
Mr t__:^)
Really?
Well the systems may be manufactured by the same firm, but appear to have very little functional overlapping. NJ Transit trains use nothing like a Metro Card. Does the Washington METRO card look like an MTA card.. heck do the machines even appear to function the same way? NJ Transit doesn't even seem to have anything that remotely matches the systems in question.
I contend that their software and transactional designs have completely different requirements and are very different systems.
Jersey Boy,
W-e-l-l, the answer is yes & no ....
Eye am NOT a expert on the different systems but due know some of the similarities, e.g.
- NJ Transit uses the same, receiving devices. The "Bins" had to be modified because NJ Transit takes bills while the "privates" & LI Bus doesn't.
- Washington's Cubic system is on the trains. Since only 1993 they had GFI fare boxes, YOU tell me what they have now.
- Houston got the FIRST Cubic farebox, it takes bills but otherwise is similar in design to NYC
- Chicago had an old GFI box modified with a Cubic "shoe box" add on, i.e. so it could take their swipe card, now they're replacing with a new Cubic box (I think it's just like NYC ... John B. if you read this can you confirm ?)
What is very fustrating is that you would think that they would have gotten it right by now ! Eye seen some other, software/hardware, problems that are even worse, e.g. a farebox that is malfunctioning all day, every day, but the driver doesn't see ANYTHING that would give him/her a clue, so he/she doesn't write it up for repair. Next thing you know the phone starts ringing with customers who have been dbl charged, etc. We look at the box and eveything seems normal, so we pull all the components & HOPE one of them wasn't working.
Let me qualify this before I get in trouble ... the afore mentioned problem occurs ONLY on a few buses (one to three) with a few more with smaller versions of the same problem ... so I now run a report and can find what bus this is happening on.
Does the TA do this for their Turnstiles & buses, eye HOPE so.
P.S. And you folks thought this forum was just for fun ... I find things discussed here that help me understand or fix topics at work AND enjoy the discussions about subways/trolleys etc. Thanks DAVE !
Disclaimer: I don't work for the TA or any of it's divisions.
Mr t__:^)
Thurston
I have a distinct feeling we are on different wavelengths. You seem to be discussing mostly bus systems, whereas I've been discussing mostly rail systems. Granted in most environments these are integrated and one in the same (e.g. MTA), but the point of excepting bills on busses is an entirely different discussion. I am uncertain of what you are referring to by cubic systems either since I almost never have any experience with any public bus systems, the exception being a NJ Transit (TCT Transit) bus that accepted cash only.
My distinctions between say Washington's system and the MTA's system is thus. The METRO uses thin paper cards that you purchased from vending machines and then used at the turnstyles to gain access to the system. No fare appears to be deducted at that point. The turnstyles "ate" the card and spit it back out on the top of the machine. Now when you got off at your station, the passenger would re-enter the card into an exit turnstyle and the fare would be deducted then. If the card did not have enough funds, you could add more at other machines. If you had just enough, the turnstyle permanently ate your card, and if you had more funds on it, it would spit it back up as when you entered the system. Transfers were issued from separate machines that you punched a button on and it gave you a paper transfer. This system when I first visited Washington in 1986, and my last visit in 1994. If it's been replaced.. then my comparisons are based upon this original system.
NJ Transit rail has TVM's and standard commuter rail ticket schemes. There are no "cards" and hence, like I originally stated, there is no matching counterpart to MetroCard or the Washington METRO system as described above. However, I am unaware of any similar mechanisms on buses.
Now back to my main point. The METRO as described above is fundamentally a completely different fare structure than the MTA. The MTA subways deduct the fare initially, and do not have the exit check. This difference alone produces severe software requirements changes between the two systems. Although the hardware may fundamentally be the same, the software is unique to each system. Elements of software re-use may be used in terms of co-ordination and low-level areas such as the writing/reading scheme, the layer above this appears to be completely different. It is in this layer that software for fare control would intuitively be implemented, with the data structures and formats being specific to the system in question. If I tried to use my MetroCard on METRO would it work? Of course not.. the software wouldn't have a clue (assuming the hardware would) what the hell the data format on the card was.
Going back to my original point.. I used the METRO as a reference only in the sense that it appears to keep a log of transactions. The main principle is that the MTA's MetroCard software, irregardless of whether or not other systems possess similar hardware, have a real problem preserving atomicity, a software requirement. If atomicity was preserved, the requirement to reswipe at a particular turnstyle would not be an issue, simply because the transaction would never have occurred and never ever be left in a partially oompleted state. I believe the proof that the MTA uses custom software on turnstyles is in a recent Transit Transit report about updating the software to allow the unlimited ride MetroCard.
I think that the problem that started this thread -- double swiping messages -- is precisely about atomicity. The card reader doesn't want the card to leave until it completes the transaction, and therefore won't open the turnstile to let the card through. Unfortunately, the reader can't account for the human beings who ignore it's messages, and the transaction is not completed properly.
The question is, is there one transaction here of two? It looks at first glance like the system is badly designed re: atomicity because it permits half of the required infomation to be recorded, thus no atomicity. On the other hand, maybe the system was designed to perform two transactions, each with its own atomicity, each of which works just fine.
How about the following perspective: NYC is full of cheats who must be stopped before they can evade the fare system. (so they tell us). Because of the complicated free transfer system, the cards must do two things -- check for the fare and record the reduction, and check the time and place used and record the new time and place used. (Apparantly, the cards keep track of the last transaction only, rather than a running record). If the card reader records the time and place first, and then something goes wrong (software glitch, dirty contacts, or human screw up) that would allow people to extend their free transfers, to jump the turnstile and claim that they swiped in "just a few moments ago," and would also result in people being locked out of the system because it appears that they used the same single-use cards twice (within 18 minutes, as it happens). By comparison, if the card deducts the fare first, and then something happens to interrupt the transaction, there is a risk of losing the fare, which sounds like a nefarious plan to make sure that the TA gets its money at all costs. But, if the fare is deducted first, innocent users have a strong incentive to try again at the same turnstile until they get it right, and wrongdoers lose their money. Only when the card reader is really out of whack does such a policy hurt the innocent.
One example shows why this kind of system makes sense: Card reader deducts fare without opening turnstile. Card shows "last use was here at 10:00." And, at 10:01, the customer is still "here" outside the turnstiles, complaining to the token clerk. Pretty obvious what happened, and the ability to cheat this way (at least, with pay per fare cards) is seriously limited.
So, perhaps the readers are designed to work in two stages, each with its own atomicity, etc., in order to maximize the right result. When atomicity fails in the first step, the entire transaction didn't happen (example: swip metrocard and nothing happens). When it fails in the second step, that step didn't happen (example: "swipe again at this turnstile). When the second step doesn't happen at all, it may not be possible for the user to tell at the turnstile.
--mhg
Mark, If you try using a bad card (scratched/bent/etc.) it will keep asking you to run the card thru again - and - again - and - again. It doesn't seem to be given any other recourse. Now you wait a minute, the system clears & guess what, can you say double you fare for half the pleasure. Try a bad card in a "reader" to see what I mean.
Mr t__:^)
Jersey Boy, First thanks for your thoughtful & detailed reply !
- "Intergrated environments" ... The TA has a B-I-G system, too big if you ask me (i'm a mainframer from way back). So from what little I know this thing is a monster. Anyhow it has two sub-div: Surface (bus) and Rail (subway). I don't think any of the other MTA divisions is included.
- "Bills ... different discussion" ... well yes, the subway counts a fare in two ways: A Token or a "FareCard". The bus "IFU" has to count a few more kinds of things, some mesure the lenght of a piece of paper (long ones are two bills, short ones are tickets, etc.) BUT both systems have "Fareset Tables", i.e. Sr/Disabled Peek/Off-peek; student; employee; etc. The bus incl local & express. My point was that "the other city's" IFU was the same as NY except their's takes bills. e.g. The Houston box proved the design, then they started a big selling compain to make a profit on the design. GFI's box is very similar (functionally) but their sales force wasn't as good.
- "Vending machine" ... this is just another way to collect money/issue fares. The TA now has vending machines (don't work like METRO), so does the LIRR (just issues a ticket & not like METRO), but they look alike (from the photo's in the trades). METRO has to deal with distance while the LIRR sells you a ticket point-to-point and it doesn't get "read" anywhere (unless you turn it over & use it as a MetroCard). But I wouldn't be suprised that the TA system could CHARGE those Rockaway folks on the way out if Rudy asked for it. AND it wouldn't charge folks who got on within the Rockaways, can you say METRO or T (Boston).
- I get the feeling that i'm not addressing your questions, just thinking out loud :-(
- "No fare appears to be deducted" ... I equate this activity to the "value" MetroCard and the "free" transfer that is encoded.
- "METRO machine ate my card" ... By policy the system returns every card, except a "used" Transfer (not the MetroCard type), i.e. the TA COULD eat your card but it doesn't, yes the subway system can't eat cards, just chew them a little :-o
- "Add more funds" The Value MetroCard incl this feature, BUT there's too many folks traveling to stop everyone at the exit to run their card through again. The "Smart" card can "update" the system with your departure (and catch Chris giving away free rides, sorry Chris), but that's for the future.
- "Transfers from a sparate machine" ... If on a bus & paying in cash, a Transfer pops up, unfortunately it's NG on a subway.
- "NJ Transit" ... If the cash "bins" are the same as NY then the Cash Box and IFU must be similar, i've never seen, just assumed.
- "Metro/MTA one card fits all" ... No & your VISA only works on a Pheonix bus.
- "Log of transactions" ... there are over a hundred fields that get recorded/stored somewhere by the system, incl the S/N of every MC, it's last 3 uses (time/route/etc). There is even a "negitive list" so we can kill a lost/stolen card. S-O-O-O I don't think the problem is so much "preserving" the transaction as it is "completing" it.
- "Custom software" ... Cubic still has control. The TA, MIS, tells them what to add/change.
= Well did I clear it up or make it more muddy ? I've enjoyed this so don't hesitate to give me a come back !
= The rest of you out there, are we boreing you ?
Disclaimer: I don't work for the TA or any of it's divisions.
Mr t__:^)
P.S. I was looking thru a folder, for something unrelated, & came across a "Mass Transit" article (May 1995). It has a photo of a Turnstile (it looks like NY but could be METRO). It talks about the METRO system "since 1993" and goes into some detail about Read/Write head technology, incl a photo of two of them. It names two firms: Cubic & Compagnie Generale d'Automatisme (CGA).
The Cubic "suit" states "reliability (in NY) ... dramatically exceeded all contractual requirements, ... The contract calls for 120,000 cycles between failure. Monthly figures have at times exceeded two million cycles." Note the "at times" comment. "... cumulative reliability rates in excess of 660,000 MCBF ...".
The article also talks about "clean" vs. "dirty" applications.
Anyone who wants a copy, just drop me a line.
Our Farebox repair staff has a R/W head cleaning "card" that is part of evey "PM" that we do. One little problem is that the TA hasn't yet found a way to tell us the "cycles" on a bus so we can go after the busy ones sooner.
Disclaimer: I don't work for the TA or any of it's divisions.
Mr t__:^)
P.S. to my own thread ....
The TA CAN do things to help this problem, i.e. frequent PMs at heavy Turnstiles (the new SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE could run that cleaning card thru the Turnstile when it appears to giving folks trouble)(we won't ask them to blow into the swipe). The UNION may say this is a maint job, but Virgil & Rudy should persuade them to allow this.
If there's a bigger problem put a Out-of-service sign on it !
If the SC (Station Controller) goes down ... open the gate & give everyone a free ride ! At my firm we do it without a second thought about it. Rudy wants the Queens customers to be happy with our bus service, so if the equip don't work, you ride for free & he writes us a check to make up for the lost revenue (I'm don't mean this literally).
The point is transit is in the SERVICE business, so charging customers twice or making them spend an afternoon in jail sends the wrong message to the travling public, i.e. stay in your car 'cause it's better NOT.
Disclaimer: I work for one of those OTHER bus companies in NYC, & Rudy is my hero !
Mr t__:^)
Lou,
My copy of "the book" says you should see:
- At Turnstile "INSUFFICIENT FARE"
- At Reader/Token Booth "TIME EXPIRED ... $0.00 LEFT"
- On a bus "0.00 PAID... FARE = $1.50 ... ADD COIN"
The "book" also claims that the agent should be able to see:
- EXPIRES ON mm/dd/yy
- USED on mm/dd/yy
- $ xxx.xx LEFT
so he/she should have been able to state with confidence when the last swipe, attempt, occured & when the card would expire. The bug would be if it's a double swipe attempt & the "EXPIRES" message goes to expired, for 18 minutes, vs. the true date.
However a liquadated VALUE card says:
- At Turstile "EXPIRED CARD"
- At Reader/Token Booth "ALREADY EXPIRED"
- On a bus "CARD EXPIRED"
Looks to me like the Cubic programmer or the TA person who agreed to the wording wanted to display a different message for the TIME and VALUE cards, but they made a bad choice !
Well Lou EYE don't know if this makes you feel any better, but at least its information.
Disclaimer: I don't work for the TA or any of it's divisions.
Mr t__:^)
Yup, just found it weird that they didn't plan a message at the turnstile for the unlimited passes. It just kept saying Insufficent Fare and we had a great laugh when she found the newer card right in the same pocket.
Saturday night, NYC Bravest respond to report of smoke in the tunnel at Atlantic Ave/Pacific Street. I'm awaiting a Coney Island D train standing towards the rear when three of the bravest come doen the normaly closed exit under the Williamsburg Bank building. One has a long handled pick and wears a O2 tank, the other has a water preasure fire extingusiher and the third a radio and flash light (only one with an air tank). They walk around sniffing, then leave. A city bound D goes through.
The three reapear and flag down my Brooklyn bound D train. The operator IMHO expertly brings the train to a stop with such short notice (and pax kept their feet).
The one with the radio and flash light ask if the train operator saw or smelled anything between here and Dekalb Ave. He answered that he smelled something but his window was closed and he didn't stop. (Meanwhile some passangers on the platform were screaming for the train to move up after waiting more than the advertised 20min headway to even have the train appear)
The firemen thanked the operator, he pulled up and I jumped on the train. Who knows, if the Fire Dept wanted to go into the tunnel since the operator said he smelled smoke it would mean all power being pulled for who knows how long, and it was 1am already.
So I will always wonder if the smell of smoke meant fire?
Because of the grease and paper trash which abound in the track-beds, small track fires are very common place. Some smolder for hours while others will burn themselves out very quickly. Few ever become 'real' fires. Unfortunately, with the rapidly moving air currents in the tunnels, the smoke or the smell of a fire can permeate throughout a large area even though the actual fire is relatively insignificant. NYCT has taken several significant steps to protect customers during such incidents. First, the HVAC and PA functions were seperated so when passing through a smoke area, the operator can switch off the HVAC so as not to draw smoke into the train without disabling the PA system. Second, all Rapid Transit Operating personnel are sent to Fire Fighting training School.
Third, everyone realized that it's cost effective to keep the subway tunnels clean and avoid fires, rather than to risk injury, suspend service, bring in fire-fighters, etc. So, the police began to ticket litterers and smokers. TA began to clean the tracks more frequently, which also helped. Then, in a surprise move, the union representing the station cleaners consented to allow people enrolled in workfare to do the dirty jobs that they didn't want to do anyway, and didn't strike when the formerly homeless and unemployed were forced to scoop up the muck between the tracks on a regular basis. And, everyone lived happily ever after.
(Now that's sarcasm!)
--mhg
Whoa !!! Let's keep our facts in order. The WARP people, people supposedly guilty of minor infractions do not, REPEAT, DO NOT, do any job, within their job description, that employees now perform, at least in the Division of Car Equipment. They are primarily utilized to clean the areas surrounding TA facilities, making our neighbors happy. They also NEVER HANDLE MACHINARY NOR DO THEY EVER GO ONTO OR NEAR THE TRACKS. As far as I know, the TA has not begun utilizing WEP personnel.
Yeah, I wasn't particularly attacking anyone, just commenting on what could be done.
--mhg
Greetings all,
Just to toot the site's horn a bit-- I was just interviewed for an upcoming column in the NY Times ("NY Online" which runs in the City section on Sundays) about the web site. I don't know if it will actually run but I don't see why it wouldn't. So watch for it if you are in the city and get the City section.
-Dave
Post your Subtalk messages now! Once the word gets out, everyone will be on this site, guaranteed.
well.... the article only runs in the City Edition. It doesn't appear on the web site, so there's no links for couch pota^W^Wsurfers to click on. It will probably not increase traffic all that much.
-Dave
Dave, I hope not because I have to do a little work in between my HOT KEYing to your site.
I realy enjoy this forum ...THANKS Dave !!!!!!!
mR T__B-)
Dave:
Don't be so modest. You do a heck of a job here, and keep a lot of people very happy. Blow your own horn a little.
Blow your horn ALOT!!!!
Does anyone know where I can find LIRR Track Maps
Long Island Track Map:
http://www.lirr.org/lirr/image/lirrmap.pdf
Frank, you posted a system map, not a track map.
You'll right, the slanted 40's is a much faster train. I was on the D local going southbound, the Q pull up beside us at the Kings Highway station. We both left the train station together. Within a couple of seconds, the Q was passing us like we weren't even moving. I was very amazed to see the slanted 40's passing the 68's.
The same thing could never be accomplish against the F (46's). I believe, those are the faster trains in the system. Why do I say that? Well, does the E use the 32's? The F, passes those trains like nothing. It use to be the 38's until they slowed them down because of mechanical trouble.
WAY TO GO Q! THAT'S MY TRAIN!
They should put the Q againest 4. At the 125 Street station the 4 went up againest an R-33/36 6 train we pleft the station at the same time and the 4 blew the 6 away. I have done work and the 4 train has the fastest express service in the system. The Maximum on the Straightaway from 125 to 86 the Maximum speed is between 45 and 55. Id you go the the 110 Street station wait for a four train to pass and you will hear it scream. I would bet that the 4 would beat the Q anytime any car type.
I too have found the R-62's to be very fast, but they were really a delight in their early days.
I had always assumed that all the trains could go much faster than they do, but must go slower due to track/speed/signal restrictions.
For example, back in the early 1980s the trains seemed to go faster when you got one of the infamous "Cowboy" Motormen off peak -- with no trains ahead an no red signals. Or did they just seem fast because there was no AC, the windows were open, and the track was so bad?
If the trains are slowing down, its just a matter of time before I end up stranded on the grade up to Smith 9th. Sometimes it seems like we barely make it. I thought it was just a illusion -- the train operator intentionally going slow so as not to have to stop at a red light.
Subway tunnel illusions can play tricks on you. I remember riding the Broad Street Subway when the old Brill cars were in service. This was in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, when the cars were still running reasonably well. Anyone who rode those trains would swear that with all the noise they made you were traveling at least 50 MPH. The fact was, a motorman told me that top speed of the equipment was about 40 MPH. And that was going downhill on a long express run stretch.
All the old "traction" sounds were present with those cars. The "exhaust" of when the air brakes were released, the grind as the traction motors advanced though each point, the chuga-chuga-chuga of the air compressor, and the smell of the ozone from the electrical equipment. How "far removed" we are from the operation of our transit equipment today.
<< All the old "traction" sounds were present with those cars. The "exhaust" of when the air brakes were released, the grind as the traction motors advanced though each point, the chuga-chuga-chuga of the air compressor, and the smell of the ozone from the electrical equipment. How "far removed" we are from the operation of our transit equipment today. >>
Wow, does that bring back memories! It wasn't just on the Brill cars, either. I'll have to visit the Illinios Railway Museum to experience it again.
That's about the way it was with the good old R-1/9s. They sounded exactly the same.
Is it possible to govern the speed of a subway car, rather than reduce the amount of available power at all speeds? It seems counterproductive to reduce the amount of torque Larry needs to get up the grade at Smith-9th. Or am I just misunderstanding the whole thing?
I'd have to say that you've misjudged the whole thing. The low end speed, accelleration and torque are all the same. What has changed is that we now use 100% field shunting. This reduces the torque and speed (roughly) above 30 MPH. On GE propulsion equipment, this means we've removed the last 3 steps in the controller's progression.
Okay -- If I understand it correctly, an eight-car consist of R-46's should be able to accelerate up a given hill from a dead stop at full power. The same train *before* the modifications would have performed roughly the same on the same hill, and any performance differences would only become evident above ~30 mph.
Did I get it?
That's essentially it !!!
Steve - maybe you can straighten something out for me about
which I've heard conflicting reports. The so-called field-shunt-mod
sounds remarkably similar to the "Enercon" mods of a few years
back, which gave us those lovely "Local/Express" switches that
90% of all motormen surveyed thought controlled the Local/Express
sign....even on cars not thus equipped :)
Enercon was a mod on the group switch side that, in "Local" mode,
if I remember correctly, prevented the group from advancing into
the last two notches, which are weak field notches (positions
21 and 20 on GE SCM equipment...don't remember for WH).
Is this latest round of mods essentially a permanent Local mode,
or did transit, as someone reported to me, actually remove or
disconnect the field shunts themselves?
On the GE, it is exactly that. We simply took 2 wires off of the ECR (energy conservation relay) and spliced them together. The Westinghouse standard package was a similar change. However, On the E-Cams, we had to erase and re-burn the E-Proms.
As for it being a permanent mod - yes and no. The cars will be 'normalized' once the signal system is upgraded. Best estimates -2025.
So in other words, the trains are going extra slow, and will continue to go slow until 2025, increasing the travel time for millions of people. Sounds real, real bad.
The trains sure seem slow. With a 30 mile per hour cap and lots of express service replaced with locals (ie. due to the Manhattan Bridge), you might was well drive to Manhattan on local streets and stop at all the lights. That's if you observe the speed limit.
Thanks for that info, Steve. I've been away from the pits
for a long time. I was in Car Equip Engineering about the time
that they were getting into the latest J relay valve follies....
let's see....was it the J-14D? I remember managers proudly showing
off the new speed-vs-braking curves and explaining to them
that while, yes, that nice curve meant better passenger comfort
(they weren't "customers" yet), um, did anyone bother to re-calculate
emergency braking distances?
Rather than addressing a problem (motormen did not handle their
brakes properly, causing passenger discomfort), they kluged up
a "solution" to mask the symptoms. Same thing with signal
spacing...problem: not enough trains/hr reason: those damn
red signals solution: get rid of the red signals. This is what
happens when management mantras are allowed to subvert the
most fundamental rule of any railroad: safety first.
Btw, just to clarify something that was already mentioned by others
in this thread. These field-shunt mods do not "govern" the
speed of trains to 30 MPH. They simply lower the balancing speed.
On level tangent track, I'd say balancing is about 39 MPH on
the modified cars, vs 49MPH. I've seen modified cars reach 50
MPH in river tunnels, with proper handling of the grade timers.
Emergency rates were recalcculated 3 years ago and all cars had their "emergency variable load valves" replaced. I didn't mean to imply that the top speed was 30 MPH. What I was trying to convey was that the performance of the cars (modified vs non-modified) was approximately the same up to 30 mph. There-after, the performance of the modified cars deteriorates. As for speedd, I was recently on an R-68 which hit 54 MPH on the N line between Lexington and Queensboro Plaza. However, going up the grade the speed deteriorated to 17 MPH.
E-mail me, I'm curious if we've ever worked together.
<< What has changed is that we now use 100% field shunting. >>
What was the purpose for doing this?
IRT trains are lighter, so I guess there faster. The only comparison, is that, the #7 beats the N all the time.
Almost any line could beat the D. The D is slow, except for the N, it even slower. I like to see a challenge b/t the A and Q trains. I believe very few trains could match the speed of the A. Even the F train has a hard time beating the A train.
The A would give the Q a challenge but the race would have to start at 125 to 59 on the the Express tracks also if the Q were to win a race they would have make it a 1 car race and the body would have to be light but to race the 4 the Q would loose quickly.
LETS GO 4 YEAH!!!
The A and the 4 are very simlar trains. They both do well on the local and express tracks. They both closes it doors and leaves the station faster. They both reach tremendous speeds in the tunnel. They both operate on the local track during midnight hours. One exception, the A express skips 86th Street and has express service above 125th Street. On the other hand, the 4 skips 34th street and Canal Street and does better in lower Manhattan.
In Brooklyn, both of them are expresses.
One thing I like about the 4 over the A, is that, it comes more often. But, it primarily shares a track with the #5. The A somewhat shares its tracks with the D and C lines, and at nights with the E lines.
I don't dislike the #4 train, I love it. However, most of my childhood life, I lived by the A, B, C, D, and 1/9 lines. So I'm more familiar with them than the number 4.
Unfortunately, I now live by one of the slowest trains in the system. It is so slow that the it makes the D look like one of the fastest trains in the system. That train is the N. It is almost the complete opposite of the #7; which meets at the same platform at the Queensboro Plaza station. 1) it does not come often. 2) it has many delays. 3) it's crowded. 4) its a very slow moving train. and 5) the people are stiff and nasty.
One day, I went to my friends house. She lives on the number 7. We decided to meet at a park that was beneath the #7 elevated. As we were talking, we were constantly interrupted by the #7! train! I could not believe that the #7 was running so often on Sunday! It was running every 5 minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We don't even get train service like that during rush hours, let alone Sundays!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your luck if you can get a N train every 15 minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you referring to A trains of R-38s or R-44s? I'd give the edge to the R-38s in terms of speed. As for the 4, I take it you're referring to the R-62s, as I've seen Redbirds on the 4 as well.
Next time I'm in New York, I'll have to catch a 4 from 125th St. southbound. It's been a while since I've ridden that stretch north of 86th St.
Both the redbirds and 62's on the #4 are fast. However, only the 38's are fast, although, the 44's did get better over the years.
Anyway, if they were a race b/t the 4 and A, the #4 will have to be on the A tracks, not the other way around.
If you all don't notice, the 4 has the fastest route in the system. It is the most straightest of all the Bronx, Manhattan, and Queens lines. For instance, the A, which comes second, makes a big turn from 8th Avenue into 6th Avenue (14th Street or West 4th Street). Forget about the B, D, E, F. Regarding the 2, it has too many turns from the Bronx into 96th Street. The 5 is terrible after 138th Street (northbound). It does a double turn underneath the #4 to the 149th Street Station. It takes about three minutes to enter that same station, compare to 40 seconds on the #4. The #6 curves off the main route after 125th Street northbound. And the N and R, that comes out of 59th Street is tremendously slow due to the turns at 5th Avenue and before 57th Street. Although, the N and R does have the best route in connecting westside trains with eastside trains.
The #4 also skips the 138th Street station during rush hours in the peak direction. The #5 always stops at that station regardless of period.
Theses are the reasons why the #4 is one of the fastest trains in the system.
What on earth are you all basing your claims about fastest trains on?
It seems no one has come up with a standard definition of "Fastest"
I've seen arguments that the #4 is fastest because it has the straightest route(?!?) Are we basing this upon time from Terminal to Terminal? I could make the argument that the Grand Central Shuttle is the fastest because it reaches its two terminals in no time flat! Are we talking top speed.. in which sections of track with bad turns are irrelevant. As far as racing a #4 against an A... Come on! How can you objectively compare the two? Timing them from 125th to 14th sounds reasonable, but there are too many external factors that present themselves that may affect the outcome of the study. The fact is these are different lines. Why is everyone comparing apples and oranges?
If you want to measure "fastest" your best bet is to measure in something called "average miles per hour".
You may be surprised to find the line you thought was the "fastest" really wasn't.
I agree. I did research and found out that the that the R-62 can go top speeds of 65 miles. The R-10 55-50 there you go and that is what I put in the response. This what I ment by fastest. The race thing was just for fun. There I hope that this explains everything.
Christopher Rivera
The R10's are dead. The MTA killed them!
Chris, You bring your A train, James (see following post) will bring a 4 train and I'll bring a D train and we'll have this out, once and for all, just like real men.............
Any suggestions where we race? What will be the stakes?
And I will be at the helm of #4208, with a bright orange "Q" in its
front window! As Geo. Jones said - "The Race Is ON".
Northbound on the Brighton Line, starting at Sheepshead Bay, anyone?
Wayne
And me on my #1450 4 flying through the city at rapid speed and what about the Sea Beach Line between 59 Street and 86 Lets Get it on.
I kind of miss the sound the brakes used to make when being released.
R-38s, R40s, R42s all made the same sound. That added to the cachet of those cars, I think.
One thing I meant to post last night - R40s are way tougher than R62s.
To wit - two incidents, both involving side-impact collisions, one
involving an R40 (#4260, Aug.15,1994), the other involving R62s
(#1440 and others, Aug.28,1991). R62 example is #1440. Both cars
hit either concrete dividers or girders from the side. While both
cars were ultimately scrapped, the damage to #1440 was far worse than
that to #4260. #1440 shows that the pillar impact crushed the side
of the car almost all the way across, while #4260 suffered a nasty
gash in its exterior, with only limited penetration of the seating
area. Again, speed was probably a factor, but IMHO the R40 is as
tough as they come.
Wayne
[To wit - two incidents, both involving side-impact collisions, one
involving an R40 (#4260, Aug.15,1994), the other involving R62s
(#1440 and others, Aug.28,1991). R62 example is #1440. Both cars
hit either concrete dividers or girders from the side. While both
cars were ultimately scrapped, the damage to #1440 was far worse than
that to #4260. #1440 shows that the pillar impact crushed the side
of the car almost all the way across, while #4260 suffered a nasty
gash in its exterior, with only limited penetration of the seating
area. Again, speed was probably a factor, but IMHO the R40 is as
tough as they come.]
I know that the crash involving the R62s was the Union Square wreck, but where did the 1994 R40 crash occur?
The Aug.15, 1994 incident occurred during mid-morning in the tunnel
just west of the Ninth Avenue station. The eighth car of a southbound
"B" train split a switch, sending it sideways into the concrete track
divider. Nasty accident, with much stainless-steel damage. Fortunately, only a few dozen people suffered minor injuries and no
one was killed. This incident is also mentioned in Jason R.DeCesare's
"Subway Accidents", elsewhere in the website.
The more damage on the 4 train was caused by the driver going across the switch at 45 miles per hour but in the situation the whole train jumped the track in this case. (Second car was the first car to jump the tracks) It caused a chain reaction . The worst two accident on the IRT happened on the 4 line. This accident make the B train accident look like a little rash.
Yes, but the second car (#1439) survived! You are absolutely right
about the speed, and don't forget that alcohol was involved as well.
The "B" was traveling at about 15 or 20 MPH when the switch opened beneath the passing eighth car. (the train had a double-green, so I remember the news accounts saying) Someone in the tower threw the switch as the train passed over it one account said; another blamed the switch itself for opening. There have been other accidents like this Aug.24,1928 (IRT, Times Sq., Lo-V), July 3,1997 (IND, 135th St.,R44), Dec.1,1972 (BMT, Franklin Shuttle, R32)...no car involved
in such a crash survived.
Gross weight of the unit could also be a factor - R62 is smaller and
lighter than R40. No offense meant, R62s are neat and speedy trains,
I ride them up to Kingsbridge when I visit my brother-in-law Looie.
Wayne
R62's aren't safe to ride at top speeds, because they can fall of the tracks. So maybe, the A can beat the #4.
A advocate
I have been riding the R-62's since they first came out. and needless to say that they are the safest, fastest and the train that goes the most miles without breaking down. It is only a problem is when you add high speed with drinking then you got the problem. The 4 in one of the most important lines in the entire system it caries the most amount of people in the system it does not break down alot for effecent service and a quick trip to Manhattan.
The #4 is fast, but, not the fastest. The straphangers say the #7 is the fastest coming line in the system (every 2 minutes). I know, because when I wait for the N at the Queensboro Plaza station, the #7 come 6 times as the much as the N train. I guess, that isn't a suprise, because the R comes twice as much as the N. The D comes 3 times as much as the N. The 4 comes five times much as the N. The A comes about 3 or 4 times as much as the N. The C comes 2 or 3 times as much as the N. The B comes twice as much as the N. The Q comes twice as much as the N. The 1/9 comes 4 times as much as the N. The L comes twice as much as the N. The M comes 2 or 3 times as much as the N. The G is about even. And only the S 63rd Street Shuttle comes less often (1 S per three N's). That's slow, but, it isn't crowded.
I have been riding the R-62's since they first came out. and needless to say that they are the safest, fastest and the train that goes the most miles without breaking down. It is only a problem is when you add high speed with drinking then you got the problem. The 4 in one of the most important lines in the entire system it caries the most amount of people in the system it does not break down alot for effecent service and a quick trip to Manhattan. Si the 4 would beat the A when it comes to service and trip times and breakdown rates and everything else!
I can't see the #4 beating the A express. The #4 doesn't bust into the station like the A. Also, there's a maximum speed that a 62 can go before it falls off the tracks. On the other hand, the A is much heavy than the #4 and can achieve greater speeds before falling of the tracks. I'll like to see the #4 go from Howard Beach to Broad Channel without falling of the tracks. The A goes a maximum speed of 65 miles and hour there!
The 4 can go 65 miles per hour and not fall off the track so there ha!!
i think the four is alot faster then the A. the A just pokes along the tracks so the A is probably less prone to accidents.
You never rode the A!
R 62s have proven to have poor crashwortiness just look at damage
incorporated member Robert Ray VS Anthony DeRosa our newer member.
Damage inc. is an organization founded 11/1/17 by Robert Luciano
we now boast famous motermen such as the above and the late Layton Gibson
and Jesse Cole
Edward Luciano was operating the ill-fated el train in the Malbone St. wreck on 11/1/18. He was a dispatcher pressed into service as a result of a wildcat strike.
He is now the founding father of our fraternal organization known as DAMAGE INCOPORATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. DeRosa's #4918 has been repaired (thanks in part to #4726's nose)
and may be back in service. #4259 is either scrapped or awaiting
repair. Damage didn't look THAT bad (i.e.could be repaired with
a donor nose, perhaps from #4260).
Wayne
Also for your info Layton Gibsons car will also be repaired I saw it back in April in Coney Island Overhaul Shop
Yes, so I have heard. Unfortunately, #4664 was not so fortunate.
#4460 and #4665 are currently in tandem on Eastern Division lines
(J,M,Z,L), last seen on the "J".
Wayne
The number 4 train has never gone 65 mph not at least any 4 train that I have operated. Also with the Field shunt modification presently in place in the entire fleet you are lucky if you can do the posted speed limit in some areas. The present fleet can only go in the high 30's on level track, entering 59th Lex northbound trk 3 you might get 48 if your lucky. Before this modification our member Robert Ray was estimated to be going at 50 mph over a 10mph Diamond crossover at Union Square.
Thanks Damage, Inc.
A train Advocate!
How about the BMT standards? Talk about crashworthy - they were next to bulletproof. I'll bet the Triplex units were just as tough.
I wouldn't want to envision any postwar car getting rear-ended by
the likes of a BMT standard. Nowhere in my archives can I remember any
one having a serious accident, either (Ditto D-types).
Also R-1/4/6/7/9 is also pretty tuff stuff although I heard that
#1575 took a tumble somewhere before she became a Neo-R10 AND
back on July 17, 1970, #986 had her face messed up when she tried to
get cutesy-poo with R10 #3062. You could see the fan dangling down
from the crumpled ceiling. The R10 took it in stride. I have both
their dogtags (#986's is brass, #3062's is a different material)
Wayne
And I'll bring down IRT Hi-V Gibbs Car #3352.
Tee hee hee.
Now THAT would be a race to see!
Now, THAT would be a sight! Does 3352 still have its third rail shoes? Have the shoreline folks bring down 3662 and run them together. They're the only two Hi-Vs around anywhere. Maybe there's a way to soup up a Hi-V. Will there be an admission charge? Who will be the announcer (And they're off!)? How about odds?
<>
So how far would you go?? and are you making stops to test acceleration, braking, etc.?? or is this flat out speed??
My vote might be southbound on the Brighton Line. DEFINITELY starting at Newkirk(acceleration testing up the hill from a dead stop anyone??), possibly as far back as Church Ave(imagine the picture of all cars involved coming around the corner between Beverly and Cortyelou Rd).
I agree my 4 aginest the Chris J Bronson's A that would be the best thing to see and do my car will be sure to win the BMT/IND bodies are to heavy to compare with the light cars on the IRT no contest.
I hope your IRT's don't fall of the track, James!
hahahahahaha you are not funny when will re race and I will win
The #4 can't technically race the A. As for Steve's challenge, the D will be a poor choice. The Q or F might do much better against the A express.
No totally true the 4 can enter the Concourse yard and go on the D line to 125 Street. If I can't use the 4 I know one lines cars to use to C lines R-32 they are fast when you got a good driver and the stretch between the Rockaways (1990) the C can fly when the it looked it was going 45-50 see ya
Christopher Rivera
38's are a faster addition of the 32's. The A uses these cars!
I don't think the MTA is going to send the 4 into IND trackage. That will be against the law. If they did, passengers would be sway from using it, because of it's narrow body. However, I did see a #7 using the N train trackage, and they were people on it.
The race b/t the A and 4 will have to be base on how much time it takes to get to a certain part of town. For instance, maybe 125th Street to 14th Street my be good. Because of the fact the A passes 86th Street, and the #4 passes 34th Street(33rd Street).
As for the D "express" just ride it b/t 125th Street and 59th Street. There's a big difference in speed. The D almost always slows down between 96th Street, 103rd Street, and `110th Street, and around the turn before 125th Street(sometime as ealier as 86th Street). On the other hand, the A does not.
Another problem about the D "express", is that, it was the only train that switch from the main route (it still is). Now, the B has join the fray.
The B should have been the express train along Central Park West. Did you ever ride the B along fourth avenue in Brooklyn, James? Well if you haven't, you missed a great experience. The B will ripe you apart (the N uses that same route and it crawls).
When it move to the terminal Bedford Park where I live it gave another train to go to Brooklyn with so we took the B to Coney Island then when we hit the Brooklyn Express part boy was the train screaming it was cool. Now about the D in Manhattan the D train comes every 5
minutes. In the 80 when the had the R-30 the D was one of the fastest trains there to Coney Island. The screamed when coming around the 125 Street Curve but once it got its R-68s sad to say and they would allow a four train to enter IND tracks if somthing had to go to the Coney Island Complex for a repair or Checkup. The 4 would be the A dont try to avoid it just say it is.
Christopher Rivera
Aren't the Stop Cocks for the tippers on different sides betweene the A and 4?
Wouldn't a protect "car" from MOW (they have trips on both sides??) have to be put on front of the #4 so it could race the A??
I guess that you are right unless they build a special type of IRT R-62 like the cars on the 7 line. Thanks for the reminder!!
Christopher Rivera
When the slant R-40s ran on the B, they would roar down 4th Ave. I don't know about the R68s. Presumably, they're slower.
Hey don't have your fav train on the local track. Just south of Kings Highway is a station timer that is longer than the timer on the express track. (15MPH vs 20Mph)....
I'll take a full ten-car consist out there, a United Nations of Slant
R40s: 4208-4209, 4246-4247 (representing the "Q"), 4178-4179 (representing the "N")and 4412-4413 and 4436-4437 representing the "L"). Maybe it WOULD be a better test of strength to run uphill
rather than downhill. Each would be a timed heat, two trains at
a time, down the express tracks, with the northbound tracks reverse-
signalled (if possible). Local tracks aren't a good idea, because
they swing out at the express stops, and you have to slow down some.
Best trains in each heat then go head-to-head to determine the winner.
So far: Christopher Rivera: R62: 1450,1449,1448,1447,1446,1431,1432,
1433,1434,1438
Chris Brunson: (train to be determined, probably R38s)
Myself (as above)
Todd Glickman (IRT Hi-and-Lo-V mix, 3381 in the lead)
Any other takers?
Out of all the trains, I like the 38's the best. They have an ability to accelerate faster than the other models. They also are known to bust into the station. They use to be better until the TA started to copple them with the 32's. Now there slower.
Wayne, you speak of the L often? Do you live on the L line? If you do, isn't the ride to Manhattan slow. For many years, the L was one of the slowest trains in the system. Is that still true?
I don't live there, but I have studied it. Yes, it is a Slow Boat to
Canarsie, after all, it has twenty-four stations. My primary
attractions to the "L" line are:
a) the diversity of the rights-of-way (grade level, elevated and subway)
b) the many types of station architecture on the above-ground portion (Dual Contract [A.A.], contract 3 [Bway Jct], similar to the #7 line, original BRT [Sutter,Livonia,New Lots], 80s rebuild [105th,Rock.Pky], half-and-half [Wilson - a real oddball]),
c) its winding route, with so many curves,
d) above all else, the sheer beauty of the tilework in the underground portion.
I received today a little background info about the designer, Squire J.Vickers, and it was very interesting reading. The patience it must have taken to build all of that - I am estimating over 50 million bits of tile. Amazing.
The "L" line, albeit slow, is a microcosm of everything that is
attractive about the NYC Subway. Aesthetics are very important.
Wayne
I rode the L regularly for 3 years, beginning with BMT standards and ending with the R-7/9s with a few new R-42s mixed in. It didn't seem all that slow back then; heck, even the standards could really move through the river tunnel - downgrade, anyway. Uphill was another story. You could hear the pitch from the whining motors slowly decrease as they labored to make the grade, especially when heading toward Bedford Ave. Heading the other way, the change in tunnel acoustics east of First Ave. was interesting where you went from shield bore to cut-and cover.
For the seconf race, from Bedford to Myrtle, I'd like the Multi's, if we can rebuild a set. .
Now that's a tall order! Let's find the blueprints and set a team
of Dwarves to work on it. It'll probably take them about a month
to do it.
Wayne :-)
I read that the multisectionals had braking problems in that sometimes they just plain wouldn't stop! Don't forget to take that into account. It's still too bad that none of them were preserved.
It would be interesting to see how fast the multis could traverse the Canarsie line from terminal to terminal, seeing as how they could negotiate sharp curves in nothing flat. They didn't have "Hold on" signs for nothing!
I read that story about the run up Myrtle to Wyckoff, also. Never experienced the problem on more than 10 years on the Canarsie;
or was that how their "Express Service" started?
That particular multi train, I believe, was running on the #10 Myrtle-Chambers route. It lost its brakes while still on the Broadway portion, took the Myrtle Ave. turnoff, and raced up Myrtle Ave. before finally coming to a stop at Wyckoff. They had to tell a Myrtle-Jay el train to keep going because of that "runaway multi".
Everbody knows the D is a very slow train. It alway has been. One big problem about the D is that it stops in the tunnel. Not even the N stops in the tunnel, it just doesn't come. Therefore, you can't compete with a line that just doesn't show up.
The D is beat, because as the A is passing it, it will stop in the tunnel. As for the A and #4, I think the A might have some competition!
One day, I was on the A express going towards 125th Street from 59th Street on the local track (by passing stations). The D was on the express track going in the same direction. Both of them left the 59th Street station at the same time. Guess who won?! The A! By the time we got to 81st Street, the D slowed down. We not only got to 125 Street before the D, but we waited 5 minutes. No D was in site! Til this day, I never found out what happened.
Another day, it was the Far Rockaway A against the Lefferts Blvd A. The Far Rockaway A was on the Express tracks, the Lefferts Blvd A was on the Local tracks. Guess who won? Both of them did!
At 42nd Street is where I boarded the train. The A to Far Rockaway was attempting to close it doors on the Lefferts Blvd A. The Lefferts Blvd A attempting to do the same. Finally, both of them managed to leave the 42nd Street station. I guess passenger were confused, because you had an express on the local track going to Lefferts Blvd. Then, we got to 34th Street. The conductor stated that this train was not going to stop at the 23rd Street station. Wait for the E. The A to Far Rockaway was on the other side of the platform. Both of us manage to leave the station together.
The A to Lefferts Blvd, gain a slight lead over the A to Far Rockaway, as we were heading towards the 23rd Street station. Unfortuately, as we were passing the 23rd Street station, the motorman slowed the train slightly to warn E passengers to stand away from the fast moving train. As this was happening, the A to Far Rockaway was passing Us, but not to the degree that it would've pass a train park at a station. I guess the motorman of the A to Lefferts Blvd realize this and being speeding the train up soon after the 23rd Street Station.
Then we got to the 14th Street Station; both trains arrived almost at the same time. The 14th Street station was impressive. The A to Far Rockaway conductor was calling "A express to Far Rockaway, A local against the wall". This was wrong information, because we pass the 23rd station together! Than, the A to Lefferts replied. "A express to Lefferts Blvd" "A express to Lefferts Blvd". I believe, but not sure, about the A to Far Rockaway conductor got so mad about that announcement, he attempted to close the doors on the A to Lefferts Blvd. The A to Lefferts reacted, and also attempted to close his doors as well. As both of them were screening A express, A express A express, stand clear the closing doors. Finally, they left the station together.
Going at full speed, both A trains were traveling at exact speeds. Both of us also busted in the West 4th Street station. When the train opened up (Lefferts Blvd), one lady reply, "they must be almost at their break". Same as what happened at the 14th Street station occured. Far Rockaway A conductor: A express to Far Rockaway, A local against the wall. In a very angry voice, the Lefferts Blvd A conductor reply: A express to Lefferts Blvd, A express to Far Rockaway on center track, A express to Lefferts Blvd. Again, the A to Far Rockaway was attempting to leave us at the West 4th Street Station. The A to Lefferts notice this, and started to close his doors as well. This time, we were able to close our doors faster and leave the station, leaving the A to Far Rockaway behind.
If you travel on the local tracks after W. 4th Street, you know that the trains goes slower to connect with the F below. We were going twice the speed as what the C and E trains would go. Furthermore, we managed to get a glimpse of the F train, of which we went through like a bullet. Unfortunately, we still had to deal with that A express to Far Rockaway train which was above us.
As we quickly pass the F train, we climbed back up towards the spring street station. The A express to Far Rockaway was right beside us. It was passing us with great speeds. But we managed to tire in after the Spring Street station with matching speeds.
Then we arrived at the Canal Street station. Again, the A to Far Rockaway conductor replied, "A train to Far Rockaway", "A train to Far Rockaway", "A train to Far Rockaway", "Leffert Blvd against the wall". The Lefferts Blvd A conductor replied, "A express to Leffert Blvd on Local track", "A express to Lefferts Blvd on Local track", "A to Far Rockaway on Center track". As we were hearing this, one passenger respond, "what's wrong with these people"?
Than, both the A to Far Rockaway and Lefferts Blvd A closed it's doors. Both of the trains were about to leave the station at the same time. Somehow, both of them were instructed by the tower to open their doors. Nobody won, however, the A to Far Rockaway was able to leave that station first. Before the A to Far Rockaway conductor closed his doors, he told his passengers in a very jokely way, "we are leaving first".
Too Funny!
I don't think I can top that story, but just after express service reopened on the Brighton line(on R68 Q's though), I was in NY visiting family. I was coming home from Manhattan and had to change at Dekalb for a D train(I think it was a Fri night). A set of R32's came in(an N)... for some reason there was a problem at Pacific St, so N trains were being sent EXPRESS to CI via the Brighton line(it pays to listen to the garbled station announcements). It had been at LEAST 10 years since I had ridden on the Brighton express tracks(I was going to 7th Ave anyway) and this opportunity was too good to pass up(good front window viewing)! When we pulled into Church Ave, an R68 D pulled in across the way, and our conductor announced that we would be "held up" for traffic on the way, and so to get to "your destination faster" change for the D. He pulled out, we left shortly after....we arrived at Newkirk simulatneously with the D. I heard the conductor say "change for the N-express to Brighton Beach across the platform"(sound wierd??). Again he left first, again we passed him, and when he got to Kings Highway, I heard the same announcement "change for the SAME N-express across the platform
to Brighton Beach." We had a red signal for a few minutes..by then I was the only person left in the front car. The motorman opened up the cab and looked at me in disbelief as to why I was still on his train, and hadn't transfered yet. As I explained that after so many years, I FINALLY got a Brighton express ride and could SEE out the front window, I was staying on board!!! He asked where I was going, I said 7th Avenue...he laughed, shook his head in disbelief, and closed the door. My parents didn't understand why I was late..but once I explained it...they understood.
I'm not surprise! What the A does to the D, the D does to the N.
I'm not surprise! What the A does to the D, the D does to the N. The only time the D is fast, is when it up against a BMT train.
Given the Manhattan Bridge backup and the speed reduction, I wonder if a can can beat the Brighton Express. Lets say I dropped you off in Brighton Beach and rode up Ocean Avenue -- no highways -- Flatbush Avenue, Manhattan Bridge, Canal St, and 6th Avenue at rush hour. Who'd get to Rockefeller Center first?
You gotta love those R-32s for the front view. I rode a Q of those babies last fall over its entire route, from Brighton Beach to 21st. Even took a couple of pictures out of Sheepshead Bay with the Empire State Building looming dead ahead in the distance.
Now, if they could only bring back those blue doors...
As a once former and longtime IND "A" train rider (who now is a regular customer of the IND Queens Blvd. "E" and "R" lines since just this past July 1998), I can safely say that story can be easily believed because I had similar occurances like that even as far back when the R-10's really rule the "A" line during its heyday. I guess as time goes on with the current assigned equipment of R-38's and R-44's, things never do change at all!
Even with all its pluses and minuses (and all of the real fun times and unique happenings) since I have personally known this route throughout my lifetime (I will be turning 40 years old this upcomng Friday, October 16), the IND "A" Washington Heights-8th Avenue line will always be my all-time favorite subway route.
Thank you for the really fun story I had enjoyed reading.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
Why did they discontinued the R10? Was that old green C line an R10? If not, why did they keep it so long?
The R-10's were already scheduled for replacement by the arrival of the R-68 and R-68A fleet. At the time of their retirement, the last remaining 110 cars (which repainted green and were all last assigned to the IND "C" line) had been in passenger service for an amazing forty years!!
Alas, the average life span for a typical NYC subway car is usually in the 35-40 year range. The R-10's eventually would have been retired and replaced at the end of their useful and economical life, plus their reliability for dependenable service was starting to decline anyway despite their mid-1980's overhaul.
For further details on some R-10 facts in general, see the R-10 illustrated section of this web page at:
http://www.nycsubway.org/cars/r10.html
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
Why did they dump the red C trains?
According to MTA NYC Transit, they claim that the R-30's were starting to show a very highly poor reliable service, which meant this fleet of cars, which in IMHO were retired too prematurely by at least several years, were claimed to have attained a very lousy MDBF (Mean Distance Between Failures). Much of their demise with some other reasons given by them is explained (but in their own words and logic) by its author Gene Sansome in the MTA Transit Museum Press' book "Evolution of the New York City Subways". It would made a great sense to at least retain these 162 GOH cars (#8250-8411) in revenue service to this day in light of today's increased customer needs based upon the issuance of the Metrocard discounts. The R-30 GOH program would have prolong the cars' useful and economical life just until the year 2001.
Finally, why were the R-10's able to have such a very long, remarkable life span of four amazing decades (forty years)? As the Russian-born NYCTA-employed engineering architect, who designed the R-10 GOH program in 1984 (for rehabilitating 110 Westinghouse cars for a planned additional service of up to five years) within a three-week period at a total cost of $7 million, once remarked that the fleet itself were constructed with very solid car bodies (which is why they were selected as ideal cars for the rebuilding project). Even author Gene Sansome had indeed written in his book that, including aside from even its weak points, the R-10's were indeed remembered from their historical durability as that resembling "German Panzer Tanks" (those are his words, not personally mine though).
On a personal level, the R-10's were the most influential fleet of transit vehicles of any type in my entire life, and they were the real reason I became a true lifelong urban mass transit buff. To me, they were always "real trains", and that's why the R-10's are my all-time favorite NYC Transit subway cars.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
I was really mad when they discontinued the R30's (Red C)! They really improved the speeds on these trains. At times they were loud. But, not as nearly as loud as the R'10 (Green C). They really should have kept them longer.
How old were the R30? How old were the R10. Thank you for your help, Mr. Williams
The R-10's were built by American Car and Foundry Co., Inc. at their Berwick, Pennsylvania plant in 1948-49. They were all retired by the fall of 1989.
The R-30's were built by St. Louis Car Co., Inc. at their plant in the state of Missourt in 1961-62. They were withdrawn from passenger service in June 1993.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
The R'10 are much older, however, they were around longer. Strange. I really thought the R30's were in much better condition and should've gotten another 30 years.
Hey - happy birthday! Tell me something: how many times did you ride an A train of R-1/9s? I got lucky only a handful of times, and never rode one on the express dash up Central Park West ( I did ride a few prewar D trains on that stretch).
I have a set of bulkhead route and destination signs, as well as a complete side sign box, all with IND roller curtains, all of which are currently set for the A. Occasionally, I'll set the signs in the box for the D or F or maybe the AA, but sooner or later the A takes precedence.
During the 1960's, I was able to ride some of the R-1, R-4 and R-6 cars on the IND "A" line in regular passenger service several times (mostly there were during the weekday peak rush hour), but there were quite rare during that period as the R-10's was really providing the bulk of service on the route back then. Just like as they were operating on the IND "D" line via the Central Park West express track (before and after the Chrystie Street connection opening in 1967), they were really quite fast too as well!!!
Sincerely,
William A. Padro
I wasn't around in the 1960's. Why did they discontinued those models? Anything is better than the R10 which made the loudest noises, the conductor had to open the doors from the outside, and the fans in the train.
If you are referring to the subsequent models that were built after the R-10 contract (such as the IND-BMT R-16/27/30's and IRT R-17/21/22's) which were retired too quickly and prematurely, then you have to question the wisdom and logic of the management and car equipment department of MTA NYC Transit (which did own and maintain all of those cars).
Even though sometimes you may think as to why the R-10's outlast these subsequent cars with their indeed improved design and passenger comfort, it should be noted that there were other older cars that had a much longer life span than the R-10's too. The examples in this list would include the BMT wooden Q-type el cars (66 years), the BMT AB Standards (55 years), the BMT D-type Triplexes (40 years) and the IND R-1/9's (roughly averaging 35 years plus).
As to why these newer models from the 1950's and 1960's were retire so quickly would be a subject to real and open debate here. I am sure that one of these message post-ers will give their own individual and thought provoking obserativions as to why it was such the case (which they could give a much better response or answer than myself). For now, I will not participate here because I do not wish to second guess and evaulate any of MTA NYC Transit's decisions and reasons (including which types of trains and buses they still choose to operate and/or retire) on this matter. But in other words, it's their call.
Yes, MTA NYC Transit did retire (or "kill" in your words) the R-10's after a very long and remarkable service life, but it was to have had to happen and expected one day anyway. They may be all gone (except cars #3184 and #3189) from the New York Subway, but when they had their last memorable farewell fantrip on Sunday, October 29, 1989, the R-10's really went out a very high and positive note. It is a pity that the other types of subsequent model cars were really force into retirement in a less than ideal manner.
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
The R-1/9s also had exterior door controls, utilizing the same trigger boxes as on the R-10s. They also had ceiling fans in the clerestory - five per car. The R-10s were an improvement in many ways: four motors per car vs two; propulsion and braking were of a new design; quieter running gear thanks to the use of helical-cut bull and pinion gears. All prewar equipment had spur-cut bull and pinion gears which caused the moaning, groaning, and whining as the train gathered speed.
The only real negative aspect of the R-10s was little, if any, soundproofing. Those cars did tend to be noisy. Today's cars are much quieter due to better soundproofing as well as routine maintenance.
The R-1/9s were solid, rugged, well-built cars. On the average, they lasted 37-38 years. Their time had come, plain and simple. As a whole, the prewar cars served longer than their postwar counterparts; the record for subway, not el, equipment is 54 years by a handful of Gibbs Hi-Vs. I'm willing to bet the R-32s may break that mark; they're approaching 34 years and are still rolling along.
It's hard to say if some equipment was retired prematurely. Certainly, the deferred maintenance of the late 70s didn't help matters, and chances are that some cars (the R-16s?) wore out faster because of this.
Hello William
Here is my compleat list of R-1/4/6/7 (no 9s) seen on the "A",
each and every one from 1969, 1970 or 1971.
1131, 395, 1345, 1405, 1359, 1097, 591, 379, 801, 500, 1081, 1040,
1162, 1002, 423, 442, 848, 827, 883, 522, 1240, 915, 1384, 918,
982, 1399, 1163, 948, 1178, 1141, 1003, 959, 1038, 1139, 1098,
1357, 1403, 1312, 1427, 1343, 1260, 1424, 1354, 1224, 1406, 1398,
1278, 1211, 1181, 952, 1058, 1432, 767, 830, 1377, 1205, 1266, 1448.
and: 2470, 2424, 2418, 2569, 2687 and 2533: must these be BMT standards??? They said "Far Rockaway" in the side window but did not say "A" (they couldn't have!) and were seen in Jay Street Station
on April 11, 1969.
Wayne
I saw all of the above cars too at Naporanos iron and metals in Newark's sunny Ironbbound" section. I also saw 6497 there too.
What is your obsession with those garbage R-16s anyway?
Not quite an obsession, just a fond memory.
If you want to talk obsession, then it would be Slant R40s.
Every good car has to bite the dust someday....
By the way, wasn't there a motorman named Berry who crashed his
R-6 #986 into the back of R-10 #3062 on July 17, 1970. I will dig
out my clippings and get back to you on this one. Accident happened
in the citybound tunnel on the curve out of Hoyt/Schermerhorn.
Mr. Berry qualifies, I am sure. That R-6 (and tough cars they were)
got its face all messed up - right back to the first door.
Wayne
If you like R16s then go to the Trolley Museum of New York in Kingston to see car # 6398 or look for the picture on their website.During Saturdays there are two losers working on the car the T.A. duped them into buying that hunk of junk. Aloso Mr. Berry will be inducted into our Hall of Shame. Thank You
I was just given a few pictures of the 6398 at TMNY (by one of the "losers" you write of-- please, lets be civil here, those people are performing a service to our "community" by restoring that car). They are on the Museum Roster page.
-Dave
(Gee I hate this kind of talk -- it's not my nature...)
I'm betting a bit hot under the collar about nastness/arrogance of one "Damage Inc".
Enough nasty hostile arrogant remarks, please. And why not use a real gentleman's name (even if an alias is chosen) rather than a vandalistic style moniker.
This is not "that kind of board..."
I don't have to go that far at all, really. #6387's at the NYCT
Museum. Yes, the R16s had their share of electrical and door problems, for sure, but they were part of my "formative years", that
is why I have a fondness for them.
R6 vs. R10 (7/17/70)- Motorman's name was Clarence Berry. He was
badly hurt in the accident (cab was mashed). Photo shows two policemen
standing under a dangling fan in what was the front end of #986.
Later that year during one of my visits to the 207 Street Yard (my father worked there), we saw #986 out in the yard along with #912, which they had half renumbered as #986! They were taking stuff out of the damaged car and putting them into the undamaged one. #3062 was there too. Her end was kinda messed up but was intact. We went inside. Only the glass in the cab window was broken. One fan pole got knocked down and was lying on the floor and the end seat was knocked out. Cab enclosure was buckled. The crown of the roof was dented and the sign box was askew. One of the men took the curtain sign down for us. We got both their dog tags (I have em both), with the foreman's blessing. He even had someone clean them off for us on the wire brush wheel. You can still see little flecks of blue paint on #3062's tag. #986's tag is solid brass. Awfully nice people at 207th Street yard.
Memories...
Thanks again,
Wayne
Ah, yes. That was about the time they started repainting rolling stock in silver and blue, just before the major graffiti epidemic hit the system. It was also when I started going out to Shea Stadium once a year or so to see the Mets. Saw Tom Seaver strike out 13 Padres once; Cleon Jones hit a home run to win that game.
Does anyone have any hard facts on just how many R-7/9s were repainted silver and blue? I never rode one with that scheme, and I know there weren't too many which did get repainted. Most of the R-1/9s NEVER had their exteriors repainted.
No hard numbers on the total of painted units, would have to guess
less than 10% of the total, and ONLY on Eastern Division cars.
However, I rode on a few of them (#1709 sticks in my memory)
on the "LL" and "QJ" during '71-'73. The interior walls were painted
a very light green up to the tops of the windows. The interior
ceiling was repainted white. I think battleship grey paint under
the seats. Doors were green too. The cab exterior was light green then
white at the top. The unit numbers were stenciled in yellow paint
(using Roman-style numerals) on the white portion of the cab exterior.
They seemed to have brighter bulbs in them. They looked funny next
to their scruffy cousins.
Wayne
Roman-style? You mean there was a car # MDCCIX ? :-)
-Dave
Not quite - just the typeface. They still sell stencils in that
font. Hmmm... MDLXXV, MDCCCI, thats a good one!
Dont forget: MMMMCDXXIV (what was the R.N.for 5,000?)
Vayne (no Ws in Rome)
Those numbers certainly do suggest BMT standards, and, of course, the standards could run on IND rails, but I've never heard of the standards running on the A line unless there was a fan trip of some sort on that date. The final standards were retired in August of 1969.
And let's not forget: the Miracle Mets won it all on October 16! I remember that date very well.
Great story!!
Too bad the operator followed the rules and slowed while bypassing the station...
We were in the mist of rush hours when this occur.
Wow! I'm surprised those conductors didn't get into a fist fight at one of the stations along the way. A couple of questions:
1. Did the scenario repeat itself along Fulton St; i. e., was one train on the express track and the other on the local track as had been the case in Manhattan?
2 . What equipment are we dealing with here? Were both trains made up of R-38s or R-44s, or was there one of each?
I guess you had to be there.
Chris, You bring your A train, James (see following post) will bring a 4 train and I'll bring a D train and we'll have this out, once and for all, just like real men.............
Any suggestions where we race? What will be the stakes?
If you thought the A moves now, it used to be even faster when the R-10s ruled the line. At 81st St.-CPW, it was like being on a runaway train and nothing could stop it.
Why did they discontinue it?
Cubic has hooked up with Ramtron Intl Corp of Colorado Springs & come up with a new/improved chip:
"The ... new smart fare cards, (chip) incorporating Ramtron's enabling nonvolatile ferroelectic memory ... for use in Washington. D.C.'s soon-to-be-launched SmarTrip mass transit smart card." "... Cubic to produce several hundred thousand units ... by year end." "The Washington, D.C. system will be the first installation of Cubic's smart card technology. Other cities where Cubic's fare collection system are ... New York, Chicago, London, Sydney, Hong Kong & Guangzhou, China."
NOT mentioned in this announcement were: Houston, Miami, San Fran, NJ Transit, Spokane, Singapore or Toronto ... maybe the writer didn't know ?
Disclaimer: I don't work for the TA or Cubic.
Mr t__:^)
Seimans (sp?) from Germany has a working smart card being tested by the military for issue of weapons (in/out Gun/Ammo). They also want to put the base P/X account on it but imagine if the wife took it to the P/X and then the went to get a gun out?
Lou, "Smart Card" is not a Cubic thing, they're all over the place, e.g. they're still testing one on the Upper West Side (Citi bank & VISA I think). e.g. our TMC (GMC) bus has a Smart card for one of the components.
Mr t__:^)
Dear Sir/ Madam:
I copied a NYC Subway Map from 1961. I just need to know all the
markers for the BMT Subway Lines on the trains. (Ex: QT for Brighton
Local via tunnel, QB for Brighton Express-Local via bridge, etc.)
This way I can finish my 1961 NYC Subway Map.
Can you give me a list of all the schedules of all the IRT, IND
and BMT Subway trains, with all the markers for the 1964 World's Fair
Map? This way I can copy a 1964 World's Fair Map, like I did to the
1961 Subway Map.
James Li
I went back into my "archives" for the 1961 and 1964 maps.
(I have only one of each of these, so please, no one ask if
I have any extras).
1961
There were no route indicators listed on the 1961 map (except
for the IND lines). I decided to look in "A History of the
New York City Subway System - Rapid Transit in Brooklyn"
by Joseph Cunningham & Leonard DeHart. [This book is out of
print and according to Joe, no immediate plans for a new issue.]
In it he lists the new letter designations initiated in
preparation for the eventual merger of BMT & IND services.
The number in parenthesis is the original BMT number which
more than likely was shown on the cars for a few years
after 1961 until the TA got around to changing all the roll
signs. Also much of the BMT equipment (particularly the
Standards which were still rolling into the mid 1960's) did
not have front route or destination signs). I would
imagine that many of the letter designations were never
really used anyway (but the names were).
J - Nassau St Express (15 - Jamaica Express)
JJ - Nassau Street Local (15 - Jamaica Local)
KK - Nassau Street Local (14 - Broadway-Brooklyn Local)
L - 14th St Express (16 - 14th Street Express)
[Note: The 1961 map did not have a 14th St Express]
LL - 14th St Local (16 - 14th St Local)
M - Nassau Street Express (10 - Myrtle Ave Express)
N - Broadway Sea Beach Express
(4 - Sea Beach Express via Bridge)
Q - Broadway Brighton Express
(1 - Brighton Express via Bridge)
QB - Broadway Brighton Local via Bridge
(1 - Brighton Local via Bridge)
QT - Broadway Brighton Local via Tunnel
(Brighton Local via Tunnel)
RR - Broadway-4th Ave Local
(2 - 4th Ave Local via Tunnel)
T - Broadway West End Express
(3 - West End Express via Bridge)
TT - West End Local (3 - West End Local via Tunnel)
There is no mention in the book of:
Myrtle Ave Local (11 - Myrtle Avenue Line)
Franklin Shuttle (7 - Franklin Avenue)
Culver Shuttle (5 - Culver Line)
The 1964 map did not have room for any line information.
IRT Lines (I am doing these from memory)
1 - Broadway Local
2 - 7 Avenue Bronx Express
3 - 7 Avenue-Lenox Express
4 - Lexington-Jerome Express
5 - Lexington Avenue Express
6 - Lexington Avenue Local/Pelham Local
6 - Lexington Avenue Local/Pelham Express
7 - Flushing Local/Express
Bowling Green Shuttle
42 St Shuttle
Third Avenue Local
BMT Lines - I was not much of a BMT rider but I guess that
the routes were about the same (there were the same on the
1967 map but only the Q, QB, QT, N, T, & TT lines were
actually shown on the 1967 map - all other BMT lines were
shown by name).
IND lines (again from memory and Joe Cunningham's book)
A - 8 Avenue Express
AA - 8 Avenue Local
BB - 6 Avenue Local
CC - 8 Avenue Local
D - 6 Avenue-Houston Express
E - 8 Avenue Express
F - 6 Avenue Express
GG - Crosstown Local
Rockaway Shuttle (this did not become HH until 1962)
I hope this helps (guys - don't hesitate to correct me if
you have better information).
The only cars on the BMT to have their roll signs changed from numbers to letters were the R-16s. After the Chrystie St. connection opened, they received color-coded letter curtains in the front destination slot, as well as the side route openings, and kept these until they were retired from service. The TA didn't bother with the Triplex units, since they were slated to be retired anyway.
The R-27s and R-30s ushered in the BMT letter code, as they arrived with letter signs from the factory. They kept the old BMT titles, though, and their front route signs said Q/Broadway-Brighton; RR/B'way-4th Ave, etc. The R-32s abandoned that practice. Their front signs said N/Broadway, Q/Broadway, RR/Broadway, M/Nassau St. The only exceptions were T/West End and TT/West End.
The D types had numbers too. They were 1-7 except 6 (5th Ave el). The D types were too heavy for use on the els and Eastern lines.
The multies also carried numbers too. I've seen photos with #16 at least.
You're right about the Multisections carrying numbers on the ends. In addition to '16' for '14th Street-Canarsie' (and presumably for the 14th Street Short Line, though I never saw anything but Standards on that service), they carried a '13' when in 14th Street-Fulton express service. And toward the end of their lives, they carried a '10' in Myrtle-Chambers service.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
I'm sure the Triplex units could have run on the Eastern Division subway routes, considering that BMT standards were used there. There are photos of fantrips on the Broadway-Brooklyn line using Triplex units. They certainly wouldn't have had any trouble negotiating the tight curves on the Canarsie line, since they were articulating units.
The Triplex units were by far the heaviest cars ever built for New York subway service; one unit typically weighed 210,000-215,000 pounds compared to 190,000-198,000 pounds for two Standards, which would have been the equivalent of one Triplex.
The D types had numbers too. They were 1-7 except 6 (5th Ave el). The D types were too heavy for use on the els and Eastern lines.
The multies also carried numbers too. I've seen photos with #16 at least.
You're right about the Multisections carrying numbers on the ends. In addition to '16' for '14th Street-Canarsie' (and presumably for the 14th Street Short Line, though I never saw anything but Standards on that service), they carried a '13' when in 14th Street-Fulton express service. And toward the end of their lives, they carried a '10' in Myrtle-Chambers service.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
I'm sure the Triplex units could have run on the Eastern Division subway routes, considering that BMT standards were used there. There are photos of fantrips on the Broadway-Brooklyn line using Triplex units. They certainly wouldn't have had any trouble negotiating the tight curves on the Canarsie line, since they were articulating units.
The Triplex units were by far the heaviest cars ever built for New York subway service; one unit typically weighed 210,000-215,000 pounds compared to 190,000-198,000 pounds for two Standards, which would have been the equivalent of one Triplex.
There is a beautiful photo of an R27/30 in the illustrated car rosters
section which shows the train in unusual "KK" service. Right underneath the "KK", it says "NASSAU ST". It also looks to be in
the original typeface.
Any clues, folks?
Wayne
You're right; it does say 'Nassau Street.' I was trying to remember what was on the original sign curtains when those cars were delivered and I would wait until I was alone in a car to see what was on the rest of the signs--but I can't remember, so I'll speculate:
Perhaps 'KK' was supposed to be the replacement for '14,' which would parallel the rest of the TA's practice of eliminating Brooklyn names in route designations.
Or, since an early 1950s plan was to combine the 'BB' from Washington Heights with the '15,' the 'BB' letters would have been available for the service from 168th Street to 168th Street, so 'KK' wasn't needed for that route. But the part of the Chrystie connection that the TA deleted was the connection from Nassau into Chrystie into Houston, so 'KK Nassau Street' could have been a Nassau train (from Broad, Chambers, or Canal) going into Houston and up Sixth Avenue under the Park and east to 2nd Avenue, running uptown or via the 76th Street tunnel into Queens.
As I said, this is speculation on my part. It's also possible that a mistake was made in the sign shop. Do they still make sign curtains at Coney Island Shops?
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Sad to say all the "B" division front end signs on R32 and R38 (the oldest cars still in service there) are digital! And they are the devil to read esp. on the R32. Dirt gets behind the glass and you can't tell a "C" from a "G" from a "Q" from an "O". I am not sure about the IRT - they have curtain signs, but only on R26,28,29,33 and 36 which have a simple circle or diamond with the route number in white. R40, 40M and 42 are window rolls with round route markers, white letters except for the yellow group, which have black letters EXCEPT on some Slant40 trains on the "N" have seen white "N" on deep golden-yellow "N". Just beautiful.
Wayne
The Redbirds kept the route and destination signs on the bulkheads - something which I personally wish had been retained on other cars. They are easy to read. Train recognition is easy on the IRT, since the Redbirds run on the 2 and 5 for the most part, although I have seen them on the 4 and 6. The purple background on the 7 signs on WF R-36s has faded a bit due to being exposed to sunlight. They could have kept those signs on the R-32s and R-38s, IMHO.
As I've been mentioning on other discussions about K service, the KK originally was the replacement for the #14. Notice there is no K(exp). It was for a line that had no exp. version, and the Bway-Bklyn shortluine was it. But for some reason, when the Chrystie maps came out giving ever line a letter, this route was considered a branch of the JJ. Only when it was rerouted up 6th Av, was it called he KK
The R-27, R-30 and R-32 cars came with the following on the side signs (there may have been some variations):
J Nassau Express - would have replaced #15 rush hour
JJ Nassau Local - non-rush hour
KK Nassau St Local - #14 Broadway Brooklyn Local
L 14th St Express
LL 14th St Local
M Nassau St
Up until Chrystie St opened, only the M was used, but from Brighton Beach and 95th 4th for the bankers specials.
The R-16's had some signs with A, AA, HH for Euclid/Rockaway service, including a destination of 'WAVECREST'. I think there were a limited number of cars that had these signs though.
> The R-16's had some signs with A, AA, HH for Euclid/Rockaway
> service, including a destination of
> 'WAVECREST'. I think there were a limited number of cars
> that had these signs though.
Ah, yes. I remember that when the line to the Rockaways opened in 1956, the Far Rockaway branch only went as far as Wavecrest station. The terminal station at Mott Ave. wasn't completed and opened until about two years later.
Not only was Wavecrest the first eastern terminal in Rockaway, but the first train was not R-10s, but R-16s. Some of us BMT types were bothered at the time that new cars were taken from the Eastern Division of the BMT to make the IND look good. (I was on that first train--there are pictures of it in several of the histories.)
I do share the fondness for the R-10s that postings have been talking about, though.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potdam
When the Rockaway branch opened in 1956, 50 R-16s were sent to the A line; these would have been the ones with A and HH signs. Supposedly, during this time, the R-10s and R-16s would run in mixed sets from time to time; I believe these is a photo on this website of such a consist. By 1958, those 50 R-16s were all back on the BMT Eastern Division lines, and most likely ran only in solid trains for the rest of their careers. The 30 R-10s which had been sent to the Eastern Division in 1954 were back on the A line by 1959.
I almost forgot - the R-11s kept their numbered route signs for their entire careers, even after they were rebuilt under the R-34 contract. Naturally, they also kept the BMT titles: 1/Brighton, 3/West End, 5/Culver,7/Franklin Ave., 15/Jamaica, etc. The R-16s had these same identical signs originally.
Since there has been mention of the mock R-10 (1575) does anyone recall the number of the car that had PCC bullseye lighting? I think it was an R-4. Also, there was an R-1 or R-4 (I think) which had unusual ventilators that reduced the windows in the side doors by about half. Anyone remember that number?
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
According to Sansone's book (Evolution of NYC Subways) there were
two R-4's with bullseye type lighting:484 and 744. 484 is on display
at the Transit Museum. The book also says these cars were equipped with P.A. systems. Looking at 484,there is what appears to be some type of microphone near the Conductor's steps as well as grilles along
the center of the ceiling that might be speaker housings.I've never seen (or heard) it work,though.
I don't recall any R-1/9's with the ventilator grilles in the doors,but I do remember an R-10 so equipped. The book lists it as 3138.
I believe there was another R-10 that had 3 and 2 transverse seating. It's not listed and I can't recall the number offhand.
Thanks for the info; I didn't think to look in Sansone's book (which is sitting about two feet from my left elbow on top of a low bookcase). I remember riding in 484 but don't recall being in 744.
If I come across some reference to the R-1 or R-4 ventilators, I'll post it (could have been any of the other pre-war R- contracts, though).
The 3 + 2 transverse seating in an R-10 is something I've never come across a reference to.
What frequently amazes me in all of this is how many things were apparently not photographed by anybody and we have to depend on memory that sometimes gets a bit confused. Perhaps there are collections out there somewhere that may yet emerge. Some of us wind up collecting odd things--I have at least eleven different postcard views of the high curve on the 9th Avenue El (at 110th Street) and some stereopticon views of New York Els and one of that famous Chicago subway postcard that shows BMT Compartment cars (Bluebirds) on State or Dearborn.
Thanks again.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
> Perhaps there are collections out there somewhere that may
> yet emerge. Some of us wind up collecting odd things-....
And if you do have any odd photo collections... lend them to the web site! ;-)
-Dave
> one of that famous Chicago subway postcard that shows BMT
> Compartment cars (Bluebirds) on State or Dearborn.
I believe that the picture you are referring to here is a drawing or composite photo. If it's the one I'm thinking of, it was in the brochure announcing the opening of the State Street subway in 1942. As the newest Chicago L cars were from around 1923, they were reluctant to put a photograph of a nearly two decades old car running in the subway into the brochure (and with WWII going on and resources, as well as money being short, no prospects of any new equipment soon), they used a photo of the BMT Bluebirds as an indication of the type of equipment which they expected to purchase for the new subway when the war ended.
Also, forgot to mention that the BMT Bluebirds would never fit in the State St. Subway - too wide (10' wide). The State St. Subway was desinged for Chicago L cars, less than 9' wide (at platform level).
Ed--
You're right that Chicago was concerned about showing old cars in a new subway. I don't have the photo or brochure version, but a color postcard; you see them every now and then at train shows or in antique shops that carry old postcards. In the videotape, "Streamlining Chicago" (Interurban Videos #FE260) they show subway construction and the Bluebirds, but they're operating on the Brighton Line in Brooklyn.
Side note--I was curious about the width of the Clark cars, so looked them up in Sansone's book. Would you believe, no end view!
But the Green Hornet was 10' wide, as was the Zephyr at the threshold.
Multi-sections were even a bit wider. And Standards were right around 10'. Yet all of these ran on the same tracks as the BUs (under 9').
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
I'm sure that there are many excellent photos in private collections that have yet to be made public. Back in the 70's I met a number of people who were into transit photography. Notable among these was Steve Zabel,whose photos appear in a number of books. I'd venture to say that if it turned a wheel on T.A. property,he had a shot of it.
I understand that his collection is now in the hands of the E.R.A.,which auctions off parts of it from time to time.
<< I believe there was another R-10 that had 3 and 2 transverse seating. It's not listed and I can't recall the number offhand. >>
In 1969, R10 No. 3189 had the seating you refer to. There's a picture of the interior in the book "New York City Subway Cars," by James Greller.
Thanks! Saw it several times,but always neglected to record the car number. In the arrogance of youth,I thought there would always be another chance to record it. How wrong I was!
You know, I remember riding either 484 or 744 in the early 1970's -- It must have been on the B, F, or K, as I distinctly remember being on the Northbound local track at either B'way Lafayette or W 4th St. Even at the tender age of 4 or 5 (I was born in 1969), I knew that car was very different from what I was used to riding.
I also remember another oddity -- I seem to recall seeing an R-15 with the lower set of side door windows replaced with some sort of metal louvered air vents. Does this ring any bells for anyone?
There were two cars, each a different model with the lower "fishgill" metal grill panels covering half the window spaces on each door.
They were IND R-10 #3138 (which were all removed June 1986) and IRT R-14 #5952 (removed shortly before the fleet's retirement in December 1984).
Sincerely,
William A. Padron
It must have been R-14 #5952, as it was at the Bronx Park East station...Thanks for the info!
I distinctly remember seeing some R-10s with two circular windows on each door, a la R-15; in fact, I once saw an A train at 14th St. in which all 10 cars had these doors. Any comments?
There was only one IND R-10 car (#3138) and one IRT R-14 car (#5952) that had a special metal "fishgill" install each on the side door window panels, where they were each subsequently removed towards the end of their respective service lives.
Two R-10's, #3047 and #3141, did have each one R-16 type storm door installed each on one front end of the cars as well too.
The only IND-BMT cars that had the double R-15 type porthole windows on its side doors were the vintage-1949 Budd-built R-11 cars (#8010 to #8019). They did see some sporadic service on some lines, but they were best known in operation on the Franklin Avenue Shuttle in Brooklyn. Car #8013 is on display on at the Transit Museum.
Sincerely,
William A. Padro
Service between 74th - Roosevelt Ave and Lexington Ave really sucks now on the E/F line. The trains have been creeping between the these stations. All you see is endless strips of bright bulbs along the walls in the tunnels which lets the motormen know to proceed at slow speeds.
As for the green line in Manhattan; it's no better. Creeping under Lexington Ave just like it's buddy the E and F. All I saw through the scarred windows were the #6 local trains bypassing the train that I was on. Pretty frustrating when the 4 and 5 should be the one's doing the bypassing.
Two different reasons for this.
The Lexington Ave. express line is over capacity with the addition of [2] trains due to the construction on its line. Over capacity equals traffic jams, just like on a highway.
The 53rd Street tunnel has a lot of different projects under way, including support for the infamous 63rd Street connection discussed so often on SubTalk. That has "spill back" effects upstream and downsteam as well; for example -- there is construction on the [E][F] express tunnels between Roosevelt Ave. and 36th Street so that cables can be installed which will carry the route-selection instructions from a selector box at Roosevelt Avenue (Manhattan-bound, operating the 36th Street interlocking plant).
Ah, progress.
Because of tunnel work, I understand why the E,F,4,&5 run slower than usual. However, it seem like the D "express" always run that way, regardless of train traffic. For instance, b/t 125th Street and 59th Street, the A train which runs on the same route is considerably faster.
What is the current record for the fastest ride through every station in the NYC subway system? I held that record briefly in 1967 and would like to find a source of past and current record holders (see previous message RE: Subway Riding Record also)
A friend of mine has a Guinness world record calendar:
Under the title "World Record Holder - Fastest Subway Circuit":
The record time for traveling the whole NYC subway system is
26 hrs. 21 min. 8 sec., set by Kevin Foster (US), October 25-26, 1989.
Get out the Granola bars!
Whenever the topic of the 'fastest' coverage of the NYC system comes up, these questions come to mind:
1. Does it mean the entire trip is on one fare and that the rider never exits from the system?
2. If a line has local and express service or other variations, must the rider use each one? That can get very complicated. (For example, I'm thinking of D local and express on the Concourse, F variations, B variations, including late night shuttle. Would a 7 local be enough, or must an express be part of the ride, and if so, in both directions?)
3. Does anyone insist that a foot be put on every platform at every station so that the "entire" system is covered? I've always thought that would be a really unreasonable condition and I doubt if anyone who's done the entire system either in a single ride or piecemeal has done that, but I might be wrong.
Just curious.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
To Ed A - There was an Amateur NY Subway riding committie back in the sixties ( when I held the record! ) which authenticated any claims on the record. There were 3 classes of competition, Class A where each station had to be STOPPED at (no express) and if the opposites sides of travel were more than 100' apart, both sides had to be stopped at. Class B was the same as A but no opposite track requirement. Class C was all out the fastest ride THROUGH, express service allowed, each station. (By the way, I have the certificate of my record in my office next to my diplomas)
Maybe the Class C record should be retired, given the reduced speeds which today's trains travel at. I'll bet you probably took an A train or two of good old R-10s during your record run.
Maybe someone can contact Guinness people to find out what the record is and get it televised on their new show on FOX?
Guiness Records Publishing
or
Guiness World Records : Primetime
To S.B., Yes (R-10's) , and they flew going down to Rockaway over the water! I think we also rode the wooden cars on the Myrtle Ave Line? Don't remember when they were retired. Still trying to find one place where ALL of the various records through the years are recorded, any ideas? I think the record changed too rapidly at points for Guiness to keep up.
I was just at the transit museum on wednesday...sat for a bit in one of those old BRT wooden cars...it brought back memories of riding them as a small boy.
According to the sheet describing the car at the Transit Museum, the old BRT wooden cars were finally retired in 1969. I doubt anything in service today will last that long... :-)
The last of the Q cars were retired in 1969 when the unrebuilt portion of the Myrtle Ave. el was closed. Those open platform el cars at the museum were retired earlier.
I don't think so. The 3 car set in the Museum are reconverted Q cars. The cars have the "collasped" clearestory typical of the Q sets that were "banished" to the 3 Av El. The center car in the set is still the trailer, just as BMT built the 3 car Q sets.
You're probably right. I recall reading that some of the Q cars were re-restored to their original appearance; i. e., open platforms. The Qs wound up on the 3rd Ave. el in 1949 when joint Astoria-Flushing IRT/BMT service ended and the R-12s and R-14s began running on the Flushing line. They were deemed surplus property, but weren't scrapped because equipment was in short supply elsewhere. After the el closed, the Qs were sent back to the BMT and ran on the Myrtle Ave. el until 1969, when it closed.
How about sections where the express and local trains diverge, such as the E/F vs. the G/R between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt Ave., and (formerly) a similar split between express and local F trains in Brooklyn. Was there any requirement to cover the express as well as the local route?
How about places like 53rd St./6th Ave., where routes connect and split up in various ways. Would all three sides of the "triangle" there need to be covered, as well as the straight-through route to 57th St? When the Rockaway round-robin shuttle was operating, would it be necessary to hit Rockaway at night in order to cover the arm of Hammel's Wye that wasn't served during the day (and now isn't served at all)?
To D.S. - I must say I don't remember ALL the details of the route we (myself and 2 others) took, and the system has undergone numerous changes since 1967. We did the Class C run, which again only requires passing through each station, on ANY track. By the way (wye) we DID hit the Rockaways about 2am or so to take advantage of the time savings on the round robin. I was NOT the mastermind of the trip by the way, just the record keeper. The route was planned by a high school pal, Robert Stannish and we also were joined by Mike Sheahan. Like to remember and give credit to old friends.
I think I lost track of the thread -- what became of the effort, some time earlier this year, to organize an NYCTA marathon to beat the current Guinness record?
Adam, the organizer is still waiting to hear from Guiness. Second- we are also waiting for the Lenox Project to conclude because that project would be a big barrier to overcome. I am still the official "clerk" for the project.To my knowledge, the project is still "go" and as soon as we hear from Guiness we'll proceed.
I don't know if the record holder is based on changes in the system itself, but the record that I posted was for 22 hours and 39 minutes ending at 8:51 PM on June 16, 1967. There were different classes of competition as designated by the Amateur New York Subway Riding Committee, and this was the Class C record, which allowed express travel.
I'm not sure if that 1989 record is accurate. I seem to remember that the record was under 25 hours back in the 1960's when the Myrtle, Third and Culver lines were still in operation.
There three variations of the rules:
1 - Stop at every station (no-one did this, that I remember)
2 - Pass every station. (this meant that if you took the Lex uptown and the 7th Ave downtown, you got credit for the Shuttle and Flushing stations, but still needed 5th Ave on the #7).
3 - Ride every in service track (this meant that you needed to ride the shuttle and things like the wye at Hammels and Manhattan Bridge South Tracks to Chambers.
I think you're right. I KNOW the record for Class C (pass every station) was 22 hours and 39 minutes as of June 16 1967. Still waiting for someone to come up with a source for ALL the records set since then. If you have any clues, let me know. Thanks.
Still looking for a source of record breaking rides through every station in the system. (Held record in 1967) See messages Re: Fastest Ride through the ENTIRE NYC Subway.
Just found another way to confuse people going to South Ferry - a transverse cab (like on the 4 line) at the conductor's position. There is at least one train equipped with this feature on the 1. This forces a wait at Rector St while all the people in the rear of the train move forward on the platform to the front of the train. Anyone who doesn't move at this point or before will not be able to leave the train at the Ferry. The flip side is that people getting on at the Ferry have to stay in the front section until Rector St NB. Doesn't this sound like lots of fun?
I guess they're converting all the R62A's to bunches, where the
cabs in the #1 and #6 units have transverse cabs. We were up on
the Dyre Avenue Shuttle (marked "S") where all trains
a) were R62A (with #6 train unit range numbers)
b) had as their first and last car a unit whose last number ended
in either "1" or "6", each one equipped with a transverse cab.
I guess they'll be doing the "0" and "5" cars someday soon.
Wayne
I wish that they would open up the transverse cabs, especially on cars mid-train, to make more room for passangers. The cabs are obviously designed to be opened that way, at least on the 4 and 6 lines. I understand that the motorman would like more space to work in, but if the train isn't being run OPTO, the space should be available for passangers, IMHO.
--mhg
I have a nice Head End pic of an El Car At a shop location.
The tracks do not have exposed 3rd rail, and the date of the pic and the architecture of the building indicates that it ia an IRT shop.
I guess that this is one of the cars for the original Dyre Ave service.
On another note, dealing with dual 3rd rail, exposed El and covered subway type; I remember it from the Jerome Ave line. However, does anyone know when the exposed third rail was removed from the White Plains Road Line. I know that the Willis Ave structure remained until 1950/51 when the 3rd Ave line was cut back and the Bronx Park stub on the El and White Plains Road were demolished. I think the 177th St 3rd Ave El yards disappeared then also.
Where would any dual 3rd rail on BMT revenue trackage have been?
If you're talking about two third rails, I don't remember seeing that anywhere, IRT or BMT, but that certainly doesn't mean my memory is right. If you had one third rail covered, wouldn't the el shoe foul on the covering?
If you mean places where el and subway trains operated together, the BMT had a lot up until the cessation of Myrtle Avenue service. Using the mid-1940s as a reference point, joint service operated on the Culver (9th Avenue to Coney Island), Myrtle (Broadway to Metropolitan), Broadway (Lexington to 111th), Fulton (Eastern Parkway/Atlantic Avenue to Lefferts), West End (Bay Parkway to Coney Island). Broadway from Myrtle to Eastern Parkway would have to be included to allow for shop moves from Myrtle to East New York.
An aside--I was just looking at an old photo of Stillwell Avenue with a three-car Culver el (lead car #758, gates on the ends and sliding door in the middle, which might help in dating it--pre-1940, most likely) on Track 'G' (TA Track '7'), and next to it on Track 'F' (TA # 6) is a Brighton local of BMT Standards--and the third rails are not covered on either track, even though Track 'F' was never used for el trains. But there is no sign of an extra third rail. Does anyone know
when all the BMT third rails were covered? The IRT-BMT Queens lines should probably be included in the joint list, also, even though the subway cars were IRT Steinways.
There may have been other places on the later BMT where there was uncovered third rail for equipment moves.
Hope this adds a bit of the info you're looking for.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
I think that the El 3rd rails were (maybe) closer and higher than the
covered subway type. I remember that before the remaining portion of the Bronx 3rd Ave Line was converted to Subway car / covered third rail operation, I believe that there were some outrigged guide boards
that they had to knock off before the subway cars could use the existing uncovered third rail and before the covered third rail was installed. The old El cars were stored for a while on the center track almost the whole length of the line. The Tremont Ave station
served as transfer point when the final conversion was done when only one track was in operation for north and southbound trains to 149th St. I think that the crossovers at Fordham were also used for that purpose for trains north of there and south to Tremont during that peroid.
I do remember that the Jerome Line had the dual 3rd rail until the Polo Grounds (the former 9th Ave El extension) was discontinued and demolished. I can not remember if the dual 3rd rail went all the way to the Jerome yards, but I believe that it went as far as the Kingsbridge Rd station where the xovers and the famous semifore signals were.
As many times as I traveled the length of the Myrtle Ave line and via the Broadway Junction, I can not remember a dual 3rd rail there unless
they only used exposed third rail for both types of equipment.
I also rode on the last days of the Fulton Ave El to Rockaway Ave,
but I can not remember the 3rd rail configuration around the East New York Complex.
I guess that this dual 3rd rail info could make an interesting footnote to the nycsubway.org historical map pages.
Oh, the picture of the possible Dyre Ave El car is at
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/1346
My recollection is that until the late 1950s, all of the BMT had uncovered 3rd rails. I recall them on the Brighton Line.
> The IRT-BMT Queens lines should probably be included in the joint
> list, also, even though the subway cars were IRT Steinways.
Interesting. The Flushing (Corona) Line had wooden BMT "Q"s, Gate Cars, IRT Subway Steinways and 2nd Ave L wooden equipment, yet I don't recall seeing dual third rail on this structure in any pictures I've looked at.
--Mark
After reading Monday's Daily News article concerning the 18-minute wait issue using the card, I've decided to share my experience on what happened to me about a week ago. While on my way to work I was nabbed for invading cause I bypassed the turnstile w/o paying. At the time, I was using the 7-day Unlimited card. I tried in excess of about 5 times but the turnstile gave me an error saying to swipe again at this turnstile. Knowing that my train had just pulled into the station, I passed w/o paying. I spent a little over six hours in a holding cell while background checks and fingerprinting where performed on me. As to why all this, the police officers that nabbed said "It's a whole new system". In the past violaters were issued a summonse right there on the spot; now the officers are taking you down to the station house. So now later on this month I have to see a judge to see if I get fined or not. On a note though, as I was leaving the station house, the officer who nabbed me told me that most likely that the judge will dismiss the case being that this has happened to much more people. I going to bring a little proof of my own being the Daily News article which clearly explains that this is a city wide problem that's happening to a lot of riders.
What time was it when you were brought in??
End of Shift??
in the first place a more perfect turnstile system would have the card inserted into the machine to be read and given back to customer. The swipe read/write in place relies too heavily on being swiped at a certain speed to verify the contents on a metrocard. In Washington D.C and Oakland CA which also has Cubic equipment the farecard is inserted into machine and handed back to customer, hence the machine is doing the work to verify read the content on the farecard. This method would be way too slow for NYC volume in the subway hey look at how slow it is to board busses now with metrocard!
This method of car reading is used on all MTA buses and also all private bus lines as well. I and probably most other people have never gotten an error when the Metrocard reader on the bus read my card. Maybe they should've used this method for subway turnstiles.
You know, if the volume would be too high for a reader which takes in the card, they could add more turnstiles. Money changes everything. But perhaps its better spent on the Smart Card scenario.
Garfield,
You've been lucky (useing MC on a bus). As a bus co employee let me tell you that the errors are fewer, but NOT non-existant.
Pardi,
You've answered your own question ... there's too many customers at the subway stations for card dips vs. swipes.
Interesting fact: The bus was also going to be a swipe job, but the TA decided in favor of dip operation.
Disclaimer: I don't work for the TA or any of it's divisions.
Mr t__:^)
Hmmmm. If you have a valid unlimited ride card, you DID pay the fare -- in advance -- whether you swiped at the turnstile or not. Therefore, you shouldn't be arrested for farebeating. You were only guilty of screwing up MTA statistics. The cop should have brought you to the token booth (or the checking swipe), and checked out the card. Finding it valid, he should have let you go. You just got screwed out of six hours.
If I were you, I'd write a letter to Safir (or better yet, direct to the head of the transit command) and complain. Perhaps you can get them to change the policy. They should think and look before they act. In addition to wasting your time, the cop was off the street -- not doing his job -- for those hours. Probably got OT as well.
Somebody has give the police "grab 'em" orders for a while. I know of a Cubic female employee who was grabbed.
It sure does seem to make much since, and Larry your point is right-on, i.e. you paid for unlimited rides, the 18 min is just a "temporary" clitch in the system. You shouldn't get arrested for an admitted system problem !!!!!!!
The CTA in Chicago has been using the same vending and reading equipment, and the same type of farecards. The equipment and cards are supplied by the same vendor, Cubix.
However, I’ve been using a CTA Farecard for about a year and have NEVER had any problems. I’ve used the Day-Pass, two day variety, with no problem. The card "shut down" exactly 48 hours after I first validated it.
People that I work with have nothing but praise for the cards. They fit in your wallet, are easy to use, and always know what amount to deduct.
The only thing I can say negative about the system is that this morning two of the four turnstiles were "Sorry - Out of Order" at the Belmont/Red Line Station. I’ve already let the CTA by E-mail about the situation.
Jim, Re: Chicago works, but NYC doesn't ....
Eye have the feeling that Cubic offered a perfectly good WORKING system to the TA but they came up with a thousand little changes that they just had to have. After all they have two bldg in Brooklyn full of staff, many in nice cubicals with great screen savers on their PCs. Don't get me wrong they're not any different then the folks who work for any BIG corp. I'm one of 50 managers who work for Bob, i.e. not the CEO, CFO, Chairman, Pres, etc. so it's a differnt culture here. I spoke to John Simonetti in Chicago a couple of times, maybe he had something to do with the sucess of your system.
P.S. Would you like to trade some of your expired/liquadated cards for mine ? I have a number with nice graphics on the back and have a small coin/swipe card collection.
Disclaimer: Obviously I don't work for the TA or any of its divisions
Mr t__:^) {Note i'm the SMALL t not the BIG TA}
What sort of designs does the TA put on Metrocards? Historical trains and stations? Pro-transit slogans? Advertisements?
I have (and am presently using) a Transit Card (that's what CTA calls them) which is marked "100 Years Chicago Loop Elevated 1897-1997" and has a reproduction of an old black-and-white picture of an L train with open vestibules going past one of the towers that controlled the flow of trains into and out of the Loop L.
John of ORD, This site is c-o-o-l, you're one of several from that city who regularly monitor. (Yes there are a bunch of other out-of-towners too, Philly, Boston, San Fran, Germany, etc. please don't take offense, you all add to my interest in this site !)
Anyhow before I answer your question, the "Jersey Boy" & I have a query about ORD buses. The card seems to be the same ? It's swiped or dipped on the bus ? They still issue paper (magnetic) Transfers ? Only if you pay cash ? A train rider stated that it's pritty trouble free, what's your experience ?
Now for your answer, the TA sells the back of the MC, with a couple of exceptions: Spin City; Fox News; Calvin Klein; Dial-A-Mattress; Emigrant Savings Bank (a nice series of 8 - photos of various ethnic groups); Mets-Yanks Subway Series 1997 (set of 3); Goodwill Games; Jazz underground; Contintental Airlines; Rockafeller Center Then & now; Jackie Robinson plus a few others AND a "Travel Card" which was special for the "privates" Express riders .... want to trade ?
Mr t__:^)
I rarely ride the buses, but the TC is dipped on bus fareboxes, exactly as it is on the rapid transit. And as someone said earlier, the farebox is a GFI model which takes tokens, coins, and bills, with a Cubic card-dipper added to one side. As to transfers, if you're not using a TC (paying cash or tokens), a paperboard (thicker and stiffer than paper) transfer of the same size as a TC with a magnetic strip is issued and you dip it like a TC to transfer.
I have had very few problems with the TC. I don't believe you can be double-charged on the CTA, since the Chicago system aborts an unsuccessful dip -- it BRAPs instead of BEEPing, and deducts no money from the card. The main problem here is that maybe one-fourth of the turnstiles -- usually one per station, but rarely more -- are out of order at any given time, but CTA puts an out-of-order tape over the card slot so nobody uses it.
So the MC is used for ads? Nothing wrong with that, but it's a shame they don't have an historical transit series (trains, stations, etc.) as well. I only have the one Loop Centennial TC; if I had more than the one, I'd gladly trade. But having only one, and since the Centennials, like all other TCs, are being and will be sucked back by the vending machines, I think I should hold onto it.
Let me explain the "sucking back" comment, if the NY system doesn't work the same way: value cards have expiration dates on them, and if you go to a machine to add value after that date, the machine will suck up the card and issue a new one with the correct value. My Centennial is marked to expire in November, but long before then, I will remove it from my wallet (when it has no value), get a new card, and put the Centennial away somewhere. Most people won't pay attention and most of those who still have Centennials will lose them in exchange for plain TCs.
John, Very interesting ... thanks for the info !!!!
Collector: That is too bad about the sucking back of the TC cards.
TA: Maybe it's a better policy then NYC where there are lots & lots of expired/liquidated/bad cards in circulation. Most folks I've seen in the subways carry a bunch of cards on them and I've observed them running a liquidated card thru the reader then putting it back in their pocket. Why do they do that ... do they think money is going to mysteriously come back on the card ? Are they going to claim the bus IFU stole their money & therefore should get a free ride (Chris wasn't around, sorry Chris). Could it be that TA uppr mngt made a bo bo & is causing some of it's own problems, by their POLICY ?
Disclaimer: I don't work for any of the above.
Mr t__:^)
I am sorry that you got caught. Let me post some tips for other users.
IF a turnstile says "Swipe here again" DO NOT move to another turnstile or you'll get locked out.
If you have any problem with your card *please* come to the booth. We wont hurt you. Talk to us- most of us are kind and understanding. Let us check your card. If we can determine that the card is valid most of us will let you in.
Regarding fare beating. the 18 minutes is there to discourage paying for others. In the fall it will be changed to 18 minutesd at the same station only.
Again, as a station agent I am sorry for your problem.
**opinions expressed above are my own and not those of the MTA or NYCT
I'd add one more piece of advice - NEVER jump over a turnstile, even if you've got an unlimited MetroCard. It sounds like the police aren't too willing to listen to any explanations.
Eye have one question ... is the TA going to let you folks near the Turnstile, i.e. cleaning the R/W read, trying your own MC to see if it is working, etc.
Mr t__:^)
We already clean the turnstiles (Wheels). We use chemically treated cards. When we do gate duty we often help customers swipe their cards.When the time comes and they take away our money,we'll probably help more people.
Great !!! Can you hear the cheering ?
I'm very glad to here that the "suits" in Brooklyn are letting you folks at the station do this and not making the customers wait for the "service" crew to come out.
Mr t__B-)
Gate duty is only during special events such as parades, concerts, Coney Island, Yankee Stadium(I guess), Shea (I guess). When we are on normal duty we clean the wheels when we start our shift.If we work AM or PM we can also leave the booth, if the area is safe, to clean the wheels if needed. AT nites-if there is another person we can clean the wheels when the other person is present(but if the station is desolate we do not stay out longer than needed for safety.)
Could someony please describe route selection boards?
#1) What exactly are these?
#2) Are they train controlled or tower controlled?
#3) How do they work?
#4) How do they affect switcing?
Thanks much
I think you mean the route selection boxes posted at the train operator position at many Junctions.
When the TO pushes a button either that sets up the switches and signals for the route or it tells the tower operator what train it is so he/she can set the switches.
Some plants (like 47th/50th on 6th Ave) can operated either way. Others Like DeKalb Ave are always operated by the tower operator.
Hey Folks,
I know this is NYC Subways-domain, but can any one tell me what it means when the folks on the LIRR say "Conductor, please go to channel 4"
Or for that matter, what is the role of the "brake-man"?
Thanks.
Channel 4 is an intra-train two-way radio channel that lets the engineer and conductor discuss things so they are not heard on the public address system. Normally the crews monitor the main channel (#1?) which is for tower-to-train communications.
The 'brakeman' term is a holdout from railroading long ago; a crew member who would ride in the back of the train and who had specific functions. Perhaps Andy S. can tell us what his/her specific functions are on the LIRR in addition to collecting fares/tickets.
Dennis / Todd,
P.S. I believe the "Brakeman", who is the conductor at the other end of the train, is also an engineer, or maybe he just has some engineer functions in his job description. Anyhow he's is sometimes asked:
- Did we clear the switch ?
- Backs up the train, yes he has an engineer "key"
Mr t__:^)
Thanks for the plug, Todd. The term brakeman is from the 19th century when the rear end crew member actually did have to set the brakes.
Today the official term is assistant conductor. Every train crew consists of a conductor (the captain of the ship), the assistant conductor, and the engineer. The assistant conductor, besides the obvious ticket and cash fare duties, must carefully observe the rear end of the train at each stop to make sure the doors remain open until all passengers have boarded or alighted. He/she must also "flag" the rear of the train if it must be backed up. If the assistant conductor is not fully qualified as a conductor, the the conductor on that crew must flag. Finally, the assistant conductor must operate doors and/or make announcements at the direction of the conductor.
Channel four is so the conductor and engineer can converse without the conversation going out over the PA so the customer can hear. The engineer my want to ask the conductor an operational question. But, most systems have a channel in which the crew can communicate without letting "the public" know what is going on.
Secondly, the term "Brakeman" is a little outmoded. It’s a term used for those men who applied the brakes on the individual cars before the invention of air brakes. The position of Brakeman was used in freight and passenger service. This position was sort of an entry level position for training to become a conductor. I remember from my experiences with the Reading Company suburban service trains, some men worn hats with the designation of Brakeman and other with Trainmen. I’ve seen on some systems where the designation on the hat is Collector.
The old Staten Island Railway when they collected fares between stations had conductors and trainmen as titles on their hats.
I had a friend who retired as a trainman, his conductor would operator the doors and collect fares in one car, he would have to travel to the other cars. His conductor was nice enough to switch duties on every other run but the last run the conductor would operate the doors so on two consecutive runs he had to travel between cars and the crowds.
Trainmen also got flagging duties. Now I think the SIR has only Conductors and they are going to OPTO so who knows what will happen. Many conductors became engineers but I don't know if the SIR is like the LIRR where they are motermen and engineer or they can only operate motors...
I'm producing a documentary about underground new york, the city beneath the city and we're looking for interesting people, experts, stories. Any suggestions?
I'm producing a documentary about underground new york, the city beneath the city and we're looking for interesting people, experts, stories. Any suggestions? email me at Mira@broadcastnews.com
Just a comment.. judging from a few other recent similar requests, you won't get a whole lot of comment. The stories are posted here for you to read-- check the archives. Find some things you are interested in. Then maybe contact the posters for comment. It doesn't seem to work very well to wait for them to come to you. Just IMHO based on seeing similar requests in the past (probably 5 such requests in the past 2 months).
-Dave
Isn't there already a book out called "Underground New york"?
I just bought the book called "Underneath New York" (Harry Granick,
Robert E. Sullivan). The text itself was written in 1947, and can be
somewhat annoying to read, since the author wrote in the style of the
time. Instead of telling us "the sewer at xxx street and subway twist
and turn around each other in a fascinating way held together by
old..." he writes like "So, you want to build a sewer? First, you need
a bunch of strong men and a contract..." etc etc. (I exxagerate a bit,
but you get the idea.)
*HOWEVER*, the intro, written recently (91?) is fascinating and
provides an excellent background on what's down there. I'd definitely
recommend the book just for that.
DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THE MTA & NYCT HAVE STARTED PLANNING FOR WHICH STATIONS TO BE RENOVATED UNDER THE NEXT CAPITAL PLAN? HOW DO THEY DECIDE ANYWAY, SINCE NOT ALL THE ONES THAT ARE RENOVATED WERE FALLING APART?
No, but (my two cents worth) if they're making a list and checking
it twice, they'd better start with Chambers Street BMT. It's a sieve!
Wayne (with a hard hat and a umbrella)
Yeah, I've got a lot of questions about how these decisions are made. I assume money is the first consideration--why else do all the 7th Avenue IRT local stops and none of the express stops? The TA seems to have favored doing lots of little things over fewer big ones--maybe it helps them look busier. I'm also curious as to how they decide which stations become handicapped-accessible (apparently all the Franklin shuttle stations will be, but many much busier stations won't). And I wonder when they'll get rid of the signs that say the renovation of Canal St. Station will be complete in December of 1997... Anyway, from what I can glean out of the Paper of Record and the odd TA announcement, long-overdue renovations are already budgeted for 72nd St-Bwy., Times Square, and Atlantic Avenue. What else is in the works, I dunno--my wish list would start with Stillwell and DeKalb Avenues.
Yankee Stadium on the B&D is under renovation, as is 81st St. Museum of Natural History station on the B&C.
Union Square has been ongoing for sometime as is 14th street on the IND ACE trains.
> all the Franklin shuttle stations will be, but many much busier
> stations won't).
I suppose that if there's federal or state funding involved, meeting the ADA laws is a requirement for new construction.
> long-overdue renovations are already budgeted for ....Stillwell Ave
I though this renovation was supposed to start this year (other than the trackbeds which have already been done). And as part of the 63rd St Tunnel Project, there was supposed to be a new track added on the east side of the station (next to the N train platform) that wa to connect to the Brighton Line and BYPASS the station entirely to get yard moves in and out faster. This was for the anticipated extra service on Queens Blvd. Is this no longer the case?
--Mark
IS THERE ANYWAY OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE OPERATOR AND CONDUCTOR OTHER THAN BY WAY OF THE PA SYSTEM THAT THEY OFTEN USE? WHAT ARE THERE RADIOS FOR THEN?
They can talk to each other using there walkie talkie's. Also there is a button next to the regular public address button that the motorperson and conductor can use to talk to each other without it coming over the regular P.A. system. I have seen it at Bedford Park Blvd when there is a D train in the middle track at 10:30 p.m. They use it and i also hear them use it on the D train going to and from work, when i sit next to the motorperson/conductor cab.
Charlie Muller.
It's always a good guess as to which stations they choose for these projects. Now if only the TA can hire Bob Vila to lead one of these that'll work!!!!
It seems like the TA doesn't always renovate the stations that need it. Look at the stations on the J/M/Z, some of them are real sh*tholes.
But at least their finally renovationg the #7 station at GCT (the other lins were done a few years ago. The roofs are no longer that ugly brown color. Also, some work has been done on the Times Square station.
Anyone know if Forest Hills is going to be renovated soon? it's not exactly crumbling, but since it's a major transfer station (E&F exp. stop, begin/end for G&R) it could use an upgrade. Especially the lights by the token booth...it's too dark there.-Nick
Well, Myrtle Avenue (J/M/Z) is still getting its new roof (may be
done by now), Essex Street got a makeover a few years back but
it is UGHLY and OUT-OF-BMT TRADITION (who chose those silly
cinderblocks anyway - I would have gone back to my Squire Vickers
book and done it right), not to mention the nod to Mr.Vickers at
both Broad and Fulton Streets...but Bowery, Canal and Chambers all
need MAJOR WORK. Low ridership may be the excuse for not fixing
up Bowery, and maybe ditto for Canal Street - as for Chambers Street,
they really have to go back to Square One, especially over the
northbound tracks. And if they DO decide to renovate, and do NOT
do so with an eye towards restoration/preservation of the original
work, SHAME ON THEM! IMHO - rebuild it as it was in 1913, with
the appropriate modern-day touches - AFTER they plug the dozens and
dozens of leaks and fix the ceiling. And get rid of that horrid
1963 wall!
Thanks for letting me share!!
Wayne (dusting off his nippers, trowel and trusty Makita tool)
The following are also under renovation:
62nd/New Utrecht-Brooklyn
Chambers/WTC/Park Place-Manhattan
Broadway Nassau- Manhattan
34 st- IND & IRT Penn Sta
Rector St- IRT #1
177 on the #2
Queensboro Plaza
33,40,46 on the #7
Woodside on the 7
Main Street on the 7
59th/Lex- 4/5/6/N/R
(I do not pretend this list is 100% inclusive)
The wall at Chambers St. was put up when the IRT Brooklyn Bridge station was extended northward in 1960-62. If you were to take out the wall, you'd have both stations side by side in plain sight. The least they could do is redo the tilework on that wall.
You know, that wouldn't be THAT bad of an idea- at least for part
of the station. Problem is - are they going to spring for all that
marble to redo it RIGHT (the base panels have pink marble in them)
and someone's gonna have to make new moulds for the Bridges - that
is if they can find one that hasn't rotted away. Priority One there
is to FIX THE LEAKS! And while they're at it - put back those
halophane fixtures - they're commonplace nowadays (just visit an
Edwards or a Home Depot).
Chambers Street COULD BE GREAT again if they would fix it up.
Wayne
The TA has posted notice of an examination for the title of "Transit Electrical Helper". Filing is open from now through August 25th. The starting salary is $12.3550 per hour increasing to $17.65 per hour. To qualify to take the test you must have any one of the following:
1 - Graduate of a technical or vocational high school with specialization in electrical, electronic or electro-mechanical technology.
2 - Four years of full time experience as a helper in the electrical, electronic or electro-mechanical field.
3 - Graduation from a Community College with an associates degree in electrical or electronic technology.
4 - A satisfactory equivalent of education and experience.
In addition, you must have a valid drivers license, good in NYS.
Filing fee for exam #8025 is $30.00
Applications may be picked up at:
18 Washington Street
New York, NY 10004
Now if they only had something like that for conductor or motorman!
wAYNE (wishes he had his own "L" train)
Smae here only a 4 train well Next year I may join the high school Transit Tech and if do everything I can be up for any job in the MTA.
From any "Helper" title, you are qualified to take the promotion to train Operator exam
I am MIS-oriented as of right now; that is, I work with computers and
data processing, and have been doing so for 19 years. HOWEVER, there
is still a part of me that (very) badly wants to either drive a train
or be a conductor. I wonder if a person, say in the DP department
of the NYCT, wished to operate or conduct, would he/she be eligible
to take the examination? If so, my resume's on its way to Jay Street
PRONTO.
Wayne (still wants his own "L" train, but will settle for a "Q").
Since i can remember i wanted to be a motorman! When i became 18 i found out that the test for conductor was taken away or something like that. Why!!!!!!!!!! And will it ever come back!
I ride the L train everyday
Gimme an Express train to drive!!!!!!!
Since i can remember i wanted to be a motorman! When i became 18 i found out that the test for conductor was taken away or something like that. Every year religiously i send my resume to the MTA and Metro North and LIRR Why did they take it away!!!!!!!!!! And will it ever come back!
I ride the L train everyday
Gimme an Express train to drive!!!!!!!
Every now and than, the C is on the express train due to delay service. And when it is on the express track, it doesn't do very badly. Remember the C was originally track. It was the CC that was on the local track.
The C was on the express track when I got on. The E was against the wall. It was 14th Street. Both trains left the station. Guess who won? The C did! The E uses the slower 32 model cars.
The 32A's have a very slow accelerate rate compare to the 32's. The 38's, which the A mostly uses, are even faster.
R-32s and R-32As have exactly the same accelleration rate. The primary difference between the R-32s and R-32As is cosmetic.
Were the trains headed uptown or downtown? Leaving 14th St., uptown A trains have always, always, slowed down before reaching 23rd St., and would crawl past that station. Once they passed the access switch to the layup track just past the northern end of 23rd St. they would speed up. Locals, of course, would zoom along, pause at 23rd, and zoom along again to 34th. I have never seen an uptown A train do more than 15-20 mph when skipping 23rd St., even with the R-10s, and I have ridden on dozens of A trains along that stretch.
Why does the A train crawl around 23rd Street? And these were two downtown A trains racing each other. One to Far Rockaway, other, to Lefferts Blvd.
Downtown A trains have always zipped past 23rd St. It might have to do with the fact that it's a slight downhill run past 34th, even more so once you get past 23rd. It's the uptown run that I've never been able to figure out. Leaving 14th St., an uptown A gets up to a decent speed; at the end of the uphill run before 23rd, the motorman will cut power and coast into what would be the station entrance; at the most, he'll put the controller into maybe switching. It was hard to tell with the R-10s, as their motors were quiet. The R-1/9s would growl at about F# below middle C all the way through the station; in fact, they seemed to pass that station faster than the R-10s. After passing the switch to the layup track, the train would gather speed and maintain it to 34th St.
Maybe it had to do with signals. Who knows?
What's wrong with the Uptown Express Track at 23rd Street. I always known the A train to pass that station slowly. As for 135th Street, that started around the 1990's.
Did the slowdown at 135th Street have anything to do with the
accident of July 3, 1997?
I also remember slow spots on the Queens line - outbound somewhere
just past Elmhurst Avenue and inbound somewhere near Woodhaven Blvd.
I'd watch the signals - there was always one with a lit "S" beneath
it which would glow amber then change to green as the train approached.
Wayne
Wayne the illuminated S and Yellow signal that you see is called a grade timer it is used in the subway to enforce a speed restriction. also to reduce future damage inc inductees. Next time you are in that area look for a fixed yellow sign with the letters GT with a number below prior to the yellow signal for example GT25 would mean a grade timed signal of 25mph if the motorman should exceed that speed he will enconter a red after the yellow to slow him down and enforce the posted speed. If he passes the red and goes in emergency, he will then be escorted downtown for a blood test then inducted into damage incorporated's Hall of Shame
Thanks for the info!
Hey, my favorite line is the "L" - didn't somebody do a rear-ender
at Graham Avenue back in 1992 or 1993? Not too much damage (cracked nose on an R42, they fixed it). Will have to check Subway Accidents
for exact date, it's out there.
wAyNe ...
The A always speed through the 135th Street station, until somewhere around the 1990's. On the other hand, the D going northbound never did, because of switching to the lower level. When using the express tracks, going southbound, it is the fastest, local tracks it is the slowest.
As for the E and F express around Woodhaven Blvd, you're very right! They go extremely slow through those stations. They have been doing that for years. Why hasen't the TA fix that problem? I don't know. That is why I put the posting up.
In his post, A.Pardi echoed what I was thinking. Did the TA (oops, NYC Transit) give serious consideration to bus-like "dip" readers to control the subway turnstyles? Since the "dip"-style reader automatically does what we mortals do manually on a "swipe"-style reader, one assumes that there would indeed be fewer errors. It was mentioned that dipping is slower than swiping. This may be true, but look what happens SO FREQUENTLY when people have to 'swipe again' and 'swipe again here' time after time, backing up the line for the turnstyle.
Another quirk of subway turnstyles is that the same lane is used for entry and exit. That leads to the 'I got here first!' contest when an entrant meets up with a departure at the same turnstyle. Exit only lanes could help alleviate this.
"Another quirk of subway turnstyles is that the same lane is used for entry and exit. That leads to the 'I got here first!' contest when an entrant meets up with a departure at the same turnstyle. Exit only lanes could help alleviate this."
Oh my GOD! That is one of my pet peeves! Chicago is exactly the same way, with the same turnstiles being used for exit and entrance, and only some of the stations having "iron maiden" exits. Where I get on the L is a station near the edge of the city in the middle of a fairly-large office park, and the station is thus a reverse-commute destination. Almost every morning, an O'Hare (outbound) train pulls up just before the gong starts announcing the pending arrival of the Loop-bound train, and a mad dash of people leaving the train meets AT THE TURNSTILES a mad dash of people running to catch the train. For some reason, this doesn't seem to happen so often in the evening.
The Belmont/Sheffield Station of the Red/Brown/Purple Line is one of the best examples of the inadequate station facilities to house the new vending/turnstiles technology. Under the "old" system of collecting cash fares, the small station "house" was crowded and congested most of the time, but especially during the rush hour.
Now, with four vending machines in the front part of the house, and only four turnstiles, things get VERY hectic after
7:15 am. As there are only two "iron maiden" exits at Belmont, both of which are inconveniently placed, the number of customers trying to use the four "fare collecting" turnstiles to exit, causes quite a bit of congestion.
For those who are unfamiliar with the CTA rapid transit and its facilities, keep in mind that the Belmont/Sheffield Station entrance of the Red/Brown/Purple Line, has a small square building which houses the fare collection activities, located on the street level. I guess in 1900, when the line was constructed, the elevated railway company wasn’t expecting the amount of passengers that the line carries today. Only living in Chicago the past two years I can’t discuss how crowded these station facilities where 10 to 15 years ago, when ridership was much greater than it is now.
What about simple signage that encourages people to keep right?
Maybe instead of the simple "dip", a system similar to DC or BART should have been implemented that takes the ticket that is inserted into a slot in the front of the machine, opens the gate (turnstyle), the user passes through and picks up the ticket on the other end? That seems to work pretty well, doesn't it?
--Mark
The CTA turnstiles "dip". Whoever designed the equipment was thinking, because the turnstile will NOT unlock until your Transit Card or Transfer Card "pops up" (CTA jargon), and you physically remove it.
No riders on the CTA accidentally leave their Transit Card behind in the turnstile.
Jim & John from Chicago,
Many thanks for the insite into the diff between ORD & NYC Cubic fare collectiom systems. It has been enlightening. And has made it clearer to me that the TA decision (it obviously must have been a choice) may have been the wrong one (dip vs swipe).
Maybe someone else can comment on why the swipe methode is better at NYC. P.S. I believe swiping was the first to come along ?
P.P.S. Also thanks to my friend from Jersey !
Disclaimer: I don't work or speak for the TA in any way.
Mr t__:^)
When Metrocard was first introduced in 1994 the first token booth computers were big bulky units comprised of the keyboard,display and swipe read/write unit in one component. As metrocard evolved the token booth terminal was introduced. Now instead of the clerk swiping the card to be encoded it is dipped into the encoder similar to whats done on buses. obvious this was done to minimize misswiped cards at the point of sale. many clerks had problems with previously swiped method to encode farecards. The swipe method at the turnstiles was preferred of dipping to read the card to deter vandalism, but hey! couldn't present swipe units be vandalized?
The Chicago Transit Authority employs the 'dipping' method on both its bus fareboxes and train station turnstiles. Though both MTA and the CTA (in Chicago) had their train station turnstiles built by Cubic Western Corp. (sic), CTA's turnstiles can also accept coin payments of the fare (one turnstile per station only, the rest take only CTA's farecards and monthly passes); NYC's turnstiles only accept subway tokens and MetroCard farecards.
Often on the LIRR, I hear the phrase, "Engineer, can I get an M. A. reset ?" I know it has something to do with the restarting the air conditioning. What is an M. A. ? Why & how would the train engineer reset it ?
Thanks.
MA stands for Motor Alternator. Simply put, the MA takes 3rd Rail Voltage and produces the AC which powers the lights and HVAC. Every even numbered car has a motor alternator. On the M-1s, when the MA fails in any pair, that 2 car set has no lights (except emergency) and no HVAC. The LIRR uses a trainline wire to reset the MA's when they trip out. As I understand it, the engineer resets the MAs because he's got the only energized console ont he train. When the engineer hits the MA reset button, it sends a DC signal the length of the train, calling for a reset on every MA.
Can someone tell what kind of Farebox are onboard the METRO buses ?
I read in one of the trades that GFI boxes were installed 1993.
F/U question: Is there some kind of dip/swipe card used ? (both GFI & Cubic mfg a version) GFI makes a "Trim" box that you swipe, but I think they also make a dip version.
Eye already know that the trains use Cubic vending mach & Turnstiles.
FYI: This IS NOT a sales question, i'm just nosey
TIA (TLA) - Mr t__:^)
I don't know what type of fare box is used, but I do know that the unlimited ride WMATA farecards are flash passes.
The Far Rockaway was using the 38's, while the Lefferts Blvd A was using the 44's. Strange enough, both trains did very well. By the way, you asked "why did the trains continue into Brooklyn"? Well, after Canal street (downtown), Brooklyn trains switch to the express track. It's not until or after Hoyt and Schermonhorn Sts., that the line again becomes a four track, consisting of local and express service.
Thanks for the feedback. I do know about the crossover after Canal St, so inevitably one train would have wound up ahead of the other. I didn't see any reference as to where you got off, so I assumed you went on to Brooklyn. I take it you got off at Canal St.
I can only imagine what the run down Central Park West was like!
Me and my friend Seney think cats should meow in the subway because my
cat Pinta likes to meow and I think she should have freedom to go to any place,including the subway.I have been told to get the cat out of there,but I need to take my cat out for a while.
We've been through this before. Transit properties across the US all have rules about the transportation of animals, especially domesticated on public transit. Specifically the rules generally state that animals other than seeing-eye or hearing-ear dogs must be transported in carriers. The rules are in place because loose animals in a transit (streetcar, light rail, bus or rapid transit [includes subways, elevated and surface rapid transit])environment are a source of passenger discomfort, and cause operating problems in many areas.
Your cat may be very well behaved and tolerate a subway car, BUT - If we allow Pinta loose for you, then we may have to accept any and all felines, who, just like humans, have likes and dislikes. However we are taught to control our behavour. Cats, as a rule, are not.
Although animals, other than seeing eye or hearing ear dogs and ones
in portable containers, are not allowed on transit vehicles, Would
they be allowed on subway/elevated platforms, downtown train stations
(New York's Penn Station, Grand Central, Philadelphia's 30th Street
Station, etc.), or pedestrian concourses, which are often connected
to transportation terminals and subway stations?
For example: If I was walking my dog in Center City, Philadelphia,
and I was going to meet a friend at either Penn Center Suburban
Station, or 30th Street Station, Would I be allowed to enter the
station with my dog? I have on occasion seen people walking dogs
through the main concourse of 30th Street Station, and they WERE NOT
seeing eye dogs. I did however, get permission from the token booth
clerk at the 46th Street Station on SEPTA's Market-Frankford Line to
take my dog up to the platform while I photographed the station, and
a couple of the trains pulling in and out of the station 2 weeks ago.
He was a little hesitant about letting me take the dog up to the
platform at first, but I told him that I wasn't intending to board
any trains, but just to take a few pictures, then come back down. I
offered to pay a fare, he accepted, and let me and my dog through
the turnstile.
Anyway, Hope someone can answer my question. Thanks.
Back in 1982 or '83, I took a cat on the subway, in a cardboard box. I got on at 23rd St./B'way and changed at 34th St. for the D train.
While I was walking from the BMT to IND platform, the cat somehow climbed out of the box and got away. I had quite a time running around the station before I finally got hold of him again and got him back in the box. Luckily the station was not too crowded.
Tabby and the third rail do not mix and if the cat really needs to get out there are likely better places to go than the Subway. The subway is great for getting places and recreation for some but I do not know of many cats that if left on their own would become rail fans. A carrier with wide bars may be the answer if the cat must ride though. A good view from a private box seat.
Speaking of Tabby and the Third Rail, my father-in-law told me a story about older guys he knew while growing up in Flatbush. They fought in combat in WWII and came back totally screwed up, some hooked on drugs after getting morphine from battle wounds, all violent and drunk. Fortunately, they took most of it out on cats not people. They would catch stray cats, then drop them from the overpasses onto the Brigton line. When the cats hit the ROW, they would take off in fear, run into a third rail, and blow up.
Just saw that Saving Private Ryan movie. What a horror. Thank God I never had to go through that.
Can those "Pet Taxi" carriers be safe enough to take cats down there?
I'm wondering.I want to take the cat to the meowin' turf (My way of saying the subway.)
I really doubt your cat will enjoy the trip. Whether or not in a box, s/he will likely be terrrified.
But if you have to do it, do not use a cardboard box. Your cat might pee out of fear (mine did once on a trip to the vet when she heard a dog barking - a subway train could very well produce the same reaction). When the cardboard gets wet from the pee, the box falls apart. Then you have a problem.
The best way to move a cat in a place like that is in a hard plastic pet carrier. Then you can take a cord and wrap it around the carrier once the cat is inside, so that if the clips fail, the carrier does not open up and drop out the cat.
Just a question:How did you manage to take the the cat there?
It was a gift from my boss at the time. I was trying to get it home (to its, or her, new home). She lived about two years, then died of a urinary infection.
I drove over one on my way to Sunnyside Yard yesterday
The Maryland Mass Transit Administration will be getting (Congress approved it, waiting for the actual money) the funds to double track the existing single track sections of the Central Light Rail line. The two railroad that the line is built on were originally double track, only the Middle Branch Bridge and the approaches (currently single track) is not.
Betcha 2-1 that the NIMBYs, both north (Ruxton-Riderwood) and south (Linthicum) will try to block it.
Wait and see.
I don't know about Linthicum, but you are right on line w/ Ruxton.....bunch of snobs
Anybody happen to have any engineering drawings showing the layout of the PATH cars that Kawasaki built a few years back?
In Wednesday's daily News an article regarding weekly/monthly unlimited cards discribes how some are using the cards to scam the system. I knew this was coming from the inception of time based cards,lets wake up and smell the coffee. While an unlimited card is captioned as such, everything has limits. An unlimited card may be passed to another person once user of card completes their trip. I don't remember any smaller print stating any other limitations but hey I just sit back and just laugh at the stupidity of it all.
This week there have been two track fires on the BMT Southern DIvision. LIRR, Metro North, Amtrak, NJT are all installing concrete ties. I realize much of the NYCT track uses no full ties but "stubs". I realize that the paper is what burns what wouldnt concrete last longer? Any comments Steve or Wayne or others
One thing that might be a problem with concrete ties is that Metro North and the LIRR use an automated work train to install them. The train, which is from Canadian National and painted a bright orange, basically handles the entire operation - old wood ties in front, new concrete ties in back. There's clearly no way this could fit in the subway tunnels, and I don't know if there is a cost-effective way to install concrete ties without such equipment.
I loved the idea of concrete ties when I first saw them on Septa tracks, but i was told that the MTA was fearful that they would crack too easily. Now, the MTA is using them on its commuter rails. I don't know if they will ever try them on lines like the Brighton, or if the restrictions are the ones mentioned in the above post. I remember seing old rotted wood ties at Newkirk, with mushrooms growing out of them when it rained, and saying concrete would be nice. Also, on Marcy Av. middle track, some of the ties were rotted hollow, and it was surprising they could even lay up trains there. They did recently replace this stretch of track though.
I was wondering if fiberglass ties would work. I got the idea from the new yellow fiberglass catwalks replacing the wooden ones on elevated lines. It is stronger han one would think. Thick fiberglass is also used as stopping blocks for cars in parking lots. As ties, they would be much lighter than concrete, but unbreakable, and not corrosive like wood. Also, no need for greasy creosote tar. It would be perfect for els, (where I guess concrete could never be used), but also useful in the open cuts and embankments.
So does anyone know if this would work? Could it hold the weight without flattening or something?
Someone is experimenting with plastic ties from recycled milk bottles.
I think I saw an article that Chicago was looking into a test of them.
I cringe when someone mentions fiberglass anything (Subway). A few years ago fiberglass shoebeams were tried. They worked fine on elevated structure and in tunnels but failed miserably on the soft roadbed of the Brighton line. They cracked and dropped off the cars. Ultimately, they were removed. Fiberglass ties would have the same problems, I'm afraid. Concrete ties would be ideal. They have an expected life of 50 years. There is a major drawback to using them though. The concrete ties are extremely heavy and because of the subway 'envelope', they would have to be manually installed. The TA has committed itself to trac 'panels' which would likely be rendered impractical if concrete ties were used.
What do you mean by track pannels? Rail on wood ties or rail imbedded inconcrete ready to install, like precast bridge sections?
I believe Joe M. is refering to preassembled sections of tracks or pannels that the TA uses to replace track instead of ye old lift rail off replace tie by tie, but rail on method.
The Staten Island Railway uses the track panel method. Whole stacks of track pannel, already assembled rail and ties are stacked just east of Tomkensville (sp?) station at the MOW yard.
As already stated, the TA uses pre-assembled sections of track (37 feet, I believe) which are craned into place and speed track replacement. Currently, Linden Shops is the site of most track panel assembly.
Conrete ties did crack too easily. The first batch that was installed on the MNCRR, developed cracks rather quickly and had to be replaced. The cause: bad design or incompetant/corrupt manufacture. Whatever the cause, the MTA received signifiant $ back from the tie manufacturer. The new ties don't seem to have this problem.
One though re: concrete ties in the subway. The logistical difficulties involved in working on the trackbed suggest a system where the ties can be easily replaced. Since the trackbed is expensive to create and disruptive to repair, it makes some sense to design the ties -- which can be easily and cheaply replaced -- to be the part of the roadbed that absorbs shock, rots, breaks apart, etc. This is the same idea as making the softer brake pads on automobiles intentionally softer than the expensive wheels. The pads wear out more quickly, but are easier and less expensive to repair/replace.
Since the rebuilt trackbeds are concrete (on the IRT at least), that suggests that the ties should be made of something else.
--mhg
I wasn't thinking so much of the subway for the concrete ties, but rather the open cuts and embankments. Most of the subway trackbeds are concrete with embedded half-ties. These don't rot like the outdoor full ties.
Joe M amswered my earlier post saying that there are experimental recycled plastic ties, and that sounds like a good idea for the els and underground ballasted tracks.
Experimental is the operative word for the plastic ties. Might work might not. I will let you know what I can pick up from the Chicago test.
I wasn't thinking so much of the subway for the concrete ties, but rather the open cuts and embankments. Most of the subway trackbeds are concrete with embedded half-ties. These don't rot like the outdoor full ties.
Joe M amswered my earlier post saying that there are experimental recycled plastic ties, and that sounds like a good idea for the els and underground ballasted tracks, if it works out to be viable.
Keep in mind that fiberglass (or glassfibre in the U.K.) by itself is not suitable for many structural applications. What we commonly call "fiberglass" is actually fiberglass bonded with a resin. Phenolic and epoxy are two common types of resin, but there are others. The resin used would have to be custom designed by engineers so that the end product could handle the loads typically placed upon a railroad tie. I have to wonder if this is at all cost effective. I suppose if a resin/fiberglass tie were designed that could potentially outlive concrete it *might* be worth trying.
Here's a question: Would it be desireable to have the tie softer like wood, or more rigid like concrete? Maybe somewhere in between?
A fiberglass/resin tie would probably be soft lke wood to absorb shock and not crack so easily. Yet it wouldn't rot and need creosote like wood.
What I've now seen is new park bench boards made out of some kind of poly/plastic, replacing wood. It looks kind of like gray wood shavings, and I though it might be fiberglass, but I was told it was plastic. Perhaps this was the recycled plastic Joe M mentioned. I had said it should be used on boardwalks also.
I believe you're referring to polyethylene, which, if I'm not mistaken, is made from recycled milk jugs and soda bottles. It is good as an all-weather light construction material, but I'm pretty sure it lacks the strength required to support any kind of major load.
I went out to Long Beach this weekend and passed the tie train on the way back. What an incredable operation, it is amazing to see that train working.
We hit the ballest train first, then the tie train (laying the rail as well) didn't see any welded rail being laid, they must have dropped that before the tie train. WOW!!
The 1000+feet rail segments are in shallow trenches just to both sides of the old ties. The trenches were cut last week or so and the rails laid in advance on the track installation beginning
One of the most interesting things to watch is the train that carries the 1000' segments of rails from place to place. Imagine a train of flatbeds, 1000' long, with maybe 20 or 30 rails laid out over each car in a stack 10' high, each layer of rails seperated by wooden ties. The entire train has to move very slowly so the rails can bend as it goes around curves. Fun stuff.
--mhg
The only places where I could see concrete crossties being used
are on the 'railroad-style' lines: i.e. Brighton Line from Prosp.Pk
to Sheeps.Bay; Sea Beach line, Dyre Avenue IRT line, "A" from Aqueduct to Broad Channel, &c.
They would have to come up with a different way of laying these ties
than that which was used by the LIRR. BTW - the ride through Queens is much smoother with the concrete ties on LIRR...
Note: Canarsie line page is revised! New WILSON Ave. photos & narrative, plus corrections re. the timeline and rolling stock paras.
Check it out!
Your "J"/"M"/"Z" page is great! Needs a 'free transfer' to the "L" though...
Wayne
Our light rail line in Denver uses concrete cross ties exclusively except at switches, which have wooden ties. The ride is mighty smooth; on the private ROW, the trains get up to 55 in no time and you don't even feel it.
Same in Baltimore. Except on Howard Street, where the rail is direct "fastened" in trenches in the concrete. No fasteners are used, the rails are held in shear by concrete and gunnite. Looked funny when it went in, and nobody at the time (in 1991) knew how it would hold up under acceleration and braking stresses. It has, and has been the model for several other LR paved track installations. BTW, the crossover at Franklin Street is held with clips and then paved.
Our light rail tracks are fastened down with those heavy spring clips. It's all welded rail, too - makes for a smooth ride.
Ours is all welded rail, I doubt if any new LR line isn't. Legacy systems are anybody's guess.
Dan
I have been told that Baltimore used a bolt on guard strap rather than girder rail or guard rail. Is that correct and how has it worked out?
Joe
It is correct, but only on the Howard Street paved trackage. The bolt-on guard gives the appearance of girder rail. Only the crossover at Franklin Street is actual girder rail, and it came from Germany. All other guard rails are standard railroad types. No problems with the bolt-on guards have been encountered.
While work is being done in the 53rd Street tunnel, [E] and [F] service is disrupted. TA (oops... NYCT/Subway) notices say that the [E] runs on the [N][R] line during overnight hours, terminating at Whitehall Street.
For the second early Saturday morning (5 am) in a row, I needed to catch an uptown train at WTC. I headed to the [N][R] station as instructed, but [E] trains are NOT operating there, at least at 5 am on Saturday morning. They are turning at 34th Street and there is no [E] service south of 34th street. So the wait at WTC on the [N] line is up to 20 minutes (the [R] doesn't run at this hour). Of course, I just missed one, and had to wait 19 minutes. It seems to me that if NYCT/S is going to go to the trouble to publish diversion notices, it should provide all details if diversion services will differ at different times.
Sorry to hear about your disappointment in the re-routed E service, Todd. I can't imagine why E Service wasn't running all the way to Whitehall at that hour. After all, what happened to the E train that was going in the opposite direction for riders heading downtown? I assume they're using the same number of trains and personnel.
If they're running on the same schedule, then why would a Downtown train terminate at 34 St.? If the construction weren't going on, that E train wouldn't terminate at 34 St. and 8 Av. So why with the service change is there a difference? I'm sure it takes about the same amount of time to go downtown from Queens Plaza to Whitehall as it does to go downtown from Queens Plaza to WTC. (There are more stations on the Broadway line in Manhattan, but then, on the 53rd St. line, there are two additional stations in Queens, so it should all even out.)
At night, the service change causes panic for some riders. I was on the uptown 8 Av./42 St. platform one evening around 10:20 waiting for a C. You'd be surprised how many people were running onto the platform, breathlessly trying to make the last E train on 8 Av. If they missed it, then they might miss the next one on Broadway if they had to run over to Times Square, through the long connecting tunnel. When that last 8 Av. E train came, it was packed like a rush hour train.
Reggie
HA HA.
A train advocate!
Just like at Kings Highway on the weekend. There are always people looking for that Q train and letting the D go by asking when is the Q coming.
Must have drove them crazy this weekend since the Northbound D came up on the express track switching just before the platform back to local (Neck Rd/Ave U no service Northbound). To bad they didn't look the otherway and saw both express tracks blocked with red flags/lights...
I was in NYC a couple of weekends ago. At Midnight on Saturday night after a wild evening in Little Italy and a walk through Soho, my kids and I got on an A train at West 4th St. to go back to our hotel at 50 St. and 8th Avenue. Among the people waiting was this crabby family with a stroller (about 5 of them total). The A train pulls in as a local (only train at midnight, since the C isn't running and the E is diverted -- as it says on the signs at every single pillar) and everyone gets on the train except for this crabby family who is arguing and pointing and then sits down on the now empty benches and waits for... who knows what? Maybe they waited for the E train until 7 AM, or the C train at 6 AM.
Then on Sunday at 7:15 PM we got on the PATH train to Pavonia to get the car. A Journal Square train had just left from the Journal Sq. platform and I saw that the next train (on the Hoboken platform) said HOB and JSQ and, of course, that was the next and only train because the service changes at that time on Sundays. It was packed since it served the entire line. There was a big announcement that that was the next train to both Hoboken and Journal Square. About 1000 people were packing into this train. Yet there were about 15 people calmly waiting at the Journal Square platform for a train that wouldn't arrive until 6 AM the next morning.
I would take the hint on both lines: If a saw a packed local pull in and posters on every pillar, I would not settle down with my kid's stroller and those noisy relatives on a wooden bench at midnight and read the early edition of the News. If I heard announcements, saw hundreds of people going to another platform and looked around and saw the train marked as going to my destination, I wouldn't continue standing with 15 other jokers twiddling my thumbs.
Anyway, my kids thought I was a bit too uncharitable in my thoughts, but -- then again -- I was in NYC and the pull of the habits of my upbringing was too much to resist. (BTW, the A train people were not close enough for me to tell them in the 10 seconds I had to realize they were not getting on. The Hoboken people were much too far away (a platform and 2 track widths, and there were audible announcements and signs on our train...)
I also learned not to park in Hoboken overnight. The charge was $1.00 per hour for the first 24 hours and $2.00 per hour after that. So we moved the car from there real quick. At Pavonia, the fee is $9.50 per overnight at Newport Mall and possibly less (I didn't check) at other garages.
Now you all are starting to find out what I've been saying all to long! N train needs improving!
It certainly seems like they are leaving out important information. Could this because some people think that reading all the details is too "complicated", and so the TA/NYCT/whatever decided to "simplify" things? I sure hope not. Are full details given on the MTA web site?
P.S. Todd, I heard your report this morning with the music, which was described as "sounding like Dan Ingram". Did you ever want to be a DJ? It occurs to me now that he could say that because Ingram is now on "sister" station WCBS-FM. But of course the old WABC is what I first thought of.
Man, the name Dan Ingram brings back some memories!
Anyone remember Ron Lundy? Was he on WABC? How about Ross & Wilson? (definitely on WABC!)
Then there was Michael Sarczynski (? sp.) on WNBC...
As it turns out, WCBS Newsradio-88 morning news anchor Pat Carroll, an accomplished radio journalist (with whom I also worked here in Boston 10+ years ago), is the daughter-in-law of Dan Ingram. Dan's son Chris worked here in Boston at WEEI Newsradio-59 when it was a CBS owned-and-operated station as a news editor in the early 80's, and today lives and works for another network in New York City.
But to bring this back to our intended subject here on SubTalk, two of my other colleagues at WCBS Newsradio-88 (anchor Wayne Cabot and helicopter traffic reporter Tom Kaminski) are both subway fans. When I flew with Tom in Chopper 88 last summer, he and I were marveling at the view of NYC subway yards one can have at from 500 feet up!
I remember Dan Ingram from WABC in the late 60s. I didn't care too much for him, though; he was difficult to understand. Let's just say that I avoided listening to WABC as much as I avoided taking the E train along 8th Ave. in those days.
>>Then there was Michael Sarczynski (? sp.) on WNBC...
I believe you're speaking of the same person who now does weekends on NJ 101.5.
Michael
Quick off-topic post:
Ron Lundy was on WABC and ended up on CBS-FM. He retired very recently, within the past year.
Ross & Wilson broke up, with Ross appearing briefly on WHTZ(?) 100.1.
I think he married the weatherperson from his Ross & Wilson days.
anyone remember Les Kinsolving ?
Nope -- how about Roscoe and Paco on WKTU DISCO 92 ???
Dan Ingram? I remember him on WABC from the late 60s. I didn't think too much of him back then, though - about the same as I felt about the E train. Well, let's just leave it at that.
are the top speeds on the mainline redbirds the same as the worldsfair redbirds. what are the differences mechanically between the two. they sound different and the worlds fair cars seem faster. also the brighton express is fast but not as fast as the flushing express.
After the Field shunt modification of the mainline Redbirds my observations as a motorman are the same as yours. I find that the westinghouse equipped R-36 cars are faster than Redbirds R-26,28,29 and 33 equipment, both GE ande Westinghouse.
The NY Times article made it to the CyberTimes section on the web site, so if you have a NY Times password (it's free), you can read the article at: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/yr/mo/cyber/articles/09onli.html
I won't cut and paste it here until I get permission to do so...
-Dave
Great article and I'm glad you got the recongnition you deserve. It's a great site and I enjoy it everyday especially subtalk. Well done.
What page is this article on and also what day did this article come out?
Charlie Muller
Read back and all will be answered, but suffice it to say:
Sunday 8/9/1998 it ran in the "CITY" section of the print edition (ONLY), and it also appeared on the web version in the "CyberTimes" section. So if you live outside of NYC proper it didn't appear in the print edition that you would have bought/received/found at library.
-Dave
Has it really been "only" since 1995? It seems that the site has been around longer than that.
The article mentioned that your inspiration was the Transit Museum tour of City Hall in 1995 (the Day One on the IRT tour). Wasn't that the tour where I first met you, and then we went on a field trip to East NY & Rockaway Parkway??
--Mark
Dave i found the NY Times for Sunday August 9. I wanted to save the article. I am cutting out articles from the NY papers and saving them. This is why i asked when the article came out.
Congrats to you are the order of the day.
Charlie Muller.
I have articles on the NY subway dating back to 1975. I used to be much more active about doing this than I am now, probably because I don't have the time to read the paper anymore like I once did.
--Mark
The Baltimore Light Rail line failed miserably tonight, as 10,000 Ravens fans jammed the Hamberg St. stop and the footbridges leading from the new NFL park at Camden Yards. MTA had predicted about 8,000 patrons, and were dubfounded to discover that 10,000 had used the line. Adding to the mess was Baltimore's fabled (and derided) fixed 17 minute headway. 3 car trains were in service, but 10,000 fans descending on the line at once overwhelmed the equipment.
Was the problem just too many people for the space on the equipment or did the severe loads cause the equipment not to function correctly?
Actually, the number of people going downtown was far less than predicted in the terms of automobile traffic, therefore, the numbers on the light-rail were greater--Personally, as someone who had to ride it from Hamburg St to Hunt Valley, I thought it went quite well
Two BSM members went to the game, taking Light Rail. The game let out at 10:40 and they did not get home (Mount Washington) until 12:30. The MTA is still taking heat over the debacle; suspicion is that "heads will roll" in the LR management. Maryland Stadium Authority claims that "they were promised" that suffuicent equipment would be available at Hamburg St. after the game. That meant that cars/trains would be waiting to take all patrons after the game.
Does anyone know how many sets of M-4's are running on the Phila. Market St. line. If I was planning to go down on a Sat. or Sunday could I catch a ride on one? I don't want to stand at 69th st. and wait for a bunch of "oldies" to paas by!
The latest that i heard onthe status of the M-4 cars was that they have 3 to 4 trains running in regular service. Of course weekends might be another story. I myself am always asking about the new Frankford cars. I have yet to ride them but maybe next weekend I'll get my chance. Some people say there great and others say there so so. I have also heard they are not as fast as the Budd cars, I hope this is false.
Thanks, Ron. That seems to be what I heard also that they have 3 or 4 train sets. I would think they would run them for sure on the weekend when the headways are farther apart and you would have a better chance of catching a new train. I rode them once and I thought the acceleration was comparable to the old Budd's but I guess we have to get the mfgrs. tech. specs. to make a valid comparison . They could give you specs. on accel. based on full car loads for both old & new
trains. I enjoy everything else about the M-4 , the A/C, station announcements, one man operation with the TV setup, etc.
There are over 40 cars on the property as we speak. I rode (for the first time in an M-4!) a train on 7/22 which had 1041/42 in the consist, the highest numbered of the three 2-car sets of the train. Given that deliveries have been continuing since then, it could be a safe bet that there are more cars here now. As of late July there were 7 trains available for service, and with the heat that Phila experienced in the middle of that month, there was a push to have them all in service to capitalize on the AC.
I have heard that the new cars are slower and require 4 minutes additional time to make a trip between terminals. Progress!
there are no more then five new trains in operation at any given time. they cant run any more then that because of the excessive power drain on the substations. this will soon be corrected with the rehab program of the substations. the accelaration rate on the new cars are 3.0 mphps. the same as the almond joys but the top speed is higher then the almond joys whereas the new ones can hit 55mph and the almond joys can only hit somewhere around 49mph. although you never see the new cars hit top speed as much as the almond joys and are particularly slow during the rush hours when running express through the station on either an a-b train they almost stop before continuing on its way but on the almond joys they allow them to operate through at top speed--permissable of course. not only am i a rider of the mfse line but am a huge fan of it and having a lot of knowledge about it. also im planning on doing a video professionally about the line does anyone have any video old and new on it that they would like to share with me so that everyone can enjoy the pleasures that the line has to offer. when i said old i mean the original market street cars-the ones that resembles bostons early equipment and the nycta's low-v's cars. and also the arch roof frankford cars. if anyone does let me know so i can contact you.
Does anybody has any books about the history of the NYC Transit Police ?
Is there any plan to restore the animated art piece in the abandoned station at Myrtle Avenue? Is there some art group or something I could contact about volunteering to help?
I think it is a huge shame that thing has been ruined.
Thanks for any info at all.
I just discovered nycsubway.org... what an excellent collection of information!!! I am learning much.
I want to ask a layman's question; no one get offended if it is appallingly simple. While waiting for trains, with none in the station, I hear a slow release of air pressure. What is this? Does it have to do with the train stop/tripping mechanism?
I look forward to being informed. THANKS!
Some systems use air operated switches. I do not know what NYC uses.
Someone should know. Are the track switches air, electric or both depending on the location?
The NYC subway uses both pneumatic and electric switch machines
and train stops. It depends on the territory...you'll find a
whole stretch of line that uses one or the other, rarely, if ever,
will you see mixed use in the same zone.
In air territory, the compressed air supply lines are run in
pipe along the columns or under the platform lip. Magnet valves
(electrically controlled valves) admit and release air to / from
the controlled devices. If you hear a slow, constant hissing,
then it is probably a small leak somewhere.
Rob, Your Question about air sounds in a station. You are hearing
the air from the signl system trip arms. Also if you are in a station
that has an interlocking you are hearing air operated USS switch
machines
I'm going through my master list of scrapped/wrecked cars etc. and I
can't seem to see R16 #6494 there - then I remembered - there was an
accident involving a #15 train just north of Canal Street way back in
the 1960s. Does anybody have any info re. the date of this accident?
I know that there were a number of injuries (no fatalities).
I also seem to remember the round front window in one picture - the
hallmark of an R16. Was #6494 the unit involved?
Thanks,
Wayne
Wayne Whitehorn, When you find out see if you can get the name of the motorman so he can be inducted into our Hall of shame located at damage incorporated's luxurious headquarters.
There was a story on another website about an R-16 which "got into a fight with a BMT standard" and got crunched. The standard had a few scratches and was back in service in a few days (I told you those standards were indestructible). They salvaged its good end and spliced it onto an R-27 which had also "gotten into a fight with - you guessed it - a BMT standard". The R-16 might have been 6494. New York Subway Cars mentions an R-16 being destroyed in 1957, after which they took one of the R-11s and reworked it so it could m. u. with R-16s.
Those standards should have picked on someone their own size. I still wonder what might have happened if a standard ever collided with a Triplex unit. Talk about a heavyweight bout...
In that case (if it ever happened) the point would be Mott (sic),
since neither car would have sustained any significant damage.
That 1957 incident would likely be #6494, since that was the only
R16 that I never saw. Say, wouldn't they have repaired that one,
since they were only three years young then? If not, must have
been some accident.
The OTHER R16 what bit the dust, as we all know, was #6304, at the age of sixteen. What a tangled mess her "A" end was! Ditto her port side. The pillar bit just at the left side (looking out) of the storm door.
Is New York Subway Cars on-line or is it a book? I remember seeing
a mention of it somewhere on this site, now there's info out
there that I need... E Mail Me if you wish, Steve.
Wayne
New York Subway Cars is indeed a book. It covers all R units up to the R-110A and R-110B, has lots of color photos, and covers just about every paint sceme ever used. There's even a photo of a BB at 34th St. in 1967.
R-16 #6494 did, in fact, decide to get cute with a BMT standard in 1957 and ended up with a knuckle sandwich. A few years later, R-27 #8217 also got out of line with another standard with the same result. The good end of 6494 was spliced onto the damaged end of 8217, just behind the motorman's cab. 8217 wound up with 6494's storm door on the rebuilt end, and supposedly received an R-10's cab door.
Apparently, someone told the R-32s not to mess with those mean old BMT standards. (heh-heh!)
Take a look at 3381 onthe #2 end of the car. It has a non stainless steel end bonnet from an r-27/30.where did that come from?
Thanks for the tip! Next time I'm out on the "E" train
(or the "N", "Q" or "R") I will be on the lookout for it.
Wayne (always interested in trivia)
No problem Wayne!
The 1957 incident in question was probably when an R16 hit the bumper block on the "tail" track south of Broad St. station. Presumably, after that for speed control purposes, that's when the TA put in timers leading up to the bumper block.
They should be a crash test between the A and the #4. Who will win?
My friend, there already has. You see recently a signal maintainer was working on a relay panel governing the 135th street interlocking on the 8th avenue line. One A car R-44 was mechanically destroyed while it B-car mate is on the scrap line severely damaged by the resulting fire. Our Damage Inc. member Robert Ray conducted the number 4 lines crash test and they lost R-62s 1440, 1439 and 1437. At least 3 million dollar garbage cans were disposed of by our "crash team". Damage Incorporated is a non-for-pilfur organization founded by Robert Luciano.
The mortorman was drunk that day and going fast over a switch the test poved that a bad would happen if any other train goes over a switch and also to prove a point what would have happen if the 1 first car of the A train got cought by the the switch more then one car would have been totaled maybe 3,4,5 cars. Also the steel bodies are the same. So get a robotic train driver to take an A train and make it go over the switch at Rockerfeller Center at 45 miles per hour and watch what happens!!!
Christopher Rivera
We have already seen that bad things happen to "A" trains that
split switches.
Its number was - 5282 .
An R38 probably would have withstood it better. Likewise, if
the Union Sq. disaster train had been a Redbird, it would NEVER
have split in half like that. You get what you pay for.
Wayne
The revenue collector that was rear ended at 103rd st on the Broadway line around 1990 was destroyed while the 62a suffered minor damage and was repaired.
Are the Redbirds and R-38s structurally sturdier than the R-62s and R-68s? There is a photo in Subway Cars of the BMT in which a standard apparently split a switch just before a station and "wanted to be both an express and a local". It was sitting sideways but was otherwise intact.
The R-22 are of similar design of the redbirds. Take the collision of the revenue collector that was rear ended by the R-62s at 103 and Bway. The older cars were destroyed the newer cars suffered minor damage and were quickly repaired. All cars such as 1909 at Hunts Point and the R-40 that derailed at 39 st a few years ago; ALL CARS suffering sideswipe and frame damage will be destroyed, however front end damage such as the 103 st and the yard collision at 239 st yard proves newer cars are a little safer.
As far as I know, #4260 (the R40)was trashed. Her mate (#4261) is paired with #4258. (#4259 was hit by #4918; #4918 was repaired,
#4259 needs a nose job)
Info re. #1909 - was that car damaged beyond repair? I'll put it
down as tentatively out (master scrap list) - looked like it tipped
over when it derailed.
Please pass on any info re. this car.
Thanks.
Wayne
Science was always my worst subject, but the reason why that R22 was destroyed was a 10 car train rear ended a 2 car train. If both trains were 2 cars, it would be a no brainer which train would have suffered the most damage.
It doesn't really work that way...or at least it is not that simple...
It doesn't really work that way...or at least it is not that simple...
Isn't it usually true that the collider generally takes less damage than the collidee? The same is true with automobiles - that's why drunk drivers tend to walk away from a crash that kills a family of 4 8-(. So simply stating that one type of car survived the crash while another didn't is an oversimplification. Rather, it should also be noted whether a car was on the giving or receiving end.
As for the revenue train, when was it totalled? Did they have more R22's available to take their place?
Maybe they should make the train metal, not aluminum!
R62 are very toyist trains, they couldn't standup to any train.
The steel guage is the same whether its LAHT or Stainless. The problem I feel here is that is not "AMERICAN MADE". I dont here the same complaints about R-32s and 38s, designed by Raymond Lowey
Yes, but a side impact can damage any car beyond repair:
To wit: #8884 (redbird) at Franklin Ave., 7-15-97 and one
of the nastiest I ever saw: #3668 on Franklin Shuttle (12-01-72)
almost right at the spot of the Malbone Street wreck. Talk about
Damage Incorporated! Similar to that suffered by R62 #1440.
Wayne
Right on Wayne? so look at haed on damage instead. The revenue collector and 239 st yard incidents prove 62s hold up better to older eqipment. What we need is a collision between two 62s to see what happens.
Yep in the 238 Street yard on the 2 line in the the Bronx a R-33/36 collided frond end with an R-62 and the R-33/36 fell of its tracks while the R-62 stood on its tracks.
Does anybody in space know what the status is of the R33s that were wrecked at 239 St? What happened to car 1909? R62s in poor quality?
They should be more durable than the rest.
Cheers,
Constantine
Looks like curtains for #9152 and #9153 - too much fire damage.
Also at least one of the #8980-8981 pair too (#8980).
How's #1400 doing? She got her clock cleaned by #8981.
Don't know about #1909 - just found out about that one. Knew of
the accident, but limited photo coverage in the media so I couldn't
tell how bad, if any, the damage was. Apparently worse than I thought.
ALSO - Hunts Point accident NOT listed in Jason R.DeCesare's
"Subway Accidents" - Do you have the date of it? It wasn't all that
long ago.
Thanks agin
Wayne
I'm not sure of the date of the Hunts Point accident, but I certainly didn't hear about it until this site mentioned. Hey, Jason help us out! As far as the R33/62 wreck is concerned: all R62s have returned to service with new anticlimbers. Someone said they went all the way to Coney Island for repairs. 9154 and 55 are the only redbirds to return to service. 8832 and 33 are out of service - travelled as a divorced married pair to 207 St/Coney Isl. Status is unknown. 8912 and 13 travelled out of 239 St together DEAD. Status is unknown. Haven't seen 8980,81, 9152,53. I wonder if they are still in the Bronx? If 8980 is salvageable they better mate it with 8885. 8885 has been travelling without a companion since July 1997.
Cheers to all,
Constantine Steffan
P.S. Wayne send pictures of these cars if you have any!!
8885 has been converted to a "traction gel" car to be used in work train service to apply a gel to the surface of the running rails to increase wheel adhesion. That car will not return to passenger service again.
Anticlimbers - hmmmmm...interesting.....do describe.
Could it be...COWCATCHERS?
<<< Ewwwwwww! >>>
(wAyNe)
I'm not a railway employee, but I'm pretty sure that an anticlimber is not the same as a cowcatcher. An anticlimber is BETWEEN cars of a train, to keep one car from either telescoping or "mounting" the car ahead of it (with the obvious disastrous results) in a collision or sudden stop. A "cowcatcher", which is a sort of fender or deflector, is on the FRONT of a train. Mind you, since rapid-transit cars are set up to either be the end of a train or in the middle of a train, they probably have both anticlimbers and cowcatchers on the same car.
I've never seen a rapid transit car with a "cowcatcher" or pilot. Anti-climbers yes. If there are any "cowcatchers" on anybody's RT cars, please explain.
I wasn't sure what the terminology meant. The difference has been
explained and anti-climbers sound like a very good thing, indeed.
Pls.xcuse my confusion on this one.
Didnt the old trolleys use 'pilots'? I remember the DC trolleys had
something like that on the front...but I was just a lil kid then.
Wayne
What you saw was the trip gate for the wheel guard (sometimes called a Lifeguard). If an object (person or other) hit the trip gate, the tray drops on the rails, preventing the object from getting into the machinery.
Wheel guards seem to be going out of fashion, which seems to be possibly counter-productive in this age of lawsuit craze. PCC's and LRV's in Philadelphia don't carry them any more, and most LRV's elsewhere don't either. Of course, since there are no non-mu LRV's, that coupler does a pretty good job on anything it happens to hit.
Trip gates and life guards don't work very well in the snow so in Philadelphia they need to be disabled for much of the year anyway.
Streetcars with wheel guards (life guards) had chains to tie them up during deep snowstorms. Septa apparently removed them just to save money, regardless of the potential danger to unwary pedestrians. Also, it doesn't snow that much in Philadelphia, compard to other parts of the US & Canada.
Well I see I got beat on "LIFEGUARD",
Something tells me that there's a "Q" somewhere in Roman Numbers.
What the heck, It works well for a "Slant 40" guy. ;-)
Cowcatcher??
Meant RatCatcher, the rats have gotten so big they had to install ratcatchers...
The R-33s involved are at 207 yard stripped for parts Scratch off 8942 and 43 due to a collision at 105 St and Broadway three weeks ago
Thanks for the information Glenn....See you at the ERA....
What most people should know is that the R62s involved in the 239 St wreck is also the same train that Edward Leary firebombed at Fulton St in December 1994 (car 1391, which now has a dark floor).
Many Cheers To All Rail Buffs,
Constantine Steffan
Ah, but this time, #1391 was the FRONT car! I didn't read this post
yet so 8942 and 8943 are NOT on the list I sent you. I will send you
another one ASAP.
Wayne
Duly noted - however, I think the reason that the Redbird fell off
the rails was that part of it was on a fairly sharp curve, thereby
changing the balance of the train. A similar accident with similar
results happened in January 1977 in Chicago, only there the new train
hit the older train. The newer CTA train fell from the rails to the
street below, with a dozen fatalities.
The R62 did indeed sustain SOME damage to car #1400 but the fact that the part which was hit was on fairly straight track probably prevented it from falling as well. It seems that the only cars that were impervious to side impact were the BMT Standards and D-Type Triplex.
Wayne
I told you those BMT standards and Triplex units were like Sherman tanks.
I read the post about the BMT Standard that 'wanted to be both express
and local' - such a crackup would've HALVED any R68 and badly (e.g.
#3668) smashed up any carbon steel or stainless steel unit.
It's a wonder it didn't take the pillar itself out; maybe it DID.
A friend of my Father's who lived in Brooklyn told a story about a
car that got cute at the 105th Street Gate (way way back when, before
my day) and got obliterated by a 'big, brown train'. That HAD to be
a B-type BMT standard.
Wayne
That BMT standard which tried to be both an express and a local attempted this stunt at an outdoor station - don't remember which one. It may have been one of the express stops on the open cut portion of the Brighton line. Read all about it in Subway Cars of the BMT.
If the Chicago Bears were the Monsters of the Midway, then the standards were the Monsters of the BMT. I've never heard of any cars getting out of line with a Triplex. I guess they knew better.
I couldn't resist this variation on an old joke: where does a BMT standard go along its route? Anywhere it wants to.
How dare you say that the Motorman was drunk. He had to get a drink after the wreck because he knew of his impending doom, Induction into the hall of shame at Damage Inc.
In light of the fact that five innocent people died as a result
of that (or those) drink(s), I would have to refrain from making such
light of the incident, IMO. Let's stick to equipment.
Wayne
Ask any T.A. worker in the Rapid Transit Operations Dept about this incident chances are he will tell you the MM was not drunk. It was reported by several workers that the MM was running up the platform and up the stairs to sign in at the disp, office He must hide it very well and I never saw a drunk run and not stumble. I understand the MM was tired and may have fallen asleep. Thats what happened to Layton Gibson on the J line on the Williamsburg Bridge. That happens to all of us who work late nights as did Robert Ray and Layton Gibson. They are both inducted into our glorious Hall of Shame at Damage Incorporated. Also if you would like to see how the T.A. treats it's crews visit the New Directions website at WWW.NewDirections.Org
I thought that #1439 survived that one, being the second car.
May want to look up #1435 and #1436 - end damage.
BTW the R44 - was #5282. Was not aware of any damage to #5283.
Wayne
1439 suffered severe structural damage 1438 is still in service because it was not in the consist that night , 1436 is on 49 tk at 207 st yard awaiting scrap move to 36 st yard along with 2 halve shells at concourse missing number boards
OK, duly noted. Have updated master scrap list. BTW - 1440 -
wasn't that the one that hit the girders and had her nose up the
back half of #1437 (that one's the two half shells - no doubt the
plaques would be good keepsakes) I have a Newsday pic from Oct 1991
showing one car with a huge gash in its side, almost all the way
cross the car. News diagrams show that 3rd car ran into rear of half of the first car then hit the girders. I could be partly or entirely
wrong on this, so...
Saw the following 5-car consist on #4: 1431-32-33-34... 1438.
Wayne
1440 was the first car of the train this car was cut in half the front half coming to rest approx 200ft north of 14th st the rear half of the car was smashed into the compressor station at the interlocking our newly inducted member escaped unscathed while most of the serious injuries and deaths occoured in the rear half and the second and third cars
Hold that thought! Maybe you ought to check out Jason R. DeCesare's
"Subway Accidents" in this website - there is a photo showing a half
of a car with its roof into the ceiling - Plaque is clearly visible -
1437. ALSO - Daily News account Aug 29 1991 also makes reference
to 1437 as first car. Reliable accounts also state the first five
cars in order as: 1437,1439,1440,1436,1435. They had not yet been
linked up yet (were awaiting) so the units are out-of-sequence.
Thanks for all the other good info...
Wayne
I haven't really figured out this message board - it seems unwieldy - but I saw a few messages here & there that intrigued me.
Is there a new subway map coming out? Has anyone scanned it and could I get a copy?
Is the MTA looking into utilization the lines better, or are they sitting on their hands? There seems to me to be so many ways to improve the system which would be so easy to implement. I have made some suggestions to the MTA, but I can't tell if they take me seriously or not. Some suggestions I have written in are...
...Make N-Train express in Manhattan to provide better access to downtown from Queens.
...Extend G-Train to Seventh Avenue in Park Slope to allow some connection to 4th Avenue Station hub and 4th Avenue Lines.
...Have some F-Trains run express in Brooklyn to Kings Highway during rush hours.
...Run B-Train express along New Utrecht during rush hours (with M-Train on local track)
...Extend C-Train to Lefferts so all A-Trains run to the Rockaways.
Also, any hints on how to scan through these messages would be greatly appreciated! I am overwhelmed!
I haven't really figured out this message board - it seems unwieldy - but I saw a few messages here & there that intrigued me.
Is there a new subway map coming out? Has anyone scanned it and could I get a copy?
Is the MTA looking into utilization the lines better, or are they sitting on their hands? There seems to me to be so many ways to improve the system which would be so easy to implement. I have made some suggestions to the MTA, but I can't tell if they take me seriously or not. Some suggestions I have written in are...
...Make N-Train express in Manhattan to provide better access to downtown from Queens.
...Extend G-Train to Seventh Avenue in Park Slope to allow some connection to 4th Avenue Station hub and 4th Avenue Lines.
...Have some F-Trains run express in Brooklyn to Kings Highway during rush hours.
...Run B-Train express along New Utrecht during rush hours (with M-Train on local track)
...Extend C-Train to Lefferts so all A-Trains run to the Rockaways.
I am simply banging my head against the wall? What can I do to make a difference?
Also, any hints on how to scan through these messages would be greatly appreciated! I am overwhelmed!
Maybe you could suggest this, Olavo:
H - (6th Avenue Local) 57th Street (M) or Rockaway Park (Q). Everyday 6AM - 9PM. Fulton Street Express.
S - (Rockaway Shuttle) Far Rockaway (Q) or Rockaway Park (Q). All the times.
C - Extended to Lefferts Blvd from Weekdays 6AM - 12AM. Other times A or Shuttle.
A - (8th Avenue Express) 207th Street (M) or Far Rockaway (Q). All the times. Express on Fulton Street, Wkdays 6AM - 9PM.
A - (8th Avenue Express) 207th Street (M) or Lefferts Blvd (Q). Weekends 6AM - 12AM. Fulton Street Local.
The (D) should become express on the Brighton Line to Coney Island. On the other hand, the Q should operate along Broadway from Brighton Beach and Ditmars Blvd - Weekdays 6AM - 9PM. It should make local all stops.
The (G) should be extended to Church Avenue making all local stops. While they should be two F services (Rush hours), one to Kings Highway, the other to Coney Island. The F to Coney Island should make Express stops from Jay Street to Kings Highway (peak direction after Church Avenue in southbound direction).
Another note. I have been going to Lower Manhattan Access meetings and basically cornering MTA people into getting some information. I heard that they have been considering making the Jamaica to Flatbush LIRR line a subway line with more frequent service. I have no idea how long they have been thinking about this nor how many decades it will take to happen, but it seems like a great idea to increase service on this line. There are only two trains/hour on the weekends now, which is far too few.
I agree that it is a good idea. They will probably want to extend it to Lower Manhattan to give LIRR commuters a faster trip to Downtown.
There sure are lots of studies going on -- on different ways to provide better service from the suburbs to Manhattan, where all the jobs are. Well, what about the five boroughs? Do they want us all to move out. They want to provide east side access for the LIRR and New Jersey Transit. But IND/BMT riders do not have east side access either -- except for a difficult (not across the platform) transfer to the overcrowded Lex.
Can LIRR shift the trains terminating at Flatbush Terminal to Penn??
I thought Penn was at its train limit per hour.
Before the westside yard Flatbush was needed for layups between rush hours.
Would you have LIRR terminating at Flatbush now terminate at Jay?
(Just rode from Lynbrook to Brooklyn last night)
If I can be permitted a fantasy, consider the following. If the new signals will allow 40 trains per hour in 25 years or so, as the T.A. says, then the Montigue tunnel (which now carries 25) will have peak hour capacity. But I doubt you could push 40 trains per hour through DeKalb, Lawrence, and Borough Hall station with all those people getting on and off.
I've already mentioned how I think the Manhattan Bridge trains could be merged into the Rutgers and Cranbery tunnels after High and York St stations, then branched off into their current routes before the first Manhattan station, to take advanatage of that 40 trains per hour capacity. As part of the same fantasy, you could connect the LIRR trains (I guess they'd have to convert to "subway" for legal reasons) through the Montigue tunnel. There is already a branch off on the other side. The LIRR trains could terminate at Chambers St, and provide the Lower Manhattan Access Long Islanders need. And, I'd ask them to pay for a lot of it.
[The LIRR trains could terminate at Chambers St, and provide the
Lower Manhattan Access Long Islanders need. And, I'd ask them to pay for a lot of it.]
This Lower Manhattan Access stuff is a lot more important to Westchester and Connecticut commuters taking Metro North. They've got to jam themselves on frequently slow Lexington Avenue trains at Grand Central. Long Island commuters can get to lower Manhattan quite easily. Just transfer to a Flatbush Avenue train at Jamaica, take the fast ride into Flatbush Avenue (Jamaica to Flatbush seems faster than Jamaica to Penn), and then it's a short subway ride. Commuters on the Pt. Washington branch obviously have a harder time, but it doesn't sound like the proposals would do much for them.
Peter, You make a good point, i.e. LIRR can CHANGE at JAMAICA, go to Flatbush then transfer to a TA train to "easily" get to lower Manhattan.
I only dispute the "easily" part. The 2 & 3 trains come in packed, just as packed as the 4/5/6 at Grand Central. The options at Grand Central aren't as varied, but not too bad, i.e. take the 4/5/6 or Shuttle to 42 St for N/R & 1/2/3 OR Flushing line to 5th for IND (Yes I wouldn't want to do Flushing line to IND evey day either).
Also the LIRR has added a number of direct links to Flatbush because they have capacity in Brooklyn & don't need any more business to Penn
P.S. I posted some discussion about LIRR service to Lower Manhattan in another thread of this topic.
Mr t__:^)
Moving from the South to the North
Joralemon St Used by the IRT 4&5
Montague St Used by N R M
Clark St Used by the IRT 2&3
Cranberry St Used by A&C
Rutgers St Used by F Actually north of Manhatten Bridge
Just to follow up -- the Clark and Jorolemon tunnels can only carry IRT trains -- as far as I know, please tell me different.
And only the Montigue tunnel is linked up DeKalb Avenue, which otherwise relies on the Manhattan Bridge.
I agree with you on Clark and Joroleman and as far as I know the LIRR cars are a bit larger these days than the "Mineola" was ;-)
About www.nycsubway.org÷·÷Volunteer!
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ Previous Message | Previous in Thread | Next in Thread | Next ]
Re: Jamaica to Flatbush subway? LIRR @ Flatbush
Posted by Thurston on Wed Aug 12 12:58:59 1998, in response to Re: Jamaica to Flatbush subway? LIRR @ Flatbush, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Aug 12 11:57:35 1998
Peter, You make a good point, i.e. LIRR can CHANGE at JAMAICA, go to Flatbush then transfer to a TA train to "easily" get to lower Manhattan.
I only dispute the "easily" part. The 2 & 3 trains come in packed, just as packed as the 4/5/6 at Grand Central. The options at Grand Central aren't as varied, but not too bad, i.e. take the 4/5/6 or Shuttle to 42 St for N/R & 1/2/3 OR Flushing line to 5th for IND (Yes I wouldn't want to do Flushing line to IND evey day either).
Also the LIRR has added a number of direct links to Flatbush because they have capacity in Brooklyn & don't need any more business to Penn
P.S. I posted some discussion about LIRR service to Lower Manhattan in another thread of this topic.
Mr t__:^)
Responses
Re: Jamaica to Flatbush subway? LIRR @ Flatbush - Marty - Latham, NY - Wed Aug 12 14:43:22 1998
Re: Jamaica to Flatbush subway? LIRR @ Flatbush - Larry Littlefield - Wed Aug 12 16:00:20 1998
Re: Jamaica to Flatbush subway? LIRR @ Flatbush - Marty - Latham, NY - Wed Aug 12 16:45:22 1998
The 2 and 3 are pretty crowded when the come into Atlantic Avenue, but they're not quite as bad as the Lexington trains. And the big difference is that the 2 and 3 move quickly between Atlantic and lower Manhattan - compare to the Lexington Crawl. Plus there's always the 4 and 5, they tend to be a little less crowded than the 2 and 3.
Sorry 'bout the previous post, somehow way too much got added. Only the last paragraph is my actual response.
Larry, Please excuse my ignorance regarding which trains use which tunnel, so before I ask my question can I beg U to educate me ?
- Montigue, Rutgers, Cranbery, Joralemon tunnels
- Prev reference was to "Clark Street tunnel" I assume it's actually one of the above.
Now for my question: If the LIRR could switch to Montique tunnel & proceed to Chamber St (I assume this means the A & C lines would be effected getting under the bay). Could the LIRR switch to "E" stubs there (seems to be what you're implying). So lets say this is phase one (you have to complete a phase so the voters can give you applause before you attempt the next), how about phase two: link to PATH & go North up 6th Ave, you'ld have to add some ROW until you get to 9th where the other PATH line comes in.
What would that give you ?
- Not a enourmus amount of digging
- LIRR Flatbush link to 34th, not actually Penn Station, but close
- PATH & LIRR link, incl. Newark & Kennedy link
- Express service from Brooklyn (Atlantic Ave at "L" & maybe Rockaway/Lefferts A & C customers if they provide a way to transfer by moving that stop or making a walkway)(move Nostrand Ave stop to Franklin Shuttle - Hay if people start useing it they'll stop talking about tearing it down & keep a cop there so the bums go somewhere else) It might provide the Flatbush & Coney Isl riders something, maybe not, do they (south Brooklyn) transfer much in Brooklyn now ?
Down side, the LIRR would have trouble collecting fares in the normal way on this route the way, so install Turnstiles at entrance & exit (in Brooklyn). If you're holding a ticket from further out on the line, the agent will open the gate & let you out. This would be better then giving the line to the TA & forcing LI folks to CHANGE in JAMAICA to use it, politically it would seem a easier sell.
Other problem what does it do to A/C Brooklyn folks, nothing of course.
Yes, yes I'm from LI, but am entitled to an opinion too. I'm for anything that gets folks out of their cars ... aren't you ?
Mr t__:^)
Here's a tunnel breakdown:
Montague: M, N, R
Rutgers: F
Cranberry: A, C
Joralemon: 4, 5
Clark: 2, 3
I might add, from the MTA's website's schedule at rush hour.
Takes B Division
Montigue 25 trains
Rutgers 12-14
Cranberry 21
Manhattan Bridge B,D,Q 26
A Division Only
Jorelmon 25
Clark 25
If the IND/BMT capacity is 34 per track, as someone said, than the three tunnels could handle 102 trains right now (120 with new signals), and the three tunnels plus the bridge only carry 86 right now. With a few connections, we could ditch the damn thing and the worry that goes with it.
The 1969 plan said that the number IRT trains to Brooklyn was constrained by the junction at Franklin Avenue, and it was in the MTA to be rebuilt. This, of course, never happened. Does anyone know what the problem is at Franklin Ave, and how it was planned to be rebuilt?
The problem at Franklin Ave is how to get #5 trains from the express track to the Flatbush tracks. At the moment the 5 leaves Franklin, crosses onto the local track and then crosses to the Flatbush tracks. This forces 2 & 3 trains to wait until the 5 makes the complete crossover and the switches to normalize before they can proceed. The same problem exists in the opposite direction where 2 & 5 trains are forced to wait at President St unti N.B. 3s pass the interlocking. The problem at Franklin can also be made worse by dispatchting problems (or mechanical problems ) at and along the tracks to Flatbush -- two tracks and only two pockets at Flatbush. During the rush hours this forces trains to leave almost as fast as they come in. If they don't, you end up with what has been described as "the Flatbush conga line" -- a train at every station from Franklin to Flatbush and back again.
Why don't they just run both the 4 and 5 on the Brooklyn Line, and both the 2 and 3 on Nostrand Ave? True, riders would have to change instead of just waiting for whichever train suits them, but it's just a hop across the platform at Nevins -- most riders are going to Manhattan anyway.
Hey Chris, thanks for the reply, but I guess my main question is whether or not the MTA actually pays any heed to suggestions from regular Joe's like myself. Are changes to service enacted based on suggestions? It seems like changes to the lines are very very few and far between.
The transit Authority could care less what one person thinks because they receive their share of income in funding and bonds because they are a state agency. If they could have their way they would close the Franklin Av shuttle instead of fixing it. Line improvements come from community AND political pressure. Line and bus closures come from riders falling asleep at the wheel
Olavo,
Welcome to Sub-talk !
Eye C U figured out how to change the subject line already
I also see U got right into a thread, but no one else gave you tips on how to use/digest this forum:
- Don't worry about older threads, i.e. use the standard 2 day list;
scan thru the topic list & pick something that interests you; if it's a "re" you can go back & back to get to the start; don't start something realy important to you on a Friday if you're no going to be monitoring Sat & Sun (it's harder to follow the thread)
- If there's something on you mind post it, if it was recently discussed to death ... no one will reply
- So just sit back & enjoy !
=====================================================
Re: Flatbush LIRR turnover to TA - Eye haven't heard that one, but it sounds interesting. It would seem to offer the greatest relief for the "J/Z" line at Jamaica. I assume the TA would ADD some stops along Atlantic Ave on the way ? Did this TA source say anything about what they were thinking about at the Flatbush end ? There sure is enough options available there, incl the BMT "M".
Mr t__:^)
P.S. I always end my post with a "smilie" just so no-1 takes my reply in the wrong way (it's very easy to have you message seem negitive/nasty when that wasn't your intent at all)
Lower Manhattan Access is trying to improve service to downtown in order to make it more marketable. They are looking into connecting the suburban lines directly to downtown by either
-extending the Jamaica/Flatbush line to downtown via tunnel.
-extending the Hudson/Harlem line to downtown via Park Avenue
or
-extending the LIRR line from Penn to downtown via who knows.
I try to bombard them with comments to make sure they don't forget us peons in Brooklyn & Queens in the process.
Their website www.lowermanhattanaccess.com is limited, but you can download a huge file on what they are up to.
They are very focused on the Lex Line and how to improve it, whereas I would rather them look at how to improve the other lines (especially the N/R) in order to provide better alternatives to the 4/5/6.
Olavo, Hummmmm I must have been asleep for a while, I'm surprised that lots of others in this forum aren't making comments, anyhow:
- LIRR extension South ... never happen
- Hudson/Harlem ... Harlem extension South, never happen
- Flatbush LIRR extension
- TA focus on Lex Ave ... why, it's got enough folks riding on it now
Both left seem to be practible:
- Use of Hudson ROW by LIRR: Would need some track tunnling at Penn & platform expansion downtown. Also PATH would have to give up/share ROW North of Twin Towers, that's the tough part (Political/jurisdictional).
- Flatbush LIRR extension via TA "under-ulilized" track to lower Manhattan (No way are they going tunnel all the way from Brooklyn to Manhattan ... can you say 63rd Street ?) The LIRR extension is better than giving the Flatbush line to the TA for YOUR purposes, bringing suburan folks in with cash to spend. Example: My wife will accompany me sometimes when I come in to the city on the LIRR. Why, there's a Conway store next to Macy's. She always buys something, but DOESN'T LIKE the subway. So, if she is typical for you target audience, don't expect her to CHANGE at Jamaica or Flatbush !
Final thought: I like your mission: It's good for transit, good for business, and helps get those folks out of the cars ! Only flaw it's designed to help only one area.
Olavo ... you're doing very well for your first day here !
Mr t__:^)
How about if they connect Dekalb to both Rutgers and Cranberry (Rutgers is being looked into, but for some reason, Cranberry was never considered), and then move the roadways to the outside, and put tracks in the middle for the LIRR, with a new terminal at Canal. (There is room west of the station fir extension). Then, the ramp to Bway would be built over and the express tracks through routed to City Hall, etc.
The only issues would be if two LIRR tracks would fit in the middle (given extra space for wider railroad cars), and how to get the line to the bridge over all the subway tracks in the area.
Running the C to Lefferts Blvd. is an excellent idea. That way, all A trains can go to the Rockaways. Ditto for rush hour express B service along New Utrecht. The one problem would be at Bay Parkway, since M trains terminate there. One solution would be for the B and M to switch terminals during rush hours.
F express service to Kings Highway was offered in the past, but not in the past decade.
I don't believe there is going to be any Broadway express service until the Manhattan Bridge tracks are reopened, or at least until the 63rd St. connection is completed. Here's why: the local tracks are tied to the Montague St. tunnel on the southern end, and the 60th St. tunnel on the opposite end. Both are currently in service. The express tracks, on the other hand, are tied to the south side of the Manhattan Bridge at one end, and the 63rd St. line at the other end. As we all know, the south side bridge tracks have been out of service since 1990, and it while they are supposed to eventually reopen, the general feeling is the bridge will one day be permanently closed to all subway traffic. The 7th Ave. link to 63rd St. is currently being used by a shuttle to Queensbridge while the trackbed along that entire stretch is being rebuilt. If you wanted to have the N run express right now, it would have to switch tracks twice - south of Prince St. and south of 57th St (possibly north of 34th St). This could lead to delays in terms of having to merge with R trains, making any time savings by running express a moot point.
Sorry for the longwinded response.
Not until someone else mention the C extention to Lefferts, it becomes a good idea. I've been posting out here for four months. Not once did someone mention my idea as being good!!!!!!!!! Perhaps better.
What about the H line from 6th Avenue into Rockaway Park? What about the Shuttle from Rk Park to Far Rock?
If I was one of the train people, or, if I lived in south Brooklyn, maybe, just maybe, someone will considered my plans as being good!!!!!
Not until someone else mention the C extention to Lefferts, it becomes a good idea. I've been posting out here for four months. Not once did someone mention my idea as being good!!!!!!!!! Perhaps better.
What about the H line from 6th Avenue into Rockaway Park? What about the Shuttle from Rk Park to Far Rock?
If I was one of the train people, or, if I lived in south Brooklyn, maybe, just maybe, someone will considered my plans as being good!!!!!
Olavo plan does not result in improve service. To some, it might be the complete opposite. I travel to Lefferts Blvd all the time. I will prefer the A at the terminal. However, the A runs so poorly, and many times the C arrives at the Broadway Nassau station first; beating the A to Euclid Avenue.
That is why another line is needed! It will reduce the Amount of terminals the A runs to.
Suggest to the MTA that they send the E to Lefferts when the Williamsburg Bridge closed for 5 months next year. They sent the E somewhere out there during the crash on the bridge. If it works, who knows, maybe they'll consider your ideas. But you have to contact them!
It IS a good idea (I seconded your proposal after all 8-)) except for one hitch: New Yorkers' love for expresses. What's to prevent people from getting off the C at Rockaway Blvd or Euclid Ave. to catch an A train? Then you'll have a lot of empty, frequently running locals and expresses filled with the solid mass of humanity 8-).
currently there are 54 new ''uugh'' m-4 cars in operation on the line with about 5 trains during the weekday almost none at night and since now they run four car trains on the weekend the new m-4 cars provide almost all the service on the line. also starting next spring the rebuilding of the market street end will commence, with new concrete single columns running down the center of market street to replace one of the classist looking steel elevated structures around and also one of the oldest.at least septa knows how to keep an elevated unlike boston who will soon be tearing there remaining section down. also there will be a fantrip on the new and the old cars sometime in october. if anyone wants any information please put a post up for it.
When is the fantrip on the MFSE with the old and new cars? You said sometime in October? Have any specific dates?
WHEN I GET THE SPECIFIC DATE ON THE FANTRIP I WILL POST IT. I KNOW IT IS ON A SUNDAY IN OCTOBER. STANDBY....
thanks for the longwinded reply, Steve. Although I actually got some mish-mash reply from the MTA when I suggested N-express service, I figured out only yesterday from looking at the track maps that N-express won't work until the south side tracks on the Man Bridge are finished.
But for my other ideas which you seem to like, I wish the MTA would pay attention to me!!
I rented the movie US Marshalls over the weekend. There is a chase scene in a Queens, NY cemetery. The guy runs out of the cemetery,
across a set of train tracks and a Metra double decker wizzes by!
I can't believe the poor attention to detail!!!
<< There is a chase scene in a Queens, NY cemetery. The guy runs out of the cemetery,
across a set of train tracks and a Metra double decker wizzes by! >>
That might have been when the MTA was testing the double-decker cars for route clearance, etc. As you know, the LIRR uses double-deckers on the Port Jeff. line pulling the cars behind E-9's on lease from Metra.
>As you know, the LIRR uses double-deckers on
>the Port Jeff. line pulling the cars behind E-9's on lease from Metra
Actually, they don't. I'm not sure where the double deckers came from, but the
locos are FL-9s, butchered up, from Metro-North.
They feature such wonderful things as AC traction, HEP, dual mode, and supposed MDBF of 4000 miles...
In short, they have been a typical LIRR disaster, as I believe the new double deckers and diesels will be too.
The annoying thing is that the LIRR could have replaced the diesel fleet long ago, useinbg more off the shelf equipment, and not these silly douvble deckers, which i understand *Barely* fit into the tunnels under the river, I've heard the clearence to the overhead line is so close there is a rubber coating on the roof...
Nevermind the fact that they have no chance of fitting into the Flatbush tunnels...
On the subject - what's do damm hard about Dual Mode diesels that nobody can make one that works?
[On the subject - what's do damm hard about Dual Mode diesels that nobody can make one that works? ]
There are a lot of them that work. Metro-North and Amtrak don't seem to have that many problems with them. The adapted FL9s seem to have been a shoddy modification...
The root of the problem is that these are not off the shelf items. They are custom designed and don't benefit from the years of debugging that other rail equipment has.
The tricky part is building an engine that contains both a large diesel engine and the transformers needed to use the third rail power that is not too heavy. GE recently has begun marketing a dual mode caternary/diesel locomotive. Its designed to only be operated in caternary mode when necessary, ie in a tunnel, because the transformer is not adequately cooled for longer operation. This was designed as such to save weight.
>The tricky part is building an engine that contains both a large diesel >engine and the transformers needed to use the third rail power that is >not too heavy. GE recently has begun marketing a dual mode >caternary/diesel locomotive. Its designed to only be operated in >caternary mode when necessary, ie in a tunnel, because the >transformer is not adequately cooled for longer operation. This was >designed as such to save weight.
Would this also be the problem with "Dual-Mode" buses. On a recent trip through Seattle, I was surprised to find their articulated dual mode, Breda built, buses, street running beneath catenary with the poles down, apparently using them only in the downtown transit tunnel.
Actually, that was a single-decker diesel-hauled MTA Metro-North (I believe) departing in a northbound direction from the 125th Street Station...I believe.
IT WAS FILMED ON THE METRO-NORTH TRACKS, ACCORDING TO THE TV SHOW EXTRA. IT LOOKS LIKE AROUNG 125th STATION, ANYONE KNOW IF IM RIGHT?
I suspect that was the Tarzan type swinging vine escape onto the "Subway Train powered by the MN Genesis Engine".
I guess those engines also fit the Dual Contract Standards ;-)
John, please stop screaming. (That's what CAPS means in webspeak.)
You are right, indeed. The featured locale was in fact 125th Street Station. I should know - I've been a regular rider of the MTA system (in various ways) since 1989! :-)
The "poor attention to detail" was particularly annoying since the movie it was shamelessly repeating, The Fugitive, was fairly obsessed with geographical correctness - aside from the glaring wrongness of a 400' dam in Illinois!
I only caught one geographical error in the Fugitive - *and it was transit related*. It was also there for a reason, I think. Anyone know the error I am thinking of?
There's no Balbo station on the L. (The portions of the movie set in "Balbo" station were actually filmed at Lake Transfer.) However, if there were a station which connected to the Chicago (nee Conrad) Hilton, where the remaining scenes of the movie were set, it would be at Balbo Street.
A gold star for you! Though I also thought it was the Merchandise Mart station.
I think it is interesting that they wanted to put him near the Hilton, ie be geographically correct, so they invented an el station.
Is the error you're thinking of Balbo Station? Never was a station at Balbo in Chicago.
The scenes for that sequence, starring the then almost new MK cars , were shot at the Merchandise Mart Station of the Ravenswood Brown Line.
I beg to differ that the "Balbo Station" portion was filmed at Merchandise Mart. It was filmed at Lake Transfer. Both have the modern canopy over the station, but when the chase proceeds from the platform into the "Hilton", they clearly go through the lobby of the building on the north side of the station (200 N. LaSalle?); that is, the building to which the station is connected, but not the State of Illinois (Thompson) Center. Other shots inside the Hilton actually appear to have been filmed there.
It has been some time since I've watched this movie, so I'm going from memory, however, isn't the scene of the train coming into the station show it rounding a curve? Isn’t there a curve coming into the MART southbound? At this point the police officer is shot by the "one armed man", and Dr. Kimball exits, actually kicks out the window of, the train.
John, you are probably correct, and I'm not going to spend $4 to rent the video to verify it. But, it would also make sense that the scene was shot at the MART, only because it was done at night, after the Ravenswood service ends at a little after 10PM. There was STILL all night service on the Green Line when the movie was shot in 1993.
Ironic, Dr. Kimball on a Ravenswood train. However, he was going to the LOOP instead of KIMBALL.
Even more ironic was that, in the scene where the Marshals figure out Kimble is back in town, the train announcement they overheard in the background was a "Ravenswood train, making all stops to Kimball. Merchandise Mart next stop."
Just had to reply to this subject. A friend in San Diego, who is a big fan of the LIRR, called me the other night to ask if LIRR had double-deck gallery cars with brown and orange stripes!!! When I asked him what made him think that, he said he just rented "U.S. Marshals". THAT explained it.....I know exactly which scene he was thinking of -- where everyone was supposed to be in a NYC cemetary and run across RR tracks and the Metra train almost runs them over.
The film was shot partially in the Chicago area, and partically in NYC.
Filming locations are as follows:
U. S. Mission to the United Nations in NY City
125th Street station - Metro North R.R.
O'Hare Airport - Chicago
West Vienna, Illinois
Benton, Kentucky
444 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago
Bohemian National Cemetary, Chicago
Cook County Courthouse, Chicago
Reelfoot Lake, Tennessee
St. Ann's Hospital, Chicago
Information I got comes from an inside source in the movie industry.
I saw the same list of locations on Internet Movie Database (inside source, eh?) and was somewhat puzzled. Bohemian National Cemetery is not along an L or a Metra line. However, Rosehill Cemetery does border on the Metra UP-North Line, which at that point runs on an embankment.
Incidentally, I was born at St. Anne's Hospital!
Can someone remind me which scene was shot in the 125th street station?
(I can imagine renting the Fugitive to figure out which station "Balbo Street" actually is. But NO WAY would I spend any money watching US Marshalls again for any purpose....
Near the end. The escape is a tarzan like swing off a roof onto the top of a Genesis led Metro North train. Back in the office the next day we catch the good old US Marshall reading about the "Subway" escape.
Another note. I have been going to Lower Manhattan Access meetings and basically cornering MTA people into getting
some information. I heard that they have been considering making the Jamaica to Flatbush LIRR line a subway line with
more frequent service. I have no idea how long they have been thinking about this nor how many decades it will take to
happen, but it seems like a great idea to increase service on this line. There are only two trains/hour on the weekends
now, which is far too few.
According to the FAQ's of the site, the M and N used to run on the Manhattan Bridge. Questions...
- Does this imply that the R was the only line to use the Montague Tunnel?
- When are the southern tracks supposed to be returned to subway service?
- Is there talk of the N-Train to return to the Manhattan Bridge?
- Do these tracks lead to the express tracks of the N/R-Trains in Manhattan?
Thanks.
It looks like the "R" train was the only train scheduled to use the tunnel, the "N" had split service for local and express. According to transit officials and the DOT the south section of the bridge will never be reopened due to structure damage and decay. If you remember, back around 1986to Dec, 1988 the north side was closed,B and D trains terminated at 34th St from the Bronx and southern trains terminated at 57 st via the BMT tunnels.The reason this bridge is frequently closed is because the track and trains ride outside the pier's centerline, therefore flexing the crossections. Most likely scenario is a new tunnel from Bway Lafayette to Dekalb. The Williamsburg bridge has a far better chance of surviving rail traffic then the Manhattan in the new Millenium. The Manhattan Bridge will suffer from Damage Inc.
> According to transit officials and the DOT the south
> section of the bridge will never be reopened due to
> structure damage and decay.
This is news to me. What is your source on this? Newspaper report? Planning study? Please cite...
-Dave
And if the Manhattan Bridge south side tracks will never be reopened, why is the MTA spending money to rehab the portion of the Canal Streeet station, and trackbed that has the line that connect to the south side of the bridge? If there was a decision to not open the south side, they could wall off the tracks, and retain only the northbound platform for the [N][R] to [J/Z][6] walkway connector that is currently in use.
If the information about the south side of the bridge posted by Damage, Inc proves true, the Canal St station could still be rehab'ed and become a terminal for future Queens Blvd service. The track beyond the station leading to but not crossing the bridge could have a crossover installed for turnbacks and layups.
You'd think that if this were true, that the construction on the bridge itself would be immediately suspended, and that trucks would be prohibited from using the bridge.
--Mark
frrom what it looks like there has been consruction on that bridge for almost a decade. I operated one of the last "N" trains exp via forth av over the bridge around Dec of 1989 before it was closed until today. Look Damage Inc. straight in the eyes and tell me that bridge will be fixed after all this time.
It will be fixed as current plans stand. The current plan is to finish the south side open it and close the north side for additonal repairs.
The Williamburg bridge is being repaired.
Do you have a time frame? Although I see equipment now&then on the Manhattan Bridge, I don't think I've ever seen work actually being done. Is there a year established when the city sees BOTH sides of the Manhattan Bridge operational for subways?
Perhaps you know a dark secret (and after the past 12 years I'd believe a dark secret) but I was at a meeting with the city DOT engineers in charge of the bridges, MTA people, TA people, state DOT people etc.
The "official view" is that the southside tracks will reopen in 2001, and the north side tracks will be closed for rehab at that time. They will reopen in 2003. The TA is not happy about this because it believes the north side tracks -- access to 6th Ave -- is more important. Their position is it can be fixed and should be fixed faster.
After than, the bridge should be good for 30 years. Or 30 years with constant disruption and reconstruction. Or 100 years if you keep patching, depending on the engineer. The theme seems to be if we knew then what we know now we ought to have replaced the bridge, but now that we've spent so much money we've got to keep patching and make it work, since we don't have a billion dollars available for an alternative. Infrastructure Vietnam.
That's why I get so outraged by the Lower Manhattan Access study, the LIRR to GCT connection, the Penn to Grand Central connection, etc. Not that these are bad things, or that suburban commuters don't deserve them, or that they will actually happen (cheaper to buy votes with paper studies than steel and cement). Just the idea bothers me.
[The "official view" is that the southside tracks will reopen in 2001, and the north side tracks will be closed for rehab at that time. They will reopen in 2003.]
And we know exactly what an "official view" is worth ...
The M never ran on the Manhattan Bridge. It replaced the QJ on the Brighton line in the early 1970's, and has always run through the Montague St. Tunnel. The QB, now called the Q, ran along with the N on the Manhattan Bridge South tracks until work began on the bridge in the 1980's.
I forgot to ask -- does anyone know if there are plans to return the M to the Brighton line, or will it be on the West End line forever? Why?
In answer to the first post, what he may have heard about was the Nassau loop specials, which ran on that side of the bridge, and were often called "M" when R27-32's ran there. (the 4th Av service went over the bridge peak direction, and the Brighton specials went over the bridge empty in the reverse peak direction. Meahwhile, the service to Metropolitan was still the #10, and only went to Chambers). When the service ran like this, it was the M Brighton specials, the TT West End/Nassau, and the reverse peak 4th Av specials that used the tunnel with the RR. Then, afterwards, those were replaced by the QJ and then the M, which always ran after that.
In the Dekalb-Rutgers connection proposals, the M is returned to Brighton service when the bridge is fully open or 6th Av side only open. If they don't build the connection, the plan is to move it to 95th St, and add a T service to 57th St./7th Av on the West End when the bridge is fully open.
Too many train in the Coney Island area. What about the H.
That is not too many trains to Coney Island, it is the normal amount when the bridge is fully open.
You've still never said where this H would go when 6th Av service is again extended past 57th St next year, and then extended into Queens in a couple more years. (You had already had a K going out to Queens through 63rd St.)
My plan is for the H to use the 57th 6th Avenue Station (no trains presently above that point) as a terminal. The other terminal will be Rockaway Park (Q).
It operate along 6th Avenue Local tracks until West 4th Street, then, it will switch onto the local tracks stoping at the Spring Street Station (now on the C, and E routes). After Canal St., it will switch to the express tracks (same as C) going into Chambers Street. In Brooklyn, it will become a Express train from Hoty Street or Euclid Avenue via Fulton Street. During the peak direction rush hour period, express service will be made from Euclid Avenue (B) or Aqueduct/North Conduit Avs. Operation hours of this line will be Everyday 6AM - 12AM. Q service out of that terminal might have to be cutback to rush hours to accomodate the new H line. The Q can operate (non rush hours) along the N route (badly needed) from Astoria to Brighton Beach.
I'm also proposing a shuttle from Rockaway Park or Far Rockaway Queens that will run all the times.
A will be eliminated from the Lefferts Blvd Terminal except weekends 6AM - 12AM. On the other hand, it will be covered by the C Weekdays 6AM -12AM, and shuttle (mid)nights hours.
Because of the A's ethnic geographical ridership, nobody gives a dam about improving this service! Instead, everybody rather focus on under used service (B,M, D,Q, N,R, F)
I know there are "no trains presently above" 57th St., but whatI've been saying is that this is TEMPORARY! What do you plan for when it is extended into Queens soon?
Also, the BMT Southern div. has been getting so much attention because it lost 1/3 of its capacity to Manhattan and is in constant danger of losing a second 3rd. Service will likely be increased when the Williamsburg Bridge is closed next year.
I know there are "no trains presently above" 57th St., but whatI've been saying is that this is TEMPORARY! What do you plan for when it is extended into Queens soon?
Also, the BMT Southern div. has been getting so much attention because it lost 1/3 of its capacity to Manhattan and is in constant danger of losing a second 3rd. Service will likely be increased when the Williamsburg Bridge is closed next year.
My plan is for the H to use the 57th 6th Avenue Station (no trains presently above that point) as a terminal. The other terminal will be Rockaway Park (Q).
It operate along 6th Avenue Local tracks until West 4th Street, then, it will switch onto the local tracks stoping at the Spring Street Station (now on the C, and E routes). After Canal St., it will switch to the express tracks (same as C) going into Chambers Street. In Brooklyn, it will become a Express train from Hoty Street or Euclid Avenue via Fulton Street. During the peak direction rush hour period, express service will be made from Euclid Avenue (B) or Aqueduct/North Conduit Avs. Operation hours of this line will be Everyday 6AM - 12AM. Q service out of that terminal might have to be cutback to rush hours to accomodate the new H line. The Q can operate (non rush hours) along the N route (badly needed) from Astoria to Brighton Beach.
I'm also proposing a shuttle from Rockaway Park or Far Rockaway Queens that will run all the times.
A will be eliminated from the Lefferts Blvd Terminal except weekends 6AM - 12AM. On the other hand, it will be covered by the C Weekdays 6AM -12AM, and shuttle (mid)nights hours.
Because of the A's ethnic geographical ridership, nobody gives a dam about improving this service! Instead, everybody rather focus on under used service (B,M, D,Q, N,R, F)
doc.
Okay, okay, we've read enough about your "H" plans :-)
-Dave
I may be new at this thing, but I would like to know what other people are thinking about the system.
You are new, but very respected because you are affiliated with a transit advocacy organization! No one really cares about how good the averaged joe's plan is. Subway Politics.
Sorry to ruin my good reputation, but I have nothing to do with the MTA or LowerManhattan Access. I am just a regular Joe who shows up at the meetings and sends suggestions so that my brothers and sisters in Brooklyn & Queens are not forgotten.
It's not you. And maybe you can tell us where these meeting are. Enough talking! It's now time to take action!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We are all being shortchange. We pay too much for shabby service!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chris, your postings are a bit niave. Yes, there is line prejudice but not based on anything as petty as the ethnicity of the people who ride the line. If that were true, the #7 line would not get the scrutiny that it gets. Ever ride the #7 line. Mostly ethnic minorities, right? The Queens Boro-president is very active in transit issues. The fact is that the A & C get priority over the B & D at Columbus Circle and 145th St. Internal politics to blame there. A word of advice, Chris. Do not be yelling fire until you see the flame.
As for your other comment, about the TA not caring about the opinions of the average Joe. The trouble with the average Joe is that just because he had a Lionel train set, maybe 2 or 3 engines, 20 - 30 cars, 100 or 200 feet of track and a couple of switches, he thinks he can run a railroad. The trouble is when you are talking about millions of tax dollars, hundreds of thousands of riders, work rules and contracts, you just can't say let's try it'cause it sounds good to me. The people who run the rapid transit systems of the country are paid a lot of money to make decisions which give the taxpayers the most 'bang' for their buck. It's the same as the CEO of a major corporation protecting the interests of the stock-holders. If you are so convinced that your plans are so good, get into Operations/Planning and try to sell your ideas to your peers. Then you'll see if they really will fly.
[Yes, there is line prejudice but not based on anything as petty as the ethnicity of the people who ride the line. If that were true, the #7 line would not get the scrutiny that it gets. Ever ride the #7 line. Mostly ethnic minorities, right? The Queens Boro-president is very active in transit issues. The fact is that the A & C get priority over the B & D at Columbus Circle and 145th St. Internal politics to blame there.]
I can cite another example of service quality being unrelated to ethnicity. At least in Manhattan, the N and R lines seem to have a "whiter" ridership than most other lines. If we were to accept the claimed relationship between rider ethnicity and line quality, then the N and R would have excellent service. Yet they're not known as the "Never" and the "Rarely" for nothing ...
Exactly - an excellent example of what I was trying to express.
You're exactly right concerning the Queens borough president. That's why the E and F lines would always have the newest equipment (R-38s, slant R-40s, R-46s).
That proves that the R68 & R68A is junk.
And you are going to read more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You'll don't understand, that your judgement might be bias!!!!!!!!!!! Resulting in bad planning an ideas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And you are going to read more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You'll don't understand, that your judgement might be bias!!!!!!!!!!! Resulting in bad planning an ideas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Web Host Bias!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since you took this public, so will I.
Ahh, so that's the real thing you're upset about. Anyone who doesn't endorse your plans is a racist, is that what you're saying? I'm probably the least racist person you're going meet on this web site.
My sole objection to your post is that I see it 2-3 times a day. Instead of using your energies posting over and over to the site, and then complaining that no one has posted that they think it's "good", you could direct it to those people who can actually DO anything. I assure you there are no MTA transit planning executives using my web site for ideas. Have you written to the MTA Office of the Chairman? Have you written to the Straphanger's Campaign? Have you written to your Borough President's Office? Have you organized a petition of registered voters that ride the "A" train to support your "H" plan? Why do you think that the people who can get this done will read it off the web site? Why would the people who can get this done care what a bunch of random railfan web surfers think?
You and I talked about this before. I do not run the web site in order to advocate projects-- I don't want the web site to be a political thing, I'm not taking a side, and I'm not going to use the site to endorse plans, like those that you suggest, or any others.. Maybe you could organize another group and a web site to be used for gathering such information.
I have no objections to what you're saying and the reasons you think it should be done. But really, is it necessary to post it so often?
-Dave
I'm new, so I hope I didn't add to the stew, but personally I have been sending suggestions to the MTA and I have been going to meetings, and I don't get a whole lot of feedback, so I think this forum is great for people to give me feedback, like "Olavo, that idea SUCKS because (a), (b), and (c)" or "Olavo that idea is slammin!" Unfortunately, if the MTA says it won't work (I have actually gotten letters BACK from them), there response doesn't exactly tell me why, so I'm left frustrated.
Anyway, I'm glad this site is here
I ride both the F and the A/C to work, and occasionally take the Brighton (D/Q) or the 4th Avenue (B/M/N/R) for a change of scenery. I don't agree that the A/C are shortchanged, at least as measured by crowding. The number of passengers per train seems about the same on the A/C as on the F. The real crowding is on the Brighton, but they can't add trains because of the Manhattan Bridge. If they find more structural damage on the bridge, and all the Brighton riders end up having to take the Franklin Ave shuttle to the A/C, you'll have the last laugh.
One of the problems with the A/C is that almost no one takes the C, they all want the express. So there are only 6 trains per hour (one every 10 minutes) on the C, which is a long wait if you are at a local stop. Perhaps if they eliminated the express stops at Nostrand and Utica, and shifted trains from the A to the C, this could be corrected -- you'd have one train every five or six minutes on both lines. Express riders could go faster, and local riders would have a shorter wait. But you still have the problem of the A having three terminals. I guess they need all those As to provide service to all three.
I used to ride the F and the A/C to work, and it was very frustrating. I moved and now only use the C, which is actually much better.
On my old commute to downtown, the F would come like water, but at Jay there was often a relatively long wait for the A or C, and often the C arrived first and by that time the platform at Jay was PACKED with people. The shorter train made people crazy.
Back to Brooklyn, the situation would be reversed, again not in my favor. The A/C would pour down the line, and often there would be a 15minute wait for an F-Train.
I think it would be worthwhile for the MTA to take some of the rush hour F-Trains, and run them express from Jay to Kings Hwy or Avenue X. I am surprised that this has not happened considering the political clout in Park Slope. 7th Avenue is a busy station, but the F-Train crawls into Manhattan from there.
I never ride the Brighton Line past Atlantic Avenue, so I don't know what the situation is.
I don't mind the lack of service on the C-Train so much, but I think it might help on the Upper West Side, where too many people (I think) use the Bway trains because the B/C are so irregular.
You know, I've always wondered about service on the Upper West Side. It seems like everyone wants to take the 1/2/3, even though they have a second, newer, subway. I think there used to be three local trains on the IND, one of which terminated at Chambers like the E -- the cutback must represent falling ridership. Yet the IRT is packed.
The only reason I can think of is that the IND is on the park, where really rich people who don't ride the subway live. For subway riders, the IRT is closer.
Along those lines, I co-worker has an interesting theory behind the placment of the second IND trunk on 6th Avenue rather than the east side. He says the Rockefellers were behind it. To develop Rockefeller Center, they wanted to get rid of the 6th Ave El, and have a new subway connected to the prestige areas of the city at the time -- Upper West Side, Grand Councourse, Washington Heights, Queens Blvd.
[You know, I've always wondered about service on the Upper West Side. It seems like everyone wants to take the 1/2/3, even though they have a second, newer, subway ... The only reason I can think of is that the IND is on the park, where really rich people who
don't ride the subway live. For subway riders, the IRT is closer.]
Now that's a creaky old stereotype, that the really rich don't ride the subway. Maybe that's true for a _very_ few people at the absolute top of the heap, but one feature of the subway is how is attracts just about all income classes - yes, including CPW residents.
A more likely reason for the IRT's overcrowding is that it's more centrally located. After all, nobody lives to the east of the Upper West Side IND, while the IRT is surrounded by residences.
---- Larry L writes:
"You know, I've always wondered about service on the Upper West Side. It seems like everyone wants to take the 1/2/3, even though they have a second, newer, subway ... The only reason I can think of is that the IND is on the park, where really rich people who don't ride the subway live. For subway riders, the IRT is closer."
--- Peter R. responds:
"Now that's a creaky old stereotype, that the really rich don't ride the subway. Maybe that's true for a _very_ few people at the absolute top of the heap, but one feature of the subway is how is attracts just about all income classes - yes, including CPW residents.
A more likely reason for the IRT's overcrowding is that it's more centrally located. After all, nobody lives to the east of the Upper West Side IND, while the IRT is surrounded by residences."
--------
And I respond:
I've spent a lot of time on the Upper West Side lately, much of it in the company of several neighborhood residents, all of whom happen to live just off Central Park West. I've found there are actually quite a lot of people there who are rich enough to take cabs, limos or their own cars, and who rarely or never take the subway. The rest of us take it all the time, of course.
Also:
Peter notes that no one lives east of the IND along CPW (unless they live in Central Park!), thus making the Broadway IRT more centrally located and helping to explain its popularity in the neighborhood.
It actually seems to go much further than that. For one thing, there are also no businesses east of the IND on CPW to attract customers. In fact, there are relatively few business, most of them relatively low-traffic, on the west side of CPW for most of its length, and the same goes for the side streets between CPW and Columbus.
And along those same streets, where some very tall luxury apartment buildings give the appearance of a large residential population, it's important to remember that some of those luxury apartments are huge -- so there are fewer apartments in each building than you might expect. And many are occupied by wealthy people who have one or more additional homes and spend summers, weekends and long vacations away from New York. In other words, there aren't as many people (potential IND riders) actually present in those buildings on a given day as you might think.
By contrast, Broadway and the avenues and streets around it on the Upper West Side are lined with restaurants and other businesses and teeming with shoppers and diners until late at night. And the residential buildings on both sides include fewer big, half-empty duplex penthouses and more crowded, exorbitantly priced shoeboxes. So the Broadway IRT gets plenty of business from those factors as well.
Having said all that, flying from Broadway and 72nd down to World Trade Center on a Number 3 Train express also does beat the pants off the irregular A,C and D service you get along CPW.
Nicely put analysis of the Upper West Side. You are definitely on target about how bustling that stretch of Boradway is. Central Park West is positively bucolic by comparison :-)
Well, I managed to discuss the two separate subway services on the Upper West Side without ONCE mentioning how starkly they point up the need for a second subway corridor on the East Side, on, say, Second Avenue ... oops!
Quite true, quite true. The 3 does fly down that line. So does the 2, if you prefer Redbirds. 5 stops from 72nd to Park Place vs 10 from 72nd to WTC on the C. Admittedly, you don't gain a whole lot by changing to an A at 59th, either - 3 fewer stops, to be exact. (Forgive me for badmouthing my all-time favorite route.) Those West Side IRT trains do operate on very short headways all day long. I've never had to wait more than a couple of minutes for any train on that line. By contrast, the wait on the IND can be much longer, even during rush hour.
One other comment: the IND lines were built for the most part to compete with and eventually replace the els. And, yes, the 6th Ave trunk line did indeed replace the 6th Ave. el. It's possible that the Rockefellers could have had some influence when it came to building that line. Mayor John Hylan was the driving force behind that system; it's an oft-repeated story, but he never passed up an opportunity to promote municipal operation. Chances are that, had the Second System lines been all built, the Broadway-Brooklyn, Myrtle Ave., and Jamaica lines wouldn't be around today.
There were three different IND locals on Central Park West once, the AA (168th St. to Hudson Terminal), the BB (168th St. to 34th St./6th Ave.) and the CC (Bedford Park Blvd. to Hudson Terminal), but only 1 or 2 of them ran at any time (when the CC ran, the AA didn't, and then the AA ran all night long). And yes, service used to be much better on the IND than it is today. During rush hours now there is only train every 5 minutes on the route (alternating B and C trains). It's not the reduction from 3 lines to 2 that characterizes the reduction in service but fewer trains per hour. I live between the two lines and generally take the IRT - because it runs much more frequently, and I can usually get on. I usually get a seat on the IND, but the wait can be a real trial. Not only are there no houses on the east side of the IND, but the population on either side of Broadway has increased a lot in the last 10 years. Just look at the crowds trying to get off the uptown IRT at 66th St. (originally built with just one stairway!) during rush hours. At least at this station another stairway is being built, but just wait until The Donald's apartment houses are finished on West End Ave.! I'll be glad I live north of 72nd St. then.
Historical note: The BB was a rush hour only service that was eliminated in 1967 when its routing was merged into the then-new B (West End) route.
Your comment about IRT service frequency, and other persons' comments about speed, are why I prefer the Broadway routes to the CPW ones. I frequently travel between Penn Station and West 95th St - and the 1/2/3 frequency and speed beats the B or C any day.
The Broadway routes also have the advantage of serving a corridor where there is non stop pedestrian traffic day and night. CPW, by contast, is 100% residential (except for the museums at 77th/81st Streets).
All of the points made are very sensible. Still, doesn't it seem strange that the "original subway" outdraws a more "modern" version built to higher standards 30 years later? And I think the same thing is true of the West Bronx -- the Jerome Avenue El outdraws the Concourse for those with access to both. Is it true of the Eastern Parkway line vs. the Fulton St line as well for those living between the two? With 6 trains per hour at rush hour on the C, I wouldn't doubt it. And if you live between the Flushing line and the Queens line, which do you choose?
Perhaps the IRT got there first and took the best spots? Or does a higher level of service generate higher ridership?
One thing that occurred to me is that many IRT stations look "friendlier" than IND stations. With their long, dark mezzanines, IND stations can look somewhat forbidding, and that may (whether sensed sensed or not) scare some riders off to the IRT.
Interesting ... friendly station "atmosphere" as a selling point. Maybe it's true for our Upper West Side comparison.
For example, the IND at 81st and CPW is better designed to handle crowds than the historic IRT station at 72nd and B'way (which is a nightmare at rush hour, I'm told).
But off-peak, the IRT station is somehow more connected to the street: the highly visible entrance is in a central traffic island in a busy intersection, under the historic entry kiosk, with an "intimate" stairway dropping straight down to the island platform and all the trains you need.
Whereas at the IND station, going downtown requires a walk down a flight of stairs, then a hallway, and another flight to the lower level, which is often sparsely populated at night.
I guess Parsons was right when, from what I've read, he decided to put the subway just under the street. It makes it seem more inviting, especially with side platforms. You go down the stair and you're there. When you exit those huge IND stations late at night it seems there is always one spot where you feel uneasy.
[I guess Parsons was right when, from what I've read, he decided to put the subway just under the street. It makes it seem more inviting, especially with side platforms. You go down the stair and you're there. When you exit those huge IND stations late at night it seems there is always one spot where you feel uneasy.]
It's not only the size of the IND stations that contributed to the creepy feeling. Many if not most of the mezzanines are dimly lit, which is a big factor.
While is is certainly true that the IND was built for maximum capacity everywhere and then lit on a Dickensian scale, the "Parsons" idea you refer to gets us two token booths/clerks per station minimum whereas a fare mezzanine,island platform style can be just one. For example some CTA, some BART. This design also means One set of platform escalators or elevators--and one to the street. While 72nd St on the IRT is an aesthetically pleasing station as many others are not, it is also inadequate to its market. The logic of building for expansion from the get go will be vindicated when the other lines are filled in. After all the IND has always featured the blocked off mystery stairs to nowhere--like at 2nd Ave, E B'way etc.
[While is is certainly true that the IND was built for maximum capacity everywhere and then lit on a Dickensian scale, the "Parsons" idea you refer to gets us two token booths/clerks per station minimum whereas a fare mezzanine,island platform style can be just one.]
That's true, but there are alternatives to a full-length, largely empty mezzanine.
[The logic of building for expansion from the get go will be vindicated when the other lines are filled in. After all the IND has always featured the blocked off mystery stairs to nowhere--like at 2nd Ave, E B'way etc.]
This is a case of planning for a future that never arrived ...
You still have to give credit to those planners who designed the IND. They were certainly thinking ahead. It wasn't their fault that the Depression hit. I still often wonder what New York would look like today if all those Second System lines had been built. Can you imagine all the routings and lines which could have gone through South 4th St.? Of course, we might also be listing many more unused express tracks, too.
[You still have to give credit to those planners who designed the IND. They were certainly thinking ahead. It wasn't their fault that the Depression hit. I still often wonder what New York would look like today if all those Second System lines had been built.]
You are right, the IND stations wouldn't be so "overdesigned" if things had worked out as planned. It really was a succession of three events that ended plans for the Second System: first the Depression, then World War II, and finally postwar suburban growth and greater car use.
Let's not forget the city's fiscal crisis of the 70s. Had NYC not gone bankrupt, the 2nd Ave. line more than likely would have been completed and in operation today.
[Let's not forget the city's fiscal crisis of the 70s. Had NYC not gone bankrupt, the 2nd Ave. line more than likely would have been completed and in operation today.]
The line still could have been completed even with the fiscal crisis, as federal funds were available for its construction. Unfortunately, Mayor Beame decided to tap into these funds to cover current operations (the so called "Beame Shuffle"). He could have kept the funding available for construction *and* paid for the current operations by raising the fare five or ten cents.
I don't beleive for a minute that the second ave line would have been completed. I won't go into details but just look at other T.A. projects that have gone belly up and millions of taxpayer dollars wasted! Oh, let me give you just one blunder, At E180th street on the I.R.T. in the new tower a brand new model board was installed, approx 8 years ago. only a small section was ever used. Now with the signal contract for the W.P. road line this board will be removed and a new one put in. Need I say more?
I think for 2nd Avenue to have been completed, there would have had to be no MTA and no Lindsey. Lindsey bankrupted the city, and diverted funds from public works to other priorities. And the MTA had a long list of city and suburban improvements with a regional, federal, and toll base. The city paid a good part of that base. The suburban investments were completed, while the subway fell apart.
Actually, I've been thinking: one of the purposes of the IND system was to compete with the IRT and BMT (look at the Grand Concourse vs. the Jerome Ave. line, for example). If you look at some of the routes for the Second System, it seems to be the case here too. For instance, the route going from lower Manhattan through E. Broadway to S. 4th St. and beyond parallels a good chunk of the existing BMT eastern division. If the Second System had been built, how many old lines and els would have been torn down in favor of the subway? Today we would be thinking wistfully of what it would have been like to ride an all-elevated route from Jamaica to the Williamsburg Bridge! 8-)
I quite agree. Chances are that the Broadway-Brooklyn line, or at least the remaining Myrtle Ave. portion would be gone today. One of the S. 4th St. lines was supposed to run along Myrtle Ave, joined by an extension along Lafayette Ave. which would have started at Bedford-Nostrand Aves. where the unused middle rack is today. There was a provision to tie the Jamaica line in with the Liberty Ave. extension which was supposed to go all the way out to Springfield Blvd.
Interestingly, there were no Second System lines planned to compete with any of the Southern Division lines in Brooklyn. I believe that the IND south Brooklyn line was intended to take over the Culver line eventually, which is exactly what happened in 1954. Construction on the connecting ramp from Church Ave. to Ditmas Ave. began before the outbreak of WWII. My 1948 Hagstrom's map shows a broken red line along that stretch indicating a proposed connection.
I always thought the lower east side stations were so large because the population density in the area was much higher at the time, plus Orchard Street and the like was a popular shopping district. But when Mayor Laguardia got rid of the sidewalk vendors, the area as a whole took a dive, including the businesses that complained in the first place.
[I always thought the lower east side stations were so large because the population density in the area was much higher at the time, plus Orchard Street and the like was a popular shopping district.]
That could be. Population density in the Lower East Side was the highest in the world at one point early in the 20th Century. It may have declined somewhat by the time the IND came along, due to more rigid building and safety codes, but was still extremely high.
Even so, at least the Second Avenue station was built with Second System expansion in mind.
Plus, having only one level down to the tracks means that you can't transfer across to go in the opposite direction. This is especially true with side platforms (i.e. 79th, 86th Sts. on B'way), but is now true at 72nd St. as well. One short flight down to a mezzanine and one more down to the trains makes more sense.
I agree that the IND design is better in many ways; I just wish it could be (could have been) made a little more friendly and connected to the street.
The IND has reduced the size of many of their lesser used mezzanine areas. The IND is also in the process of upgrading the lights in their mezzanine areas. Unfortunately, it all takes time and money.
(This post is eprsonal opinion based on on-site observations and is person opinion and not that of the MTA or NYCT)
Okay, this makes me ask another question:
When the BMT was given letter designations like then IND, what was the transition like? Were there big public notices published? Or did people who had ridden the "10" just suddenly find an "M" on the roll sign on the front of the train? Was there any resistance?
Letter routes were introduced on the Southern Division in 1960-61 with the arrival of the R-27s. There were "Know trains at at glance" placards displayed on station platforms which gave the new letter marking and the associated title. I remember seeing those signs on the Broadway line in 1967.
The R-27s and R-30s kept the BMT's titles along with the letter markings: Q/Broadway-Brighton, RR/Bway-4th Ave., etc. The R-32s abandoned this practice and gave only the Manhattan trunk route name: N/Broadway, Q/Broadway, RR/Broadway, M/Nassau St. Only the T and TT were still identified as West End.
Since these letter markings coexisted with the number markings on, for instance, the Triplex units, Southern Division riders had a chance to get used to the new letters. Even so, there was confusion, even among TA personnel.
On the Eastern Division, the change was much more abrupt. All BMT numbered markings were officially dropped when the Chrystie St. connection opened, and all of a sudden you had JJ, LL, M, MJ, QJ, and RJ markings. I don't believe there were any "Know trains at a glance" signs for the Eastern Division; I never saw any, anyway. Interestingly, the only time you would see a number on an Eastern Division train was if it was made up of R-16s. Ditto for multisectionals, although they were retired in 1961. It wasn't until the R-7s and R-9s went over to the Canarsie line in 1969 that you saw an LL marking.
I wonder to what extent BMT passengers thought of their lines in terms of route numbers. Only the triplexes and the multi-sections had nubmers, after all, and all other lines had to be known by their route names or their marker light codes. I remember signs along Broadway and Nassau St. referring to the "Brighton line," the "Sea Beach Express" or the "Jamaica Express," not to route 1, whatever or 15. I also remember looking out for the green/green marker lights on the Jamaica train in Manhattan (on the front of the BMT standards), not for route 15, which wasn't indicated on the standards, in any case. How about on the 4th Ave./Broadway/Queens Blvd. local trains in Queens? What were they known as? Does anyone remember thinking of southern division BMT trains by their route numbers in the 1950s?
Growing up with the BMT, I never heard anyone ever refer to a train by its route number. Even when R-1s operated on Fourth Avenue with a big '2 Fourth Avenue' on the car ends, I never heard them used.
It is interesting that BMT pocket maps (at least in the 1930s) used the numbers (with a. b. c. designations for various services on a particular line--for example, 1 a. was Brighton Local via Tunnel, 1 b. was Brighton Local via Bridge, express in Manhattan, 1 c. was Brighton Express via Bridge), but after the Board of Transportation took over, the numbers on printed maps were dropped. Of course, the BMT also tried, for years, to have each elevated line referred to as an 'L' (Chicago usage) rather than an 'El' (Manhattan use), but that never caught on either.
Even when R-16s carried both end and side signs with the numbers, I never heard anyone refer to routes by number. One odd thing-- when '15 Jamaica Express' or 'Local' started to be used, that label was a change--with BMT Standards, the side signs almost always read 'Broadway (Brooklyn) Express' or 'Local' with Jamaica as the terminal. The sign curtains on the Standards had 'Jamaica Express' and 'Local,' but I never saw those parts of those signs used.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
I almost forgot: there was a 'New Subway Routes" pamphlet which was distributed at token booths in late 1967. It did not, however, have any information on Easten Division letter markings except for the QJ and RJ; it dealt with new routes (B, D, F, GG, RR, EE) as the result of the opening of the Chrystie St. connection. There were references to the LL on strip maps where a transfer was available; it would say "BMT 14th St.-Canarsie (LL)" There was a footnote on it: "This map is limited to new subway routes. All other routes are unchanged and are not shown". Unfortunately, I no longer have my copy of this map.
Basically, what you suggested is true: all of a sudden, the #10 was the M. Of course, with BMT standards, it didn't make any difference, since they didn't have bulkhead signs. The R-16s received new color-coded route roller curtains in the bulkhead destination slot as well as the side route slot. So did the R-32s and R-38s, but only in the front destination slot.
"M" riders probably didn't see a front sign that said "M" until
about 1969, methinks. That's when the last of those BMT Standards
rode off into the sunset, only to be replaced by equally picturesque
R-7s and R-9s. Not to mention a small but bright band of R42s,
with pretty powder blue "M"s in their windows. A similar situation
probably occurred on the "L". My Sept.19, 1968 trip via "QJ" train from 168th St.to Court-Boro Hall found nothing but BMT-B's on what was billed as the "M". A lone R16 was the "JJ" of the day.
I think the R16s were the stuff of the "RR" line back then, with a few on the "JJ" (1967 to 1969 or so) then they wound up on the "EE" and "GG". The lines that probably had the biggest "learing curves": #15/"QJ" and #14/"JJ".
Wayne (an Eastern Division die hard fan)
The JJ (and RJ) departed from the scene on July 1, 1968. At the same time, rush hour service to Atlantic Ave./Rockaway Parkway from Broadway Brooklyn was discontinued. The QJ became a 24/7 operation between 168th St. and Broad St., and ran to Brighton Beach on weekdays. On August 19 (30 years ago today), it swapped terminals with the D and began running to Coney Island.
I neglected to say what you alluded to: M trains weren't marked as such until 1969 as well. Basically, most Eastern Division trains didn't start sporting their new letter codes until suitably equipped rolling stock arrived: R-7s, R-9s, and R-42s.
I saw mostly R-27s and R-30s on the QJ, with some R-42s along with R-7s and R-9s. A few R-16s also served that line, but I never saw them. I rode a #15 of R-16s over the Williamsburg Bridge in September of 1967, and a JJ of R-27/30s in early 1968 from Elderts Lane to 168th St. and back.
I could have sworn that was a "JJ" train - saw it going eastbound
at Myrtle Avenue - could have been a "QJ" that was mis-signed...
Anyway, it was for sure an R-16. The "M" that was on the
center track there was a BMT Standard. Also that trip was before
I started writing down numbers, so notation was visual only.
Wayne
My recollection is that before the BMT and IND were merged and letter ID's given to BMT trains, Nassau St. service from southern Brooklyn went like this: (1) during mid-days, the Culver local ran via tunnel, in both directions, between Coney Island, onto the Nassau Sti. lne, and terminated at Chambers St. (2) During rush hours, the Culver was "Culver Express", and ran local (as before) between Coney Island and 36th St., then express to Pacific St., then on the inner express tracks by-passing DeKalb Ave., It then operated on the "Nassau St. lopp", but I don;t remember if it was on the Manhattan Bridge to Nassau St., and the Montavule St. tunnel circling back to Brooklyn. Also during the rush hour, the West End "short line" ran from Bay Parkway, local all the way to Nassau St. via the "Nassau St. Loop". It ran in the opposite direction from the Culver Express. I think Brighton M service was a much newer addition. I think the Culver Express/West End local Nassau St. rush hour service might have run from
the 1900's, so having it on the West End now, (as the M) might not be an abberation or temporary situation. If it was to be on the Brighton line, why can't it be there now? What does the Manhattan Bridge problem have to do with where it goes in southern Brooklyn since it uses the tunnel in both directions.
Adding a T service to the West End was mentioned (if the Manhattan Bridge was fully operational). Would this mean the B service up 6th Ave. would be replafced by the 7th Ave. T service? Or would it be in addition to B service? Operating full-time or in the rush hour only? And maybe if in addition to the B, the West End would then get peak period express service from Bay Parkway to 36th St.?
These are all details, compared with main task of getting a new East River tunnel built. Though a connection to the F would allow use of the Rutgers tunnel, there should be a way, or ways to reach the goal of providing both 6th aAVe., and Broadway express access, to any bridge replacement approach. Look at the money spent building the four-track 63rd. St. tunnel. What a waste, when two tracks would have been enough. The money spent on the unused tracks could have built, or gone a long way, towards providing the resources to build a real Manhattan Bridge replacement. What's the clst per passenger for the Franklin Ave. rehab? That sounds like pure politics, rather than demonstrated need. What with the Metro card, transfers could be made between the BMT and IND in downtown Brooklyn, going up to street leve. Or a tunnel pedestrian tunnel could be built between BMT and IND stations for much less than the rehab job, also providing money to fund the really-needed Manhattan Bridge replacement.
Culver changed dir and ran as you said VIA BRIDGE and back thru tunnel in RH.
WE short lines ran in RH between 62nd and/or BP via TUNNEL and back via bridge. Many years the WE non-short line in RH terminated at BP and wood el-cars ran SS to Coney (steel car shortage).
[Culver changed dir and ran as you said VIA BRIDGE and back thru tunnel in RH.
WE short lines ran in RH between 62nd and/or BP via TUNNEL and back via bridge. Many years the WE non-short
line in RH terminated at BP and wood el-cars ran SS to Coney (steel car shortage). ]
I don't mean to flame, and this message is not the only one to which this applies, BUT,
Can people posting here PLEASE try to make messages legible? Yeah, lingo is cool, but what on earth does that message say???????
The T was in addition to the B It replaced the M which would go to 95th St. under that scenario. The ERC plans, which I had posted on last winter only showed peak period service. I myself would like to know what other times would be like under the plans
It seems to me that whoever designed the MetroCard and associated reader didn't take much time or effort. One of the most successful designs in the NY area is the PATH system. I've used PATH for about 5 years now with a monthly card. In that time, I have only had ONE instance where the card would not work, whereas in three months of MetroCard use, I've had FIVE (on the last instance I gave up and used a token)!! The PATH readers do not swipe, they are enclosed and utilize a slot which you feed your card into. By being enclosed, they reduce the chance of grime and dust accumulating on the reader. By utilizing a feed slot, they eliminate the chance of an incorrect swipe. Granted the feeder may increase the time of entry by a second or two, but it is certainly preferable to having to swipe several times! PATH may have other problems with their service, but they hit the nail on the head with their entry system.
According to the official viewpoint, "dip" type readers wouldn't be practical on the subway because of the high volume of ridership. "Swipe" type readers are _theoretically_ faster and therefore more suitable for subway crowds. In fact, the frequent swiping errors might well cancel out any speed advantages. Another significant point is what you noted, the success of dip readers on PATH. While PATH's overall ridership is a small fraction of the subway's, it's a much smaller system. Some of the busier PATH stations probably have rush-hour entry volumes comparable to many subway station, especially considering that PATH stations don't appear to have as many entrances or turnstiles.
Peter & Anthony,
A couple of our friends from Chicago have pointed out (in a different thread) that their system (same mfg) use "dip" vs "swipe" at their Turnstiles, AND their experience is also virtually trouble free.
"busier PATH stations at rush hour" can you say MORE TURNSTILES to better serve the public.
The TBTA also says that machines are faster than people as one of their justifications for more machines.
I don't necessarily take on blind faith what the "suits" at the TA, TBTA, etc. have to say.
I think someone/group at the TA or MTA made a decission on this, because there was obviously a choice, and now they're doing dammage control. They'll keep saying swipping is better until someone proves them wrong, then someone will be fired, then eveything will be better.
Well I should get off the soap box now, sorry for the netigive tone everyone !
Disclaimer: I guess U figured out by now I don't work for the TA & I'm not a "suit" but do have an opinion about some things.
Mr t__:^)
The PATH card "dip" is a good way to go. Insert the card and it comes out what 4 inchs down the turnstile still on the "free" side.
Path also keeps ZERO Value cards. This could be a help, so far I have run into 4 people that keep swiping "Insufficent Fare" cards... One person needed the display to be in Spanish, I tried to tell her but she didn't understand.
Although animals, other than seeing eye dogs and ones in portable
carriers, are not allowed on transit vehicles, Would they be allowed
on subway/elevated platforms, downtown train stations (New York's
Penn Station, Grand Central, Philadelphia's 30th Street Station, etc.)
or pedestrian concourses, which are often connected to transportation
terminals and subway stations?
For example: If I was walking my dog in Center City, Philadelphia,
and I was going to meet a friend at either Penn Center Suburban
Station, or 30th Street Station, Would I be allowed to enter the
station with my dog? I have on occasion seen people walking dogs
through the main concourse of 30th Street Station, and they WERE NOT
seeing eye dogs. I did however, get permission from the token booth
clerk at the 46th Street Station on SEPTA's Market-Frankford Line to
take my dog up to the platform while I photographed the station, and
a couple of the trains pulling in and out of the station 2 weeks ago.
He was a little hesitant about letting me take the dog up to the
platform at first, but I told him that I wasn't intending to board
any trains, but just to take a few pictures, then come back down. I
offered to pay a fare, he accepted, and let me and my dog through the
turnstile.
Anyway, Hope someone can answer my question. Thanks.
At least as far as the New York system is concerned, whether or not animals are allowed at a certain location probably would depend on whether or not that location is within the fare-controlled zone.
From observation this past weekend, a passanger at Atlantic Ave/Pacific Street in Brooklyn while on the paid side in the long hallway (if you will) that connects D/Q to IRT then the 4th Ave line was written a ticket for having a dog not in an approved container. Said dog was being held by the passenger as the ticket writing went on so I don't know if they were walking the dog or what. They were then asked to leave the system once they got the ticket. The officer suggested a cab home.
So I assume that anywhere that is TA property you can't have an animal out and about.
Are seeing-eye dogs allowed?
Eye Seeing, Hearing and maybe even the "new" seizure dogs are allowed in the subway. I believe the must have a harnes of some type but who knows what the "rule" is.
What if you just take pets?Can they fall over the platform? If they do, who rescues them?
The rule is one of common sense & logic: only seeing eye dogs are allowed to walk on subway property. All other amimals including the snakes & other creatures people carry must be in containers which is CARRIED by the paying rider. The subway is not for non seeing eye dags anyway: the dogs are well trained, other aminals tend to get very agitated & nervous because their ears are more sensitive to sound than human ears.
Here in Chicago, part of the CTA security program is patrols by guard dogs wearing muzzles, led by handlers in all-black jumpsuits. The dogs are invariably German Shepherds. Did the dogs have to get special training (beyond their guard-dog training) to be able to ride the subways? If so what sort of training would that be -- exposure to loud constant noise like the subway at increasing levels until the dog is used to it?
Here in NYC, a few years ago, we did have a rather extensive TAP canine unit. For some reason, it is now very sparse.
So, I'm reading that the last of the trolley lines in NYC ran over the Queensboro (59th) street Bridge. It used to make a stop mid-span and let passengers off who would then take an elevator (!) down to Roosevelt Island. I'm assuming the elevator was in one of the towers. Can anyone verify this? If that elevator malfunctioned you could be royally screwed...
Rich, Your right. One of the companies that became Queens Surface Corp. ran this line. It was replaced by a bus, unique tokens were used on both forms. Now the bus comes from the Queens side, there's a unique bus intra island & the cable car form the Manhattan side.
Mr t__:^)
More than that - there was a CAR elevator! Since removed (1980s)
I heard that the car elevator on the 59th Street Bridge was in place to move ambulances from the bridge to the various hospitals on Welfare Island.
[I heard that the car elevator on the 59th Street Bridge was in place to move ambulances from the bridge to the various hospitals on Welfare Island.]
The building in which the car elevator was located was called the "Upside Down House," as its main entrance was at the top, on the bridge.
Another note about the Lower Manhattan Access meeting last week. One of the options they are considering to ease overcrowding on the Lex Line is to open the Second Avenue Subway line from 125th to 63rd. From this website, I see that there was a plan to connect some trains from 2nd Ave to the 6th Avenue line at 63rd.
I fear that these long-term plans will never come to pass. Too many studies and not enough action.
I still would like more info on the Manhattan Bridge and the return of N-service express in midtown. From the track maps I see that the express tracks come right off the Manhattan Bridge.
That train should be a H to Rockaway Park. Too many trains towards the Coney Island area. Not fair to central Brooklyn and Airport riders.
How far is New York City from Elizabeth or Newark, New Jersey?
10-15 miles, I'd guess. 22 minutes from Penn Station Newark to World Trade Center on PATH.
I rode SIRT last week and there are still switches which has to been moved my hand? (manual switches?) A track worker has to move the handle so that the train can switch from the northbound to the southbound tracks. This was due to track construction. SIRT is a communter railroad line. Can subways wrong-track also?
On the Northeast corridor between New York and Newark, there is a small area which seems like a small swamp. Strange. Is that part of a larger body of water?
Subway trains' ability to back up:
I think they all can at least to some extent. Just a few examples:
-In almost every system, there are terminal stations where trains simply stay at the platform after arriving and reverse to depart, switching tracks immediately inbound of the station (rather than deadhead beyond the station). Montreal's Line 4 offers a twist on this: the alighting and boarding platforms at its Berri-UQAM terminal are segregated, so an arriving train, having dropped off its passengers, reverses back into the inbound tunnel, switches to the departure track, forwards back into the station, collects passengers, and reverses again (this time really leaving).
-Brussels' Line 1A reverses at the intermediate station of Beekkant. It's the only example of which I'm aware of a reversal in mid-line as part of normal service. Line 1B, which shares tracks with 1A immediately east of the station, does split off into its own tracks to stay out of 1B's way (and continues through the station "normally"), but still, at rush hour the 1A headways are some 4 minutes. To complicate things, the circular Line 2 is apparently supposed to run through existing tracks at Beekkant once a one-station-long gap in it is completed. I have no idea how that would integrate with the current traffic. Of course, Belgians are very good at shuffling trains around quickly and frequently, as anyone can tell by watching a hundred trains an hour move through the corridor among Brussels North, Central and South stations, diverging and converging through the tunnels so that the same platform often serves different trains in different directions within three minutes of each other-at a better speed than most subways ever show.
-Presumably, on some lines, especially the heavily computerized ones, trains can reverse under manual control but at a crawl. Such, I believe, is the case on the Docklands Light Railway in London, for example, which can have a human driver but is normally computer-driven. I have no idea whether automatic systems without even a provision for a human driver, such as VAL in its various sites, Lyon's MAGGALY (Line D), or the Siemens peoplemovers around the world, can ever reverse (it would, of course, be under computer control) except at designated areas such as terminal stations.
-Here in Boston, I recently watched a Red Line train creep back at Harvard so that an offical squeezed between the train and a wall could inspect something on its underside (the train was then taken out of service). I have no idea whether a speed restriction device of some kind was in effect.
-During construction on the light-rail Green Line here, however, service is suspended in the evening between Kenmore and Copley, and B-branch trains use a single track through the short tunnel between Blandford Street and Kenmore. They do so at full speed.
Boris,
You said: "construction ... light-rail ... Kenmore & Copley". Oh what are they doing to the trolley line ? I have fond memories of riding the PCCs to Government Center in AM. Do they still run the one car shuttle to NE univ. Are they doing away with the old trolley lines that ran on the street ?
Mr t__:^)
The construction on the subway portion of the MBTA Green Line in Boston near Kenmore is related to the signal replacement project that has been ongoing since the "big flood" nearly two years ago.
In response to your request, here is a summary of current Green Line light rail operations, by line:
B/Boston College: Boston College to Goverment Center
C/Cleveland Circe: Cleveland Circle to Government Center
D/Riverside: Riverside to Lechmere
E/Arborway: Heath Street to Lechmere
The Arborway Line (street running along Huntington Ave.) is "temporarily" cut back to Heath Street, and has been so for many years. Even though the MBTA says that service will resume all the way to Arborway when the new Breda 3800 series cars are on property, most doubt that will happen.
Other tidbits:
The missing "A" line went to Watertown, but was discontinued in the late 70's; the tracks have been pulled out of the street and overhead removed. There is also an "M" line, which is the Matapan-Ashmont Shuttle. Even though it is publicly part of the Red Line, as it extends beyond the Ashmont terminal of the Red Line subway, it is operated/maintained by the Green Line Light Rail Division, since PPCs run on that line. Note that the WWII vintage PCCs are slated to be rebuilt AGAIN, keeping this as one of the last vestages of true PCC operations anywhere well into the next century. (A good friend of mine was just appointed project manager for this!)
The B,C,D, and E lines operate with two-car trains during peak hours; one car units at other times. B and E lines are exclusively Kinki-Sharyo 3600 and 3700 Type 7 cars; the C line is exclusively 3400 and 3500 series Boeing-Vertol LRVs; and the D line is a mix of the two types.
An excellent Web site is NE Transit: the New England Transporation Site; it contains much more on Boston operations.
Todd, Eye used your Hot Link to the Boston Web site, & took a peek, very nice site, it brought back some memories. I see they still run trackless trollies, assume this in the MIT area ?
Any other folks that may see this ... Riverside is a great place to base your vacation. It right off Route 128 if you're comming in from NY. There's a hotel right at the end of the line, use to be a Day's Inn. You can buy a 1 or 3 day unlim pass there. The long trolly ride downtown is a joy, then the pass will let U ride the other lines & buses as much as you want. Even my wife, who doesn't like subways, enjoyed it. I hope NY does come thru with the One day unlim "Fun Pass", so what if a few commuters use it to some advantage, this is NY.
P.S. I added a bookmark so I can go back, thanks.
Mr t__:^)
Boston's MBTA has trackless trolleys on three routes in Cambridge and Watertown. Service operates Monday-Saturday. On Massachusetts Avenue between the carhouse in North Cambridge and Harvard, the 77A trackless trolley is "local" and the 77 (diesel) bus is "limited" (a.k.a. express) -- it will drop you off at any stop, but only pick up at major intersections.
I remember coming to Cambridge for my freshman year at MIT in 1973 - and having never seen a trackless trolley - went for a ride. I asked the starter (dispatcher) what time the next BUS departed... he said, "It's not a BUS it's a CAHHHHHHH!" And so began the process of my becoming bilingual - Noo Yawkeeze and Bahstonian.
Try adding seven years in Buffalo to the NYC and Boston dialect experience! I'm still trying to figure out how to pronounce car... is it cawh, caah, or caer?
The Staten Island Railway R44's are modified that they can run backwards without the operator switching ends. Very important in a two track operation.
Switches at certian stations like Great Kills, Hugonut (sp?) have been converted so the train operator can operate them from a switch that's on a pole he reaches out his window to press. This is to allow morning trains to deadhead to other then the terminals and go in service. One morning express (or should say limited) makes only three stops until running express to St. George.
The other switches are manual and are used when needed when one of the two tracks are out of service. I belive all trains need orders from the dispatcher to enter the opposite track. During MOW when one track is out of service and revenue trains are running single track they use hand passed track orders. They have even passed a baton, one point it was a doll that I saw them use.
Subways have, on occasion, "wrong railed" due to track work. A few examples:
- recent construction on the 2/5 between 149th / Concourse and Jackson Ave had the downtown track out of service. Downtown trains had to awitch to the uptown track, and were flagged down the line.
- in 1995 I crossed the Williamsburgh Bridge "wrong rail" towards Manhattan when there was track work going on. Instead of using a baton to indicate a train in the area, they used an INSPECTOR. This guy got on the train at Hewes St, stayed on the train until Essex, then got off to board the next train to Jamaica Center and did the opposite, getting off at Hewes St. The trains couldn't move in the single track area unless the inspector was on board.
--Mark
in T.A. terms the inspector is a "human baton"
[in T.A. terms the inspector is a "human baton"]
But non-human batons don't get $25 per hour ...
I am not involved with Lower Manhattan Access, just raising my voice, but you can access a draft of the study from the website
www.lowermanhattanaccess.com
and send comments to
comments@lowermanhattanaccess.com
They are trying to improve service from the suburbs to downtown, but I am there to make sure Brooklyn and Queens are not forgotten. Note the following from their draft:
66.8% of downtown workers live in the five boroughts
16.2% live in jersey
7.7% live upstate and westchester
7.6% live in Long Island
0.9% live in connecticut
0.7% live elsewhere (pennsylvania?)
It is obvious that the few people who can afford to live in Long Island, Connecticut, and Westchester are pushing for extensions of the LIRR and Metro North to downtown.
Thank you Mr. Olavo.
"It is obvious that the few people who can afford to live in Long Island, Connecticut, and Westchester are pushing for extensions of the LIRR and Metro North to downtown."
You say that like there's something sinister involved.
1) "The few people who can afford to live in [the suburbs]"?!?! So everybody who comes in on the LIRR and MN are rich? Not so much!
2) Would you rather they all came in by automobile? By your numbers, that would be almost 1/3 of the downtown workers filling the narrow streets of Lower Manhattan with their cars! Where would they all park?
3) Would you rather some of the offices of Lower Manhattan moved to suburban office parks, where the suburbanites feel more comfortable?
I agree that commuter rail should not be improved at the expense of city subway service, and to that extent I agree with you. But opposing improvements in suburban rail service because of stereotyping suburbanites and rich-bashing, I can't see.
oh jeez.
I don't think its a sinister plot, but I am disappointed that this huge enormous study is being undertaken when so few people here live outside the five boroughs. And its not like 1/3 live in the same area so burrowing a tunnel under the east river would help a large group of people. its just that commuters have more political clout, and its unfortunate that city-dwellers do not demand as much as suburbanites do.
The question in my mind, as always, is "who pays?" Given the current political structure of the state, and financial structure of the MTA, city residents would probably end up paying for a substatial share of any major improvement intended to improve the quality of life for suburban commuters, either in taxes or the diversion of scarce federal and state capital funds away from the subway.
As it happens the city has a small "commuter" income tax. Put a surcharge on that tax and use it to pay for the LIRR to GCT connection, lower manhattan access and other improvements and I'll be happy. And the tax wouldn't have to be so high, given the size of the base. No, not all the commuters are rich, but the average and aggregate income of suburban residents working in Manhattan is PHENOMENAL. Those commuters probably have more money than all the residents of Chicago.
All this talk of raising taxes on commuters plays well to certain audiences. But, digital telecommunications technology is going to make the need for large blocks of urban office space obsolete. Already a number of brokerage houses have back-offices in New Jersey that can be reached via NYC 212 phone numbers. The growth of telecommuting is also going to cut into all cities tax bases. NYC can't tax the guy working out of his house in Greenwich, CT or Westfield, NJ. And these same guys won't be shelling out anymore for monthly comuter tickets either.
The communications revolution will change the way we all work, and could adversely impact high-tax cities like New York
Oh, pooh! What a debate! All I'm looking for is a way to get from
Pacific Street (LIRR Flatbush Terminal) to Broad/Fulton/Chambers St.
after 8:47AM - that's when the "M" seems to go to bed these days.
Can't they do SOMETHING about that lazy "M"? Chris' suggestion
of "D" express would open up a slot for an "M" Brighton Local...
They don't have to run it every five minutes, just run it during
midday - even a 12-minute wait would do. (every OTHER "M", maybe?)
Wayne
How about walking over to the IRT Atlantic Avenue station at Pacific St. and taking the #4 or #5 to Broadway, one block from Nassau Street, or the #2 or #3 to William St. also one block from Nassau Street, or just taking the R train and walking the two blocks from Church St? Apparently there is not that much demand for Nassau St. service from the south after 8:47 AM and they would rather spend the money somewhere else. (I'm not being funny or crabby, but there are apparently other lines that are more crowded at midday and require the labor costs to be spent there instead.)
If commuters are unwilling to pay for a direct link to Lower Manhattan (and may not need it because they will all be telecommuting), they why should Brooklyn residents pay for it even as the Manhattan Bridge decays.
While information technology will to doubt speed the secession of the successful from the poor, troubled and different even further (perhaps people will not leave their gated communities at all, with all goods ordered by the internet and delivered, except to go to gated resort communities) I for one do not expect NYC to be hurt. It certainly hasn't been hurt thus far. Remember, Manhattan is by far the richest county in the country because rich people want to live there, and many other parts of the city are also attractive to those with choices.
By the way, in 1996 local government earnings accounted for 8.6 percent of the economy in NYC, 7.9 percent in the U.S., 8.6 percent in NJ, 11.0 percent in upstate NY and 11.7 percent in the suburbs. NYC's government is not that big, its just that NYC has to pay for it with local taxes raised in the city, while the rest of the state pays for it with state taxes -- also raised, in large part, in the city. Having been sick and stuck at home for the past few days, I've composed a 30 page rant (complete will all kinds of data) on the reality of the city's budget compared with other areas. Unfortunately, having just missed Gen X, I can't figure out how to move the charts from the spreadsheets into the text. But if you want to read about the (aggravating) reality, let me know and I'll try to E-mail you a copy.
Sure, I'd like it if you could e-mail me a copy.
Please mail me a copy - I find that stuff fascinating. And since I grew up on MS Word, I might be able to help you move those charts around.
Disclaimer: I don't claim to belong to "Gen X" since the use of the term was propagated by those in the media who wanted a catch-phrase to categorize my age group rather than engaging in a real discussion about what defines us.
fran@erols.com
Don't forget to send it to various news organizations, too.
And how about condensing it as an Op-Ed column?
In the short-run NYC won't be hurt by telecommuting. But in the long-run it could. Companies will have the option of renting cheaper office space outside of the entire region in places like North Carolina, Georgia, etc. These offices will house executives, conference facilities and the like. Think of what communications technology will be like in five years. It will speed the separation of the succesful, but it will be driven by technology, not by politics. Both conservatives and liberals will telecommute. People will choose to live in Manhattan for the reasons you stated. But they will increasingly work on-line for companies around the US.
The impact on public-transit will evolve, the technology is so new with so many peripheral issues, it's too early to tell how it will really play out. Given the choice between an 1.5 hour commute each way or working at home, a lot of folks will surely opt for the latter.
Telecommuting seems to be one of those ideas that's _always_ just around the corner. So far it hasn't come close to living up to all the hype. Now, it's not possible to predict how things will be in the future, but if I were a gambling type I wouldn't bet on telecommuting - or against the need for more transit.
Telecommuting will hit the mainstream when all the companies figuring to use it to cut costs ante up the BIG bucks it's gonna cost to give every telecommuter 100mps ethernet from the office to home. Or, conversely, ante up the BIG bucks to insure that the info transmitted over the commercial telephone lines is as secure as that dedicated 100mps ethernet line. You would be surprised at the companies that have the telecommuters dial into a modem pool with zip security on it.
But that's an issue that won't be discussed to death on a rail site.
I see telecommuting changing things, but in a way that can help Manhattan's commercial core and transit. The capacity constraint on Manhattan is that there are just so many people you can bring in at nine and move out at five. Thats' why CBD employment has been at about 1.8 million for 50 years.
With telecommuting, people can work at home some of the time, but they'll still need meetings, negotiations, and conferences. So you could have 4 million people affiliated with Manhattan, coming in a couple of times a week, often off peak. This is already happening, as Manhattan oriented people spend more and more time at their weekend dwellings, or in fact have small apartments in Manhattan as second homes. That could really spread the load. Of course, off-peak transits market share really falls. Off peak service would have to improve.
This gets back to City Planning's five year battle with NYMTC and the MTA over the regional forecast. To NYMTC (and the FEDs), you only justify transit investments by shortfalls in capacity, so they have regional employment forecasts at impossible levels to justify investment and compete for federal funds. City Planning has argued (in a bunch of memo I've written which have had absolutely no effect) that since it is already highly developed, the region can only grow at the margins. BUT investments are still neeeded to provide a higher quality of service for a higher quality of life, as our society continues to become richer and expectations increase. That means you need investments in the city as well as growing areas on the fringe, if its residential areas are to remain competitive for those with choices. Heck, based on MTA and NYMTC's thinking we'd still be patching up Els in Manhattan instead of having a subway -- Manhattan's population is down since 1900.
Anyway, more frequent and (most importantly) faster off-peak service to accomodate telecommuters coming in for meetings was an example we used of a service improvement. The MTA is not focused on the off peak at all. Its slow.
The crux of the problem that is being described here is that transportation is a regional issue, but the way that interests are voiced by individuals is local. The question is really not Brooklyn v. Long Island, or Brooklyn v. Westchester, it is "do we build a better transportation system in order to accomplish goal X," whatever goal X is. The government, of course, is supposed to voice this sort of regional view (and if it engages in a degree of statistical deceit to do so, that's unfortunate but perhaps a necessary evil).
However, whatever decision is made, someone is going to benefit disporportionatly from the decision. So what? If that were the only decisionmaking criteria, then nothing would ever be done, since every decision, for or against, affects someone. The better questions are: "is goal X important enough to get priority over goal Y?", if so, "what will goal X cost?", and, finally, "is there a better way to reach goal X"? Obviously, the political process does not work along those lines. The planning process does, though.
It seems to me that the biggest problem in arguing for direct lower Manhattan access from Brooklyn is that so many subway lines pass Jamaica station and Flatbush terminal by. It looks like there is little to be gained by building a tunnel for LIRR trains directly, and that other priorities are more important.
Since the inconvenience to commuters is really one of time (and to a lesser degree comfort) I have always like the following compromise alternatives:
1) Run a couple of super express J/Z trains from Jamaica to Manhattan, first stop Chambers Street, timed to meet the incoming LIRR trains. This probably will require building an extra platform at Jamaica.
2) Better yet, build a stub track to one of the following: the 4/5, the N/R/M express lines, from the platforms at Flatbush terminal. Subway trains wait in the terminal for LIRR trains to arrive, pick up passangers across the platform, and run express to downtown Brooklyn and on to Manhattan. Even better would be to somehow extend subway service along the LIRR RoW to Jamaica, with a direct connection into the subway system at or near Flatbush (this would be preferable b/c more trains stop at Jamaica). The latter alternative has a number of technical problems, including the design of the third rail shoe, the power itself, and regulations concerning the design of cars. However, since there is so much excess capacity on the J/M/Z at and north of Chambers Street, there is the possibility of building four or five special trains (or 8 or 10 half-length trains) that would run only along the route I've just described and could be stored and turn around north of Chambers. These trains would only run one way during rush hours. In that way, only a single LIRR track would need to be converted/used by the subway system, which minimizes the problems I just described.
It seems to be that either of these solutions is cheaper than a tunnel to the Financial District. I might prefer that tunnel, but I'd rather see something than nothing. This sort of thing seems a lot more probably that running LIRR trains through Long Island City and down Second Avenue, etc.
--mhg
Again, to me its all a question of money and who pays. I'd give the commuters a referendum on a commuter tax surcharge. Would it be worth it to them to have some sort of loop service to Lower Manhattan just for themselves, and LIRR to GCT and Metro North to Penn, even if they had to pay for it? If so, why not? The city could kick in something for the benefits to LIRR/Metro North riders within its borders.
The problem with the political process is all the money goes into a big pot, and then you fight over it. And since it isn't your money that's being spent (its federal money! Its free!) there is no impetus to spend in wisely or prioritize. Its lotto politics, and the same people tend to lose all the time. First the bureaucrats decide what is fair and reasonable, then it gets modified based on race, class and power to something "realistic." Seen it happen in the zoning world. Would yuppies who bought property in Sunset Park and Red Hook be lobbying for a $10 billion tunnel for the Gowanus, given all the other need in the borough, if a special assessment were used to pay for even a part of it?
Larry,
I think that an ongoing and probably insoluble problem is that money does not consistently go into one pot, or into many pots, or into any other kind of rational accounting system. This system is illogical, and thus easy to attack, usually for the wrong reasons. In a nutshell, agencies like the MTA or the Dep't of Transportation are in reality a layer of regional government, although they lack that label as well as both taxing authority and direct accountability. However, the idea of examining whether their "pot" is big enough to pay for a project is a little silly. It's like asking if prisons or schools make enough money to cover their expenses. It's just harder to see this in the case of transporation policy.
My favorite example is Roosevelt Island, b/c it's nice and self-contained. Could the residents of Roosevelt Island afford to build a brigde, a tram, a subway, etc. to the rest of the City? No, probably not, and certainly not until the Island was built up, which wouldn't have happened without the tram, etc. As someone in this forum likes to point out, Roosevelt Island's tram and subway lose something like $700,000 in revenue each year. That begs questions like "If they want subway service, why shouldn't they pay for it with a special surcharge," etc.
The question is misplaced. The residents and businesses on Roosevelt Island contribute far more to the economy that the cost of their subway service. Building bridges, trams and subways to the Island has been a great benefit to the entire City, whether or not particular people go there. However (to paraphrase Dilbert's pointy haired boss), "the MTA's bucket isn't attached to the general ledger bucket." And so, the misplaced argument about covering costs persists.
Turning to downtown rail access, the people who would use that system could no more pay for it all by themselves than the people who use the subways, or highways, etc., could afford to pay to have those things built. But, the idea that the users of infrastructure should bear the sole cost of the infrastructure lost vitality the moment that the infrastructure became (for better or worse) part of the public domain and the responsibility of government. Thus, the question is not whether the infrstructure pays for itself, but whether the infratructure is a net benefit at the anticipated cost. If it is (and that's a tough question), then building it is justified. But, the financing "pot" is not connected to the who pays for it "pot," so why pretend that it is or argue that the pots aren't full?
If a user pays 1/2 of the operating/construction cost of something, then, roughly speaking, everyone gets a benefit proportionate to what they put it (since, esp., the general taxpayer who benefits tangentially is paying pennies). Try explaining this to the typical person, and I think you'll feel like a Dilbert character. Oh well.
--mhg
"[T]he idea that the users of infrastructure should bear the sole cost of the infrastructure lost vitality the moment that the infrastructure became (for better or worse) part of the public domain and the responsibility of government. Thus, the question is not whether the infrstructure pays for itself, but whether the infratructure is a net benefit at the anticipated cost.
"If a user pays 1/2 of the operating/construction cost of something, then, roughly speaking, everyone gets a benefit proportionate to what they put it (since, esp., the general taxpayer who benefits tangentially is paying pennies). Try explaining this to the typical person, and I think you'll feel like a Dilbert character. Oh well."
No kidding!! Here in Chicago, there is a running controversy on the continuing existence of the toll roads as such. There seems to be a considerable faction that feels that it is scandalous and a gross injustice to be charged a toll to use the roads. However, many of the same people think it is equally scandalous and unjust that tax revenues go to support public transportation (and they include Metra in this category). "Why can't they pay their way at the farebox?" is their question. But when you turn that around to "Why can't tollway drivers pay their way at the toll booth?" they look at you as if you are stark raving mad.
Well it's interesting but I think it can be summed up as such:
People like to think of roads as open and free. There are no tolls on like 99.9% of the roads (highway and non-highway) in the USA. So people don't like to pay for something that is fundamentally thought of as free. Additionally there becomes the appearance that the road is another form of tax used to support something other than roads. This is the common appearance here in NJ with the Parkway. Supposedly they said tolls would only be in effect until the road is payed for. I think someone once told me this had been well matched already, and their thoughts were that the tolls only supported the tolltakers payroll (with a small amount going to maybe NJ DOT?)
Anyways, getting back on topic.. On railroads, you never expect a free ride, and pay for it up front. The logic here is.. what is another $1 to Joe Shmo commuter when he's already paying $10 anyway?
So it makes perfect sense that people ask why Metra commuters can't pay their way and that the drivers get upset if you even whisper the cursed four letter word of "toll". Anything less would be a complete break-down of reality as we know it.
P.S. to your comment about "when the road is paid for"
Apparently, in CT the local politicans did a better job with the words in the law that auth the constr on the Conn Turnpike, because the Tolls did come down after the road was paid for.
Sorry for the digression of "transit" subject format.
Mr t__:^)
[Apparently, in CT the local politicans did a better job with the words in the law that auth the constr on the Conn Turnpike, because the Tolls did come down after the road was paid for.]
What actually prompted the removal of tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike was a deadly crash in the early 1980s. A truck driver apparently fell asleep and plowed into a line of cars at the Stratford toll plaza. Several people died when cars were crushed and burst into flame. State officials then decided that the tolls were a safety hazard and took advantage of the law you noted to order their removal. Of course, the crash could just as well have happened if the cars had slowed down at an accident scene or construction site.
Tolls along I-95 in Delaware where actually removed after the highway was paid for (Unlike the Maryland section of the highway). All except for 1 toll as you exit the state from Delaware to Maryland. All local traffic from delaware is guided by road signs to highway intersections on either side of the toll so that no one going to/from Delware needs to pay the toll, only those passing through. That's about the slickest means of getting others to pay for your infrastructure I've ever seen.
Then again Delaware is just a weird state. No sales tax, but a wage tax that's higher than NY state. All that from a state that provides almost no services (Unless you consider tax shelters for huge corporations a service).
In Maryland, the state re-issued all the bonds originally issued to build the toll roads (North-eastern Expressway, Baltimore Harbor Tunnel, and Chesapeake Bay Bridge) as pieces of the Maryland Transportation Authority bonds. The local exit tolls on I-95 were removed after permission from the NE Expy bondholders. The tolls will stay on forever, as the state re-issues the bonds as they expire.
Delaware carges a toll on BOTH directions and DOES NOT post directions around the toll booths. If you don't know your way around (try driving through Newark, for example) you pay. The Delaware toll is higher than the Maryland toll. Soak, soak, soak.
All you guys miss the economic point. The "cost" of a road is not just the cost of the asphalt and concrete, its the cost of the scarce land it sits on. It's a very scarce resource, especially at peak hour, and everyone has an equal right to use it. But if everyone decides to use it at once, it doesn't work. So not everyone can drive. How do you decide who gets the privilege?
There is feudalism: since I have been using mass transit at rush hour, I and my descendents are no longer allowed to drive. People who drive, and their descendents, get to drive.
There is socialism: we'll let that objective and uncorrupt political system of ours decide who "needs" to drive. Perhaps we can hand out permits to elected officials who, in turn, could hand them out to the truly deserving. These would be renewable, of course, right after election day. But really, in NYC how many people need to drive at rush hour, especially if they work in Manhattan (Brooklyn to Bronx commutes another story).
Then there is the reality of socialism: rationing by queue. The land cost of additional roads is too high, so those who are willing to sit in traffic the longest are those who get to drive.
How about using capitalism to ration the scarce resource of road space? Those who insist on driving pay "rent" in the form of transit subsidies to those who agree to give up our share of space on the road, and road space is allocated to those who are willing to pay.
Of course the roads should be tolled, especially where they are crowded (where they are not crowded they are subsidized up the wazoo). The tolls should be higher at peak hour, and higher into a place like Manhattan where road space is especially scarce (and valuable) and alternatives are available. The transit advocate's answer to cross-subsidy objections is simply to exercise our equal right to drive -- to Manhattan, at rush hour, all on the same day. Drivers will be begging for us to get back out of our cars -- to get out of their way.
[Of course the roads should be tolled, especially where they are crowded (where they are not crowded they are subsidized up the wazoo). The tolls should be higher at peak hour, and higher into a place like Manhattan where road space is especially scarce (and valuable) and alternatives are available. The transit advocate's answer to cross-subsidy objections is simply to exercise our equal right to drive -- to Manhattan, at rush hour, all on the same day. Drivers will be begging for us to get back out of our cars -- to get out of their way].
While in general I support the idea of higher rush hour tolls into Manhattan, there is one important consideration - people just passing through, whose final destinations are elsewhere. Consider the Nassau County resident heading to northern New Jersey. Or the Connecticut resident heading south on I-95. It would be unfair to stick them with high tolls designed to discourage car use in Manhattan. Possibly an extra parking surtax would be more appropriate ...
Re: Drivers from LI, NJ, CT -NOT- going to Manhattan
Re: Scarce land ... to build more roads
This thread got a little off "transit" but it came back home, wow.
Some very good & valid points have been mmade here !
Maybe the problem with NYC is that it thinks it's the center of everything ? Many other cities have provided a way around the "city" ... take Boston, route 128, or Chicago. On my way to Colorado I had to make a detor to visit the windy city. Here you have to go through the city even if you don't want to (how do you get from Penn/NJ to Boston except via the Cross Bronx Exp ?)(how do you get from LI to CT .. yes there is a couple of Ferrys, but they cost & don't save you any time, however on a summer day the ride is real nice). If those cars/trucks had another way to go maybe it would be possible to convert LI Exp lanes to rail ... give the Holland or Lincoln to transit. Hay the politatians like to spend money on highways, if there is a "transit" agenda included, maybe more money could be diverted to make it happen sooner & they wouldn't feel the need to have a bunch of "studies" first.
Mr t__:^)
Following the prior two points, given that Manhattan is the most congested place in the country, and has an air pollution problem, do we really want trucks from Long Island going over the (free) Manhattan Bridge and through the Holland Tunnel to avoid the Verranzano Toll? Its something like $60+ for trucks. Stand on Canal St and breath, if you can. Through traffic will certainly seem worth discouraging, especially when you realize that Manhattan is the economic engine which supports us all.
That's why the Verranzano Toll should be lower, especially off peak, and the toll to Manhattan should be higher, especially on peak. As Mr T says, an incentive to go around is no good without a way to go around. Add a 4th lane to the Belt (allowing trucks) and the SI Expressway, and toll Goethals Bridge? Transit advocate that I am, I think (in fantasyland) that you'd have to consider it.
Wow, a lot of posts were made since yesterday P.M.
Two quick things:
1) The elimination of tolls depends in part on the authority under which they were imposed. E.g., the TBTA has the authority to impose tolls even though the bridges are paid for. The state-funded parkways in Westchester Cty., N.Y. were not allowed to collect tolls once paid for.
2) Adide from Larry's point about what is the cost of something (his example, the land), there is the question of _who_ pays for something. Is the cost covered by a general tax or a user tax? My main gripe is that all roads including tolls roads and including NYC's bridges, are paid for in part by general taxes, even though the toll roads are supported in part by user taxes. Therefore, car drivers have no right to complain when mass transit is supported by user taxes.
-mhg
There is theoretically another way around NYC for trucks and other drivers just passing through: the I-287 loop.
It has several drawbacks. It's not at all helpful for Long Island trips. It also is such a big circle in NJ that it makes northbound drivers coming up 95 go well out of their way, swinging west into central NJ, before heading northeast again.
It was also an incomplete loop until a few years ago, when the final section opened in Morris County NJ.
Despite all this, it is apparently gaining in popularity among truckers now that they've discovered it.
If the Seaford-Oyster Bay expressway had been extended to the proposed Long Island Sound Bridge (Moses -- that Man Again) it would have run right into I-287 at Port Chester. That expressay just ends with lanes going off past the last exit and terminating in the air. The expressway era ended that suddenly.
As it is, the best I think we can do is improve ring arterails by providing underpasses where two major streets cross and you can't have favorable signal timing. That's what London is doing with its ring road, which had been proposed for an expressway.
Besides, spreading the load among several arterials has a lower impact than dumping an expressway on just one set of neighborhoods.
Ah, yes, I-287. They bickered about the alignment of that final segment for years. There were two proposed alignments when we lived in Pompton Plains (1967-73); the final location was neither.
I drove over the newest segment three years ago and couldn't help remembering what they used to say about I-287: it was a great route, then it ended in the middle of nowhere - in Montville. I'm glad it's finally finished.
And you think Staten Islanders want the increased traffic? Let me tell you, I now have a first-hand understanding of what smog is. I work on the 47th floor of the Chase Building in lower Manhattan. I can see 3 straight lines of brown gook from here. The BQE, the SIE, and the Turnpike. If I go to the other side of the building, I can add the LIE. The Port Authority wants to twin the Goethals bridge, DOT wants to add a 4th 'multi-use' lane to the SIE from the V-Z to the Goethals.
What is truly needed to abate the truck traffic and pollution in the city is a rail freight tunnel under the harbor, and several 'hubs', just like UPS and the Postal Service. The trains are unloaded at the hubs, and local trucks make the deliveries after-hours. You've now gotten rid of the majority of the thru truck traffic. It is impossible to eliminate all trucks in NYC, since the goods must still be locally delivered, but you can control it a lot better.
-Hank
Advocates of a rail tunnel severly exaggerate the number of trucks which would be taken off the road. Perhaps if you had something like the Channel Tunnel, in which trucks which arrive over the road are carried across the water on trains (for a price cheaper than the tolls) it might work, but that would just generate massive truck congestion at whatever point the trucks get off.
Better to spread them out, in my view. Also, buy more services and less stuff -- who has room for all of it anyway?
[What is truly needed to abate the truck traffic and pollution in the city is a rail freight tunnel under the harbor, and several 'hubs', just like UPS and the Postal Service. The trains are unloaded at the hubs, and local trucks make the deliveries after-hours. You've now gotten rid of the majority of the thru truck traffic. It is impossible to eliminate all trucks in NYC, since the goods must still be locally delivered, but you can control it a lot better.]
To some extent, there already is a hub-type system, with the hubs located in New Jersey rather than Brooklyn and Queens (as they would be with a rail freight tunnel). My guess is that much of the truck traffic you see on Staten Island and elsewhere in the city *does* involve local deliveries rather than through traffic. The major exception would be the George Washington Bridge/Cross Bronx Expressway, with trucks heading for New England and Long Island.
I believe that in a NYC activist context, the UPS that is making a deliver direct to one's own dwelling is "local." Anything else is through traffic and should not be allowed within 1/2 mile of one's dwelling.
Yet it is a little weird that a huge over the road bus (Atlantic City I presume) rolls up my narrow, one way street each evening. But that is the price of density which has other advantages. I also lived overlooking the Prospect Expressway for five years. Wasn't that bad, although clearly not preferable.
"On my way to Colorado I had to make a detor to visit the windy city."
Ah, yes. I-294, the infamous Tri-State Tollway, so-called because the traffic and construction puts you in the states of anger, frustration, and despair. The closest thing Chicago has to a Beltway, including the half-mile long, three-story office complexes at every exit.
I was on the Tri-State on Sunday traveling between the near-northwest suburbs of Chicago and downtown Milwaukee. It took an hour and a half to get to Milwaukee in the morning, but over two and a half hours to get back in the evening. The whole time home, I was cursing the elimination of the Chicago, North Shore, & Milwaukee Railway. "Have you ever traveled 80 miles per hour?" Not on the #!@%$!#^%$ Tri-State I bloody-well haven't!
If the Susquehanna Corporation could have been "held off" for a few more years the lamented passing of the North Shore Line may have been avoided. In the early 1960's is when subsidizing transit began to become fashionable. Would I trade the 1964 Skokie Swift experiment for the NSL running today, you bet I would.
However John, would the NSL of 1998 be anything like the one of 1963? I never had the chance to ride the line as I was only 12 when it folded, however, I've collected everything I can on it.
First, there were quite a few grade crossing on the line. I think to run the trains at the speeds of 80 MPH some grade crossing elimination projects would have had to been completed. The section between Great Lakes and North Chicago looked like every street and ally was crossed. Secondly, remember that there was a train leaving Adams/Wabash every three minutes from 5:00PM to 5:15PM. What would that do to the CTA’s train service. They sometimes have trouble operating the trains they have scheduled today. Far fewer than even ten years ago.
As you sat on the Tri-State, many of those in the same traffic are not aware that there used to be service between the Loop and downtown Milwaukee "every hour on the hour" in the old days. Wish we could go back to those days.
As a side note, I’m sure the CA&E would also be viable today. What do you think?
The shore route of the CNS&M -- the part that's now a bike trail paralelling the C&NW -- was not built for the fastest speeds, as you've stated. However, the Skokie Valley route **was** built for high speed -- the Electroliners ran on it exclusively -- and from 1955 (I think) until the end, the North Shore was exclusively the Skokie Valley route, the shore route being abandoned. "Have you ever traveled at 80 miles an hour?" was an old North Shore ad slogan tied to the opening of the Skokie Valley service.
When you look at a map of the Metra system, and see the service additions they are making, I agree 100% that both the North Shore and the Chicago, Aurora & Elgin would be viable lines. Since both came into downtown over the L, one problem they would solve, and competitive advantage they would have, is the relative inaccessiblity to rapid transit of the Union and Northwestern Stations.
Another 1950s-1960s loss of service that would be viable now was the extension of the old Garfield Park L to 22nd Street in Westchester. The line ran through open fields and had light traffic when it was closed in the 1950s (in connection with the replacement of the Garfield line with the Congress Line), but the area was subdivided and its population exploded several months after the line was removed.
My understanding was that Maryland owned one side of the toll at the MD border and Delaware owned the other. Of course I could be wrong on that point.
But I lived in Newark DE for 4 years (unfortunately) - so of course I knew my way around. When in Newark driving south on Elkton Rd. (which is one of main access roads for I-95) there are CLEAR SIGNS at the intersection of Rt. 4 that say turn left (east) to go to I-95 North and to continue straight for I-95 south. Going east on Rt 4 takes you to South College where you then turn right (again marked) for I-95. The Toll is between Exit 1 in DE (South College) and Exit 109 (Elkton Rd.) in MD. The signs lead you around the toll.
Anyway, anyone who lives in Delaware knows this and, therefore, does not have to pay the toll while all those from outside the state do which was the point of my post.
Maryland's toll is collected (northbound only, pay 2x$1.00) just south of the bridge over the Susquehanna River. Delaware's is sutuated to catch all the northerners heading to/from Florida in each direction.
Those of us who know that part of DE know how to avoid the toll and get through the "First State".
I even know how to get through Newark and to John Dickenson High School where resides a Kimball Theatre Pipe Organ of great renown!!!
Delaware is higher @ $1.25 however on holiday weekends I have seen them lower the toll to $1.00 to keep traffic moving.
"State officials then decided that the tolls were a safety hazard and took advantage of the law you noted to order their removal."
As I recall, a year or so ago, a child got his (her?) head caught in a subway turnstile here in Chicago and either died or at least was severely injured. Except for the posting of warning signs about parents attending to their children as they pass through turnstiles, nobody thought the turnstiles were so dangerous that they had to be removed.
It was an election year & 95 in CT is what all the voter drive on.
Mr t__:^)
I know Kentucky does this as well...
Many toll highways of interstate quality were built, and as soon as the road has been payed for, the tolls are removed. I was once on the Cumberland Parkway (A road less traveled) and noted that the toll
booths did not look very permanent at all in how they were positioned.
Many roads have been de-tolled including the Western Kentucky and the Bluegrass Parkways. In fact my 1979 atlas shows Kentucky as almost all toll, but not nearly as much so in my 1997 atlas.
In NJ, not only do the tolls not get removed, they get jacked up! :P
Although the toll road may eventually pay off the bonds used to build it there are ongoing expenses. The road, just like a transit line, must be maintained, policed, cleaned of trash and snow. Therefore, tolls could be used for ongoing road expenses and maybe even to subsidize parallel transit service.
When you look at enough data, you begin to realize that money flows to power as much as to need. You begin to get cynical, and angry. I wasn't this way 10 years ago, and I came by in honestly. You should see the information I've compiled on NYC's budget.
The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was a watershed for me. I'm all in favor of workfare -- that's requiring people to become a responsible part of our community-family by contributing what they can. But cutting people off, even theoretically is such an enormous moral difference -- either we're all in it together, or we are not.
And if we are not, what is the government taking 25 to 33 percent of my income for? To give it to people who, in terms of their materials lifestyle, consume more than we do? While they are threatening to cut off my neighbors with nothing because they find it too burdensome to pay? Outrageous!
The fact is that, despite its burdens and problems, there are enough well-off people and businesses in NYC that it could make it on its own, but it is being drained by regional, statewide, and national taxes foisted on thus by those who believe -- absolutely believe -- that the city is full of skells who are draining them.
There is only one deal left which is not a ripoff -- you pay for yours, we'll pay for ours, and we'll cut out the middlemen in Albany and Washington. I want my local taxes to go up, and all the other taxes to go down. As I said, there is a huge moral difference between being in it together and not being in it together, even if the practical difference (in terms of the number of people affected) turns out to be small.
But our representatives don't see it that way. The Welfare Reform Act was passed when the Northeast was on its back, but when the term limits will kick in, I predict, when a regional recession (like the one we just had) will be hitting the manufacturing sectors of the Midwest and South. And I'm sure our representatives will be happy to pass some sort of program to provide extra assistance to those who "need" it.
Larry,
Ten years ago, I was in school studying why our government and economy work the way they do and why they negatively impact cities to such a great extent. Naturally, people's thinking on the topic has changed a lot in the last decade, as it will continue to change. Still, while I retain some cynicism, I will not let that rule my thinking.
In my view, government must be fixed, not trashed. Without central government, there can be no regional planning. Government's problems are serious, but not insoluble, as history demonstrates. The solution of "cutting out the middleman" is, I think completely unworkable. There is simply no way for each of us to "pay our own way" and at the same time accomplish goals that require group action. The two goals are contradictory -- unless we minimize contact with others and live by barter, each of us transfers wealth to others without receiving a direct and proportionate benefit. No way around that.
In my experience, few people who are against "the system" actually understand it. Their gripes usually reflect one of the following: I am disgrunted b/c I am dissatisfied with my economic status (I can't afford it), I have ulterior motives (I want to be re-elected), I have a unique and narrow interest (I own a business or property that is affected), or I simply don't understand (the world is scary and complicated and I grew up watching TV). Principled disagreement is actually quite rare, mostly because, IMHO, becoming educated enough to understand the problem brings the realization that there are competing problems and no easy solution to any of them.
The perpetual squabble over bridge tolls is the good example (in part b/c it keeps this post relevant to subtalk). How many people really argue that the tolls are an economic drain whose resources could be better allocated in the economy in a different manner? Seen any of that here? Is it coincidence that the AAA and the Molinari's challenge bridge tolls, rather than the faculty of the Wilson School? I think not.
My point is that I just don't think that your ultimate conclusion cuts it. We are "all in it together" whether we wish to be or not. The continual struggle to reform government and policy to achieve honorable and decent ends did not begin ten years ago, and it will not end if everyone moves to Montana and declares independence. The struggle continues, and there is work to be done.
--mhg
It is possible to challenge bridge tolls on economic grounds without resorting to self-interest or antigovernment claims. Under this argument, high tolls can discourage businesses from locating in the New York area, thereby contributing to persistently high unemployment.
[It is possible to challenge bridge tolls on economic grounds without resorting to self-interest or antigovernment claims. Under
this argument, high tolls can discourage businesses from locating in the New York area, thereby contributing to persistently high
unemployment. ]
Peter,
Well, of course it is possible, but does anyone do so? My point is that neutral, policy arguments aren't often made, and are usually made outside of the public spotlight. Want proof? How about this: name one person who has made such an argument about road or transit tolls, other than armchair politicians like us? How about a quote?
If, as I suspect, you find this very hard to do, I hope you will share my scpeticism the next time you hear someone argue that the tolls are too high, whatever their claimed reason is.
--mhg
[re tolls as discouraging economic development]
[Well, of course it is possible, but does anyone do so? My point is that neutral, policy arguments aren't often made, and are usually made outside of the public spotlight. Want proof? How about this: name one person who has made such an argument about road or transit tolls, other than armchair politicians like us? How about a quote? ]
I don't know of any such quote - my point is just that an economic argument against tolls _can_ be made. There of course are pro-toll economic arguments as well.
Speaking of economic arguments against tolls, the city Comptroller's office released some highly dubious statistics today. They purport to say that the city gained 15,000 jobs in July, with almost 80,000 so far this year, and even that the city's job-creation rate is in excess of the national average. Yet these statistics aren't worth the paper they're printed on - in fact, they should've been printed on toilet paper so they could prove useful! What really matters is that the city's unemployment rate increased to 7.8% from 7.5% in June. The Comptroller's office *claims* that this is because there was an increase in the number of job seekers - but where did all these people really come from?
All this goes to the point that the city can't afford to do anything that has even the slightest chance of discouraging economic growth. There simply is no margin for error. If there is a risk that increasing tolls - or not decreasing existing tolls - will discourage job growth, the city cannot take that risk even though there are valid arguments in favor of tolls.
The figures are true: the city has added 85,000 private sector employees in the past 12 months, along with additional self-employed people. This data series (monthly survey of establishments) goes back to 1950, and this is the fastest job growth since that time at least. The survey is paid for by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and taken by the Department of Labor in each of the 50 states. The same methodology is used everywhere, and has been used for years. Given that the city is already developed at a high density, and its population is essentially unchanged since 1940, this rate of growth is all the more remarkable. And Wall St. is a small part of it -- its across the board. And the construction boom you normally get hasn't even happened (yet).
Moreover, NYC is responsible for the entire economy of the state. The suburbs are booming due to money spent on local services, money earned in the city. Upstate, the private sector is going down, but state and local government is booming with taxes collected downstate.
Where are all the unemployed coming from? Unless you can give specific examples of how you are looking for a job when the census bureau calls, you are counted as out of the labor force, not unemployed. In the U.S. as a whole, 68 percent of those age 16+ are in the labor force. In NYC, its just 59 percent -- up from 56 percent just a few years ago. If all those on the dole start looking for work, the city's unemployment rate will rise to well over 20 percent. It's those 780,000 people still on the dole, along with the diminishing number of elderly whose children moved to the suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s. If all these folks start to work, or are replaced by workers in their residences, how high might transit ridership rise?
[If all those on the dole start looking for work, the city's unemployment rate will rise to well over 20 percent. It's
those 780,000 people still on the dole, along with the diminishing number of elderly whose children moved to the suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s. If all these folks start to work, or are replaced by workers in their residences, how high might transit ridership rise?]
Quite clearly, there's no way the transit system could accomodate 780,000 additional riders without expansion or significantly upgraded signalling, neither of which are likely to happen anytime soon. But it's also clear that there won't be any such upsurge in ridership. Many if not most of the 780,000 people still on welfare are children or disabled or otherwise incapable of work. And even without transit issues, having a huge number of people enter the job market definitely would be a mixed blessing for the city. Most of the country already thinks of it as an economic cripple; a 20% unemployment rate (which naturally would get huge play in the national press) would be a public relations disaster of epic proportions.
If the city's adults were in the labor force at the national rate, there would be about 550,000 more people looking for work. This includes all the adults on SSI, and those on welfare, and others who are out of the labor force for other reasons. It also includes the fact that teens and other students are less likely to work in NYC (and the whole Metro Area) than elsewhere.
Bear in mind that according to national policy all of those 550,000 adults can get jobs anytime then want to, but they are lazy. In 2001, if they don't take a job, they and and their family members deserve to starve. Haven't you seen the business representatives walking through the South Bronx begging people to come to work? A rise in the recorded unemployment rate to 20 percent would merely make the problem visible.
[Bear in mind that according to national policy all of those 550,000 adults can get jobs anytime then want to, but they are lazy. In 2001, if they don't take a job, they and and their family members deserve to starve. Haven't you seen the business representatives walking through the South Bronx begging people to come to work? A rise in the recorded unemployment rate to 20 percent would merely make the problem visible.]
Businesses in other parts of the country are forever complaining about the trouble they're having in recruiting workers. Maybe some of them *should* come to the South Bronx and do some recruiting there!
What about the revitalization of the Bronx I read about? Is that only in housing?
You have had retail in the Bronx, including entire new shopping centers. The way the NY area economy works is this: Manhattan is where the big bucks are made. People bring home that money and spend it locally, and this generates employment in retail, services, etc. But the outer boroughs of NYC has hundreds of thousands of fewer jobs in their local sector than their incomes ought to be supporting. Residents of Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens and SI have been shopping, purchasing accounting services, and going to movies in the suburbs -- a big loss of tax dollars and jobs. The "gap" between actual and expected employment in the local sector is 100,000 in Brooklyn alone.
Businesses, large and small, have caught on to this and are desperately trying to build stores, offices, movie theaters, health clubs, etc. in the outer boroughs. But the only available land is in manufacturing districts -- the commercial streets are full. The zoning does not permit many types of commercial activity in manufacturing districts to "preserve" the land for the return of "high wage" manufacturing and keep out supermarkets, for example. Neighbors (feaful of traffic) and competitors have successfully fought new commercial activity. (When stuff does get built, one finds that the traffic and impact on neighborhood businesses is negligible compared with various predictions).
In Bronx, however, they had the huge chunk of commercially-zoned land near Co-Op City which had lain vacant for decades. It is now filling up. In areas where housing had been rebuilt, the local commercial space is also refilling, and new stores are being built without subsidy. As a result of new housing, and the people who were already there spending money at home, a modest economic revivial is occuring in the Bronx.
[You have had retail in the Bronx, including entire new shopping centers. The way the NY area economy works is this: Manhattan is where the big bucks are made. People bring home that money and spend it locally, and this generates employment in retail, services, etc. But the outer boroughs of NYC has hundreds of thousands of fewer jobs in their local sector than their incomes ought to be supporting. Residents of Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens and SI have been shopping, purchasing accounting services, and going to movies in the suburbs -- a big loss of tax dollars and jobs. The "gap" between actual and expected employment in the local sector is 100,000 in Brooklyn alone.]
This sort of gap would be even more pronounced if it weren't for the city's high levels of transit dependency. Because many people in the outer boroughs (other than Staten Island) lack cars, it's hard for them to seek shopping and entertainment in the suburbs. Large-scale food shopping in particular is an activity that just about requires one's own vehicle. In this sense, the overpriced, low-quality local stores are being "subsidized" not only by zoning, but also by transit dependency.
People have solved the problem of food shopping by transit. Several people get together and take a bus to a large supermarket or shopping center (ie. Valley Stream). Then then call car service and split the cost of a car ride back to their homes, with their purchases in the trunk. You'll see lots of car services picking people up at the new Pathmark at Atlantic Center, for example.
The two or three chains which control supermarkets on local commercial streets it the city hired this lobbyist to oppose our zoning change. He played the racial predjudices like a violin. He told those in white neighborhoods that if new stores were allowed to open, they would bring "outsiders" which would cause "crime." Everyone knew exactly what and who he was talking about. In black neighborhoods, he claimed that the proposal was a Giuliani ploy to help the white corporations destroy minority entreprenuers. Race poisons everything.
yeah, right! like when the computer industry lobbies for increased immigration quotas at the same time they are downsizing the gringos with seniority and higher pay! Remember welfare serves as a drag on downward wage spirals by withdrawing some potential workers from competition.
You can also make an argument for cutting taxes and providing luxurious public services -- in the short run. Of course, in the long run debts have to be paid back, but you're out of office by then.
[You can also make an argument for cutting taxes and providing luxurious public services -- in the short run. Of course, in the long run debts have to be paid back, but you're out of office by then.]
Sounds like exactly what George Pataki is doing!
Don't worry about NYC. With the growth of telecommuting will come some kind of new telecommuting tax for using communications devices during peak and off-peak hours. They'll find another way of generating revenue.
--Mark
yes, Microsoft will come out with Windows 98 1/2 not compatable with your new system so you'll have to shell out another token to pick up your software as with windows 98.
Huh? Uncle Bill bought NYC Transit??? I guess that'll mean having 11 tokens (disks) worth of patches to get the thing to work right 90% of the time.
Olavo, So you're NOT for more/better service from the suburbs of LI to Lower Mahattan. OK. Hay, it's only 7 % of your customers. That ain't much of a dollar impact, and my wife is satisfied with Conway.
Seriously: With such a SMALL possible benifit and such a LARGE cost to do it ... the money could be better spent.
Mr t__:^)
IT'S VERY GOOD THAT THIS SITE EXIST! NOW WHAT! DO WE VENT ALL DAY, OR, WRITE LETTERS, PETITIONS; MAKING DEMANDS ON IMPROVE TRANSIT OPTIONS! REMEMBER, THE MTA GOT A SURPLUS, AND LOOK, IT RESULTED IN EVEN WORSE SERVICE! WHEN WOULD YOU WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHEN IT IS TOO LATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY, MTA, IS TAKING OUR MONEY FOR GRANTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE IT ANY MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LET'S ORGANIZE, OR, CONTINUE TO ENDURE INADEQUATE SERVICE.
SHOULDN'T THIS WEBSITE BE FOCUS ON ADVOCATING THE MTA FOR BETTER SERVICE, INSTEAD OF VENTING?!!!!!!!!!!!!
> SHOULDN'T THIS WEBSITE BE FOCUS ON ADVOCATING THE MTA
> FOR BETTER SERVICE, INSTEAD OF VENTING?!!!!!!!!!!!!
No.
-Dave
Three words Dave, New York Times...
Didn't notice that was from Chris....
Chris,
Venting is good ... so is understanding.
If YOU want to write a letter to the Editor/TA etc, go to a TA meeting and voice your opinion, THIS forum can provide you with the detailed information (facts) that will get people, on the other side of the table, to listen to you and seriously consider what you have to say.
For some of us we're just courious about the details of how the subway works & may have no interest in changing anything.
Others may even work for the TA and be looking at what is going on here and even thinking about some of what is said.
So Chris, turn the FLAME down a little, OK ?
Mr t__B<)
Also, please stop yelling! In addition to being impolite, all capital letters actually are much more difficult to read.
I must agree with Dave & disagree with you, Chris. Most of us are subway/transit enthusiasts. Even those of us who work in the industry find discussing a wide variety of issues, without real consequence, relaxing. I particularly enjoy the technical discussions as well as the political ones. The diversity and the freeness of the conversations would be severely limited if this became a political action group. There are ample forums available for those who want to take the MTA on. Let's leave this site alone for the majority to enjoy. Please find another platform from which to try to change things. It's not that things don't need changing - just not here, Chris.
If you want to complain to the MTA and get better service from them, your complaints should be directed to them directly. not here.
If Mr Rivera is successful in setting up a meeting with the MTA Chairman, you'd be able to present him your "H" train proposal as well as vent your complaints to him directly.
--Mark
That was a different Chris who brought up the H train.
There was a comment regarding SIRT about the ability of their Motormen to "throw the switch" by punching into a keypad that they pull up to.
The TA used to have a number of places where this occured ... does it still happen or does it have to originate out of the "Tower" now.
Mr t__:^)
There are still lots of places where motormen select their own routes. In some places, this is the "exception," where the route is set normally, but the motorman punches the button for a diversion. In other places, the home signal remains red over red until a button is punched (such as 47-50 Street/Rock Center uptown, on either track).
I understand that one of the reasons for track work in the tunnel with the express tracks under Queens Blvd. between Roosevelt Ave. and 36th street, is that cabling for such a route selector is being installed. The selector will be at Roosevelt Ave. Manhattan-bound, and operate the interlocking plant at 36th Street which will route trains to eitehr Queens Plaza or the 63rd Street tunnel.
Hey guys maybe you can help out on the subject of motorman and swithes. Are you saying that most of the time the motorman picks his own route or diversion? And if so what is the purpose of the towers? And what about signaling, dose the tower control the signals or are they automatically set when the motorman makes his choice? Does anyone know how many towers are in the system? Are they 24 hour operation? Sorry for so many questions but I am curious. Ron
First you have to distinguish the difference between a "satellite" and a "master" tower. 47-50 st tower is a satellite tower because it controls only that interlocking. 59 St Columbus Circle or 207 St is a master tower because they are remotely located but contol extensive maineline and interlockings.
The second thing you have to know is if there is tower coverage because the routes can be established by a towerman or motorman. If you notice on satellite towers such as Rockerfeller Center the routes can come in during the rush hours before the train completely stops. However at night when the T.A. is too cheap to hire personnel the motorman must activate a "punch", or a route request. The button he presses (21 st, Bronx or Queens Blvd) automatically gives him his requested route. As for the last question the Pelham Bay IRT lost Parkchester satellite and will lose Hunts Point, Third Av and Pelham Bay towers by the 30th of this month due to the new signal system. It is hard to keep track of the numberof towers
Think of it, growing up on the Brighton Line, there isn't a "Tower" the whole way from Prospect Park to Coney Island.
Just south of Kings Highway used to be a tower that over looked the whole interlocking plant. This interlocking is extensive covering 4 tracks. You can move wrong rail from the uptown local track (backwards towards Coney Island) and switch all the way over to the Coney Island Local Track.
THEY knocked down the tower and built this huge "Box On Stilts" on top of the Kings Highway station. I don't think it's maned like the old tower used to be (used to always see the tower operator walk to and from the tower, I hardley ever see anyone go up into that box).
The TA has also built those boxes at Brighton Beach (I assume the Q dispatcher is up there somewhere) where there are extensive interlockings south and north of the station with two additional lay up tracks to the 4 main tracks. Are all these interlockings controled by push buttons?? A true "Money" saver...
<< The TA has also built those boxes at Brighton Beach (I assume the Q
<< dispatcher is up there somewhere) where there are extensive
<< interlockings south and north of the station with two additional
<< lay up tracks to the 4 main tracks.
There was always such a structure at the east (north) end of the Brighton Beach station that is still in use. With the new one closer to the center of the station, there's another. Wasn't that for the dispatcher as well as crew quarters between trains? And Ocean Parkway, IIRC, has such a structure, too. I wonder why there are two of these structures so close together.
--Mark
Re: the effect of the push buttons. I could be mistaken, but I believe that all the push buttons do is tell the tower what route the motorman would like to take, or (to say the same thing a different way) what designation the train has. I believe that the tower sets the signals and switches, and that the tower has the ultimate authority to do so and can override the button, not the other way around.
In normal operation, maybe it looks like the button controls the tower: the motorman pushes the button for route A, the switching equipment can automatically check to see if the route is clear, and if so can set the switches and signals or if not alert the tower operator. But from a design perspective, that's a form of "cheating" to make the tower's job easier by letting the machine do the most probable thing unless some sort of conflict develops. What would happen if there is a conflict, and how will the conflict be resolved? e.g., which train gets to go first? I don't think that the motorman can over-ride the tower from the push button box, because in a conflict situation someone has to make an intelligent decision. Thus, I think that the button system is designed to relay information only, and that the tower is responsible for making decisions.
--mhg
If this was true, could the motorman make a mistake and select another route?
Ex: At Lex on the R and N lines.
Could the N motorman select the R botton? What would happen is this came true?
If he/she pushed the wrong button, he/she'd go the wrong way! If you look on the wall near many of the route selectors, you'll see a sign titled, "KNOW YOU LINEUP!" It shows the colors of the home signal for the various possible routes.
I noticed an interesting one at 14th Street on the 6th Avenue IND Line (downtown) today. It has the "KNOW YOUR LINEUP" sign (for the [F] local). Next to it is a single button, which is labeled "One ring, [F]; two rings, [B][D]". This must be a bell-signal to the W. 4th Street tower requesting a route change on approach to W. 4th Street.
In Rapid Transt Operations, it is said that, "A wrong line-up can never be given. It can only be taken." This is meant to say that if a tower operator displays the wrong line-up it is not a wrong line-up until the motorman takes it. Then he's a fault.
A big thank you to all that posted here in reply to my simple question ... do the keypads still work in subways !!!!!
Mr t__:^)
the true reason the ta does every thing is money. the entire brighton line is governed from a single location. have you noticed that the old signals used to be either on a box or next to one? well that was because the relay(remote switch) was there at the signal it served. the new systems have the signal standing alone and all the relays are located in one of those eyesore type rooms along the right of way. by having all the relays in one central location it supposedly saves time and money in trouble shooting and repair. I dont agree! the millions spent on the thousands of extra miles of signal cable required by putting the relays off site is not justified in my opinion and other RR would agree. TA is the only outfit I know that does this obscenity.
Centralization of its signals/tower operation is the end result less to manage and operate/mantain less cost in theory but inflate management salary hmmm where do the savings come in???
less face it lotsa lip service to the customer to look good but management and bean counters doing diddly and make excellent salaries and not push a token or move a train hmm who really benefits TA management who rarely ride a train or bus, consultants out the ass given lucrative contracts and really know squat about what a rider has to endure ......... oh yeah and that wonderful new control center under construction at 54th and 9 av is to become the future of the transit system under one roof( funny how much real estate mta has)for virtually all train management. currently IRT(A div) IND/BMT(B Div) on the 3rd or 4th floor (I forget which floor) control center will eventually move to the new facility with state of art communication and a bunch of stuff that should compare to star wars.
Oh come on. I don't feel that the TA is perfect, but the fact that they make attempts to modernize their equipment is GOOD.
Should they be lighting the stations with gas lamps? Should they have clerks who hand calculate all of the paychecks and deductions, and then type out the paycheck? If you think they should, that's great, but someone has to pay for it. I'd rather they used light bulbs and computers like everyone else and used the money saved to increase service or keep fares low.
Every railroad in the US has made LARGE centralizations of the signal system. The country used to be covered with towers which controlled just about every interlocking, manually. I would guess that 98% of them are no longer on line - they are either gone altogether or the tower is still there but does not function as a manned tower controlling an interlocking. The operation of the interlocking has been switched to a box which is located nearby. This box is in turn controlled by the computers which are operated by a dispatcher.
Many railroad buffs lament the lack of towers, just as they lament the lack of steam engines, wooden boxcars, and cabooses. I see their point, and I guess I wish sometimes that I could see what is was like back in the "golden age" of railroading. But the fact is the railroads, and the subways of the past simply could not exist today - way too inefficient.
On the specific comment that centralizing relays is not worth the cost of miles of signal wire, well it almost certainly is. Wire is very cheap and lasts forever, if adequately protected. No moving parts is the key here. Relays need constant babysitting and are expensive (and disruptive!!!!) to replace. I am sure that the TA managed to reduce the number of relays when they consolidated controls. But even if they did not, they will pay for the cost of the wire simply by reducing the amount of hiking to remote locations the signal maintainers have to do.
Geez, you would think from reading subtalk sometimes the of gazillion people that ride the subway daily, 93% never reach their destination because obviously the TA is the most wasteful/corrupt/martian/communist/capitalist/silurian/slothful/miserly/slovenly/smelly organization on the face of the earth. Fact is, they move the vast majority of those people quickly and efficiently, despite the fact that they have abandoned gas lighting, carbon paper, and towers.
Whew - sorry about my longwindedness...
Well Said David, I grew up with the tower, and I miss it but life goes on .
I work for a city agency (nonMayor) that has the largest payroll in the city. We still are a manual payroll system and I am talking hundred of thousand employees. We don't even get our sick/anual leave on the check like every other city agency because it is a manual payroll.
Nope not any part of the MTA...
Oh and we still use carbonized (6part) typed purchase orders too...
Things really are that incompetent over at the Board of Ed, eh? Everytime I complain about my job, my boss suggest applying for a position at the BOE. At least our payroll is on computer.
[At least our payroll is on computer.]
But what you didn't mention is that the computer is an IBM PCJr :-)
(PC Juniors at City Planning)
And since in order to meet the Mayor's committment without layoffs our OTPS (other than personal service) budget is negative, we won't be upgrading to Apple IIs anytime soon. And you wonder why I don't know how to incorporate my charts directly into text? I also don't know how to spellcheck this box, for example. Work for the government, become obsolete. And we can't afford to hire anyone more technically competent than I am. I'm 37, and I'm still the young guy.
I'm not saying we should have wooden cars or gas light, as a matter of fact i work with AC traction and am the biggest champion of the P wire, its just Im very cynical and mistrusting of any thing TA does because of thier holy grail "to reduce costs" How many times have they screwed something or more importantly SOMEONE in the persuit of savings?
CONTRACTORS THE TA HAS RUN OUT OF BUSINESS:
St Louis car
ACF
Sumi Rail Ltd
Grumman Bus
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Well, the TA is supposed to reduce costs, especially where service is not affected. There are really good arguments that some of their cost-cutting that was service cutting has NOT been worthwhile...
But I am quite glad that they are centrallizing relays to reduce costs in a way that does not affect service! Who pays for the TA, after all? I hate to sound vaguely like a Republican, but remember - all the streetlighters lost their jobs due to Mr. Edison...
If it weren't for the TA, St. Louis Car Co. would have shut its doors much sooner. The PCC market dried up by the early 50s, and other than converting Chicago's unwanted Green Hornets into L cars, SLCC wasn't doing much of anything else until they captured the R-17 contract and, subsequently, the R-21, R-22, R-29, R-30, R-33, R-36, R-38, R-40, R-42, and R-44 contracts. I heard the R-44 contract didn't help matters.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the calculator, adding machine, or worse, the abacus.
I dont understand why the trains need speed restrictions. They've been operating the subways for 94 years and most of the accidents were due to negligence or stupidity on someone's part. The TA needs to screen their employees for illictit activities and health problems. (the union is too strong and it will never get done) Let us not forget, the reason we hop on a #4 train or an A train is to enjoy a fast ride until our ears cant stand it anymore!
Speed restrictions are a necessary fact of life on any transit system.They are most often imposed when track defects in the affected area would pose a danger of derailment to trains travelling at the maximum authorized speed. A determination is made as to what (reduced) speed would allow safe continued use of that track,which helps in maintaining service. The speed restriction then remains in effect until the condition is corrected.
Re your comments on employee screening:Both the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration have strict regulations that require both post accident and random drug/alcohol testing for employees. All carriers require periodic medical exams.
I wouldn't say that express trains in New York are all that loud. Even the workhorse R-10s, which had a reputation for being noisy, weren't intolerable; it was only towards the end when their trucks got really noisy that it got out of hand. Today's cars are much quieter, especially the R-44s and R-46s.
If you want noise and speed, go to Chicago and ride the Blue line from downtown out toward O'Hare in the subway stretch. Man, is that loud! Break out the earplugs!
The reason the subway has been safe for 94 years is because there are rules such as the speed restrictions. Every rail system in the world has speed limits.
It is not possible for a train operator to judge the maximum safe speed while operating a train. Someone has to go out there and take a close look at the track. This is how speed limits are determined.
B.S.! as a motorman for over 10 years braking is the real problem. if you remember older cars had 100 h.p. motors with cast iron brake shoes and high brake cylinder p.s.i. Look at the equipment today. 115 h.p. with composition shoes. Now if you were to say that composition shoes work on freight cars you are right. However freight cars do not have dynamic brake so the plastic shoes work well under high temperatures and not well coming out of the yards. Take for example your cars. If you have semi metalic brake shoes and pads youll notice that when you roll out of the driveway and apply the brakes they grab hard, just like the old R-10s did. However whenyou slow down from 65 m.p.h. the brakes fade as they did on trains with inoperative dynamic. at slow speeds if the train went to emergency brake people went through windows and into poles, along with the problem of flat wheels. Trains today accelerate faster than the old ones and therefore the fixed signals can't work as designed
lets face it the cost of composition brake shoes must be lower compared to cast iron ones. Part two to that would be that fewer flat wheels less cost also, however itt always seems that human error is blamed since management will never admit to its own fault.
Unfortunately you are right in the sense the the T.A. is not accountable to it passengers for it's safety the way F.R.A. enforces safety among passenger railroads. Please note the number of collisions we have per year and try to find them elsewhere, you'll find most of them involving freight and passenger trains running in non cab-signaled territory. Just think about it...we are going into the 21st century with trip cocks and sound powered phones while Amtrak had electronic cab signals and working radios since the Pensy days.
They've got to do something about the long travel times on the subway, especially off the IRT. It really reduces the quality of life in the outer boroughs. Combine slow speeds with long headways and you have purgatory, especially off peak -- when you really want to attract riders. The F train just crawls. The N/R through City Hall/Cortlandt/Rector/Whitehall/Boro Hall/Lawrence/DeKalb/Pacific is even worse. And here the Fed are spending a billion on Magnalev Trains of the future.
I have a five mile commute that often takes 40 to 45 mintues. I can walk a good chunk of the distance -- through the park and over the Brooklyn Bridge -- and get there in just an hour by taking the IRT. What if I lived further out in Brooklyn? No wonder people here, if they can't buy a house in the neighborhood, figure they might as well move to the suburbs.
>> The N/R through City Hall/Cortlandt/Rector/Whitehall/Boro
>> Hall/Lawrence/DeKalb/Pacific is even worse
True. But the only way to really fix this is to build a new, straight tunnel (well, as straight as possible) to speed up the trains.
Why DID the BMT build this area of the line with so many curves? Property owners / boundries / building construction techniques?
--Mark
Todd,
I checked out your photos in the Museum Car Roster. Nice going! 3352 looks pretty good, for a 94-year-old car. Maybe the good folks at Seashore can spearhead a campaign to restore it in time for its 100th birthday in 2004. (I know, I know, subway cars are not at the top of their priority list.)
I'm curious about that head-on shot of 1440; specifically, the storm door. If I didn't know better, I'd say that looks like 800. If I'm not mistaken, the R-1 and R-4 cars, including 800, had storm doors with one large window pane; the R-6s, R-7s, and R-9s had storm doors with two panes. Is it possible that 1440 could have had a storm door switched on it? BTW, that's a good sign combination on the bulkhead - you can't beat the A train!
I'll check on a possible storm door swap next time I'm up there (it will be a while... I'm at WCBS in NYC most weekends until Labor Day due to vacation fill-ins -- good for my NYC subway riding, but bad since I can't get to Maine as much as I'd like.)
Most times we leave the sign on A, however I've been known to change it to HH -- I lived in Howard Beach for a few years during my childhood!
It's also possible that I mis-captioned the photos after I got them from Todd. :-)
-Dave
Speaking of 800 & 1440, one of them (forgot which) was undergoing a paint job, or was at least being prepped for one back on Memorial Day. Much of the interior paint was stripped off. Was it repainted yet?
--Mark
Last I checked, it was status quo. Things at Seashore can progress at the rate of the Lexington Avenue "express" at rush hour! There's really only one dedicated volunteer to the cars, who also does a lot of other things. My "job" at Seashore is as an Instructor/Inspector and as an officer of our Operations Department, so my limited time there is spent on those tasks; I donate to the R-4/7 fund however to help keep things going!
<< Things at Seashore can progress at the rate of the Lexington Avenue "express" at rush hour! There's really only one dedicated volunteer to the cars, who also does a lot of other things. >>
Being a regular at STM as well, when I last spoke to said vounteer, he was "working on it," but as Todd said, he is involved in NUMEROUS projects. I am sure he would appreciate any donations to the paint fund(hint, hint).
As far as the sign, yes it usually stays on the A. The last time we took it out on a Members Day, I was the conductor on the trip, and took "requests" from all the New Yorkers on board. I think one car was set up as an A, and the other was an E or an F.
Now I'm getting jealous (heh-heh!) Did you get any requests to open and close the doors just so they could hear the sounds? You wouldn't be able to tear me away from those step plates and trigger boxes!
I was on the R-4/9 ride this past Member's Day. I don't recall the doors being operated but I know they are in operating condition. It was great to hear their traction motors and air compressors "humming".
--Mark
As one of the newest Seashore operators, I haven't yet been lucky enough to see the IND cars in operation. I often jump up and "assume the position" between the cars, just for fun. I'll check on the painting progress tomorrow.
<>
Unfortunately, we did not operate the doors during the Members Day trip. The next time we put the pair in a parade, I want to do what Tim said, and "assume the position" when the car is brought before the public. Many people now know that doors on current subway cars are controlled inside a warm cab...not then!!
As I've said before, if I were up at Seashore, you wouldn't be able to drag me away from those door controls!
I used to watch conductors on the R-1/9s and R-10s work those door controls. I didn't know about the two triggers until much later, as it was easier to observe the conductor pushing down the trigger caps as opposed to moving the two triggers.
Here's the latest on 800 and 1440, as of 15 August: the center of the roof on 800 has been painted black; 1440's has not been done yet.
I'm curious about one other thing concerning 800: was it stored outside somewhere for an extended period of time before Seashore acquired it? There is a photo of a 1980 Nostalgia Trip featuring a train of R-1/9s in my Transit Calendar of 1993. #800 was the first car in that train, and it looked as if it had just come out of the paint shop, or even the factory! Judging from the photos in the Museum Car Roster, 800's exterior looks a bit weathered.
BTW, there is a photo of 1440 in New York Subway Cars on the QB line at DeKalb Ave.
I checked the storm doors this weekend. 800 has one pane on each end; 1440 has two.
Thanks. That's consistent with the R-4s and R-7s in general. Looks as if that photo was miscaptioned. Oops!
I agree I like the site cause I am a trainsit (A youg transit fan at that 13 years old) I have been a train fan for 10 years. I have collected over 250 maps dating back from 1988 and one map from the 1979 (which shows the K service still running. Now lets get off this I am trying to set up a meeting with the Chairman of the MTA (E. Viirgil Conway)about the Second Avenue Subway if you want to come and talk about your lines and what to do to make things better. Ever since I found the site searching for the site that has fans of the Transit and I found it the is the best site to learn the read and to have fun and chat. The only thing I would ask David Pirmann is to make a direct chat area where as you can talk to Subway fans directly. Like a chat borad. Now I would not mind if some more people from subtalk told me things to say at the meetng with. Now if there was a meeting would you come and talk about it to the chariman?
Christopher Rivera
Setting up a meeting with Mr. Conway in order to have the Second Ave. subway will be an exercise in futility. Mr. Conway and the rest of the MTA board are a bunch of political appointees. I am still waiting to hear what his prior transportation experience is. He is one of Pataki's "yes" men; Dyson & others appointed by Guiliani are his "yes" men, etc. The reason why the Second Ave. subway hasn't been built and never will be even in your lifetime (and my oldest son's too who is also your age) is this: it's an exremely expensive undertaking. There is lots of anti NYC bias in NY state. The non-NYC politicians will never let it happen, because there is nothing in it for their constituents in the rural areas. Remember this: transportation issues are big politics in this town & state. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
A friend of mine was on Philadelphia on a weekend and did not see any streetcars running and was told that the tracks were being blacktopped over. He drove past the Germantown yards and saw many cars parked.
1. Are they running streetcars? If so which lines and what days of the week do they operate?
2. Are they rebuilding a line for future use? If so how far along are they and when will it be completed?
3. Have they eliminated lines, if so when, which lines and are they blacktopping over tracks?
Thanks Joe
1. Are they running streetcars? If so which lines and what days of the week do they operate?
The ONLY streetcar lines running in Philadelphia are the five subway surface lines that run in the subway. The car lines 10 Lancaster, 11 Woodland, 13 Chester, 34 Baltimore, and 36 Elmwood, run on their respective streets in West Philadelphia. All are a seven day a week schedule, some having OWL service.
2. Are they rebuilding a line for future use? If so how far along are they and when will it be completed?
I believe the #23 Germantown Ave. Line is intact north of Erie Ave. There is a railfan charter scheduled to operate on Germantown Ave. on Sunday, September 27th. See SEPTA site for details. As for rebuilding, see below.
3. Have they eliminated lines, if so when, which lines and are they blacktopping over tracks?
Car Lines #15 Girard is currently intact, however is currently a bus operation. SEPTA says they don't have the cars to operate it. Same with the #23 (mentioned above) and the #56 Erie-Torresdale.
There have been plans to buy new LRV's for the subway service so the 1980's Kawasaki's can be used on these three lines. However, I wouldn't bet a paycheck on this happening ANYTIME SOON!
To add to this, all of 15, 23 and 56 are available to operate streetcars. Rails cannot be paved over since the lines are not officially abandoned. Occasionally, construction in the street affects rails and/or wires (cases in point - Route 10 is affected by sewer work above Girard Ave and 23's wire has been moved on 12th St in Center City near the old PSFS Building), but permanent changes cannot be made.
SEPTA is planning a complete revitalization of 15 into a modern light rail line, possibly opening by 2002. Similar work is planned for 56. 23, with little possibilties for separated right of way on its route, may be restored north of Erie, with the segment between Girard and Erie remaining as the north-west system connection. The Bainbridge- Girard section will likely remain for the downtown loop (and this might even go as far south as Snyder). SEPTA experimented with operation of 23 as two halves broken at Erie a couple of years back, albeit with buses, but it was not well received by the riding public.
You can still find extant portions of abandoned rail throughout the city. It is likely that this is what was seen as being "blacktopped".
was there an accident at 105 st/bway 3 weeks ago? if so what happened and what kind of damage was done??
In yesterday's Daily News, page two featured an article on padded seats that are replacing the plain fiberglass seats on all new buses. The new seats are no way near the new seats that are replacing seats on all MTA express buses. The new seats on express buses resemble the type of seats that you'll find on a coach bus. To tell you the truth, I don't favor this idea. The seats can become stained by any type of liquid and quite possibly may be hard to remove. The manufacturer (American Seating) states that their product is vandal proof. Yeah!, we'll see. Finally on cushioned seats. The seats that are on the newest Orion buses on Green Bus Lines and Queens Surface come equipped with cushioned seats. I've already noticed that vandals have already strucked by slicing some parts of the seats on the rear of the bus. Both private bus lines have express bus routes. Was the idea of placing ALL the Orions on the express routes ever came to mind; this would lessen the chance of vandalism on the cushioned seats. I don't think the people at the top had this in their minds.
-GarfieldA
The newer buses in Chicago are fitted with the "rug" or "carpet" padded seats. As a daily rider I am adamantly opposed to this type of covering. This covering is acceptable if the people who are carried behave like people, however, there is a segment of transit users who feel they must dirty or deface the seats.
The rug or carpet padding comes into suspect when you wonder who sat on the seat before you. With homeless (I don’t want to get on that subject again), and also factory workers (really no fault of their own that their clothes are soiled) using those seats, you have to stop and think if your pants/skirt/etc. will absorb anything from the previous occupant.
The CTA color, dark blue, also does a wonderful job of disguising the fact that the seat may be wet. Give me the vinyl any day. At least you can be forewarned what you are sitting on.
Yes, I think the carpeted seats can be problematic. However, many people like them and feel that they're a touch of class. People complain how relatively small delays repeated every day turn people off to riding the CTA. Maybe the addition of small amenities here and there will keep passengers and possibly even bring some back.
Oh John, if all it would take is padded seats to bring back the ridership the CTA had ten years ago, I would say - bring on those padded seats.
However, as we are both daily riders of the CTA, the problems of declining ridership can not be remedied with the offer of padded seats. I haven’t seen any statistics on ridership lately, but it appears to me that it was been steady, or even increased slightly. This is in light of a great economy, which stimulates more people to have the money to own and use an automobile.
As to the service, I have observed a marked improvement in the performance of the routes that I use as I journey to work each day. I have the choice of either the 156, or the 77 to the ‘L’ then Red or Brown Line, and then walk to work, or transfer to the Madison Avenue Lines. Since I’ve already paid the .30 for the first transfer, I usually opt for the bus.
The Red Line has been improving on timeliness and cleanliness of the equipment. The only problem with the Red Line is the speed restriction at the Armitage cross-over plant, and the trains in the evening tend to bunch up between Fullerton and Belmont. I’m sure that has been a problem for years. I can’t image how crowded it must have been when the headway’s were less the every three minutes. The Brown Line is always a good performer, and with the new equipment, is always has functioning AC. The 156 bus is best used in the morning, early before the traffic gets out of hand. Because of the traffic, the 156 is NOT an option in the evening, unless I have a very good book with me and want to read for an hour. The problem in the evening when I use the ‘L’ is the #77 bus doesn’t have a good record going eastbound at around 6PM. I can’t understand why, and I’ve called the 888 number to suggest they do something about it. I usually end up walking the five blocks.
End to end running time for me door (Belmont/Sheridan) to door (Canal/Monroe) averages 40 minutes for 4.5 to 5 miles travel. I guess this isn’t too bad. And most days the CTA does a great job of getting back and forth to work. And $18 a week is a STEAL! That wouldn't cover two day's parking in our building.
The rug inserts work pretty well. They are darker when wet so that's a good hint. Comfort wise there is not a great difference between the hard and rug instert but the do not slide as easy and some riders feel more secure.
The worst insert is the foam padded, covered seat. If there is a small slit of pin hole in the cover it will appear dry but the foam sponge will release it's contents after you sit down. Since the water is trapped inside it does not dry very fast. Moisture can enter from cleaning or other sources.
The velour "rug" seats do dry relativley quickley so if the cleaners get them wet, a quick blast from and air hose will remove most of the water and they will be dry by morning.
I do ride the CTA a few times a month and the euipment is looking better and the service works well. I usually ride the Yellow to the Red to the Brown or a bus. The hardest part of the trip is getting to Dempster Street.
I will concede that the carpet pads do hold your fanny in place. Case in point. This past Saturday I had the occasion to go downtown. As I don't usually get a seat on the train during the rush hour, I did experience first hand the slip sliding while negotiating the curves in the subway. (We had a "hot" operator).
So, I'll give on the sliding part, however, I still don't like them because of the "sanitary" issue. Carpet holds germs and dirt.
Accidents happen at home and on transit, and look out for the coffee spills in my car. The hard seats are easier to clean but if there is staff, a competent station crew can keep the rugs clean too, if only on a spot clean as needed basis.
We have some of each and the Jury is out on the next order but the riders here seem to like the vandall resistant inserts.
PS. I have taken a test insert and slashed it with a razor blade and the stuff stays in place.
We have gotten rid of all the WTW carpet in our house and sanded the hardwood floors, as have most of our neighbors. Dirt, dust, germs, smells. And that's in a house, let alone the subway.
Perhaps they should have a row of wood seats shaped like toilets. This would make people more comfortable while reading the newspaper.
I've seen them on the B2 in Brooklyn, the short 20min line from Kings Highway D/Q to Kings Plaza Mall. I like them since my booty is not sliding all over the seats on the many turns this run makes.
So far no damage to the seats but I'll take a wait and see approach.
Another mod to this Bus is the AC vents overhead. From the rear door back the A/C vent letting cold air is blocked. I assume to allow better flow into the intake and the bus is not cooling cool air as in the first models.
I'm in NYC now... arrived last evening and staying through Saturday. This is my first chance to experience a "weekly" MetroCard. So far, I've used six rides, so getting to the 13 minimum by Saturday to make it worthwhile won't be a problem!
This afternoon I tried to swipe at a 2nd location within the 18-minute passback period to see what the message would be. It's: "JUST USED."
And when dipping in a bus farebox, it tells you the expiration date (in the format "EXPIRES 8/18/98"). But turnstyles only say "GO"."
In addition to "SWIPE AGAIN" and "SWIPE AGAIN HERE," are there any other rare error messages one might get?
Todd, "Are there any other rare error messages I might see"
There are lots and lots of "messages" some relate to the health of the farebox/turnstile/local computer vs. your card, i.e. they're put up eveytime someone trys to use the equipment ... e.g.
- See Agent ... a problem with reading the card vs. Swipe Again
- ROM Ck Sum Error ... Eprom (chip) in the Farebox vs. MetroCard
P.S. Some customers a claiming that "your G__ dam farebox just wiped out all the money on my card ... I had $20 on the *#% !!! thing.
Unfortunatly the cause is usually the previous bus/Turnstile that the customer visited, i.e. IT took all there maney & reported the balance as zero, if a bus, or even worse didn't say anything. This week we had one of these ... got the bus, checked it out, verified that the equipment was working fine & told them upstairs. The customer didn't like the call they got ... In any case we sent them a form to mail to the TA for a refund.
Disclaimer: I don't work for the TA or any of it's divisions.
Mr t__:^)
I've seen SEE AGENT even at the fare check box (or whatever you call it) and INSUFFIENT FARE at the turnstile.
Not once did I see a THANK YOU!!
Lou, B-U-T the friendly bus driver or train conductor SAID goodmorning & thank you for riding with us today !
Case in point: The CUSTOMERS gave one of our bus drivers a mini birthday party ... he was usually on the same route each morning.
No I don't work for the TA, but they have friendly, curious staff ... realy I've met them !!!!
Mr t__Bo)
JUST USED: meaning, that you can't swipe that same MetroCard at the same station for 18 minutes from first swipe - a security measure to prevent fraudulent usage of the unlimited-ride passes.
EXP MM/DD: meaning that the unlimited-ride MetroCard expires at midnight on the date displayed.
18 minute pass back at the same station is a bunch of crap you can walk three blocks to another station and still have a Just Used message displayed for your enjoyment... the brochure for the cards makes no mention of at the same station for a pass back.
Until the software is updated, "sometime in the fall" the 18 minute period is system wide. When the software is updated it will be 18 minutes just at the same station.
I've gotten:
"Card Expired"
"Trip Limit Exceeded" (school pass)
"See Agent" (damaged card)
And just plain old "Invalid" (I tried using a CTA card)
-Hank
Did you all hear about the 2 Rutgers University Orion busses that caught fire and were totaled earlier this year?
These were first owned buses purchased by Suburban Transit in New Brunswick almost a year ago. In April, one bus caught fire while in service and was burnt to a shell, taking a bus shelter with it on the Livingston campus of Rutgers. The cause was determined to be a design flaw where I think it was a loose electrical wire that was being rubbed by some exhaust belts or something along those lines. They went back and fixed all remaining 8 busses in the Rutgers fleet after that.
Two weeks later, another Orion caught fire in Suburban's lot but the cause was never released (or at least I never heard the cause). A Flexible/Grumman or a NYCT type GMC bus parked next to it was also totaled, and the initial reports were they couldn't figure out which bus caught fire first. From that point on, I never saw another Orion bus on any of Rutgers' 10 bus routes again.
For the record, most of the Rutgers equipment was obtained used from various portions of New Jersey Transit bus operations. Someone once told me that the Rutgers system was the 2nd largest non-fare bus system in the US.. I'm not sure if that's true or not and don't know where to confirm that. I've got more information on the system if anyone is curious.
Ahh, the Rutgers bus system. A subject close to my own heart. Wish I had some pictures to illustrate, but alas....
> Someone once told me that the Rutgers system was the 2nd
> largest non-fare bus system in the US..
As an alumni, I've heard that too. It was either "non-fare" system or "privately operated" system.
Back when I was there, they had just started to receive hand-me-down new-style Flxibles (sorry I don't know my bus models too well, but I guess you'd call it a Flxible/Grumman) from NJ Transit and the Port Authority (leasing programs I suspect). Some of these were transit coach style with 1-2 vinyl or hard plastic seating, and others were 2-2 "express bus" style with high backed padded seats and a luggage rack.
When I was there, the fleet mostly consisted of:
...old GM buses (new looks?), with rutgers fleet #'s 263/265/267/269 and 8xx. Some of the 8xx's had an automatic double-panel sliding rear door and others were manually operated. The 2xx's were white with red and black trim, automatic rear doors; the 8xx's were aluminum with black and red trim. I think there's a third category I'm leaving out. I can't remember the fleet number distinction between the 8xx with automatic door and the non-2xx with manual door. They might have been 8xx but I can't remember.
...Flxibles that had the GM style front ends (RU fleet #'s 7xxx, with --IIRC-- 7076, 7082, and 7126 oddball extra-long buses that mostly ran on their "L" line). The rest I think were mostly 72xx.
They were getting pretty ancient-- millions of miles on them each. I was on many that broke down-- brakes, transmission lockups, etc. including one that just died and coasted to a stop on the expressway portion of Rt. 18 (a "G" line bus).
I think now the fleet is all Flxible and RTS. I've heard they also have a couple of articulated buses which IIRC were tried out in '89 or '90 but rejected due to tight corners on the campuses. I guess they had to get some longer buses to handle the capacity crowds. They've made some (apparently minor) route changes since I was there but I bet they are as crowded as ever.
Any more NJ/RU alumni here care to expand?
-Dave
I know it's in poor taste to followup to oneself, but here's a picture of RU bus 275 to illustrate my post:
-Dave
>Back when I was there, they had just started to receive hand-me-down >new-style Flxibles (sorry I don't know my bus models too well, but I
>guess you'd call it a Flxible/Grumman) from NJ Transit and the Port >Authority (leasing programs I suspect). Some of these were transit >coach
>style with 1-2 vinyl or hard plastic seating, and others were 2-2 >"express bus" style with high backed padded seats and a luggage rack.
Yep dave, these Flxibles are still there. The high backed padded seats have been left mostly to the "long-distance" G and GG routes, although they occasionally turned up on the L and LX routes. Most buses do have the vinyl seating, but there are a few oddballs that have Central New Jersey Transit style seats. One bus in particular had only single seats on the right, making for an extremely wide aisle. Wish I had numbers, but I don't have them handy.. and they had some wacky numbering schemes based on the fact that NJDOT, PA, and Suburban seem to own this highly mixed up fleet.
>...old GM buses (new looks?), with rutgers fleet #'s 263/265/267/269 >and 8xx. Some of the 8xx's had an automatic double-panel sliding rear
>door and others were manually operated. The 2xx's were white with red >and black trim, automatic rear doors; the 8xx's were aluminum with
>black and red trim. I think there's a third category I'm leaving out. >I can't remember the fleet number distinction between the 8xx with >automatic
>door and the non-2xx with manual door. They might have been 8xx but I >can't remember.
>...Flxibles that had the GM style front ends (RU fleet #'s 7xxx, with >--IIRC-- 7076, 7082, and 7126 oddball extra-long buses that mostly >ran
>on their "L" line). The rest I think were mostly 72xx.
These have for the most part disappeared in the 1997-1998 academic year. The Orion buses were supposed to make these completely obsolete. Even the one with that picture you shown was circulating once in a while, but hasn't turned up in over a year.
>I think now the fleet is all Flxible and RTS. I've heard they also >have a couple of articulated buses which IIRC were tried out in '89 or '90 but
>rejected due to tight corners on the campuses. I guess they had to >get some longer buses to handle the capacity crowds. They've made some
>(apparently minor) route changes since I was there but I bet they are as crowded as ever.
The Flxibles and the RTS busses make up the core of the fleet. These were RTS Series III buses that if you ask me, don't wear their age anywhere near as well as the Flxibles. Most of the RTS's have cusioned seats, but in the last year they seemed to get some strange RTS busses from who knows where.. they had weird (for Rutgers) seats and they had the dot matrix destination boards which were unheard of on the RTS's until then. The articulated bus experiment revealed only one viable route, the EE Douglass/Colleve Ave. loop. There seem to be only 2 of those in service. Additionally with the purchase of the Orion busses, 2 or 3 busses of foreign (German?) design were also introduced, mostly on the A Busch-College Ave. loop, but were not very frequent.
The route structures change almost semi-annually, with some notable changes over the last 4 years:
CA - College Ave. to Rutgers Stadium Express (dropped after one semester because of lack of ridership.. This was a ploy to get more commuters to park at the Stadium than at the College Ave. deck.. in
typical Rutgers fashion.. it failed miserably)
GG - Extended to Busch, now just serves Livingston and Douglass
G - Extended to Livingston, now just serves Busch and Douglass
LX - Express version of the L to "bypass" (yeah right :P ) traffic
B - Switches loop directions on Busch every year
A,H - They can't seem to make up their minds about late night operation
F - Dropped the New Brunswick downtown route briefly in 1994, until enough people complained to bring it back.
Bob Spear is doing a better job, but crowding is a definite issue as always, but there isn't much one can do with the traffic in the area... Can you say.. MONORAIL?
More info: Rutgers Bus Routes and Time Tables
> A,H - They can't seem to make up their minds about late
> night operation
This has been a bone of contention for 15 years. When I was there the "A" was the late night bus hitting the "A"cademic areas first, and the "H" was the daytime only bus hitting the "H"ousing areas first on Busch. It seemed to me that people were always complaining that the "H" should be the late night bus and in fact the schedules on their web site reflect this.
> Can you say.. MONORAIL?
Hah, some friends of mine and I sketched out a RU monorail when I was there....
-Dave
What was your monorail scheme like?
The late night comments bring back my experience as a graduate student in City Planning at Rutgers in the mid-1980s. I didn't have a car, and didn't have an alternate address. I lived next to a radiation dump on what I think was the Livingston Campus, and walked to the City Planning Department on Busch. This was before they had their nice Downtown building. I always thought the point of having planners on Busch was to teach them "don't let this happen to you."
Anyway, the worst thing about the buses was they shut down during the long break after Christmas. The only place I had to buy food was this little store, and it shut down too. My future wife came out to stay with me for a weekend, and we had to hoof it all the way up from the train station in subzero (or what I remembered as subzero cold). There were only two other people on campus -- my two roomates, engineering students from India. When we wanted to have a conversation that didn't involve them, we went to the only academic building still open -- the computer center. When school started up and the weekend was over, she had to wait for a bus to the train to get back to her job at the FED. It was so cold, she shivered for half the day afterward.
Bottom line, relying on transit in an area which isn't transit-oriented is hell. It was Brooklyn here we come!
>When we wanted to have a conversation that didn't involve them, we went to the only academic building still open -- the
computer center.
Ah.. the dungeons of Hill.. where day and night are one in the same.
Getting back to transit... Rutgers had quite a few fishbowls that only in the last year seemed to have disappeared from the routes. There wasn't much I liked about them.. but their window openings beat the un-airconditioned Flxibles/Grummans on 90+ days and they seemed to have a steadier ride in snow conditions.
Maybe I'll go back when they start the semester and get pictures.. wonder if I'll see any of those flaming Orions! =)
David/Jersey Boy,
I don't know anything about Rutgers, but can comment on BUSES, a little:
- Dave re your photo ... two companies made look-a-likes
-- "Flexible" later bought by Grumman
-- GMC who's look-a-like was nicknamed the "Fishbowl"
- The later GMC/RTS, and subsequently sold to TMC were -02 -04 -06
- The foreign "articulated" may be a MAN LLT, they've been around since the mid 80's.
Up until last year LI Bus had a bunch of Flexible/Fishbowls and 3 or 4 years ago the "privates" had a few left, though we didn't run them much at that time. Four years ago the last of the Grumman Flexibles were waiting to be "disposed" of.
P.S. I'm going to print out a copy of the "fire" report and formard to our Maint VP, in case he hadn't already heard ... thanks
P.P.S. Did you here about the CNG bus explosion out West ? It was a year or two ago and the reporter worked for the carrier so it was very detailed for a "trade" magazine article.
Disclaimer: Oponions expressed here are my own & not my employeer or the TA, who I don't work for.
Mr t__:^)
Mr. T,
We acquired a fishbowl (#6169) from the MBTA a few years ago, and I had the privilege of driving it up to the Seashore Trolley Museum from Boston. It is one of the nicest handling transit buses I've ever driven. [Since we went up Route 1 all the way, you should have seen the people on the street trying to flag down the bus for a ride!]
Todd, That's NOT MSBA #699 a '70 Flexible , as seen in the 1998 edition of "Metro New York Area Mega Calendar" ?
It shows two Branford trollys & the Flexible in a photo by Joseph P Saitta from October 5, 1997.
Mr t__:^)
Mr. T,
Seashore has a Flx as well, but it's from the MBTA and in the 9000 series. Our GMC Fishbowl is 6169. Both buses are in great shape and drive beautifully.
Todd,
Was that fishbowl one from GM of Canada? The model number would be T6H-5307N
Getting back to Rutgers and its buses, at the end of my last semester of planning school, everyone was packed into the PC room working on their take home exams and final reports. It was late in the afternoon, and I had been saving right along, but others had not. Suddenly the lights flickered and everyone screamed SAVE and then the building went dark. Some people had lost eight hours of work under the pressure of a final deadline.
Guess what caused it. The power transformer was a box that sat on the corner of an intersection of two streets with no curbs (this was on Busch Campus). A Rutgers bus had taken the corner too tight and run over the transformer, blacking out half of Busch campus. Remember -- always save, you never know what's going to be hit by a bus.
Thurston
Did you find out anything regarding the fires that was pertinant to your division?
Thanks
JB
The "private" that I work for only has six Orion's on "loan" from a TA order. They go back as soon as the CNG versions start comming late this Fall. s-o-o-o our interest in this is smaller than the TA's would be, in any case I passed it on to our VP & haven't had a chance to talk with him about it yet.
BUT BUT ... The information was very much appreciated !! Thanks.
I'm also a little behind on reading the "trades", where it might be discussed, although the "index" doesn't point me to an article.
P.S. May/June MT has an extensive article (I haven't read) "MTA NYCT & Low Floor Buses" & incl photos of a TMC(xGMC) & Orion/Nova.
P.P.S. U have just motivated me on what to bring on vacation ... there's another "trade" with an article on Chicago's new rail line & one about the expanding CTTransit presence incl a nice PR photo outside the State Capital, that I used to work down the street from.
Opinions expressed here are my own & not that of my employeer
Mr t__:^)
"There's another "trade" with an article on Chicago's new rail line."
Which rail line would that be, and what trade magazine is that article in?
John,
The March/April issue of "Metro": Mertra's New Line Is Chicago's First in 70 Years" "... North Central ..."
P.S. I just got a bunch of dip cards & transfers from one of our other friends in Chicago. The dips are exactly the size of the MetroCard !
Mr t__:^)
Oh yeah, the North Central Service. I forgot about that, since it's been in service since 1996 and it's hard for me to think about it as "new".
Metra has two "Service" lines, the North Central and the Southwest, and what they both have in common, and different from the other lines, is limited track capacity (long one-track stretches), limited schedules (maybe six to eight round trips a day), no weekend service, and a parallel Pace bus service to provide service middays, late evenings, and weekends, said buses stopping only at the Metra stations and taking only Metra fares and tickets as payment.
However, due to high ridership, Metra is spending millions to expand the track capacity on both lines so they can run a full seven-day, off-peak schedule and eliminate the supplemental bus service. They expect to have both lines on a full timetable in about a year, from what I've read in the papers.
P.S. I opened the door & guess who was trotting to a meeting, he was late.
He did say that the info was valuable enough for him to talk to the mfg about it ... so thanks again.
P.P.S. And most of you thought that nothing of substance ever comes of all the talk on this platform, thanks Dave !
Mr t__:^)
Was on the E line today and noticed that the entire line seemed to be using R-46 cars. It used to be R-38 equipment. Does anyone know why the change was made to R-46 equipment.
Hoo-I haven't seen an R38 on the "E" since I was a schoolboy!
You must mean R32, which is a cousin of sorts. R38 lives on the
"A" and "C". Anyway, they traded cars with the "R". I believe
that they are doing door work on some of the R32s as well, installing
some sort of safety device, which means some of them may be down
at C.I. shoppe getting fixed.
Does anybody out there know if the "G" is still R46? I saw ONE
R32 on the "G" back on May 28 at Hoyt-Scherm. A full shift of R46
to the "E" could mean that some R32 may be on the "G".
Wayne
It seems that the switch between the "G" and "E" is possible. I ride the "G" every day and all I have seen and rode are R32's.
I'd like to see R-32s back on the D. That was one of the first IND routes to get those cars.
I saw an R-32 on the [G] on Thursday.
And last evening I rode a [Q] Slant-40 downtown from 34th to West 4th. Still in my opinion the best "speed ride" left in the entire system.
I've seen 6 car R46's and 8 Car R32's on the G lately. Most are 46's.
I thought that stretch has been slowed down by means of timing signals. Then again, the slant R-40s haven't lost any get-up-and-go.
I don't think there are any timers on this stretch, both north and southbound. What I do remember, is that when the B used to be a 6th Ave local during non-rush hour, sometimes a southbound D would get yellow sinnals, followed by red on the approach to W 4th Street, This, I believe was because the crossover (just north of the W 4th St station) may have been set for a B train which at the time would swith from the local to the express track using this crossover.
I rode the 34th to W. 4th downtown stretch on the [Q] AGAIN today (couldn't resist :-). No timing signals. Just a wonderful two minute and 10 second ride at a peak of 50 mph (I could see the EDOmeter through the crack in the door hinges!)
Back on June 28, I got a Slant R40 on the "L", #4402, who, after
thoughtfully pausing at Bedford Avenue, proceeded to light out through
the tunnel at least 50 MPH, maybe a tad more, aided by the downgrade.
LOVE THOSE SLANT R40s on the "L" (or the "Q" or the "N" or...)
Wayne
Even BMT standards, which weren't speed demons in any sense, were able to get a good head of steam in that tunnel - going downhill. Now, uphill was another story. They would start slowing down, and the whining from the motors would gradually decrease in pitch.
Thinking back, they almost had to build up as much momentum as they could. Can you imagine what would have happened if they weren't able to make the grade into Bedford Ave or First Ave? The motorman would probably say, "Everyone out and push!" (heh-heh)
I have a question regarding the proximity of the Fulton Street Station the G Train in Brooklyn and the Lafayette Street Station on the A Train in Brooklyn. It seems that there should be, but obviousily is not, a free transfer between the two stations, because they are located within the same intersection. I have never been at street level at Futlon and Lafayette, but I was wondering how close the two stops are to each other. This seems to be a re-occuring theme with the IND (Court Square/23rd Ely in Queens for example) of stations being built nearly on top of each other without passenger connections. So how close are these two stations to each other? Also while visiting New York last month, I utilized the Lefrak City Park-N-Ride and I found the provisivons made on the Queens Blvd. line for an express stop at Woodhaven Bvld. With the heavy volume from the Park-N-Ride and the connecting surface transit in the area, does the TA ever plan on making Woodhaven Bvld. an express stop? It would solve a great deal of their platform-overcrowding problems at Roosevelt and perhaps boost ridership from park-n-riders. Also how about once Woodhaven is upgraded, running express buses from Eastern Queens along the LIE to the station to feed Manhattan-bound trains?
The buses "... from Eastern Queens ..." Express right to mid-town, then go to Wall Street. The customers pay $3.00 for a "coach" seat and read their Wall St Journal & sip their coffee along the route, i.e. they don't like to stand & don't want to stop along the way. Now maybe this DOESN'T provide any kind of service within Queens, however the buses are full when they go Express, so I think we're talking about additional buses, not more stops.
Disclaimer: Comments expressed here are my own, not my employeer & not the TA, MTA or DOT.
Mr t__:^)
Why build a transfer there? The station entrances are a block away from each other (I used to not attend school in the area) and the next station on both lines is Hoyt-Schermerhorn, where a cross-platform transfer is available. Although I agree there should be a transfer at Court Sq and Courthouse Rd. It would certainly make it easier on those belugered G riders.
-Hank
The northbound run of the Q train between Kings Highway & Newkirk Ave in Brooklyn gets my vote for speed zone. Especially if the train operator keeps the controller at full on the downgrade after Ave H. Boy can those trains move with that gravitational push! I have video of an R-68 coming down that stretch of track at what must have been 45 - 50mph, judging by the sound of the traction motors.
--Mark
Did the train overrun Newkirk Ave. station?
just to let you rapid transit fans know yhe BUCKINGHAM VALLEY TROLLEY ASSOCIATION will be sponsering a fantrip on the MARKET-FRANKFORD SUBWAY ELEVATED LINE OF PHILADELPHIA ON OCTOBER 18TH.COME OUT AND RIDE THE ALMOND JOYS BEFORE BEING RETIRED AND ALSO THE NEW M-4 CARS.
just to let you rapid transit fans know yhe BUCKINGHAM VALLEY TROLLEY ASSOCIATION will be sponsering a fantrip on the MARKET-FRANKFORD SUBWAY ELEVATED LINE OF PHILADELPHIA ON OCTOBER 18TH.COME OUT AND RIDE THE ALMOND JOYS BEFORE BEING RETIRED AND ALSO THE NEW M-4 CARS.CONTACT GEORGE METZ 13 POST RUN NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3014
CALL. 610-353-4982
THE BUCHINGHAM VALLEY TROLLEY ASSOCIATION WILL BE SPONSERING THE FANTRIP ON THE ALMOND JOYS AND THE NEW M-4 CARS ON OCTOBER 18TH.
CONTACT GEORGE METZ
13 POST RUN
NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3014
OR CALL 610-353-4982
I THINK THE COST IS EITHER 20 OR 25 DOLLARS.
COME OUT AND RIDE BEFORE THE ALMOND JOYS GO TO RAPID TRANSIT HEAVEN, AND BEFORE THE OLD MARKET STREET ELEVATED IS TORN DOWN WITH A NEWER HIGHWAY STYLE ELEAVATED.
Although the structure itself will look different, apparently there will be some attempt to preserve the amenities of the stations thru re-creations (as opposed to complete preservation). One of the problems with the El as it exists is not the el itself but the double-
column support system which awkwardly divides Market Street into very narrow lanes. In fact, the original concept of el rehab was to replace the deck but retain the columns "as is". Given the age of the columns, the shallow foundations they have, and their location in the "line of fire" (there is no protection from vehicular traffic and cars/trucks have slammed into the columns on occasion), the decision was made to go to the single column arrangement.
Todd Glickman, or any other Boston types, please help:
1) Why do the trains on Red/Blue/Orange lines refrain from using headlights? The 4-red lights at the front looks kind of odd.
2) What are the side tracks at Boylston on the Green Line? I noticed on the westbound plat there is some work equipment behind a fence, including a PCC. Is there a loop track out there?
3) When did Commuter Rail get those fancy double decker cars? I rode one in from Plymouth on Weds. morning. Very cool!!
Thanks.
Sure, I can answer your questions. And from my perch on the 16th floor of the WCBS weather center in midtown Manhattan!
1. I have NO IDEA why the subway lines in Boston don't use their headlights (normally, that is; they will put them on briefly in tunnels but always turn them off approaching stations). I have asked innumerable T employees. All they say is, "that's the way it has always been." The light rail Green Line, however, does use headlights.
2. The side tracks at Boylston used to connect to the Tremont Street Subway, which is now abandoned. The tunnel continues southwest of Boylston for a few blocks then ends. The westbound track holds work equipment (line cars, etc.). The eastbound track is cut off from the main line. When the historic trolleys were stored there for a few years, a temporary turnout was put in to get the cars in/out.
3. The Kawasaki double deckers have been around for about ten years, but nearly all are on the South Side (where ridership is heavier). A new delivery of 15 or so cars arrived recently, and six are now in operation (two each on three trains) on the North Side.
And that's transit and weather together!
Todd:
It so nice to have you in New York all week, hearing you on the radio
live at 5:09 AM makes my day! You should do the transit portion of the traffic report.
Sorry, they don't let the meteorologists do the traffic, and we don't let the traffic people do the weather! I do, however, try to drop in a subway line every now and then. "A great day to ride the Q train over the Manhattan Bridge -- you'll have a fine view of the Manhattan sky line out the front window." [I did call it a Slant-40 on the air once, and only Tom Kaminski, our helicopter traffic reporter, who's also a subway fan, got it!
It's back to Boston for me Saturday evening.
-Todd
Whoops. Screwed up the link in my prior post.
-Todd
A follow-up to my prior post. Details on the commuter rail coach inventory, including the Kawasaki double-deckers is available on the New England Transit Web site.
<< The side tracks at Boylston used to connect to the Tremont Street Subway, which is now abandoned>>
When was it abandoned? Where was the terminus?
I don't recall the facts... there's a new book, "Tremont Street Subway" authored by Bradley Clarke which I have at home. I'll look up the details.
Not bad, Todd, not bad!!!
Thanks.
another boston subway question is why asimov's "subway called moebius" was placed there, since the subway is so simple compared to ny!
<< another boston subway question is why asimov's "subway called moebius" was placed there >>
I believe Asimov was a professor of Biochemistry at a medical school or college in Boston.
1) Why do the trains on Red/Blue/Orange lines refrain from using headlights? The 4-red lights at the front looks kind of odd.
In Toronto the RT cars have no headlights at all. I read somewhere over the years that the TTC decided, at the time the Yonge Subway was built, since they were going to light the right-of-way anyway, why bother with the expense and maintenance of headlights. That is the reason the entire right-of-way, even the outdoor portions, have extensive lighting. As far as I know the cars in the TTC subway still do NOT have headlights.
Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
MCI 1861 has returned to Yukon Depot, and is being used to train drivers by going in circles from the AK turnaround. The rest are expected 'Soon' and 'Eventually'
-Hank
That's good to hear. Hopefully, NYCT won't fiddle with it again. I still don't understand why they want a front door interlock.
Before I even get started, I know these things will probably not happen, in anyone's lifetime, but I'm interested in knowing people's feedback. Please let me know what you think and why about the following line suggestions. Here are some thoughts (all involve digging!) I would look into if I had a bottomless pit of cash and the power to implement changes
+ Extend 7-Train to 11th Avenue, with new stop at 8th Avenue (connect to A/C/E) and down to 34th Street. Provides improved crosstown service and direct access to Javits Center.
+ Extend express tracks of N/R lines down Broadway, turn west on Vesey, and terminate at World Financial Center (if the land isn't too wet to hold a station). Provides better service to Battery Park.
+ Finish 2nd Avenue Subway, from 63rd up to 125th, but turn west on 125th to provide better crosstown service uptown (rather than terminate at 126th), stopping at existing lines to provide transfer points (how far can digging go? is there a canyon or some other geographic impediment before reaching Bway?). Some trains turn west on 63rd street and follow express tracks of N/R, other trains continue south on 2nd Avenue and terminate at Whitehall (I have looked through this site for plans for original station stops, but I only see them for below 34th). How many tracks were originally planned for this line, four to allow for express service, or just two? Did all four tracks run the entire length? Alleviates congestion on Lexington Avenue line.
+ What could be done to improve service to Upper West side? Does it need help? From what I see, 1/2/3/9 overburdened, 72nd St Station overwhelmed, and A/B/C/D underused because far from commerce. I was thinking (again with limitless funds) extend L-Train west to 10th Avenue, turn north and terminate at 72nd Street, but I'm not sure this would help because L-Train doesn't take commuters to downtown or midtown and wouldn't provide transfers anywhere (unless my 7-Train is extended to 11th Avenue). It would help people on the far west side get up- or downtown, but not crosstown.
Do most users of the 1/2/3/9 line heading downtown originate above 72nd? If a third line could be built heading up the upper west side, which avenue would be best? Columbus? Amsterdam? West End? I don't live up there, so I don't know.
+ What could be done to improve crosstown traffic in midtown? I like the 125th crosstown idea (feel free to criticize), but I have heard the M23 is a mess at crosstown and the L-Train maybe could have a short 5-car shuttle that runs back and forth between 1st Ave and 8th Ave to increase service. Would this be too difficult to implement with regular L-Train service?
+ Are the gauges the same for the LIRR and the 2/3-Trains? As I mentioned in past posting, I heard and liked the idea of changing Jamaica to Flatbush service to subway. On Jamaica end, have turnstiles directly on platform for quick change from LIRR to new line. Suggest not introduce new stops (keep East New York and Nostrand only) to reduce commute time (commuters wanting local service I think can go a short distance to Fulton to catch the A/C). The trick is to see if the tracks at Flatbush could be joined with the 2/3 line. Then maybe change the service of the 2-train to run to Jamaica and have the 5-train run to Flatbush at all times.
Please give me some feedback!
Thanks for listening to my ramblings.
Olavo,
- #7 Manhattan end extension to 11th (or at least to 8th) makes a lot of since. Most of the "digging" is done to 8th, but you'ld still have to turn the trains somehow. There's a unused ROW under the 8th Ave. It's only one track right now, but it's there. What about the OTHER end. Extending could bring in more customers to Lwr Manhattan !
- 1/2/3/9: The local (1/9) fills up at 242nd Street. The Express gets it's fare share of add ons in the Manhattan portion before it gets to 96th, so arrives packed there. Improving service, money no limit, I would 3 track all the way to 242nd (three exist to 137th now). It's elavated up there, so maybe that kills any hope of more track.
- LIRR vs TA Jamaica to Lwr Manhattan. As I've said to you before, I prefer a LIRR solution. I feel it will get more folks out of the cars than your plan.
Mr t__:^)
The LIRR and the subway both use the same track gauge - standard 4' 8 1/2". However, I believe LIRR rolling stock is wider than IRT equipment.
Extending the 7 westward is a good idea; however, the line currently is at the same grade as the lower level at 42nd St. In other words, the lower level blocks any extension of the 7, unless it were to dive underneath.
The 2nd Ave. line was originally planned to have two tracks from lower Manhattan to, I believe, Houston St, four tracks to 61st, then six tracks to 125th. Over the years, cost considerations resulted in scaling the line down to a two-track, limited-stop line. At the same time, engineers calculated that, with modern signals and high-speed equipment (R-44s and R-46s), a two-track line would be more than adequate to meet the transit needs of the Upper East Side.
If only the city hadn't gone bankrupt in the mid-70s. If only the Depression hadn't hit....
If gauge is the same, I assume 2 train could be rerouted to Jamaica via Atlantic Avenue. Also forgot to mention this line would have connection with L-Train at Atlantic Avenue station, and would speed commute for those in way-off Canarsie.
They could rebuild the track connection from the IRT to the LIRR which August Belmont had installed. I understand the alignment is still visible.
I think LIRR stock has grown "slightly" since the days of Mr Belmont's "Mineola".
An easy connection (alignment in place) would only be possible westbound (and that would be to the local track). For an eastbound connection some digging under the IRT right of way would be necessary. I think this is a great idea, but then why stop in Jamaica? How about continuing the subway out to Rosedale (on either the LIRR Montauk or the Atlantic branch?), as the MTA grand plan of the 1960s envisaged? That would place some real constraints on the LIRR's operations, but it could be worked out (by running more trains on the LIRR Central branch and Main lines). Of course LIRR and IRT trains couldn't run on the same tracks between Rosedale and Jamaica (the narrow IRT clearances for stations would interfere with the LIRR), even if the LIRR didn't stop before Jamaica. This all sounds like a cheaper way of providing subway service to southeast Queens than the old plan of running subway trains through the 63rd St. tunnel and out the LIRR Main line to Jamaica and Rosedale. I wonder how the LIRR commuters who go to Flatbush Ave. would react to this idea? I think they shouldn't mind too much, since they mostly have to change to the subway in Brooklyn anyhow, and with only two stops between Jamaica and Brooklyn they wouldn't lose much time, and it might even be a cheaper ride. Would Brooklyn politicians put up with stops only at East New York and Nostrand Ave.?
I think that any plan to use the Flatbush LIRR branch would have
to include a reopening of the Woodhaven station. While we're
at it, let's open up the can of worms (AGAIN) and rehash our
plans for the re-use of the abandoned Rockaway LIRR branch....
to JFK AIRPORT, of course.
Wayne
SO would it be that hard to change LIRR to the IRT?
Gap Fillers could be used??
(Forgetting cab signals and lack of a Train Stop)
Another problem. *if* the LIRR were to have track connections to the subway, then the subway would be subject to the stricter FRA regulations which call for more stringent maintenance schedules and tolerances than the present regulatory agency. PATh is trying to get out of FRA regs(Since they are not longer connected to the Amtrak main line) but FRA sdays "no".
I am sure Steve could explain the differences between FRA and other maintenance requirements.
Another problem. *if* the LIRR were to have track connections to the subway, then the subway would be subject to the stricter FRA regulations which call for more stringent maintenance schedules and tolerances than the present regulatory agency. PATH is trying to get out of FRA regs(Since they are not longer connected to the Amtrak main line) but FRA sdays "no".
I am sure Steve could explain the differences between FRA and other maintenance requirements.
Steve B, et. al.,
You said "#7 line is at the same grade level as lower level at 42nd St".
1. Isn't that where the one track IND ROW is ?
2. The #7 ROW continues past the station ... seems to me someone said it conncets to something ... BMT (N/R) ... LIRR (too far) ... 8th Ave.
How much trackage there ... 3, 4 ? Does it continue far enough to hold an entire train ?
Just curious ... Mr t__:^)
Off-Peak Rapid Transit Service Headway’s
I’ve always felt that to encourage and keep ridership levels high during the off-peak times the service must offer attractive service levels.
On the CTA rapid transit, off peak service during the weekday’s is as follows:
Red Line - every 10 minutes
Blue Line - every 10 minutes, with 20 minute service on each branch
Green Line - every 10 minutes
Orange Line - every 12 minutes
Brown Line - every 12 minutes
Purple Line - every 10 minutes
Yellow Line - every 15 minutes
If you are not a regular transit rider, and you get to the station to find you must purchase a $3 transit card, or try to make change for the $1.50 fare, only to find that you have just missed a train and have a nine minute wait. Then, you get to the loop and you need to transfer to another line, and just missed that connection, and another 8 -10 minute wait.
What you the occasional off-peak rider is faced with is a travel time that is twenty minutes of just waiting for the train. Would you come back to the CTA if you had another option? Unless your an advocate of public transit, I think NOT! The CTA has made a very good effort to keep the riders informed on train times on the RT. Each station has a schedule posted showing the departure times of all trains.
What kind of headway’s are being offered in NYC and Boston these days during the off peak? I’d like to know if the MTA and MBTA is in line with CTA.
(Off peak service in NYC) Ten minute headways are typical, except on the Manhattan trunk routes where two or more services operate, you have a shorter headway if you just need a few stops. The routes are supposed to be timed to hit across-the-platform transfers in sync, but it doesn't always work that way, and you can end up with two ten minute waits. Also, many express routes disappear off peak, so you hit every station along the way. This makes commuter rail a bad deal off peak. A telecommuter coming down from a cutesy town like Cold Spring for a meeting has a long ride.
Here are the Boston weekday midday headways:
Red Line: 12 minutes
Orange Line: 8 minutes
Blue Line: 9 minutes
Green Line: 6-10 minutes, depending on destination
...and the weekday late evening headways:
Red Line: 12 minutes
Orange Line: 13 minutes
Blue Line: 13 minutes
Green Line: 10 minutes
Of course, rapid transit off-peak service is much better than commuter (suburban) rail.
Chicago's Metra, on the best lines, offers hourly service weekdays off-peak, and every 2-3 hours on weekends (if they run at all). It works if you can abide by the timetable, but not for casual trips. (It helps if your office is in the same building as the train station. I must say that the Citicorp Center building is nice for that.)
I'm sure the situation is similar in other cities which have commuter rail.
You can generally get MetroNorth or LIRR service every hour, except in the farther reaches, but it will make all local stops to where you are going. What is tough is combining an unreliable off-peak transit ride with an off peak commuter rail ride.
Back before we had a car, we had a friend who was sick with cancer out in Princeton Jct. NJ. We'd have to take the subway to Penn, and leave lots of time for use to hang around with the swarms of homeless living there at the time. Then it was an eternal train ride with all local stops. Average time 2 3/4 hours each way. We did that about every other month. Sometime we'd get a ride from a friend who had a car. Average time -- one hour, with a stop for cheap Jersey gas.
Coming back from Jean's parents on Long Island, we'd have to wait an eternity for the 67 bus at Flatbush Avenue, since the F is the one train that doesn't go to the LIRR station. You'd get five 41s and finally a 67. It was tough when it was cold and rainy.
Of course, whenever we travel to the suburbs now, we use our car.
I've seen lots of pictures of the old Manhattan El trains and tracks,
but I've never seen pictures of the old El stations. Does anyone out there know if there are pictures of those old stations available for perusal anywhere...thanks for your help.
The best hard copy book would be "The Tracks of New York 1920 - Manhattan and Bronx Elevateds," published by the New York Division of the Electric Railroaders' Association. Don't know if there's anything on the Web, though.
There is a very good book "By the EL - Third Avenue and its El at
Mid-Century" By Lawrence Stelter. This book is available in most Barnes and Noble stores (at least in NY) You will find it in the NYC or local interest section of the store.
"Second Avenue EL in Manhattan" published in 1995 by NJ International is generally out of print but occasionally you might find one in a bookstore.
Today on the Brighton Line, I took the the D local to Prospect Park and waited for the Q express. Traveling express towards Coney Island,
we I didn't see the D train anywere in sight. After we arrived in Sheepshead Bay, I saw the D train on it's way out of the station. Are local trains sometimes faster then the express?
And by the way, where do the names like "West End" come from?
I am glad you asked that question.
Here is a posting I did a while back in nyc.transit newsgroup.
Listed below are the steam railroads which were
the predecessors of todays' New York City Subway
B1 division (BMT).
Brighton Line - Originally the Brooklyn, Flatbush
and Coney Island Railroad. Opened in 1878 from
the Brighton Hotel to Atlantic Avenue and Franklin
Avenue connecting with the Long Island Railroad.
In 1887 it became the Brooklyn and Brighton Beach
Railway Company. It merged with the Brooklyn
Union Elevated Railroad Company (part of the
Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company) in 1900.
Now covered by D and Q trains (6th Av) from
Prospect Park to Coney Island
Canarsie Line - Originally the Brooklyn, Canarsie
and Rockaway Beach. Opened in 1865 from Atlantic
Avenue and Fulton Street to the Canarsie shore and
from there by ferry to Rockway Beach. It became
the Canarsie Railroad, was electrified and leased
the the Brooklyn Union Elevated in 1906. It
became part of the New York Consolidated Railroad
(also BRT) in 1912. In the early 1920's the line
was cut back to the Rockaway Parkway station and a
trolley service (with free transfer) was
inaugurated. This service still exists but with
buses using a unique entrance/exit gate system
which allows the buses to go right up to the
platform which is at street level.
Now covered by the L (14th St)
Culver Line - Originally the Prospect Park and
Coney Island Railroad. Opened in 1875 from the
Culver Depot in Coney Island to 9th Avenue & 20th
Street. It was named after Andrew Culver (the
founder). It was purchased by the LIRR in 1892
and leased to the BRT in 1893. It became part of
the BRT in 1909.
Now covered from Ditmas Av to Coney Island by
the F (6th Av)
Sea Beach Line - Originally the New York and Sea
Beach Railroad. Opened in 1879 from the ferry at
61st Street and 1st Avenue (Brooklyn) to the Sea
Beach Palace Hotel in Coney Island. It became the
Sea Beach Railway Company (part of the BRT) and in
1912 merged with the Brooklyn Union Elevated
Railroad (also part of the BRT) and the Canarsie
Railroad (again part of the BRT) and the New York
Cosolidated Rairoad was formed (BRT).
Now covered by the N (Broadway)
West End Line - Originally the Brooklyn, Bath and
Coney Island Railroad. Opened in 1864 as a
horsecar line and converted to steam. The
original route was from 25th Street and Fifth
Avenue (Brooklyn) to an amusement park in the West
End of Coney Island and was called the West End
Line. In 1885 it was renamed the Brooklyn, Bath
and West End Railroad. It became part of the
Nassau Electric system in 1898 and in 1899 part of
the BRT. This line ran at ground level until 1917
when it was elevated.
Now covered by the B (6th Av) and M (Nassau
St)
I ride 6th ave each weekday from 47/50 Rock to Kings Highway. Most times from 3pm on a D is followed by the Q. Yes the Brooklyn Express is even held on the cut for the D or B to pass it.
My rule of thumb if I am going past the Highway I will wait for a Q. If I am going before the Highway, I take whatever comes.
Right now I am running a 65/35 that the Q will meet/pass the D before Newkirk between 3pm and 5pm. That 35% we are meeting a the Highway so if you like less starts and stops the Q is better even though timewise you meet at the same time.
Nothing beats the feeling of the Q topping the rise out of Newkirk (just past Ave J) as you go rull bore to the Highway.
Are local trains sometimes faster than expresses? Yes. In fact, it happens more often than you think. You didn't mention how long you waited at Prospect Park for the Q, nor did you say where you boarded the D initially. Between Rockefeller Center and Prospect Park, both trains operate over the same trackage.
If you had to wait more than 5 minutes for your Q train, that D train moved far enough ahead so that the Q couldn't have caught up with it right away, even if it was a slant R-40 Q against an R-68 D.
I know that the HVAC in both the Orion V, RTS and trains are not controlled by humans.
My question is how are they controlled? On the Orion V's there are temperture control knobs on the dash. They are listed "Driver's Heat" and "Temperture". What do they do if the driver can't control the A/C or Heat?
BOOM!BANG!KNOG! those are sounds when the redbirds starts up. What is the cause?
Age.
And that's not the case with every Redbird. I only saw 7870-71
and 7934-5 do that.
Same thing happened with the R6/7/9 in their sunset days.
There would be this "shudder!" when one got going. Especially
true of the R6s.
Wayne
Long, long ago, when I went to high school, we used to get fairly frequently a particular CTA bus (a GMC "New Look") that had a rather funny characteristic. Every few minutes like clockwork, it would let out a very loud and human-sounding "sigh" from the rear, where the engine was. Needless to say, everytime it did this, a certain portion of the passengers would crack up in laughter.
So what was causing that?
Sounds like bleed air to me....
-Hank
Some brake application valves make funny sounds but most likely it was a moisture ejection valve. They spit our air and what ever condenses in the bottom of the primary air reserve tank. The theory is to eject water before it gets into the system and causes frozen brake lines and things like that.
They bleed air everytime that the compressor unloads. Usually it is a pop, some sound like a shot but if there is an obstruction from a build up of oil the sound becomes more interesting.
Air dryers are used on most buses now but they also vent so keep your ears open.
Slack action, and the relays in the controller.
-Hank
OK, two separate questions, I guess.
HVAC: Don't know about those trackless, diesel trolleys, but
on NYC subway equipment, there is a thermostat in
each car which is not "user serviceable".
BOOM BANG KLOG (did I get that right?): Many causes. That noise
is from the cars buffing against each other as each tries to
accelerate slightly differently. It doesn't happen if every car
both starts at exactly the same time and follows the exact same
acceleration curve. With age, factors such as the grid resistance,
speed of control relay pickup, current measuring reactor calibration
et al lead to increasing "slop" from car to car. And of course,
a "dead motor" in the train throws everything out of whack.
The climate controls on this vehicles are controlled by sensors that keep the bus/car at a controled golden range, between 68-70 degrees. The Orions controls are for the drivers heat/defroster just in the front of the bus. The RTS has a similiar control but its away from view by the parking brake knob on the floor. Again this control is just for driver heat and defrost only.
When You look up at the destination signs on the newer buses, you can see defroster lines on the glass like the kind on the rear windows of cars. In the winter they either arent on or dont work. WHats the deal
It's the same as the deal with the lights for the signs. No one bothers to check if it works. Sometimes you get a bus with one working tube, usually, you get a bus with no light on the headsign at all. At least with the new New Flyers (1070->), the individual dots are lighted.
-Hank
Has the MTA ever thought of extending a subway line outside the NYC City limits?----If so, what line and where?
[Has the MTA ever thought of extending a subway line outside the NYC City limits?----If so, what line and where?]
The only such idea I've ever heard involves having the subway take over the LIRR's Port Washington line. Some of the line operates beyond city limits in Nassau County. But note that this idea never went beyond the talking stage.
that would create havoc eekkk!
lets face it they couldn't even figure on getting a line to the JFK airport from day one.... extend Far Rockaway LIRR branch right on to JFK right of way and either tunnel under or run at grade around the perimiter...
Guys correct me if I am wrong. But didn't TA at one time consider extending the #7 line under the Hudson over to New Jersey?
That was true. It was part of a of aan to move the Port Authority Bus Terminal to New Jersey to ease traffic in Manhattan. But one of the possible problems was geting around the lower level of the 42nd St. 8th Av station
Quite true. The lower level is directly in the path of the 7; any extension would require the Flushing line to dive beneath it.
Gothen Turnstiles mentions the fact that there was talk of extending the 7 out to the Meadowlands. (There are some nice photos of Lo-Vs, BMT standards, and Triplex units, not to mention brand new second generation subway rolling stock: R-29s, R-33s, R-36s, R-32s, even slant R-40s.)
I remember a newspaper article from 1967 which mentioned a subway extension out to perhaps Paterson. It said construcion would take 8 years; I don't recall cost figures.
Havoc certainly to those who live in Manhasset...the PW branch is
a one-lunger there. And the folks in Plandome - I'd bet they'd just
LOVE (Sic) a "W" train or a #11 train....Conceivably could work as a
subway as far as Gt.Neck but THEN where do you go? Light rail line,
maybe.
Wayne
Nothing ever became of the idea of having the subway take over the Port Washington line. It's not hard to see why ...
Long time ago, thre was talk of extending the IRT #7 line westbound from Manhattan's "Times Square" neighborhood into the Meadowlands in New Jersey.
Does anyone know when the R-142 cars are sheduled to be delivered. Will this new equipment completely replace the R-36 flushing line fleet.
supposedly sometime in 1999 delivery should start. I was just up in Hornell NY where GEC Althom who took over Bombardier in the old Erie plant. Didn't see anything going on but CTA cars being remanufactured and an Amtrak Viewliner and California Amtrak engines almost ready for delivery.
How much could the MTA (or is it the City that actually still buys and owns subway rolling stock?) have saved by buying the same number of new cars built to the R-62 specs, rather than going for the "new technology" in the R-142's? That would have resulted in all IRT cars being essentially the same model, which I expect would have led to further savings in maintenance in the future, but I am not even counting that.
Arrgh! How much could the ta save by eliminating all technology reaching back to 1905!
I doubt that the design and manufacturing of all the bells and whistles costs that much relative to manufacturing a stainless steel subway car with the traction motors, trucks, and basic electrical equipment. I would certainly be interested to know, however, what the breakdown is..
On the other hand, hopefully there will be some efficiencies from the dreaded "new technologies." Subway cars cost a LOT to maintain over their lifetime, and a small improvement in reliability or maintainence requirements saves a lot of dough in the long run. Efficiency (cutting down power needs) also helps save some significant $$$$. I believe the R-142 will have ac propulsion - which makes a big difference here, on maintainence and efficiency. Note that railroads are rapidly converting to AC motors...
Keep in mind also that some of the bells and whistles, I believe, are required due to ADA. Hopefully they will not be too annoying, and will in fact help occasional riders figure out what is going on, etc.
The Reason Grasshopper is thus:
AC traction though incredibly exspesive to purchase only requires one inspector whereas today a pair is inspected by five. Why? AC has NO moving parts. If you want all the Technical details, ask my young desciple. And NO AC uses more power.
No moving parts? There's ONE moving part - the rotor.
AC motors themselfs are NOT more expensive. Look around your house.
The bulk of your motors are AC types, not brush types.
why? AC motors cost a hell of a lot less to build. And last longer
I have AC motors from the 30's in my house
But the CONTROLLER costs a LOT to build.
Because it's solid state - and you're doing something that transistors just really weren't made for.
It's cutting edge technology that costs money.
And no, AC motors do NOT use more power. Actually, if anything, they should use less because there are no losses due to brushes, brush sparking, etc.
WHY would an AC motor use more power anyway?
Please don't point to the PRR electrification and Amtrak as "proof" because the current equipment is actually DC motors, and the only reason why they'd use more power is because there is more tyo use.
the M-1 is rated at around 550 hp, the M - is about 100 hp more. Why?
Besides the added weight, the M-2 has a 13,000 volt, 1000a power source vs. a 600v 2000a one.
The m-2 has more because it can get more power
The R-142 cars are to be in five car sets. This will preclude them from use on the 3 and 7 lines (9 and 11 car trains). Also I think the order for 1080 cars is a bit short of replacing all of the redbirds.
My best guess is that the R-142 will replace R-62 trains on the 1,2,4,5,& 6, allowing the them to move to Flushing. Who will get stuck with the remaining redbirds (I assume R-36's) is anyones guess now. They can't be run on the 3 and 7 unless they keep the R-33 singles (which are not air conditioned).
Hey Joe, remember when we sat outside CK's office and worked on concepts for the R62s? Even then, 1984 seemed a long way off.
I also remember having to go to some Labor Statistics office in Times Square to get some CPI data for use when they were building in the inflation adjustment clause in the contract with Nissho-Iwai,
Rule out G.E. R-62s. They are link bar 5 car units. Also rule out Van Cordlandt R-62a, they are in that process. That leaves Pelham and Lenox cars, which are both westinghouse, T.A. willl never mix those fleets, except for those R-33 single units. They might also consider the political clout of 7 line riders and give them the new 142s because they do run 10 car trains from time to time
The 10 car trains are only used in the summer, during light riding, since the R-33 singles do not have A/C. I'm not sure if the #7 can carry the passenger in the winter with 10 car trains. For at least the #3 and #7, they will have to keep some odd cars.
For my money, nothing beats single cars for flexibility.
They did not remove the single cars this year due to increased ridership. I got a bunch of them a couple weeks ago on my little tour of the Flushing line... they weren't SO bad even though it was about 90 that day.
-Dave
Were the Mets playing at Shea that day?
Right on Joe, but for the T.A.'s Hall of Shame, link bars beats the old H2C because of decreased labor personel for troubleshooting and maintainance
They can always run 8-car trains on the 3 if the Redbirds wind up there.
I've been reading many messages lately dealing with these three items. The Jamaica-to-Flatbush LIRR item relates to improving access to lower Manhattan for LIRR folks, most of whom live outside the City limits. Postings noted the idea of another rail tunnel for LIRR trains to Lower Manhattan. (There was interesting discussion of using the Brooklyn LIRR tracks for subway trains. But that's not the thrust of this posting.) There have been continual postings about the condition of the Manhattan Bridge, its effect on southern Brooklyn BMT subway riders already. There have been postings about the Franklin Ave. Shuttle rehabilitation project.
Somehow, I think something is lost in all this. What I think is lost is the need for MTA to develop a priority list of projects, based on need. They would be built in order, as funding is available.
On that basis, I cannot see how, or why, there should be bending to political demands to spend money on the Franklin Ave. Shuttle. How many people board at its stations? How much is the rehab. costing? And what will it accomplish? What with the Metrocard, it should be easy for Brighton and other BMT riders to go a bit further into downtown Brooklyn, get off at Lawrence St., and catch the A, C or F at Jay St. BMT'ers going into Manhattan can get underground "transfers" to the IND via the Christies St. connection, at Fulton St., 34th St. The only people that might be somewhat inconvenienced would be Brighton passengers going towards Euclid Ave. on the A and C. But how many are they? Regarding BMT to IRT transfers, that could be easily done, using the Metrocard, at Atlantic Ave./Pacific St.
So how could such a low-usage shuttle line get funding, and existing, disrupted service on the N, and future disrupted service on the B, D, and Q, with eventual failure of the Manhattan Bridge, get a lower priority? And to read about a possible East River tunnel to allow LIRR passengers to get to lower Manhattan also shows priorities are out of order. First priority is to maintain, or replace a vital link. That should put the Manhattan Bridge replacement by a tunnel, with connections to Broadway and Christie St., at the top of the list. If Lenox Ave. could be rebuilt, why is the Manhattan Bridge remaining an issue not receiving the attention, priority, and money it should receive?
I think an agency that can't maintain such critical links shouldn't be given funds to build new, repair low patronage, infrastructures.
What do you think?
I think the problem is that any alternative to the Manhattan Bridge is a "change," while keeping the Franklin Ave shuttle is not a "change" and abandoning it is a "change." The political process is full of people who are against change (the market place is full of people making their lives better by embracing and thus causing change, and some of them are the same people). That's why they decided to try to rebuild the Manhattan Bridge rather than replacing it in the first place -- "spineless" bureaucrats and politicians didn't want to take on the entrenched political and procedural machinery in opposition to change.
In fact, I would characterize the NY scene as divided between two groups. Those who believe the city has gone to hell and needs to go back to the 1950s (Jerry Nadler, build the rail tunnel and bring back mfg, every white politician in Brooklyn, and former Brooklyn residents who, our Brooklyn office tells me, are still very involved in and concerned about the borough). Then there are those who believe the city is good now, but is threatened with losing its "unique" character -- the Upper West Side, Soho, keep out the new big stores and all development crowd.
That's why I can tolerate Giuliani, as much as some of what he does turns my stomach. At least he represents the idea that the city has a future, and needs to change to pursue that future, though not always in the direction I would like. Of couse, in some ways Rudy is in the "back to the 1950s" camp.
You're right about the greater acceptance of "non-change" (Franklin Shuttle rebuild) vs. "change" (Manhattan Bridge replacement). There are solid reasons for that attitude, related both to money and to time frames. The Franklin Shuttle replacement is hardly inexpensive, but it's a mere drop in the bucket compared to what a new tunnel would cost. And it also has a reasonable time frame for completion. If everything goes right - true, that's a big assumption - the rebuilt shuttle should be running in late 1999 or early 2000. In contrast, a new tunneling project, or a Second Avenue line for that matter, would be many many years if not decades in the future, given NY's glacial pace of public works construction. People quickly lose interest in things like that.
To any long-time MTA/TA watcher, the MTA's reason for ignoring the Manhattan Bridge is pretty clear--the TA's worship of Mayor John Hylan and his hatred for the BMT Company. MTA leadership seems to feel a moral obligation to continue Hylan's initiatives. Just look at the condition of former BMT lines not absorbed into the IND--no express service on Broadway (that going back quite a while, in fact) or most of the time on 4th Avenue, no Franklin service south of Prospect Park, late-night shuttles all over the place, no Broadway trains on the Manhattan Bridge, no express service east of Myrtle on Broadway, reduction of Myrtle-Chambers to local service only (when it operates), no 14th Street express service, no night or weekend Nassau service from southern Brooklyn.
I'd hazard a guess that aside from the political pressure for Franklin reconstruction, the fact that it connects with two now-IND lines probably played a part in the decision.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
If that's the case (favoring IND over BMT), then the TA should hitch the DeKalb trains up the the Cranberry and Rutgers tunnels, fully integrating at least the southern division into the IND.
[To any long-time MTA/TA watcher, the MTA's reason for ignoring the Manhattan Bridge is pretty clear--the TA's worship of Mayor John Hylan and his hatred for the BMT Company. MTA leadership seems to feel a moral obligation to continue Hylan's initiatives. Just look at the condition of former BMT lines not absorbed into the IND--no express service on Broadway (that going back quite a while, in fact) or most of the time on 4th Avenue, no Franklin service south of Prospect Park, late-night shuttles all over the place, no Broadway trains on the Manhattan Bridge, no express service east of Myrtle on Broadway, reduction of Myrtle-Chambers to local service only (when it operates), no 14th Street express service, no night or weekend Nassau service from southern Brooklyn.]
Interesting ideas, to be sure, but I don't agree that there's any sort of anti-BMT conspiracy at the MTA. Institutional memories after all are no more than an aggregation of individual memories. And the fact remains that it's been over thirty years since Chrystie Street effectively combined the BMT and the IND. Given the trend toward early retirements, I'll hazard a guess that fewer than 10% of the MTA's current managers were working there before Chrystie Street. Whatever prejudices may have existed since Mayor Hylan's day - and let's not forget that his anti-BMT experience may be in the realm of urban legend - things have changed in the ensuing decades.
Hey, here is an idea: If building a tunnel to replace the Manhattan
Bridge tracks is too expensive, try this: BUILD TWO BRIDGES across
the river, one south of MB, one north, and build them out of STONE.
Make them the same height as the roadway and use arch construction.
It might not be the most 'aesthetically pleasing' solution, but I
believe it might be worth considering.
Wayne
I think that would cost even more than the tunnel. Any high, long bridge is expensive. One that is made of stone would be Very Expensive.
No doubt that it would be just as expensive (a well-built
concrete bridge would do just as well), but maybe it would
take somewhat less time to build than a tunnel would.
We could leave the stone out or maybe just use it for facing.
I was thinking along the lines of minimizing the disruption time,
not that we're doing all that well as it is.
Wayne
The Franklin Shuttle rehabilitation may also benefit the Manhattan Bridge scene. The ERC study included it as an alternative in the event of a full closure because some trains can be diverted away from the Montague tunnel, giving people connections to the IRT at Botanic Gardens, and the IND at Fulton.
Yes, you could permanently reduce service and have everyone in Brooklyn take an extra 15 minutes each way to work (or have 15 minutes more worth of neighborhood become unattractive to those who plan on taking the subway). But who would want to? Too bad no one paid attention to the ERC study. If people realized that a time consuming, non-platform change to a crowded service was seriously considered as an alternative (which would free up money for "more important" things), perhaps the "appropriate" amount of outrage would have been felt.
CB14 in Brooklyn (Flatbush, Midwood) has taken a strong stand in favor of keeping Prospect Park open to traffic at least part time (which I agree with). So it seems to have an awareness of how conditions up the line affects its transport access. Do these people understand the threat to their subway service? Do they know how many more people are affected by the status of the train?
I am also concerned about the MTA putting more emphasis on commuters than city-slickers, but the entire jist of the Lower Manhanttan Access study is to improve service to downtown from Westchester and Long Island. It is unfortunate that this is the only study out there going after public opinion, but I am using the forum as a place to make sure that ideas are being considered which can help BOTH suburbanites and urbanites alike.
It is much easier for the MTA to patch up the Manhattan Bridge a bit at a time over centuries than to rip down the whole thing and start anew, even if the latter option costs half as much. Everyone is very short-term oriented in politics, and it is much easier to ask for $1,000,000 for repairs than $1,000,000,000 to build a bridge.
Regarding the Jamaica to Flatbush subway line possibility, I think as an unintended bonus, such a line would help commuters from Brooklyn/Queens immensely. Riders from Canarsie could change to the new line at Atlantic Avenue and move into lower Manhattan much faster than with the A/C lines. Commuters between Jamaica could zoom into downtown without having to go through midtown. Commuters who use the Nostrand/East New York stations to get to work in Long Island would get many more options as trains would come more frequently. I don't see any drawbacks for New Yorkers by ADDING a new subway line.
I was at the Flatbush station on Saturday, and there is definitely a set of tracks leading from the LIRR trains to the 2/3 local tracks. But how would trains coming from downtown move to the LIRR tracks? Does anyone know if there is a tunnel already (the formation of the underground passageways leads me to believe that there might)?
Perhaps the lower level of Nevins could be used. There are provisions for a ramp from Hoyt St (Brooklyn bound) to this level, but it was never used because it is blocked from going further south by the IND. But perhaps it could turn east and connect with the LIRR.
But with all this talk now of converting this branch of the LIRR to IRT, I diddn't think to mention that this was actually apart of the ERC study, but failed early in the screning process. The reason given is "because it is not operationally feasible and it would result in a negative impact of other parts of the transportation system. NYCT A Division cars are only 50[sic] feet long and LIRR cars are 85 feet long. If the LIRR Atlantic Branch was converted to A Division standards, this would represent a major reduction in capacity" (Task 8 Draft MIS, appendix C, p.10)
As for the benefit of through routing, the issue there wuld probably be the capacity of the Joralemon and Clark St. tunnels. The IRT is packed enough, and I don't think much elas can be added to it.
The iea of converting the Atlantic line to B div. standards actualy made it to the long list alternative MBA-10, but it was MBA 2, 5, 8 and TSM that made it to the final short list. So all of this will probably never happen.
Re: LIRR convert to IRT ... was there ever any consideration of LIRR takeover of track between Brooklyn & Manhattan ? OR a new tunnel to get LIRR Flatbush trains to Lwr Manhattan ?
So was this a "TA" or "MTA" study ... if the former they wouldn't have looked at anything to benifit LIRR riders. AND from what I'm reading here it seems the benifit group is much larger in Brooklyn then LI.
I still don't understand, with all the cars comming West in the AM, why more isn't being done to incr LIRR capacity (Yes you can go to Jones Beach {train-n-bus} or MSG to see the Circus, etc.). Converting the 5,000 city buses & other City vehicles to CNG helps the air but improving service in Brooklyn won't add many riders, just make their trip more comfortable.
OK ... OK .... don't jump all over me ... that's not a bad goal, particularily if you're from Brooklyn, the point is it's a narrow goal.
How about better service from NJ, Chicago & Boston ? (That was a joke for JB, Todd & John ... hee hee)
Mr t__:^)
Actually, Mr. T, better service from Boston is coming. Allegedly, the new AMTRAK service with high-speed trains will begin in late 1999. AMTRAK's propaganda states three-hour service from South Station, Boston to Penn Station, NYC. I ride the South Station to Mansfield commuter line (which shares the Main Line towards Providence) occasionally, and I can see continual progress in getting the poles up for electrification - which will eliminate the engine change in New Haven.
Current airline (Delta Shuttle and USAirways Shuttle) unrestricted, walk-up fares from BOS-LGA are $200 each way. Yes, $400 round-trip. My guess is that when the three-hour service is up and running, many businesspeople will switch to the train, assuming AMTRAK goes with a fare of half that for its premium service.
As one who commutes from BOS to NYC 30 or so times a year, it's going to be interesting to see the dynamics of intercity travel change.
Todd & other NorthEasters ...
As long as you brought it up (enhanced Boston to NY service):
Have you ever heard of the "Airline Route". My old High School, in East Hampton Ct, was right next to it. Tracks ran out of New Haven a different way to Boston ... i.e. a short cut. Anyhow, it's been years since I've heard anyone talk about using the ROW ... mostly weeds now.
Back to your point, I see a couple of problems to limit impact:
- Fares ... their much to high to draw enough riders to make a meaningful contrib to AMTRACK's balance sheet (isn't that how they justified the money they needed ?)
- ROW ... it just won't support the speeds their talking about ! Yes they're buying trains that tilt on the curves & doing some road work on the worst curves, BUT the ROW sill requires billions & billions if it's going to come anywhere close matching what they got between NY & Philly. MAYBE the "Airline Route" would be cheeper in the long run, i.e. potential for fast/reliable service & NO freight or local commuter trains getting in the way (can you say JAPAN or FRANCE). The problem with that of course is the billions of up-front $$$$ and long lead time before you would have anything to use.
P.S. Ever try the Steam trains at Valley RxR, Essex Ct on your way down from Bean Town ? There's a boat ride that can be incl to the Good Speed that looks like a "milk box" sitting on the river bank (it's an opera house). You actually could walk across the swing bridge from the end of the RxR (Could ... there's no foot path, so you'ld have to thumb a ride with one of the locals).
Mr t__:^)
Yes, Mr. T, I too have wondered how AMTRAK will manage to "fly" at 125 mph between BOS and NYC with the track in the condition that it's in. But there are pamphlets and displays at BOS South Station that do declare a three-hour trip to Penn Station/NYC is only a short time away. On fact some of these are on-line at the AMTRAK Web site; look for the link to high-speed rail.
Is the alternate HVN-BOS route you're talking about the one that goes through Springfield, MA? There are currently HVN-SPG trains (they split off from the HVN-BOS trains at HVN), but nothing runs from SPG to the line that connects BOS to ALB.
I can't say that I've ever been to the Essex site you mentioned. Despite my love of railroads, I fly from BOS-LGA about 30 roundtrips per year... and connect of course to the Q-33/E or M-60/N.
My understanding is that Amtrack considered two routes for electrification: 1) New Haven, New London, Providence, Boston and 2) New Haven, Hartford, Springfield, Worchester, Boston. Note that the former plan, the one adopted, includes an additional state, a not insignificant factor in making appropriations.
Based on population, and compatible economic bases which generate more inter-city business trips, my preferred route would have been New Haven, Hartford, Providence, Boston. Non-metroliner trains or state-supported local trains could have served the stations in between. The ROW from Hartford to Providence would have been new and thus expensive, but it could have been straight and fast and there wouldn't have been any drawbridge issues. And, you'd still get another state served. But that's all yachts under the bridge (and trains stopped at the bridge) now.
The Boston to NY "Airline Route" goes inbetween these two, that's why it's a short cut. It also raises elevation rather quickly ... ah that's why they called it the Airline !!!
Mr t__:^)
Um, I do not think I have ever seen any sign of this line on any map anywhere...
"Airline," I believe, was a general term for a fairly straight piece of railroad...
Re: Larry's suggestion...The new track between Hartford and Providence would have cost, I am willing to bet, 5 times the cost of the entire project. Connecticut is a highly developed state - the NIMBYs and $$$s involved would have been atrocious. And, It would add miles.
I should have read Peter's post before I stuck my foot in my mouth about the Airline! sorry bout dat...
Actually, if you measure it out, the mileage would be about the same. But the bucks and NIMBY would have made it difficult, if not impossible, even though that is the least developed part of Connecticut. I guess as Foxwoods continues to grow, and Hartford continues to decline, more people will want to go to New London than Hartford anyway.
[Is the alternate HVN-BOS route you're talking about the one that goes through Springfield, MA? There are currently HVN-SPG trains (they split off from the HVN-BOS trains at HVN), but nothing runs from SPG to the line that connects BOS to ALB.]
The old "Air Line" route that Thurston mentioned isn't the same as the one via Springfield. The Air Line splits off the New Haven-Hartford line just north of New Haven, crosses the Connecticut River at Middletown, and goes in a roughly northeasterly direction through the eastern half of Connecticut. It joins the Boston line somewhere in Massachusetts.
Most of the Air Line is long gone today. It is active up to and just beyond the Connecticut River, serving a few industrial customers in Middletown and over the river in Portland. Its largest customer is the Tilcon quarry not far from New Haven; stone-carrying trains make weekly round trips to an asphalt plant on Long Island.
Re Airline Route: Peter is correct in every detail.
P.S. At Middletown the Valley RxR acquired the ROW South to Essex. They have a plan to run up to there, but the tracks won't take a train much above Haddam (Goodspeed) right now.
P.S. As a kid I used to here the trains rumbling up the river & I was two miles away on the other side of the river. But never a pass train.
Mr t__:^)
I've actually seen the track that goes through Wilimantic (visiting WILI-AM; I was their 'remote' meteorologist for many years). The track looked in pretty bad shape. And Mr. T don't worry about misspelling Worcester. Most people mispronounce it too - it's pronounced "wuh-stuh." It's funny when new TV or radio newspeople come to Boston and say "war-chester."
[I've actually seen the track that goes through Wilimantic (visiting WILI-AM; I was their 'remote' meteorologist for many years). The track looked in pretty bad shape.]
Same as the rest of Willimantic ...
You've been through Willimantic? I lived just outside of it, on Rt. 14, during my final two years (1978-80) at UConn.
I did the weekend weather on the "Wayne Norman Show" on 1400 WILI (AM) from 1978 through the mid 80's. I visited Willimantic, USA (the only city in the USA with that name, and there's a song to prove it!) a number of times. Wayne and I often talked about the little-used railroad tracks through town.
Unless you were there decades ago, the Air Line tracks would have been non-used, not little-used :-) What you saw may have been the Central Vermont tracks. At least as of five or so years ago, they were still used for freight, and even had Amtrak service for a while.
Todd, Peter, et. al., I'm back, was in Trenton & Princeton for a couple of "AA" games. It was the Red Socks vs. Mets, they split.
P.S. Couldn't get my three friends interested in riding "Dinky", but we did tour the univ ... it was nice.
Re: Airline Route .... Willimantic & Ctr RxR of Vt owned by CN.
That line still goes to New London, plus Conrail goes to Worcester via an other route, but like I said before NH/PennCentral wasn't interested in sending traffic over that route, so it died. There used to be a lot of coal cars that went to a pwr plant S of Middletown, but they converted the plant to oil & it comes up by barge.
Back to the Airline Route ... nobody seems to think it might be an idea worth exploring, i.e. Japan & France a dedicated route ?
Mr t__:^)
Re: Boston to NY short cut:
New Haven to Middletown to East Hampton (nothing there) to Willimantic to Woster (got the spelling wrong here) to Boston.
When I was a kid it was down to a single track. If you have an old state map put out by the state you can see some of the line, otherwise look at an OLD RxR map.
Mr t__:^)
Yes, Mr. T, I too have wondered how AMTRAK will manage to "fly" at 125 mph between BOS and NYC with the track in the condition that it's in. But there are pamphlets and displays at BOS South Station that do declare a three-hour trip to Penn Station/NYC is only a short time away. On fact some of these are on-line at the AMTRAK Web site.
Is the alternate HVN-BOS route you're talking about the one that goes through Springfield, MA? There are currently HVN-SPG trains (they split off from the HVN-BOS trains at HVN), but nothing runs from SPG to the line that connects BOS to ALB.
I can't say that I've ever been to the Essex site you mentioned. Despite my love of railroads, I fly from BOS-LGA about 30 roundtrips per year... and connect of course to the Q-33/E or M-60/N.
Speaking of the Amtrak website, it's terrible. Just curious about how much a given trip would cost on Amtrak, and how long it would take? Forget it. You have to go through their whole reservation system, give them all kinds of personal information, create a password to access the information on your "account" (what are the odds of remembering it?) and then -- you still can't find out. I probably have two or three password-protected Amtrak accounts, although I haven't used Amtrak in a decade, but I still don't know the cost and time involved in taking Amtrak to Disneyworld from NYC.
It was disheartening to read how the MTA could put political pressure above actual needs re: funding priorities, all the while ignoring the patronage involved. If I were from another area and learned that the Franklin Ave. shuttle was being funded for rehab (how much money?), I'd assume it had a high daily pateronage level, was a link vital to the subway system, of greater need than any other project needing funding, had the lowest cost per passenger, etc. Transit agency executives should be embarrassed when they have to explain, and justify, why that shuttle received rehab. funding, the Lenox Ave. tunnel received rehab. funding, but the failing Manhattan Bridge will be ignored and, after failiure and the end of train service on it, passengers who used those trains will not get a replacement, but just have to transfer to other already-crowded lines. I can just imagine the "Nightmare on Pacific St." (and Atlantic Ave. stations), as people attempt to transfer to the IRT there, or the few remaining BMT
lines squeezing through the Montague St. tunnel to lower Manhattan. Talk about "Lower Manhattan access".... Actually, talk about "Manhattan access"......Can't anything be done?
Mike Rothenberg
The day after the Manhattan Bridge fails, and the crisis begins, the public will wake up to the problem and politicians will scramble to fund a solution. But by the time the solution is in place, many people who work in Manhattan would have moved away from large sections of Brooklyn, and the businesses they support would have closed, so the solution will be unneeded. Got to do it before there is a problem. Some engineers say the cazillions we've put into the bridge should buy us as much 30 years (albeit with constant disruption). In a rational world, even a decade would be long enough to put a replacement in place.
Maybe the fact that the Williamsburg will be simply closed for months will attract attention to the bridge situation.
I appreciate Larry's response. But what a sad commentary on area politicans. Indeed, "the public be damned", it seems.
Here's what I don't understand: The Franklin shuttle hadn't failed, yet with its probably low patronage, it will be restored. The Manhattan Bridge also hasn't (totally) failed, yet with its high patronage, it is being ignored. Much money has been spent on failed restoration, but the authorities seem willing to let it fail, rather than assure continued Brooklyn/Manhattan travel on the B, D, and Q (ignoring the already "damaged" N line) lines. I don't see the payoff for the politicians. What is the Franklin shuttle payoff to politicans that the Manhattan Bridge replacement, before failure, cant deliver?
Mike Rothenberg
Nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies the neglect of the Manhattan Bridge.
But regarding the Franklin Shuttle projec:
I don't know that much about it, but my guess is that it's going to be MUCH easier, quicker and cheaper than the work needed on the Manhattan Bridge.
I don't necessarily base that on any pre-work estimates.
I mean the way the two jobs will eventually play out after all the change-orders, budget overruns, "discovery" of more serious damage, etc. that will inevitably turn up on the Manhattan Bridge job. Especially when you consider that the bridge may need to be partially or wholly replaced. That may help explain, if not justify, why the Franklin Shuttle project is being done now. It's just a smaller job.
Two other things I observed on my one and only ride on the pre-renovation Franklin Shuttle --- on its last day:
-- 95 percent of the passengers were black, and the neighborhoods we passed through were mostly black as well. I'm not sure whether that's good, bad or indifferent in the political payoff equation.
-- If the Shuttle hadn't yet "failed," it sure looked like it was about to, in about three minutes. Approaching the northern terminal, I thought we were going to fall right off the last bridge, and then it seemed as if we'd get stuck on that snaky curve that runs through the bushes after the bridge.
But I'll repeat: Nothing justifies letting the Manhattan Bridge crumble for a single day longer.
[Two other things I observed on my one and only ride on the pre-renovation Franklin Shuttle --- on its last day:
-- 95 percent of the passengers were black, and the neighborhoods we passed through were mostly black as well. I'm not sure whether that's good, bad or indifferent in the political payoff equation.
-- If the Shuttle hadn't yet "failed," it sure looked like it was about to, in about three minutes. Approaching the northern terminal, I thought we were going to fall right off the last bridge, and then it seemed as if we'd get stuck on that snaky curve that runs through the bushes after the bridge.]
I too rode the Franklin Shuttle on its last day, and your observations perfectly match up with mine. Something had to be done, and fast, and in addition the MTA didn't want to be seen as neglecting minority neighborhoods.
What should being black, white (grey, pink, green or blue) have anything to do with setting priorities. In a sense, this is "environmental justice" turned on its head. So the "non-black" areas are made to suffer? Any inclusion of race in decisions on spending transit money is uncalled for. Maybe you're right, and that's the way it is. But all this does is enflame passions. If decisions were just based on need, (1) wouldn't that be the logical/correct thing to do, and (2) wouldn't that go more to healing whatever racial tensions there were, rather than finding yet a new area in which to have them develop and grow? The bottom line: How much is the Franklin shuttle repair costing? How many daily boardings are there at its stations? Is the service really needed or could, with Metrocard, the same trasfers between BMT, IND (and even IRT) be made a few stations away, in downtown Brooklyn? And how would proponents of the Franklin repair explain away doing it and neglecting the much, much greather number
of passengers on the B, D, Q (and already N) routes that are, and will, suffer by neglect to fund, and build, the Manhattan Bridge replacement? And how do they explain away attention to the Lenox Ave. problem, and its repair (what is that costing?), while ignoring the Manhattan Bridge?
There has to be a way to put logic and sanity back into the process. Can you think of any way?
Mike Rothenberg
Alaska's Constitution provides that all, or any portion of, property
used exclusively for nonprofit religious, charitable, cemetery, or
educational purposes, as defined by law, shall be exempt from taxation
[]. The law similarly exempts
property used exclusively for nonprofit religious, charitable, cemetery,
hospital, or educational purposes
[].
Alaska's Supreme Court has held that &bq;used exclusively&eq; means
that the property to be exempt must in fact be used
exclusively for the exempt purpose; thus the trails walked on by campers
at a nonprofit camp were exempt, but the land next to the trails, which
was not currently being used for anything, was not exempt
[Matanuska-Susitna Borough v. King's Lake Camp
(1968) 439 P2d 441]; that
exclusive use, not benefits is the key; even partial use by nonexempt
parties for private business purposes destroys the exemption, and actual
use rather than the owner's use should be analyzed
[Greater Anchorage Area Borough v. Sisters of
Charity] 553 P2d
502].
&bq;Property used exclusively for religious purposes&eq;
includes the following property owned by a religious organization: (1)
residence of clergy of a recognized religious organization; (2) a
structure and its furniture and fixtures used solely for public worship,
charitable purposes, religious education or nonprofit hospital; (3) lots
required by local ordinance for parking near structures for public worship
[].
Religious, charitable, cemetery, hospital, education property, or
veterans organization property lose exemption if income is from use other
than by nonprofit religious, charitable, hospital groups, or by
educational groups exclusively for classroom space
[].
Receipt of rentals or income from the exempt property, if not derived
as a dominant profit motive on the charity's part, but incidental to and
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of its charitable purposes
does not offend the exemption [Kings Lake Camp,
supra], although if the payment exceeds the operating costs of the
exempt activity for which payment is received, the property is only exempt
if used for an exempt activity, such as classroom space
[City of Nome v. Catholic Bishop (1985)
707 P2d 870].
The term &bq;educational&eq; means systematic instruction in any and
all branches of learning from which a substantial public benefit is
derived, including vocational apprenticeship training
[McKee v. Evans (1971)
490 P2d 1226.]
[Any inclusion of race in decisions on spending transit money is
uncalled for.]
In theory, that statement is beyond question. Yet in actual practice things can differ. In recent years the Transit Authority had been under fire for allowing the Franklin Shuttle to deteriorate so markedly. Some of the critics argued that the Shuttle would have been better maintained if it had served an area that wasn't mostly minority. The renovation project can be seen as the TA's attempt to defuse this situation and improve its image.
I'm not saying that the Shuttle's poor condition and lack of attention had anything to do with the racial makeup of its riders. As I've pointed out before, the N and R lines seem to have the "whitest" ridership of the lines in Manhattan, but that hasn't saved them from wretched service. What really matters is perceptions, more specifically the TA's desire to avoid being perceived as shortchanging minority riders. It really doesn't matter whether perceptions comport with reality.
Finally, the Franklin Shuttle renovation may not be a mistake from a practical standpoint. Ridership has been low by New York standards but compares well with transit lines elsewhere in the country. And more riders may start using the Shuttle once the work is done and it isn't so decrepit; in particular, the transfer to the C at the northern end might get more use once it's a regular, within-the-turnstiles transfer and the former ticket method is discarded.
Sorry about my prior post on the Franklin Shuttle Renovations! Some extraneous materials accidentally got added at the beginning of my post. From now on, I'll use that Preview option :-)
When I first started reading that post, I thought, "I can't WAIT to see the point he's trying to make." 8-)
Actually, I had always assumed that the TA gave in and renovated the Franklin Ave shuttle due to the influence of the Lubavicher Hasidim, who also live in the neighborhood and who, since they tend to vote in block on the advice of their Rabbai, wield enormous political influence among the limited number of politicians who face real elections (Mayor, Governor, state Attorney General). I never believed it was the minority persons living in the area who had the influence.
On that assumption, I have always hoped the Bobover Hasidm in Borough Park will eventually get organized to get something done about the Manhattan Bridge. I wonder if the Satmars in Williamsburg know that it is possible to run trains direct from there to the Diamond District, where may of them work.
I can't help wondering if it's good or bad that you refer to the various Jewish groups... vs the minorities.
I suppose it's a compliment - but I must point out that there are possibly no more Jews in the City than blacks or hispanics... So I wonder why Jews are not a minority.
If you succesfully overcome the hurdles of prejudice (which we certainly have experienced) or in general in you are, thank G-d, successfull, are you no longer a minority?
I believe his point was not about Jews in general or about Jews as a racial/ethnic group, but more that **particular** Jewish **religious** groups vote as a bloc, or at least with a certain cohesiveness, because of the leadership provided by their religious leader. If such is true, or even if it is not true but is perceived to be true, then these groups have significant political power because they can -- or are perceived to be able to -- assemble hundreds or thousands of votes as a single bloc.
Absolutely. If only transit advocates could vote as a block. That seems to be the only way to get things done.
...of course, we got /get flack/resentment from other minorities because of this cohesiveness...
...as if you become the majority/oppressor if you manage to get out of the bind of helplessness/defeatism. This is easier for some than imitating a good approach.
Wasn't there some kind of big deal made after Kennedy was elected, because he was Catholic, and it was believed he would 'do what the Pope said?'
-Hank
[Actually, I had always assumed that the TA gave in and renovated the Franklin Ave shuttle due to the influence of the Lubavicher Hasidim, who also live in the neighborhood and who, since they tend to vote in block on the advice of their Rabbai, wield enormous politicalinfluence among the limited number of politicians who face real elections (Mayor, Governor, state Attorney General). I never believed it was the minority persons living in the area who had the influence.]
Dunno about that. I had thought that the Hasidim lived a bit farther east than the Franklin Shuttle area. They also seem to make extensive use of private buses, often old school buses.
Bizarre, grotesque, and illogical as it is, I guess transit decisions in New York City are less based on analysis and technical need than on (ethnic) political pressure. How sad. Now considering that rediculous basis as how the system operates, wouldn't it benefit the same neighborhoods, that are being "benefited" with the Franlin shuttle renovation, to have the IRT Franklin Ave. junction upgraded with the necessary flyovers/flyunders for improved handling of2/5 and 3/4 trains? Actuallyk wouldn't it benefit them more? And wouldn't it benefit riders coming from the Nostrand Ave. and New Lots Ave. lines. Wouldn't it benefit many, many more riders?
So why wasn't that done? Is it in any known budget plan for a future year? Probably not.
Back to the Manhattan Bridge: What was the reasoning to make a four-track 63rd St. tunnel? Was there any reasonable chance of really connecting something to it (presumably LIRR, to Grand Central Station)? Was any money allocated to make the needed connections? And if that was the reason for the other two tunnel tracks, then wan't there any thought, at that time, of the E/J/Z extension to Jamaica Center and the tranfer point at Sutphin Blvd. to the LIRR? Will the remaining 2 tracks in the 63rd St. th\unnel ever be used? How much did it cost to build those extra tunnel tracks? Too bad they weren't used to build a Manhattan Bridge replacement.
I hope that logic and reason will, someday, visit the transit decision-makers who are spending taxpayer monies in such a poor fashion.
Mike Rothenberg
The Manhattan Bridge was in considerably better shape when the 63st tunnel project was started. And currently, the only place there are 4 trackways (there are no tracks on the lower level) is in the river portion , and short extensions into the land on either side of the river. And there has always been 'resonable' chance of connecting the LIRR to GCT. It was part of the original tunnel plans. But lets not forget how overbudget and overdue the 63st project was. And thanks to Senator Pothole (D'Amato) there are several transit projects in NYC that may eventually see fruition, as opposed to their previous status as 'dreams'. Don't forget, also, that there were plans for an entire extra layer of subways that was abandoned. Some of the construction for that has been done as well. So it all comes to cost. If you can build toward a future project in a current project, why not? Just as NYCDEP is looking at the feasability of the Staten Island Freight Tunnel to share costs with a new water tunnel.
-HAnk
As per the idea that people were unaware of the Manhattan Bridge deterioration when other investments are made: what other parts of the subway system are falling apart that we don't know about? At the kickoff meeting for City Planning's new study, a TA official said that you have to factor the possible need for a back-up to the older tunnels into your plans. They are made of iron. Are they rusting through after 80 years?
How many tubes are actually made of iron?
I would think London would be experiencing problems with that if it would be a future problem there. I am pretty sure a lot of their construction is cast iron.
Aren't the PATH tubes cast iron? In fact, I wonder if that could be responsible for the distinctive smell (not necessarily unpleasant, just distinctive) that characterises PATH and has been commented on here before - cast iron dust getting into the air?
I may be wrong, but I think NYC subway tunnels have been built using steel right from the beginning.
As pointed out here before, at least the original IRT tubes were cast iron (the Brooklyn Extension tube, now the 4/5 trains, and the Harlem River tube, now the 2 train). The Steinway Tubes (7 train) are also cast iron. The other early tubes probably are as well but I'd have to go dig that info up from somewhere...
From NYC Transit Facts and figures:
149 St: Cast Iron in Concrete
Jorelemon: Cast Iron
Steinway: Cast Iron
Lexignton: Steel in Concrete
Clark: Cast Iron
60th St: Cast Iron
Montigue St: Cast Iron
14th St: Cast Iron
Cranberry: Cast Iron
161st St: Cast Iron
53rd St: Cast Iron
Jackson Ave: Concrete
Rutgers: Cast Iron
63rd: Material not specified.
What does this mean? They are replacing the cast iron water mains outside my house right now, with plastic.
How old are the mains that are coming out? And most of the new mains I see going in are of 'Ductile Steel', which was explained to me has a higher iron content than normal steel, but is stronger than cast iron. I think if we were going to have a rust problem with the cast iron subway tunnels, it would have happened already. Rust was NOT a new phenomenon in the early 1900s, and most of the tunnels are actually in the mud and clay under the riverbed, not completely exposed to the water.
-Hank
The main problem with cast iron water mains is the water inside. Drinking water has LOTS of dissolved air, ie oxygen, so it is good at rusting things - i should imagine quite a bit better than ground water sitting around subway tunnels.
(if you put iron in pure water with NO oxygen in it, it will rust very slowly if at all. Rust is a reaction involving water, iron, AND oxygen. Hence the iron heating pipes in most old houses are in good shape, since the system is designed to minimize dissolved air in the heating water. A steel water pipe, however, is a doomed item...)
Once again, has the london system had rust problems?
The framework of girders and pillars in the cut-and-cover sections is all steel.
Most things seem to go wrong with the Underground these days, but I have not come across rusting problems with cast iron tube liners (this would only affect the Northern, Central, Piccadilly, Waterloo and City and Bakerloo lines, the surface lines are mainly brick lined and the rest are too new). I guess that it is relatively straightforward to unbolt and replace corroded sections, especially as even for the tube lines, only a small minority are cast iron tubes built at the turn of the century. E.g. the southern half of what became the Northern line was massively reconstructed after the first world war, while the eastern tunnels of the central line were built during the 1930s. Much of the tube lines in the suburbs are ROWs taken from suburban railways, and the British have always preferred brick viaducts or earth embankments running behind houses to metal viaducts running along the centres of streets.
Most of the London tubes are Cast Iron with grouting injected around the exterior.
The newer tubes i.e Victoria and Fleet have concrete interlocking sections
Oops! I should of course said Jubilee line for Fleet line. I am showing my age, Fleet was the original name for the proposed Jubilee line and was indicated so of the Underground Maps up till the line was opened.
If any other Underground enthusiasts read this what has happened to the previous trains which ran on the Jubilee now that they have been replaced with the new ones. They dont seem to be running anywhere.
They are almost certainly in storage pending scrapping, I don't know how soon, but 14 years is an incredibly youthful age to scrap an entire fleet of trains (some are even newer).
The problem with the trains is that they were never particularly reliable, and the single leaf doors make them unsuitable for adding trains to busier lines. No one seems to have thought of another use for them. I haven't even heard any rumours that they are heading to the Wight.
Some time ago, I suggested that a useful way to make use of the trains would be to transfer the Watford DC line of British Rail to the Underground, extend this to Waterloo via the Aldwych line, and run the trains along there, then if Crossrail ever happened, cut the tube trains back to Harrow, and make use of the extra Metropolitan Line capacity by building a link and running trains from Preston Road to Kenton and Watford Junction. The result would be an improved service for all sections of the Watford line and a relatively cheap new Cross-London tube line. Unfortunately, the standard response from any LT employee is to automatically assume that any ideas from the general public are totally stupid and not worthy of any further consideration. Perhaps London needs its own "Undertalk" page.
Max, I shall try and find the missing unitson my travels. I thought they were quite comfortable and certainly suitable for the northern line( unless there are loading problems)as this seems to collect waifs and strays i.e. ex central line stock.
We certainly could do with an "Underground talk".
Simon
It would be very intersting to know where they are, wherever this is they will be taking up a great deal of space, so I can't see them staying there for very long.
Single leaf doors were a big mistake by LT, I doubt that we will ever see them again on the tube lines, certainly on the new Jubilee line extension they would have to rebuild all of the platform doors. As for comfort, most of my time is spent on the central line these days. The seats are so bad I can't believe that anyone would be prepared to sit on them from Epping to London, but perhaps this is deliberate. Having said that, I always find bus seats to be more comfortable than Underground train seats, especially the Routemaster coach seats (as far as I know, there is still an RMC operating regularly on route 15). Sorry to American readers for the gibberish :-)
> The seats are so bad I can't believe that anyone would
> be prepared to sit on them from Epping to London
Been there done that (out and back), including the Hainault loop, and I agree 100% :-)
For the ultimate in rail comfort you cant beat a BR Mark 1 carriage seat. As for the Jubilee trains I have now vowed to find them whatever it takes, and through these pages I will let you know. If indeed they are scrapping them perhaps the time may be right for the MTA to put in a bid for the seats and fit them into an R42 or other vehicle with hard plastic seats. They may well not suit the host of this truly excellent web site but they may well prove popular with the other subway riders who also face hour long journeys. Has our host "done" the East London line with the superb Thames Tunnel built by Marc Brunnel ?
Ah, yes. that would have been the "KK" train you're referring to...
As has been posted numerous times before, a service like that is
sorely lacking, whether it be "K", "V", or whatever...
Wayne
Mike, you sure are steamed about the Franklin Avenue rehab...
I think you are oversimplifying things here. I know NOTHING about the specifics of how this project was proposed and approved (though I am not sure anybody else knows much about this either!).
However -
-at least in a representative democracy, transit projects are NOT a zero-sum game. Nobody said "Franklin Ave. shuttle or Manhattan bridge?" Funding for these things comes as a result of some agreement between politicians somewhere...its not just the TA dividing up a pie.
-I would guess that the franklin ave shuttle rehab will cost maybe 5% of the cost of really fixing (if possible) or replacing the manhattan bridge. So in that sense, the two are apples and oranges.
-The line apparently needed to be redone or abandoned. Getting rid of a line is pretty drastic in this day and age...
-Would building transfers to the A and the IRT have been any cheaper than the rehab? Serious question!
-Why does the line need to be rebuilt? Because it had not been properly maintained over the years. In this sense, some payback is due. What other light ridership lines should the TA just let go until they need to be abandoned? The outlying areas of just about every line in the system would probably qualify.
-Assuming that race is the whole story seems to me to be jumping to a conclusion. What evidence do you have that it was not, say, a particularly active local politician, etc.?
To sum up (sorry for the long post!): the line is not necessarily useless, and the Franklin Ave. shuttle is *NOT* the reason that the Manhattan Bridge ain't getting fixed.
In 1984 when the first of the overhauled and new cars were entering service the TA was feeling the sting of several exspensive lawsuits resulting from incidents where a trains brakes had applied in emergency and from the hard stop a passenger was injured. The cost of trueing spotted wheels was immense as well as replacing worn brake shoes. The bean counters over on the 13th floor figured a way to save money. That it put lives in danger was immateriel. Motorman Layton Gibson is dead now because of it.
The answer it seemed was to reduce the braking effort of a train. Weather or not anyone considered that the signal system was designed for a train to stop in a given distance based on the maximum speed of the area is unknown.
The switch to composition brake shoes in itself was not bad, but reducing the brake cylinder pressure by HALF does. The removal of a vital component known as the inshot valve in 1989 sealed the fate of safety in the transit system. Inshot provided additional brake cylinder pressure under conditions where the dynamic braking alone was insuficient. Why? people complained about the squealing sound and the TA didnt like the excessive brake shoe wear.
HOW DARE THEY SAY THEYRE SERIOUS ABOUT SAFETY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't recall the date but in the news before the accident on the Williamsburg Bridge an article regarding the safety of brakes in R40 R40M and R42 which happen to be the equipment assigned to the J-M-Z-L. The article claimed that poor braking was reported on these model cars, I don't remember what the TA's response to the article. Unfortunately Layton Gibson isn't alive to defend himself and as usual the MTA relegates the incident to human error. If his train was barrelling up the approach to the bridge at around 30-35 mph the train stopped on the bridge has only two red signals behind it. The possibility that he might have fallen asleep being that it was his last trip point to this while holding the master controller and brake valve. IN the briefest instance he must have fallen asleep and the train passes a yellow signal 200-300 ft from a red signal train going into emergency sliding past the second red signal and into the rear of the stopped M train. As you mention the changing of brake shoe to compostion and reducing cyclinder pressure without the thought to modifing the signal system is criminal.. pure and simple.
management knows beans about train operation, when was the last time any of the stuporintendents of RTO operated an A train two trips to Far Rockaway from 207 st local stops from end to end. Or 5 trips from Parsons/Archer to Chambers street or 5 trips on the L? give me a break...more recovery time should be allowed between trips..
oops i've gotten off track here(pardon the pun!)
The MTA should own up to their stupidity and stand up and take responsibility for making stunningly stupid(cost saving and dangerous)modifications to equipment with lack of foresight, i'd like to see some upper management getting canned.
Now, it seems, after weaking the brakes to protect passengers from injury when the cord gets pulled, they've had to cut speeds to adjust for the weaker brakes. Meanwhile, there don't seem to be as many punks pulling cords. I can't remember the last time I've been stuck and had the train operator announce BIE. Yet we're stuck with a failed solution to yesterday's problem which requires its own solution -- better signals. A real cautionary tale.
I read a story in the news quite a few years ago possibly 15 to 20 years about a passenger who recieved a head injury after a number 4 train went into emergency. I'm sure after enough of these law suits the TA figured to smooth out stops during emergency braking to change brake show pads and lower brake cylinder pressure. Well hey now you've got to consider the signal system which keeps the trains a safe distance from one another. After modifying the brakes wouldn't some one have figured the trains will now take longer to stop in the event of an emergency brake application? obviously this factor wasn't applied and passenger comfort was ruling decision over safety. From what i've read a trains accleration is supposed to be 2.5 mph per second while an emergency braking would be 3.0 mph per sec.
the spec performance on decel is 3.0 mphps but when the TA did testing on newly arrived cars from the vendors the actual stopping distaces were sometimes as much as 850 feet from50 mph. before they used only about 600. I know I was there.
THE PROFESSOR
And as usuall, it's the signal system's fault, and not the fault of sue happy lawyer who $ee oppertunety in everything.
But not to worry, we've got the magic of computers to come in and replace the "antique" signal system.
Instead of fixing the brakes to do what they were expected to do (and the signal system expected),
We just castrate the motors on the cars and reduce speed until those amazing computers get installed.
After which we all will be happy, because we all know computers can do ANYTHING, even defeat the laws of Physics...
Seriously, the subway's signal system is not *that* bad. And besides, LIRR and Metro-North trains can go through a stop signal
with nothing to stop them. At least a subway train will get an emergency application, which if the brakes worked as advertised, would NOT be followed by an accident...
Most accidents happen because someone did not do what they needed to do. Mechanical problems may lead to some prpblems but even then a good operator can much to minimize the effets. Good operators prevent accidents. Some of the roughest rides that I have had have been on computer driven and stopped trains.
I still don't understand why the public has access to the train controls and can put a train into emergency stop.
Yes, Zeek raises an important point: Ultimately, safety
depends on human behavior. All of the signals and stop
arms in the world won't eliminate that. But, safety dictates
that we put into place redundancies to minimize the consequences
of an individual error. When an accident occurs, one will
almost always find it to be caused by a combination of failures.
You never read about the accidents that a trip arm stops, only
those that happen in spite of one.
"Good operators prevent accidents" But even good operators
make mistakes. Even good operators get drowsy making that
extra trip. And even the best operator can't spot a broken
rail approaching at 50 MPH through the darkness of a tunnel.
Having an emergency stop on a large piece of machinery is
generally a good idea, at least where stopping the machine
is indeed the course of action most likely to prevent or
minimize injury. You wouldn't put an emergency brake in the
cabin of a jetliner. Unfortunately, the emergency cord in
the current fleet most often gets pulled in cases where it
is causing more harm than good, such as a sick passenger,
police activity, or smoke condition. I think new car engineering's
decision to install a passenger assistance request strip,
while still retaining the emergency brake cord, is a sound one.
Unless you move to a scheme, which is used in some systems,
whereby there are doors at the platform edge and the area between
them and the carbody forms a "DMZ", you will never eliminate
the danger of dragging a passenger (yes, passenger, not customer,
a customer buys shoes from you, a passenger is carried on your
railroad), and because of that, and especially with OPTO, I
would hope that "the cord" remains a standard part of NYC transit
equipment.
On the R-110 test train in the A&B divisions if you activate the emergency cord while the train is in between stations the train will not go into emergency until the train reaches the next station unless it is the C/R's emergency valve. Here we go again first unsafe brakes now this what next to endanger the safety of lives?
I thought that with the 142 order, they re-evaluated that decision
and de-castrated the emergency brake cord? If that's not the
case, then I stand corrected and I disagree sharply with it.
Stop now, ask questions later. Unless and until the time that
we have vital comm-based signalling and/or dead reckoning, I
don't trust any device that professes to know whether the train
is in the station or in between.
Check into that. I was in an R-110 class in November and that feature was still there. I did not see any Bulletins issued by the TA to it's train crews saying otherwise. As far as the 142 order I don't know if they got rid of it.
We need education about the Brake Cord, not it eliminated. Not enough education or the right type is done. They teach school children about bus saftey, take them on the bus and let them climb out the rear door. Why not subway saftey??
A fight broke out a few months ago. I had to keep someone from pulling the cord, we were downtown Q between 34th and W4th. Can you imagine what would have happened if we went BIE in the middle of that tunnel. Even with 3 cops in the car (still hadn't reach W4th) it took them a while to split up the "parties".
And on the other hand I have seen pax use the cord the right way with a dragging on a crowded platform that somehow the crew got indication.
This is very far-afield of the original post however as long as you raised the issue, let me give you a different view. I have seen instances where some well meaning but mentally deficient person has pulled an emergency cord snd has placed lives in jeopardy. For example, pulling a cord between stations when someone becomes ill and needs immediate medical attention. Or how about the person who pulls a cord while the train is passing through a 'smoke condition'. While it may be safe to pass through it, the well meaning customer puts hundreds of lives in danger by his uninformed actions. The trouble is most people who use mass transit and even some activists get most of their railroad experience from a Tyco instruction manual on Christmas morning.
It should be easier to override a pulled cord, and to communicate with passengers. Ideally, the train operator should be able to speak directly into a car via a microphone and speaker at each cord. He or she could ask what the problem was, and if the answer was "sick passenger" or "smoke" he could say not to do anything and take off for the next station.
Our LRVs in Denver have precisely that - an intercom which allows you to speak to the operator. They also have a stop request tape, which is unnecessary since all trains make all stops at all times - at least right now.
I once went to a subway with the same features (you just couldn't talk to the operator).And with those stop request tapes,I taped the sounds and have them in the computer
[I have seen instances where some well meaning but mentally deficient
person has pulled an emergency cord snd has placed lives in jeopardy. For example, pulling a cord between stations when someone becomes ill and needs immediate medical attention. Or how about the person who pulls a cord while the train is passing through a 'smoke condition'.
While it may be safe to pass through it, the well meaning customer puts hundreds of lives in danger by his uninformed actions.]
One thing that might lessen the frequency of these situations is to install PATH-style emergency intercoms in each car. Right now, the *only* way to get the train crew's attention in an emergency is to pull the emergency cord. Walking through the train to find the conductor or train operator isn't always possible due to locked doors (on the 75-foot cars) or crowding.
Great in theory, but doesn't work. It didn't work in new tech trains, passenger alarm system didn't work on the J line for the same reason: false alarms by wise-asses. We have a lot of low lifes riding the subway. Heck, we need transit personell in every car, let alone OPTO for real safety.
[Great in theory, but doesn't work. It didn't work in new tech trains, passenger alarm system didn't work on the J line for the same reason: false alarms by wise-asses. We have a lot of low lifes riding the subway. Heck, we need transit personell in every car, let alone OPTO for real safety.]
But emergency intercoms work okay on PATH. Are PATH riders that much more law-abiding than their subway counterparts?
In todays society it will happen everywhere. From passengers making announcements on Metro-North to playing with the buzzer on NJT, especially on trains to the Meadowlands, any new modification used to improve passengers environment will always be used against the agencies. Remember the old cord activated bus bells?
Here in Chicago, we have emergency intercoms on the cars modified for OPTO service (full-width cabs, intercoms, etc.) and have few problems with them, as far as I've seen. We even have a button on the platform to call the Station Agent down (or up) from the booth to answer a question, since Station Agents are strictly in the passenger assistance business and don't stay in the booth. Sometimes, the sign falls off, though, and people press the button thinking it's the platform heater.
As to the emergency brake, it's a rod with a red ball on the end, coming out of a box at the end of the car without an operator's cab, and it's rare for it to be pulled for the wrong reasons. I think the key is that it's not marked in any way and most people have no clue what it is. Since it's basically at the conductor's station, CTA probably intended that only the conductor use it.
A few weeks ago I wrote a posting regarding the "irresponsible actions" performed by informed railfans. Along the same lines, unfortunately, some of the general public feels they have the right or are authorized to perform acts such as "pulling the emergency cord". In today's world of "wiggle words and definitions" i.e. lawyers, it seems easy for those people to justify their actions as "well meaning". Those same people wouldn’t give it a thought that they may have put hundreds of lives in danger.
Recently, on a trip home from work on a Brown Line train, the train stopped short of the station platform by about one car length. Those familiar with CTA know that the cab signal sometimes will "warn" or stop a train when it is entering a station. This is true especially during the peak periods when trains are traveling very close. Usually, but not always, the OPERATOR will announce that the "train isn’t completely in the station, please stand by". In this instance, an over zealous rider pulled the emergency door open knob to get out. This "selfish" act, necessitated the OPERATOR to leave the operating position, walk back five cars, close the door, walk back to the operating position, move the train ahead one car length, and then open the doors. Delay at 5:45 in the PM, about four minutes. The guy who "pulled the door" got off scot-free, and was probably feeling proud of himself for "getting away with it". Lucky nobody in car six got the same idea and then stepped out to "no platform" on the ‘L’ structure. "Watch that first step!"
If anyone had done that, they probably would have sued CTA for negligence or whatever lame excuse his or her lawyer could have come up with. Anything for a fast buck.
I remember one instance concerning the brake cord. We were heading back to Port Authority on a Sunday night in January of 1968 and were waiting at 14th St. (for an A train, of course). An AA of R-32s pulled in, and my folks, not wanting to wait any longer, herded us aboard. You all know how I felt about locals in general and was willing to wait for an A at all costs. I was doing a slow burn, and when the train reached 23rd St., my mother said, "Look at the emergency brake cord." "What's so good about it?", I replied, not even looking up. No, nobody pulled it.
At least it wasn't an E train (chuckle).
According to official posters I have seen the *only* time you should pull the cord is:
1- in a station and someone is being dragged.
2- In a station and emergency exists--someone falls onto tracks.
Steve is right--do not pull the cord!
(I came close to pulling the cord once- A woman was half in a car door-her coat was caught and she was being pulled. I banged on the conductor's door(to recall he was in the next car). I then headed towards the cord , ready to pull, but then the train stopped and doors were reopened. this was before I started to work for transit)
I don't know where you got your information but you are incorrect.
First - Composition brake shoes have a higher rate of cohesion so it was necessary to modify the 'J' relay valve to maintain the same braking rates. That modification involved a negligable change in brake cylinder pressure to maintain the same braking rate.
Second - Inshot was never designed to give additional braking effort under dynamic brake. Inshot was designed to apply approximately 5 PSI of braking effort to the brake shoes. This just put the shoes in contact with the wheel. This improved brake response time when the dynamic brake faded out at slow speeds. It also kept the shoes warm and dry during inclement weather.
Third - the emergency braking effort of all classes of cars was increased to 3.25 MPH/Sec. about 5 years ago. The cost of wheel truing is significant but it has never been weighed against public safety. In the effort to standardize certain components, all cars were equipped with 115 HP motors - formally reserved for the heavier 75' cars. This enabled the lighter cars (50 & 60 foot) to operate at speeds which were never anticipated when the system was conceived.
You state much mis-information in your posting. Perhaps if you cite the sources for your 'knowledge', it would merit further serious discussion.
I dont see the need to post my resume however you need to stop reading those woefully incomplete manuals they give out with the computer assisted training classes.
Read on Grasshopper; remedial trains 101
It was completely unnecessary to alter brake cylinder pressure for the use of composition shoes on a vehicle equipped with dynamic brake because a composition shoe is designed for high speed/temprature use which dynamic braking does not provide. Perfect example R44/46 pre over haul brake cylinder pressure=80PSI full service. Now much less(forgive me the exact number does not come to mind and im too tired to look for the NYAB manual.) and I would not call a 50% reduction negligible!
And oh mis-informed are you young disciple. Inshot valves provide up to 50 PSI (when the load weigh is maxed) SUPPLEMENTRY brake cylinder air at straight air pressures above 35 or so PSI. This is why todays motormen complain that there is no more braking effort available at S.A.P. pressures above 50 PSI. If you still do not believe my neophyte friend, then I have several cars at various locations with the first generation SMEE equipment on board with which I can demonstrate for YOU!
Please tell me where you got this propoganda about increasing emergency braking from? AND PLEASE! cost not being weighed against public safetey, wheres you office? 13 floor? I will grant that the new 115 horse motors are SLIGHTLY faster, however, the added weight of the newly installed air conditioning consumed most of the additional power. As if a subway car wasnt already way under powered,ie you should not have to loose speed up a hill, every other operation just opens their throttle more.
Transit student please open your eyes. The pablum the TA feeds you will never allow you to reach my status as professor. E- mail me and i will document all my sources and scan you a copy of my lengthy resume.
Cordialy yours;
The Professor
P.S. forgive the typos, its late.
Since I do not have my NYAB manual at home, I can't quote all the #s. However, from memory, R46 Brake cyl. pressure in AW0 is 68 PSI */- 2 psi. The emergency variable loads were changed out in 1993 on the R-46s and onthe entire fleet between 1993 and 1995.
BTW - if you want me to E-Mail you, post your E-Mail Address
68 psi is still lower by 12 psi and lets not forget that D.B. amperage was knocked down a wee. Why do you defend the indefensible?
12 PSI is not the 50% you claimed, it's 15%. My position is not indefensible either. It just so happens that EVERY car contract in the NYC Transit system has a maximum braking rate (in emergency) of 3.25 MPH/Sec. as specified and required. Trains are also randomly pulled out after AM service almost daily, and subject to brake testing by the Office of System Safety. Another bit of mis-information in your posting; According to the head of propulsion systems engineering, the dynamic currents have not been altered. Finally, the issue you raised about suplemental air; I think if you re-check your sources you will find that the suplemental air, used during maximum braking, was derived by opening the lock out magnet. This allowed main reservoir air into the brake cylinders to supplement the dynamic brake effort. This had nothing to do witht he inshot magnet valve who's sole purpose was to put the shoes up against the wheel in preparation for pneumatic braking. Any more questions?
What about the R.T.O. bulletin pertaining to R-44 equipment (gold triangles under the number plate of A-cars? Is that not reducing dynamic brake currents?PLEEEEZE
Perhaps we should terminate this thread. Many of us can't understand it, but get enough to fear that the only result could be trains going even slower.
Safety should NEVER be put aside. Are you happy if a train could go 55 M.P.H. without thinking how it gets to zero? Layton Gibson's train went 37 M.P.H. to zero into the back of that M train AND it did go into emergency before it struck. I can clear the grade timers on the A train southbound at Franklin Av on track 3, get it to as much as 48. My older trains before the J line accident easily hit 55 on level track. What good is it if I overrun Nostrand Av. My solution is this...Operate as safely as I can,as slow as it may be, then claim overtime at the terminal. I'd like to see more people concerned with safet in the T.A. but it only seems to be on this website. If you don't like to hear people making overtime because of the brakes or the motor modifications, then write your politicions, only you can demand a better T.A
"It was completely unnecessary to alter brake cylinder pressure for the use of composition shoes on a vehicle equipped with dynamic brake
because a composition shoe is designed for high speed/temprature use
which dynamic braking does not provide."
From my understanding dynamic braking is the primary braking force at high speeds. Other braking, such as tread brakes and driveline brakes do not come into play until speeds are quite low. (Under 5 MPH on equipment that I am familiar with, might be different on heavier cars)
A more agressive shoe at low speeds will give harder stops.
My intent was not to teach Air Brake 101 and especially from a defensive position. You are correct and then not so correct. Yes dynamic brake is designed to reduce the train's speed from whatever down to 5-7 MPH and at that point,pneumatic braking will take place to stop the train. However, there are instances where dynamic braking does not take place. For example, if the propulsion controls are inoperative (dead motor) or if the train is in emergency. In these cases, the car or entire train has no dynamic brake respectively. For these instances, it WAS NECESSARY yo modify not only the J relay valve but the 'service' and 'emergency variable load valves'.
As for the bulletins regarding the R-44: The R-44 has the only CPU based propulsion system in the system. In the case of the R-44, the E-Proms were re-burned to slow the trains down. This may have resulted in less dynamic current. This is only a supposition as I have little first-hand experience with the E-Cam controller.
The Professor has made some errors at the blackboard.
During dynamic braking, the current in the main motor
circuit, which is related to braking effort (it is not
strictly linear proportional) is monitored. The braking
effort is compared against the straight air pipe pressure.
As long as the dynamic brakes are able to satisfy the brake
call, an electrically operated valve called the Lockout Magnet
Valve prevents air from entering the brake cylinder.
The inshot valve allows approx 5-7 psi of air to bypass the LOM
valve. This is just enough to bring the brake shoes up against
the tread of the wheel. As speed decreases, there comes a
point at which the dynamics can no longer generate enough current
to meet the brake call. That speed is commonly quoted as
10 MPH. At this point, the LOM de-energizes and permits air to
flow to the brake cylinder. At no point does the inshot valve
supply the "up to 50 PSI" that the Professor cites.
The variable load valve acts to limit the maximum air pressure
admitted to the cylinder in accordance with the load (weight)
of the car. There are two sections. One acts during normal
service braking, the other during emergency. At one point, the
Professor cites a brake cylinder pressure of 44 psi. This
is the limit imposed during service braking on an empty car.
At full load weight, the full service cylinder pressure is 66psi.
In emergency, at full load, the pressure was 80psi.
During emergency braking, the dynamics are disabled. An emergency
stop is made entirely on air, and the braking effort is determined
by the emergency variable load valve setting. Steve says this
was recalibrated a while back to *increase* the emergency brake
rate, and he knows what he is talking about. Steve: for my
education, what is the new maximum cylinder pressure in emergency?
All this techtalk notwithstanding, I happen to agree that cars
in the fleet today do not stop as quickly as SMEEs of yesteryear.
Jeff, Steve, Prof et al, thanks this is all very intresting. For one that grew up only with knowlege of frieght train braking, making the jump to CARS with dynamic is intresting (but then agian FRA says each car on LIRR is a Locomotive).
Thank you.
So does Mr. Blue (Robert Shaw) in the original Pelham 1-2-3.
Jeff - Virtually each contract of car has a unique 'Emergency' BCP based on the cars' operating characteristics, weight and type of brake equipment used. Again, this is also dependent on whether we are in AWO or AW3. I'd have to look them up but are you interested in any specific car class? For example, the AW3 Emergency BCP on the R-32 is less than 1/2 of the R-46 because one uses brake cylinders with clasp-type brakes and the other uses TBUs.
Typos can be forgiven, but errors in fact no.
The inshot valve does nothing more than press the brake shoes against the wheels while dynamic is working. You are confusing it with the Variable Load Valve which adjusts the actual pressure for straight air application over 50psi and compensates for the variations in passenger loading.
See this page for the animated GIF.
http://www.quuxuum.org/~joekor/brakes.htm
(PS I learned the brakes 30 years ago)
The variable load valve was used used as you stated ut until the R-38. The variable load would 'weigh' the car each time the doors were closed and the signal light relay made up. This was less than desirable because it didn't take into account various factors of customer loading. Since then all NYCT cars have been retro-fitted with load sensors. They work the same way as the variable load valve except that they 'weigh' the car load continuously. The output of the load sensor is used to adjust the propulsion currents and Brake Cylinder Pressures during acceleration & braking. All cars now have two valves called the variable load valve. They actually (Independently) control the output of the J relay to the brake cylinders in service braking and emergency braking.
So Emergency Braking is also load-weighted?
Absolutely !!
So the thinking is that breaking needs to be controlled, even in an emergency?
It seems like in an emergency situation, you *need* to brake as quick as possible - even if so doing might cause some injuries from people falling over. Isn't the danger of quick breaking and the associated falling over injuries outweighed by emergencies such as impending collision/derailment/falling into the river when the drawbridge is up/etc.????
The main purpose of the emergency load limit/variable load
valve is to prevent skidding. Too much brake cylinder pressure
can cause the wheels to lock up and skid along the rail
instead of rolling. As you know from watching anti=lock
brake commercials, braking effort is worse during a skid
because during rolling the linear contact between wheel
tread and rail is static, and it is kinetic (sliding) during
a skid, and the coefficient of friction must be greater in
static contact than kinetic
Unlike anti-lock brakes on a car though, the emergency brake
mode of SMEE delivers a constant brake cylinder pressure for
the duration of the emergency stop. So the pressure used is
necessarily a compromise designed to deliver effective braking
while avoiding a skid under most circumstances.
The R-46 and R-44 (I think, although maybe the equipment was
never activated on the 44s) orders had, before GOH, a "decelostat"
which monitored wheel rotation and graduated the brakes in the
event of a skid. ABS for steel wheels. There's a funny "only
in the NY subway" story about the decelostat. The punchline was
a special order that "train operators shall not key the mic on the radio unless the train is stopped with a full-service brake applied"
Oy.
Just a techincal point. The inshot valve did nothing more than press the brake shoe against the wheel while dynamic was working. This made for a soomther transition for when the dynamic cuts out and air only stops the train (below 5mph). By itself it did little to stop the train.
See this page: http://www.quuxuum.org/~joekor/brakes.htm
for an animated GIF of the brake system.
When you screw up what do you do? Hide the evidence!
Instead of fixing the brakes NOOO lets remove the Field Shunt coil from the motor circuit. The nifty little device that makes the difference between 40 and 55 MPH. HA! The TA thinks us all fools, but not the PROFESSOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh yee of little knowledge.... professor be thy name. It just so happens that the field shunt mod was not done due to braking problems. The field shunt modification was done because of some inadequacies in the current signal system.
The signal system just went bad now? Really you must learn to stop reading propoganda. ALL the rear end colisions in the past few years really are the Motormans fault and the criminal tampering with the brakes had nothing do with it.
Grasshopper come to my next seminar : TRAINS 101
Before you start teaching me I'd need to see your credentials. You see I have the credentials and I teach the post-graduate courses and there was no tampering. The signal system never went bad. The TA began to buy lighter/faster cars and at the same time standardized the size of the traction motors (115 HP). This made the cars run faster. If you have any questions, raise your hand...
Prior to the Chrystie Street connection, were the express tracks connected straight into the Second Avenue stop or was it built with a provision to branch off to somewhere such as the Chrystie Street connection? Was Second Avenue ever a Southern Terminal for any line? Once there was a post for the original track map for the Dekalb Avenue area. Should this not be placed in the Historical Area of "New York City Subway Resources"?
Prior to November 1967, I recall peak period F trains terminating at 2nd Ave. or at Broadway/Lafayette. D trains served this stretch at all times, since the present day F route was the pre-Chrystie St. D train route.
As originally built, the center tracks at Broadway-Lafayette led
directly to 2nd Avenue. These express tracks (now walled off)
continued a few hundred yards east and were intended to go on to
Brooklyn as part of IND System II (more info re.IND-II in this website). 2nd Ave had been the "F" terminus for a while. "F"
service, once the link construction began, terminated at Broadway-
Lafayette, then at 34th Street.
Wayne
The current 2nd Avenue Station was originally called Houston Street - at least onthe R-9s. It served as the southern terminal of the F line until the Chrystie Street cut was completed in 1967. Prior to thiss time, the D train operated over what is now the F line.
I beg to differ. When I lived there (Feb '66 on) the F terminated at B'way-Laf. That was 'base day'--after 8? pm they stopped at 34/6th The layup stubs at 2nd were rarely occupied.
The R-1/9s had both "Houston-Lafayette Sts." and "Houston-2nd Ave." on their roll signs. My IND bulkhead destination roller curtain has both terminals, as well as the lower destination side curtain in my sign box.
My 1948 Hagstrom's IND map has E service terminating at Broadway-Lafayette, and F service going to Hudson Terminal. Sounds as if both routes pulled that switcheroo south of W. 4th St.
Yes and the "Houston" part of the destination signs meant which line it was on. Another example is "Concourse-205 St." or "Fulton-Euclid Avenue." The original IND had named branches, Houston St., Fulton St., Smith St., Queens, Concourse, Washington Hts.
They also had to have a "Houston St." designation on the train name sign (e.g. D -- 6 Av-Houston Express) so people would know if the train went via Bway-Nassau or Bway-Lafayette. Why? It's because...
8th Avenue locals, if they go south and straight (Green over Green) would go to Bway Lafayette (and vice versa). 6th Avenue locals, if they go south and straight go right to Spring St. But that made the system way too complicated so that was stopped in the early 50s.
a bottom green at west 4th st local track (lower level) is to Coney Island via the F(culver). bottom yellow brings to to Chambers st WTC or bottom yellow at Canal st A1 track to Brooklyn via the Cranberry st tube (A).
upstairs A1 track local bottom yellow brings you downstairs to the F(culver to Coney Island) bway lafayette. bottom green keeps you on A1 track to WTC or Brooklyn via A or crossover north of Jay st to the F.
a bottom green at west 4th st local track (lower level) is to Coney Island via the F(culver). bottom yellow brings to to Chambers st WTC or bottom yellow at Canal st A1 track to Brooklyn via the Cranberry st tube (A).
upstairs A1 track local bottom yellow brings you downstairs to the F(culver to Coney Island) bway lafayette. bottom green keeps you on A1 track to WTC or Brooklyn via A or crossover south of Canal st.
The route roller curtain in my sign box has 6th Ave. and 6th Ave./Houston designations for the D and F routes. The side route roller curtains on Shoreline's R-9 1689 also have them, as well as 8th Ave. and 8th Ave./Houston for the E. I believe the bulkhead route signs on 1689 also have the Houston St. designations for the D, E, and F; mine does not.
BTW, when I have my sign box set up for the D, as it is now, I bring up the D-6th Ave. Express route sign - it just looks nice and uncluttered, plus I like it that way.
Question about your 1948 map--didn't F trains run to Church Avenue and D trains to Chambers?
Church Avenue had A, C, F, D, and then F service again over the years (with GGs for a while, too), but D trains weren't there until the Culver connection opened (in fact, I had to tell the motorman who was posing for the newspaper pictures to change the head-end sign to 'D'; he did and that picture appeared in the papers even though it wasn't the first train).
When I was a kid, my mother used to take me on the McDonald-Vanderbilt trolley from Avenue P to Church Avenue and we'd take the F, so far as I remember, to its terminal at 169th Street and then take a bus to visit my aunt in St. Alban's. I don't recall changing trains which is why I mention it here. I could be wrong.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
That's true. I've never heard of the F terminating at Hudson terminal.
But you did leave out the E going to Church Av. in 1936 when the first segment of Fulton St opened and the A was moved there.
"That's true. I've never heard of the F terminating at Hudson terminal. But you did leave out the E going to Church Av. in 1936 when the first segment of Fulton St opened and the A was moved there."
You're right. I ride corrected. I did forget it. 8-)
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
My 1948 Hagstrom's IND map shows D service as being between 205th St. and Church Ave.
You have to take all of this with a grain of salt. That same map also shows the HH as operating between Broadway-East New York and Court St. Court St. was already closed by then, even though it still appeared on that map. The HH of that era ran as a shuttle between Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Court St; it never operated along Fulton St.
The grain of salt is right--I have a Hagstrom's map from 1940 that shows 14th Street as an express stop on Sixth Avenue and 23rd as local, even though it was after the Chrystie connection opened that express tracks were finished on Sixth Avenue (and both 14th and 23rd are local, as you know). On the BMT Broadway, 57th is shown as express, with 49th as local, but in 1940, expresses did not operate between Times Square and 57th Street on the express tracks. The 53rd Street station at 7th Avenue is shown as express while the two stops east on 53rd in Manhattan and Vernon-Jackson in Queens are shown as local stops.
The Sixth Avenue El is not on the map and the Queens-Midtown tunnel is noted as "Open 1940." And the map is called "New York City," even though it only has Manhattan, a fair portion of The Bronx and slivers of Queens and Booklyn.
Does anyone remember riding a pre-Culver connection D to Church Avenue? No one discussing it seems to recall that.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
And speaking of station markings:
My 1948 Hagstrom's IND map shows all express stations beyond Continental Ave. on the Queens line; there is a footnote beneath the train routes which states: "F trains do not stop at Sutphin Blvd., Van Wyck Blvd., and 75th-Puritan Ave." It also shows all stations between Broadway-East New York and Euclid Ave. as express stops as well - presumably because only A trains ran beyond East New York and made all stops.
I agree. The "F" ran express to 179st btween Continental and 179 runsh hours. The "A" I believe ran express in Brooklymn, after Jay st. and the "E" ran local to Euclid and some Rockaway Pk.
Weekends and nights the F ran to 34/6th.
Mid day until Chrystie St construction began, Second Ave was the F terminal. It was cut back to Broadway Laffayette during construction.
During the Rush hours the BB ran from 168th Wahsington Heights to 34/6, the CC from Bedford Pk to Hudson Terminal. The E ran to Brooklyn and Rockaways (sometimes local sometimes Express - the A did the opposite).
During the non rush the AA was from 168th to HT.
Thanks for all the information. I only really wanted to know if the express tracks were physically connected but that's what I like about this site. You really get value'w worth when you ask a question.
Thanks again and take care.
If you have not checked them out, the tracks map section of this site is exhaustive. There are different maps pre- and post-Chrystie.
On my trip to New York this week, I used my 7-day MetroCard 18 times from Wednesday evening through this afternoon (such a deal!). The last trip was the [N] to M-60 to LaGuardia to catch my Shuttle back to Boston. When we stopped at LaGuardia, a tourist got on the bus (with subway map in hand) and presented a dollar bill to the driver. The driver told him that buses didn't accept bills; to get change from a passenger.
Realizing I had no more use for my MC, in a spontaneous Random Act of Kindness, I reached into my pocket, pulled out my MC, and gave it to him. I told him it was good until Tuesday night for unlimited use on buses and subways. The driver told him to go ahead and dip. I told him, "Welcome to New York City," and got off the bus. I hope this was within the rules...
Why not? The brochure says you can let someone else use when you are not.
Todd, Your act of kindness sounds "reasonable" to me, particularly given the circumstances, but the cops in the subway might have nabbed you, so it's good you were on a bus. It certainly seems to be more of the courteous/compassionate thing to do then swiping someone in as you leave, i.e. "Chris" or selling it. After all this isn't Paris !
P.S. The TA hand out does say "... you can lend it to others when you're not using it."
Disclaimer: I don't work for the TA or CBS
Mr t__:^)
Thank you Mr. T for the response. When I gave the card to the visitor, I was worried that I was not past the 18-minute "passback" time. But just after we transferred to the M-60 from the [N] at Astoria Blvd, we hit a traffic jam on the GCP service road. So what is normally a 15 or less minute ride to LGA took about 20 minutes!
Incidently during my Wed nite to Sat PM "week" use of the 7-day MetroCard, there was an instance where I had to wait at a station for the 18-minute period to lapse. It was when I got on the [Q] at 34th for a ride down to W. 4th (2 min, 10 sec :-), then got out to pick up something at a store on 6th Ave. Re-entering the subway I had to wait five minutes for the 'just used' message to disappear. Does anyone know when the software update will be in place to have the passback feature work only at the originally used station?
>>The TA hand out does say "... you can lend it to others when you're not using it."<<
One question, are you "using" it while on the bus?? Now you are on the bus and the tourist is on the bus on the same metro card?
Not that I have a problem with what you did. I wish someone was a kind. The bus didn't show up until 12:05 and was supposed to be there at 11:40 (posted) so I had to pay cash since my metrocard expired.
I know I may have asked this question before, but it escapes me -
When the R16s were delivered in 1955, did they have red leatherette
seats or were they always that grey poly material? I seem to think
they had red seats as originally delivered, and over time, the red
seats were either destroyed by vandals or went elsewhere (R6, R7,
R9, R10 etc.)
Also - ORIGINAL interior paint was blue, like they have in #6387.
(someone PLEASE re-prime & paint that interior ceiling!)
Thanks for any light you can shed on this.
Wayne
The PROFESSOR has the answer;
All R16 cars were delivered with the red pleather seats and kept them until all cars with that type had them replaced by the fiberglass model. 6387 has the WRONG color scheme, and I told this to M.H. my mentor while the work was being done in 89'. alas he said the paint was what the TA had in stock. The true color I discovered while sanding through the layers of grime is a grey wall with french blue doors.
If you wish to reach the next level grasshopper visit Kingston where
6398 is resplendent in the true colors, not that mud brown either.
RRRRRR 1 666666
R R 1 6
RRRRRR 1 666666 FOREVER!
R R 1 6 6
R R 1 666666
I don't remember the paint, but the seats were delivered with foam rubber cushions.
The R-16's original interior paint was featured with grey wall panels, dark blue doors, and a white ceiling. They also had original red leather seating not only for these cars but also on the subsequent R-17 cars for the IRT. Contrary to some belief, the original IRT R-15 type seating was a beige or tan leather design, which means that museum car #6239 is sporting the wrong color of red.
>William
New York Subway Cars features a photo of an R-16 with its original interior.
Has anyone noticed that the Van Wyck station on the E/F line is now being referred to as Briarwood on the new maps to avoid confusion with the Jamaica-Van Wyck station. I know of 2 other similar situations where this confusing situation has not been addressed.
7th Ave Station on the D line (one in Brooklyn and one in Manhattan.
36th St. Station on the R line (One in Brooklyn and one in Queens).
Can anyone find any others? Any suggestions for new station names?
Leave Van Wyck Blvd. ALONE (does anybody want to tear the tablets off the wall or cover them up with hideous metal signs?) and change
Jamaica-Van Wyck to "89th Ave-Jamaica Hospital".
36th St Brooklyn used to have an appendage "Bush Terminal". Might
not be bad idea to reactivate it.
Can't think of any other "same name, same line" stations but can
think of numerous "same name, different borough" situations such as
111th St., Prospect Ave., Fulton Street etc.
Wayne
How about just rename 7th Ave in Manhattan to 7th Avenue-53rd Street. It's would be similar to 155th Street & 155th Street-8th Avenue. I agree with Wayne Whitemore about the Jamaica-Van Wyck Station.
In Queens I would say rename 36th Street station - to 36th Street-Long Island City/ I would fall in place with other stop along the line like, Grand Ave-Newtown and 63rd Drive-Rego Park.
Neighborhood names are informative, but controversial. When I was geocoding the boundaries of all the little Main Streets in the city and was assigning them names (the purpose was to code economic data at the local level, another project that died at the finish line), I was cautioned to avoid neighborhood names to avoid controversy. While there are three Italians left in Little Italy, better not call it Chinatown or just the Lower East Side for example. Neighborhood names become markers for ethnic and economic (ie. gentrification) change. Out in Queens they are trying to change the name of a street from Jamaica Avenue to its Nassau County equivalent to raise property values by disassociating the street from you-know-who. In my own neighborhood, someone actually wrote into the local paper and indignently said that they misidentified Windsor Terrace by including the area where I live, rather than just the area south of Seely St. That definition would exclude the intersection of Windsor and Terrace.
[Neighborhood names are informative, but controversial ... While there are three Italians left in Little Italy, better not call it Chinatown or just the Lower East Side for example. Neighborhood names become markers for ethnic and economic (ie. gentrification) change].
A good example of a gentrification-related change (just recently discussed on nyc.transit) involves Hell's Kitchen. Real estate interests have been trying for some years now to rename the area "Clinton" - no chuckles, please :-) They apparently think that Hell's Kitchen is too downscale a name for an up-and-coming neighborhood. But most people in the area take pride in the Hell's Kitchen name and have been resisting the change. And don't forget that the real estate interests who are shilling for Clinton are the same ones who brought us such gems as "dollhouse" and "handyman's special"!
By the way, the latest subway map sidesteps the controversy and simply calls the neighborhood "West Side."
I think NYCT should continue naming station without the neighborhood name. A case like the Van Wyck Blvd & Jamaica-Van Wyck is a good exception to lessen confusion. Neighborhood names do help, I like the way it's done now with some stations having neighborhood names. I believe that if all or most stations names included the neighborhood - it would cause much confusion, especially since many neighborhoods have more than one station.
[I think NYCT should continue naming station without the neighborhood name. A case like the Van Wyck Blvd & Jamaica-Van Wyck is a good exception to lessen confusion. Neighborhood names do help, I like the way it's done now with some stations having neighborhood names. I
believe that if all or most stations names included the neighborhood - it would cause much confusion, especially since many neighborhoods have more than one station.]
Jamaica-Van Wyck is confusing in another way. When there are LIRR delays at Penn Station, people sometimes take the E to the LIRR's Jamaica station. And some of them get off the E at Jamaica-Van Wyck, not realizing that they should have gone to Sutphin Boulevard :-)
I still don't know what my neighborhood name is. D/Q at Kings Highway. Some say it is Midwood but some say Homecrest. I pick up my mail from the Homecrest post office but that is at Ave U and E.23rd 10 blocks and 4 aveunes over.
But the letter carrier isn't even dispatched from that office, it is all relay mail...
In at least one instance, the current subway map is a bit shaky with neighborhood names - it has Queens Village in Nassau County :-)
I hate to say this and start a whole other controversy but according to the map, a portion of Queens Village IS in Nassau County. I fought a traffic ticket in 1975 using that very argument (NYPD out of it's jurisdiction). It almost worked - damn legal technicallies.
That's the place I was telling you about. The north side of the street is called Jamaica Avenue and is in Queens. The south side is called Jehrico Turnpike and is in Nassau. It goes like that for blocks and blocks. Now the property owners on the north side want to change their name to Jehrico Turnpike, to diassociate themselves with Queens in general and Jamaica in particular. They even had the City Planning Dept. search old maps to see if the whole thing was origninally call Jehrico Tpke. I think we found that the whole thing was called Jamaica Ave far out into Nassau years ago.
The neighborhood you are referring to is not Queens Village, rather,
it is known as Bellerose. There is a Bellerose (Village), in
Nassau County, on the south side of Jamaica Avenue/Jericho Turnpike
then there is Bellerose Terrace (unincorporated), which straddles
the Cross Island Parkway, between the City line and Bellerose Village,
then there is Bellerose, Queens, which is east of Queens Village and
north of Jamaica Avenue/Jericho Turnpike. I believe that the
dividing line between Bellerose and Queens Village is either the
Cross Island Parkway or, maybe, 222nd Street, NORTH of Jamaica/Jericho. Queens Village, however is situated wholly in Queens County. I know- I lived in the area between 1976 and 1984. There is also Floral Park (village, Nassau County) AND Floral Park, Queens. 262nd Street, Hillside Avenue and Little Neck Parkway were my home streets...
The portion of Jamaica Avenue has a split personality between 225th
Street and 257th Street. North side: Jamaica Avenue. South Side:
Jericho Turnpike.
Wayne, a transplanted Queens native.
People who live on the Nassau side in the Bellerose/Floral Park area may want to "disassociate themselves" from Queens *most* of the time ... except when they have to pay their taxes :-)
The neighborhood on the northside of Jamaica Avenue/Jericho Turnpike is predominantly white (Jamaica Ave.), while the south side of the roadway is predominantly non-white. Word is, the "southsiders" (for lack of a better term) feel that the "northsider's" street name change request is racially-motivated in nature, that the "northsiders" want to be associated with the predominantly white Nassau County [area] that is nearby.
(Street name change -- whites want to be disassocaited from non-whites) That's certainly the assumption made by cynical bureaucrats, though those pushing the change deny it. That's especially the assumption made about Queens, the borough with its back up.
[(Street name change -- whites want to be disassocaited from non-whites) That's certainly the assumption made by cynical bureaucrats, though those pushing the change deny it. That's
especially the assumption made about Queens, the borough with its back up.]
Assumption made about Queens? What do you mean by that?
And why does Queens have "its back up"?
I don't know why Queens has its back up. But my experience in having to make presentations around the city is the Queens is the place where those involved in the process are most fearful about the future, and think things are going to hell. Actually, with the diversity it has achieved Queens has become, perhaps for the first time, a very special place. But the people I have to deal with aren't happy about that.
[I don't know why Queens has its back up. But my experience in having to make presentations around the city is the Queens is the place where those involved in the process are most fearful about the future, and think things are going to hell. Actually, with the diversity it has achieved Queens has become, perhaps for the first time, a very special place. But the people I have to deal with aren't happy about that.]
Doesn't surprise me. Some people are naturally fearful of change, and it does seem like Queens - thanks to the diversity you note - has been going through a lot.
Jamaica-Van Wyck is confusing in another way. When there are LIRR delays at Penn Station, people
sometimes take the E to the LIRR's Jamaica station. And some of them get off the E at Jamaica-Van Wyck, not
realizing that they should have gone to Sutphin Boulevard :-)
Yes, that's definitely true.
Then there's Castle Clinton in Battery Park, which was once the New York Aquarium. With all the hoopla surrounding Mr. Bill, have there been any references to it?
Speaking of station names, there's West 4th St., which supposedly was named as such to distinguish it from South 4th St. Since the latter was never built, this is now a moot point, but West 4th St. stuck.
[Speaking of station names, there's West 4th St., which supposedly was named as such to distinguish it from South 4th St. Since the latter was never built, this is now a moot point, but West 4th St. stuck.]
West 4th Street's name recently was discussed on nyc.transit. While it seems odd now, at some time in the past there were entrances on West 4th Street.
How about just rename 7th Ave in Manhattan to 7th Avenue-53rd Street. It's would be similar to 155th Street & 155th Street-8th Avenue. I agree with Wayne Whitemore about the Jamaica-Van Wyck Station.
In Queens I would say, rename 36th Street station - to 36th Street-Long Island City/ It would fall in place with other stops along the line like, Grand Ave-Newtown and 63rd Drive-Rego Park.
The next station at 5th ave is already signed as Fifth Avenue/53rd Street.
The July map gives the spiel about the unlimited cards.
Oddly, I can't see what, beyond the unlimited metrocard and E,F service change boxes, was changed on the July map. Beverley Rd is still misspelled, there is still not much clarity in the destination and routes of the intersecting bus routes that have been marked, and it's still a jumbled mess that doesn't show all the bus connections, as the old strip map on the reverse had done.
-Hank
How about punctuating the 57th St. station on the BMT with 57th St.-Carnegie Hall? The hall was already there when that line was built, and is easily the most famous concert hall in the country. I'm surprised this was never done.
I am doing a photo essay on the subway stations of NYC. I have seen about 60% of the all of the stations but would like input from others. I am looking for stations that still have the old charm..i.e. lighting, old fixtures, short platforms, etc. My favorite is 168 on the 1/9....if you have any suggestions please let me know...ONLY working stations please don't say City Hall!
Thanks.
I have always been kind of partial to Gun Hill Rd on the Dyre Av Line (even after the rebuilding).
149th St-Grand Concourse (lower level) is also a good one. That station still has an uncovered "MOTT AVENUE" station tablet in the middle of the downtown platform.
Hey Allan - go one stop further down the line to 138th Street and
you have an icon on the tile band that says "MH".
Bet you know what that stands for! (I think I do) Now if they'd solve the riddle by removing the metal signs from the tablets....
Also- like that Mission-style station house at Morris-Park, plus
the half-in/half-out station architecture...Hey did you see what they
did at Third Ave-149th Street? What have they done with my lovely cartouches??? They have BURIED THEM! Booo! Hisss!! Shame Shame Shame!
Wayne
AESTHETICS IS EVERYTHING!
Wayne,
MH stands for Mott Haven. That street once was know as Mott Haven Avenue.
I agree - what they did to 3rd Av-149th was a crime.
Ah, my hunch was correct! Now comes the 'fine point' what's under
the metal sign - is it "Mott Haven" or "Mott Haven Ave"?
Someone (a month or so ago) said he had an old map that simply read
"Mott Haven". I always thought "Mott Haven" because that is the
name of the neighborhood. Maybe I should go to the map room and find
a period map...
I think an appropriate name for the station should be
"138th Street - Mott Haven". This way, it would jibe with what's up
on the wall. I have a half-dozen or so good photos of the "MH"s
I hope those wiseacres leave the Mott Avenue station alone.
*(I NEVER call it 149th St-Grand Concourse!)
All it needs is a good sandblasting, since it is all marble tile and
Norman brick. I love those doodads they have there - don't know what they represent but they sure are nice. All this dates from 1905 too.
Do you know why and when they closed the pedestrian overpass at Mott's
west end? I was hoping to photograph #5s there as they round the
jughandle. Maybe they will reopen it one day...
I'm a student of subway aesthetics, as always...
Wayne
I went on the Dyre tour with the musuem. The overpass was closed for two reasons:
1- Safety due to low railings--someone might drop something onto a train or jump/fall.
2-The overpass led to old double decker elevators(access at platform and overpass level .) that led to a mezzanine above the 4 woodlawn now closed.
(Source; Joe Cunningham)
For a view of the merge go to the extreme downtown end of the downtown 2/5 platform and look into the tunnel--you'll se all four tracks.
I checked a copy of a 1927 IRT Map and the station was known as
138th St - Mott Avenue. Mott Haven would be the name of the neighborhood. I always confuse the two.
Yes, I have also been to the Map Room. The IRT map for the 1920-1940
period shows the name as '138th Street-Grand Concourse'.
I wonder when they made the change...Anyway, a nice shade of aqua
with peach, pecan, and tan accents; terra-cotta brown border and little mustard-yellow diamonds on a blue background. It is just about the same design as 5th Avenue-59th Street (N/R line), with respect to the placement of the geometrics, but with different colors. There are a few of them that have gotten ratty, but most of them are in pretty
good shape. Two sections of frieze on the uptown side need to be
patched big time. Time to sharpen my nippers.
Wayne
Right now, my current fave is a flat-out tie:
Wilson Avenue (L) and Montrose Avenue (L).
For old-time charm in an Elevated station, you're on the right line:
Sutter Avenue (L), hands down. Atlantic (L) is a close second.
As you can see from the above, I'm kind of partial to the
Olde Canarsie Line.
Wayne
[(:-) "L" is My Middle Name]
[Right now, my current fave is a flat-out tie:
Wilson Avenue (L) and Montrose Avenue (L).]
Wilson is certainly among the most unusual stations, what with its unique bilevel structure.
And what tiles!!! No less than 28 colours in the "frieze" (tile band);
several others in the tablets and directional signs.
Squire J. Vickers at his Very Best.
Wayne
My favorite will always be Dykman St on the #1. Back when there was no AC, the windows would be open and the noise of the subway would bounce off the wall and pound your ears -- until Dykman when the train would go outside and the noise wouldn't be echoed back. It was like an assualt had ended. Plus, there was often a breeze. I guess I can't say that the subways aren't better after remembering that time.
If you want to have your ears assaulted, try riding the subway portions of the Red or Blue lines in Chicago. It's like being in a giant echo chamber with a million-watt power amplifier boosting the noise to intolerable levels. Those trains easily do 55-60 mph in those tunnels.
Please tell me why Montrose Ave.? I live in Williamsburg to I have been to that station...but give my your insight maybe I am missing something!!!!!!!!
Susan
You apparently do not appreciate the great tilework associated with the stations of the Canarsie Line. It's more than slant 40's that turn on Wayne
Dear Marty;
I see you could comment about others but never said which one you like? I asked about Montrose avenue because I am doing Black and White photo's and tiles will not reproduce well...hence Why Montrose Avenue????? I am looking for the charm in stations not the mosaic work as I am not taking close-up photo's of the tiles!
The charm of this station IS the mosaic work!
Otherwise, Wilson Avenue (a tie) would be #1. It certainly is
unusual, with that upstairs/downstairs configuration and
cemetery view.
God Bless Mr. Vickers.
Wayne
Susan
I'm afraid my experiences go back too far to be of practical interest to you. It's been over 45 years since I've been a subway commuter. I liked the Union Square Station for it's long and complicated passageways, but that was before the terror years of the late 70 and early 80s. Broadway and Myrtle was a fun place to begin a trip on the first train that came along and turn into an above ground round trip excursion(not old enough to have experienced Park Row or the Fulton El but I did make the Lexington Brooklyn) . If it was a west bound Broadway or Myrtle/Chambers, it was off at Essex and on to a Wilson trolley to come back across Brooklyn to Rockaway Parkway to the Canarsie to the Junction and back to Myrtle.
I think I just saw a post about the Rockaway Parkway Bus Gate. Sad to say I saw that on this Spring's Nostalgia trip. That had to be a big favorite station of mine also, and I bet your black and whites of the long gone trolley loop would be winners.
Hey Wayne
Trying to stay on the same thread.
I'd love to take that trip with you but Location,Location,Location puts me about three hours outside your time frame.
I swear I'm going to sneak away for a 4 hour hotdog break at the US Open though ;-) Marty
The tiles. Simply the tiles. You have to see it for yourself to
appreciate it. May I suggest, visit the "Line-By-Line" section,
and take a ride on the Canarsie Line. There is a link to a page:
"view the Canarsie Line mosaics" - each station is represented by
a set of photos: one frieze (tile band), one tablet (if present),
and one entrance tile band (if present). Nothing comes close to
Montrose. I also like the station's layout and the tall ceiling
at the north end. Personal preference only.
Wayne L Whitehorne
Wayne (Mr. Canarsie Line) is right on the money. I have and still pass thru all BMT-IND stations on various occassions in my duties as a TA motorman (X-A line hate R44's) Montrose Ave. has the cleanest, shiniest, least cracked mosaic tiles I have seen in all stations. Their tint of blue allows them to stand out. See Susan, the answer is right in your own backyard!
Not to mention the roses, the yellows, the whites...
AND the background of raspberry, mauve (greyed lavender) and black.
This is porcelain tile, folks.
ONE LITTLE SECTION (56 tile bits) is missing from the first "O"
on the tablet between the stairways on the city bound side. I have
a patch designed for this little gap...tile imported from Italy in crimson, ultramarine blue, jet black and white.
Wayne
My Favorite Station is Coney Island is not because of the old lighting cause it was the first big terminal in New York city.
Broadway-Myrtle on the J-M-Z, with the curving ramp up to the Myrtle Ave. Line and the three-track Broadway Line.
It was even better prior to 1970, when the old wooden Q-cars used to travel overhead to and from Jay St. on the now-demolished portion of the Myrtle Ave. EL.
Bob
I swear I answered before reading your reply
I am kinda partial to the Brighton Line Beverly Road station as rebuilt. Hi over a four track open cut with big picture window.
I also like the "old" style feel of Ave J or H, like a little old train station out west somewhere (if you ignore the apartment buildings).
As for my favorite REBUILT station - that would have to be
Utica Avenue on the IND "A" and "C" line, with its gorgeous murals
and appropriate use of the red color family - AND also (can't forget
the other divisions) - Church Avenue on the Nostrand IRT.
Wayne
Christopher St. on the 1/9. It has nice, traditional tile work. And the murals added to the walls provide a tribute to local community figures significant to the history of the West Village. Those who helped the poor, the founder of Gay Men's Health Crisis, etc. . . The diversity of people included in the mural says a lot about the overall diversity of NY.
If you've seen sixty percent of the stations you're way ahead of me, Susan; but I'll stand up for Borough Hall on the Lexington IRT, with its fine tilework and overhead catwalks. Some of my favorite details elsewhere: Chambers BMT entrance in the vaults of the Municipal Building; glazing at Bleecker St. (both the blue tiles and the white ones); and the amazing pipes in the belly of the beast--the staircase from the IRT plaforms to the bridge line BMT platform at Canal St.
If you want to include aerial views that don't always reveal reconstruction, then Stillwell Avenue/Coney Island, Eastern Parkway/Broadway Junction right through to Atlantic Avenue (East New York), and Queensborough Plaza. Despite reduction of the routes through the latter two, they would still look really great from the air.
Ninth Avenue/38th Street in Brooklyn still has a lot of its wonderful original complication, too.
And lots more!
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
Here's a couple:
South Ferry, with its trademark sharp curve and gap fillers, with ship mosaics.
59th St. - Columbus Circle on the IND. The only station with four tracks and three island platforms. I still remember when the center platform was used during rush hours; in fact, I have boarded trains from that platform on a few occasions.
Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts. - the station with a thousand different names owing to the fact that the outer platforms are used for movie scenes and the station signs are made up with different names.
Willets Point - Shea Stadium. As a Met fan, need I say more?
Speaking of mosaics, has anyone noticed that the images at Chambers Street BMT (and Brooklyn Bridge IRT?) are of some bridge other than the Brooklyn Bridge? Take a look next time you're there (while dodging the perpetual rainstorm).
(looking at photo of said BMT panel at S.end of southbound side
Chambers St.station)
Not too sure whether that IS the Brooklyn Bridge there, since it is
a side view with no angle. Perhaps, what it represents is merely
'BRIDGE' i.e. "there's a bridge here or near here...", since (I think)
many of these pictorials were meant to assist our immigrant population, many of whom had a limited command of the English language. This beautiful work dates from 1913. If somebody doesn't
DO SOMETHING SOON IT WILL BE LOST!! And I DON'T mean walling it up
(again) or covering it over. You are so right about that 'perpetual rainstorm'. Northbound platform also requires protective headgear to dodge falling chunks of what's left of the ceiling. Even the mezzanine ceiling (north end) is porous. WHAT A MESS! Call the plumbers!
Wayne
Wayne
According to Mr Stookey thats the Manhattan Tower of the Brooklyn Bridge wiyh an artists goof on the cables.
"The large squat, T-shaped plaques are each centered on a pink marble pilaster. They show the Manhattan pier of the Brooklyn Bridge, but wiyhout any of the cables sweeping gracefully as rhey do on the bridge, away from the tower. The bridge is silhouetted against billowing clouds, with small boats and the Statue of Liberty beyond.".
The drawings were completed by Heins and LaFarge in May, 1907.
The relief is less heavy than in the those at Wall St and in consistent with work designed under Vickers.
Mr Stookey points out that it is a bridge between the eras.
Gee e
> According to Mr Stookey
That's "Ms." Stookey to you...
-Dave
My sincere apologies to Ms.Lee Stookey
HALSEY ST., J LINE IN BROOKLYN. OR MARCY AVE.
Many people here ride the B, D and Q I bet. I rode this line on Friday. A D R-68. On the section of track between 7AVE and Prospect Park seems to be bad. I caused the car to sway a couple inches for the whole trip. Seem like the trains was going to fall off the tracks.
Is this caused by the train(bad wheels)? or bad track like I suspected? It would be fun if it was on the El.
That stretch has been that way back the D types running on the #1 Brighton Express. Isn't it great!
Does anyone know exactly how the underwater subway tunnels were built? From what I know, a trench was dug at the bottom of the river for the entire length of the underwater run, with pre-fabricated concrete tubes lowered into the trenches. If so, how difficult was it to dig these trenches? I have not found much documentation on how this construction technique was developed and implemented.
Umm....I think stuff for Bostons Big Dig (tm) is done this way, and maybe the 63rd street (??) tunnel was, but most early tunnels were, well, tunneled.
They were dug out by hand and whatever crude machines they had. Yes this is dangerous.
Yes people got killed. Yes, the story of a tunnel worker being shot out of the tunnel, through the mud, and into the air above the water, it true.
At least the exibit at the Museum said so..
I think it's kinda like dig, install tunnel ring, dig more, install another ring, etc.
That's about how it works. What makes it dangerous is that compressed air has to be used to keep the water out. If you struck a match, there would be an explosion, or an intense fire. If you hit a weak spot, there would be a blowout, which is exactly what happened to that fellow who got propelled straight up out of the Joralemon St. tunnel to the surface of the East River. If you exited the decompression chamber too soon after ending your shift, you'd get the bends.
Fires would be more intense, but a match would not cause an explosion. I wonder if in modern times, they use oxygen-lean compressed air to prevent accelerating burning too much....
A section of Washington DC's Metro Green Line, between Navy Yard and
Anacostia Stations, which goes under the Anacostia River was done
this way. The sections, all eight of them, were brought in by barge
and sunk into a huge trench in the river bottom. I think they used
dredging barges to create the trench.
Wayne
Sinking prefabricated tunnel sections was also the technique used for BART's transbay tube.
How are the prefab sections joined together if they are already underwater???? And how do they link the underwater tunnel to the underland portion? Seems like it must be tricky!
The prefab sections have an inner and outer "skin" which is filled in with concrete after the section is aligned and ready to be sunk in place. Once that is done, divers align each section by guiding an alignment pin on the end of the section being sunk into a mating hole on the adjacent section already in place. It's a touch-and-feel operation, since the divers can't see what they're doing.
I have a copy of National Geographic from 1964 which has an article on construction of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel; the tunnels were built using this method, which is described in detail.
The Harlem River tunnels, as well as the 63rd St. tunnel were built by the sunken-tube method. The other East River tunnels were built by using the shield method.
Wait- which Harlem River tunnel was built after 1964?????
None of them. The only tunnel built since 1964 is the 63rd St. tunnel, and it has sunken, prefabricated tubes.
The trench for sunken tube tunnels (like 63 ST ) are drilled, blasted and dredged from the surface. Divers are used to set charges,survey and guide the tubes into place. As tunnelling goes, this is the safest type.
You are obviously a management type because a "hands on " guy would not have disputed my information, and you must be new because an old timer would have known better. If you wish to learn the truth then sign up for the professor's advanced course on ferroequineology.
Tuition; $499 per semester. unless you are on the the 13 floor, in which case you couldent learn any thing, you know it all alraedy.
I have a troubling feeling that the Professor is none other than a bored of trustee member at the Shoreline trolley museum at Bradford! For a picture of the professor please go http://www.bera.org and click on to the special events page. The big headed idiot with the stupid face and hardhat under the streetcar, is known as Jeff Hakner the professor! You see with a little detective work all is uncovered, especially since the one who maintains the web page is none other that the professor Jeff Hakner!
East Coaster, once again, please mind the gap between your
world and reality. I am not "The Professor".
I say, been a while since you've graced these pages.
Now, why not be an upright chap and let us know
who you are. What have you to fear?
I cannot tell you Steve's credentials...but...
he's been posting here a lot longer than the PROFESSOR and I do not recall anyone catching a technical error from him. Also, he cites some sources.
This does not mean that we believe everything he posts and dismiss anything that contradicts what he says. It does mean that to me, the PROFESSOR has a little credibility gap right now...
Cite some hard facts in places that people can independently check and you will be a little more believable. The bathroom walls contain lots of facts supported by statements like "I know I was there..."
There was some discussion about building masonry bridges parallel to the Manhattan Bridge, which got me thinking--wouldn't it be great to see the inner lanes of the Brooklyn Bridge "recaptured" so they would once again carry rapid transit trains? I would think it would be possible to swing west from Flatbush Avenue Extension onto Myrtle Avenue and then north onto the Bridge. On the Manhattan end, it might be possible to duck under the IRT and connect into the lower level on the BMT Broadway route or simply have the tracks run at a lower level, with new platforms for Broadway expresses under the existing local platforms, connecting into the currently unused express tracks coming from the Manhattan Bridge. An alternative Manhattan routing would be into Nassau Street (a connection that was actually part of the pre-Dual Contracts options), with the old 'H' tracks from Chambers to the Manhattan Bridge reconnected to go directly into the lower-level Broadway/Canal express station. (In fact, doing this now could allow N trains to run up Nassau, avoiding the curves from Whitehall to Canal on the tunnel route, and finally becoming expresses in Manhattan once again with a minimum of construction.)
And while I'm dreaming, wouldn't it be nice to have a bus lane for the opposite direction on each of the one-way avenues? (I'd prefer a light rail track, but that's probably totally unrealistic.) The removal of of two-way bus service on all the avenues in Manhattan (and parts of Brooklyn, too) has meant extremely long walks, bad for older or disabled people all the time and terrible for everybody when the weather is bad--and all for the convenience of private automobiles.
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
There is no cheaper solution than a new bridge(s) if it can be built close to the water line.
But replacing the Manhattan with a low (ie. Harlem River) bridge would cut off big ships from the Navy Yard (inactive, but could be used someday), and even doing that for the Williamsbridge would cut off the Domino Sugar Plant, which still takes boats. Moreover, property would have to be taken for the approaches, and other property would be devalued by those approaches. For vehicles, a low bridge could connect the FDR directly to the BQE without the long expanse over land that the bridges have now. But the subway would either have to continue elevated until the land rises or slope down underground. Either way, you'd have new elevated trains.
Besides, deciphering some of the engineering postings as best I can, it seems that there are operational advantages of a tunnel. The trains do not have enough power to get up steep bridge or tunnel grades with any speed. In tunnels, they can speed down under the river and then slow up naturually on the upgrade as they approach the switches and stations on the other side. On bridges, the trains crawl up the grade to the center, then brake down the grade to avoid going too fast into DeKalb.
Drawbridge? I know this would cause delays when what ships that pass
through DO pass through...but might this be one way out?
I DO NOT relish, however, the thought of sitting in a hot "N" train
waiting for a sugar boat to pass through.... JUST ANOTHER IDEA...
Wayne
Funny you should mention drawbridges:
1) State DOT is planning to spend big bucks to replace the drawbridges on the Belt Parkway with high spans to stop the disruption. Meanwhile
2) The only way to develop Governor's Island is to build a bridge to Brooklyn, not so much for passengers (who can use a ferry) but for supplies and emergency access. But no one is willing to give up Buttermilk Channel. The only solution -- a drawbridge.
3) With benefit of hindsight, perhaps it was not an efficient use of resources to have the F train rise hundreds of feet in the air in order to leave room for ships with high masts to sail into the Gowanus Canal. If they had built a low drawbridge -- high enough for barges to pass under -- it would never have had to be opened.
4) Is the Broadway Bridge (that carries the #1) a drawbridge?
Technical as it is, it is a liftbridge that is capable of disrupting train, car and pedestrian traffic.
Drawbridges? On the Belt? I only know of 1, at Mill Basin. I think I've seen it open all of twice in 23 years. No doubt, it has opened more. I remember a few years ago, it was opened in so overly hot weather, and it stayed open for several hours.
And a drawbridge from Brooklyn isn't totally essential to GI, but it would certainly make it easier. Another ferry from Brooklyn would be better, with a large parking lot.
And the height of Smith-9th on the IND has nothing to do with masts. Sailing ships can't get into that canal, it's much too narrow. It's always been a barge canal. The height is necessitated by the need for the (now lift) bridge below it. Originally a bascule-type, it has been replaced with a lift span, the top of its towers reaching just under the IND. For the life of me, I can't figure out why its got to be so high.
-Hank
The height of bridges and the necessity of building lift, draw bridges, etc., is under the control of the Army Corp. of Engineers, which must approve any bridge over navigable waters.
Since the entire East/Harlem River infrastructure is built with significant clearance, it seems to me that permitting a low or non-opening bridge is false economy, much like permitting a low highway overpass because the most common traffic doesn't need the extra space.
--mhg
I was refering only to the Gowanus Canal. There are several 90 degree bends in the canal, and they really preclude anything larger than a tug with a barge from operating there.
-Hank
Smith-9th might be higher than it really needs to be, but consider the benefits - it offers terrific views!
Mill Basin is used a lot. The 4 boat fishing fleet on Flatbush Ave near the Toy's R Us goes out in the wee hours and returns in the wee'r hours. There used to be more Sail Boats at the Marina near Kings Plaza, most have turned into power boats but the sail boats need the clearance.
Draw bridges need to be opened for maintenance as well to get the grease moved over the gears. One draw bridge that drives me crazy is the Atlantic Highlands, going to Sandy Hook.
Lou wrote:
>Draw bridges need to be opened for maintenance as well to get the grease moved over the gears. One draw bridge that drives me crazy is the Atlantic Highlands, going to Sandy Hook.
*Whoah* gettin close to home...
I don't like the open on demand bridges which is what that bridge and its counterpart on 520 (Rumson <-> Sea Bright) seem to be. Most Monmouth County drawbridges appear to be on demand. The Oceanic bridge over the Navesink works well that way.. since there is far less boat traffic than the Highlands bridge. The problem with on demand in Highlands is that the bridge blocks sailboats from many marinas and private docks in Navesink, Red Bank, Fair Haven, Rumson, Little Silver, Oceanport, Monmouth Beach, and Sea Bright (basically everything along the Navesink and Shewsbury rivers).
Any boats from these communities need to pass through the Highlands bridge to get to the Sandy Hook Bay. Throw in some awful shore traffic (The reason why I *NEVER* take 36 on summer weekend days) and you have very upset drivers backed up through Highlands, Sea Bright, and Sandy Hook.
On the flip side, The Morgan drawbridge on 35 by Cheesequake is predictable and opens every 30 minutes (causing up to 15-20 minute delays). If I need to go north, I usually take 35 unless I know I'll hit the bridge and then I'd take the Parkway.
Just how many draw bridges are there on NJ35? I know of the Victory Bridge, and then there's another smaller bridge a few miles south (I can't remember the town, it's been a few years since I was driving the milk truck)
-Hank
[Just how many draw bridges are there on NJ35? I know of the Victory Bridge, and then there's another smaller bridge a few miles south (I can't remember the town, it's been a few years since I was driving the milk truck)
-Hank ]
There are 4 (5 in the past) bridges on NJ35
Victory Bridge (Amboys, Middlesex County across the Raritan River - I'm not sure of the name, but it spins to become perpendicular with the roadway type)
Morgan Bridge (Old Bridge, Middlesex County - Bascule)
Keyport (Aberdeen/Keyport, Monmouth County - Bascule since replaced with two fixed structures many years ago)
Belmar (Belmar, Monmouth County - Bascule)
Brielle (Brielle, Monmouth County - Bascule)
There are so many drawbridges around here that I can barely think of where they all are!
Until about five years ago there was a draw bridge on Interstate 95 at the Bronx-Westchester line. Fortunately (given the traffic jams that invariably resulted), it didn't open too often, serving occasional barges on the waterway below.
The draw (lift and swing)bridges on the East and Harlem rivers require something like 24hr to 3 day notice to have them opened. All except the one Amtrak uses .
That bridge is kept open, and is only closed for trains. It's also the only bridge that MUST be opened for any marine traffic, because it has the least clearance (5-10'?)
-Hank
Whilt the IND bridge over the Gowanus Canal certainly seems to rise hundreds of feet, and I take it you're referring to the approach south of Carroll St., I don't believe it clears the canal by even 100 feet. The tracks at Smith-9th are 87 feet above the street. Still, that qualifies as the highest point in the entire subway system.
[The tracks at Smith-9th are 87 feet above the street. Still, that qualifies as the highest point in the entire subway system.]
Interesting trivia matter - Smith-9th is the highest point in terms of elevation above the street/water below. But if you consider elevation above sea level, some of the stations along the 2 line in the Bronx probably are higher.
The reason for building the Gowanus Canal IND bridge was because the ground was too swampy for subway construction, due to the canal. The IND was deliberately built completely underground with the exception of the 2 station stretch along 9th Street in Brooklyn. Once the deciision was made to build an elevated structure, remember that it had to be high enough to clear everything in its path.
The Broadway Bridge on the #1/9 line is a drawbridge, but I don't think it opens very often.
Another drawbridge, although it is now permanently in a fixed position, is on the #7 Line between Shea Stadium and Main Street.
If you want to see a really active drawbridge, see the LIRR structure over Reynolds Channel between Island Park and Long Beach.
Does anybody know if there are guidelines for the use of the entry gates on the subway? When I enter with my child in his stroller they are usually locked and you have to flag the clerk, but at other times they are left open. Are there rules and regulations about these gates that must be followed? How can I get a copy of the manual?
The TA, mngt, is moving to "locked gates" all the time as a way to deter theft of service, i.e. folks opening the gate and walking in while the agent yells at them & the cop is no where to be seen. They have also been installing a lot of iron around the entrance to make it harder to "jump" in. Maybe it is related to their plan to let the agent come out of his/her box and provide "service" to the riding public ... nah these two things couldn't be related.
Mr t__:^)
(This is based on official instructions from Management)
The gates must be locked. To use the gate you wait in line and ask the Agent to open the gate. The agent watches you pay the fare and **turn the turnstile( Wheel in transit talk)** then the gate will be unlocked and you can walk through. To exit oush the button next to the gate. A harsh buzzer alerts the agent and the gate will be unlocked in the event that does not work, just call the agent (via voice) to "open the gate,please".
The gates are left open sometimes when there is heavy traffic such as Coney Island and then there are extra agents at the gates to try to make sure everyone pays.
As far as us leaving the booth-the amount of railing has nothing to do with leaving the booth. We are to remain in the booth unless we are emptying the turnstiles(pull the wheels) or going home, going to lunch or a comfort relief. At the present time, if a customer has a problem they are to come back to the booth for assistance. We have proceedures if a turnstile jams or does not allow entry after the fare is paid. The problem occurs when they customer wont return to the booth. A fare is not paid until the wheel is turned. You are fare beating unless the wheel is turned.If a police officer is present, you are subject to a fine by the officer (even if we do not challenge you.) The police have been authorized by management to watch the turnstiles. They watch for misuse of student passes and fare jumpers.
I hope this answers your question.
(I am a station agent.)
I witnessed such an instance last week at the World Trade Center stop on the [A][C][E]. Three teenage girls 'jumped the wheels' and were stopped by a plainclothes officer (he was wearing a NY Yankees tee shirt :-). He proceeded to write them summonses (what's the fine?).
I am not sure. But it can be hefty.(I think the first foffesne is $65.00). At 59th St Columbus Circle uniformed officers caught one guy-- They made him buy a token, drop the token (pay his fare). They then made him exit, took him to the precinct, gave him a present (summons),and then ejected him from ther system. Also at a Brooklyn IRT station on the 2 line yesterday I had three students who repeatedly jumped-in and out-- the third time the cops nailed them and they were ejected after banging on the booth (getting the attention of a cop hiding in the station.)they came back later and were ejected- with a warning of a summons if they returned(and I did not have to do anything with them!!)
I urge all subtalkers-- **dont** jump the wheels. The price if caught is much higher than $1.50.
again- If the turnstile does not work (jammed token, or card took the money but cant get in) plerase return to the booth. If you give us the chance, and courtesy, we'll help you. If you jump-- there is alwasys the cops!
I am not sure. But it can be hefty.(I think the first offense is $65.00). At 59th St Columbus Circle uniformed officers caught one guy-- They made him buy a token, drop the token (pay his fare). They then made him exit, took him to the precinct, gave him a present (summons),and then ejected him from ther system. Also at a Brooklyn IRT station on the 2 line yesterday I had three students who repeatedly jumped-in and out-- the third time the cops nailed them and they were ejected after banging on the booth (getting the attention of a cop hiding in the station.)they came back later and were ejected- with a warning of a summons if they returned(and I did not have to do anything with them!!)
I urge all subtalkers-- **dont** jump the wheels. The price if caught is much higher than $1.50.
again- If the turnstile does not work (jammed token, or card took the money but cant get in) plerase return to the booth. If you give us the chance, and courtesy, we'll help you. If you jump-- there is alwasys the cops!
Hehehehe! Here's an interesting tidbit: according to a fairly-recent Jersey Journal newspaper's 3-part series on Light Rail Transit, which profiled the LRT systems of Portland (Oregon), Baltimore (Maryland) and the LRT system being proposed (and built) for Hudson and Bergen Counties in New Jersey, if you attempt to evade the fare on the Maryland MTA's "Central Light Rail Line" in Baltimore, fines can total as much as US$285 (in addition to being given a summons and subsequent ejection from train). In a separate note (not mentioned in the article), I happen to know that fare evasion in California can earn the affected rider a fine that can easily total more than US$500 (or something like that), among other punishments.
Fare evasion in San Diego goes against the offender's Driver License. A friend of mine didn't get a ticket for the San Diego Trolley, got a summons, and promptly forgot about it. (He figured that a CA ticket didn't get out of the state.) WRONG!! He got a summons from the District Court of Maryland for that CA summons - and got fined in a Maryland courtroom the sum of $300.00 plus 15% interest. Ouch!!!
I once remember reading that the R-62 cars could not run on the flushing line because the are to big to fit into the flushing lines east river tubes. Is the accurate.
No they are the same width and length as all previou IRT cars. The problem they had was in the Steinway Tubes. Apparently they were losing the exterior "guard lights" due to close clearances in the tubes.
No they are the same width and length as all previous IRT cars. The problem they had was in the Steinway Tubes. Apparently they were losing the exterior "guard lights" due to close clearances in the tubes.
To the best of my Knowledge, no. In fact, they ran on the Flushing line for some time after they were delivered. Greller's subway cars book has a photo of them in Grand Central....
- Hank
And rumor has it that they will return to the 7 with lower exterior guard lights, as they are removed from the 1/9 and replaced with R110s.
I'm curious Wayne
Is there a length of tilework in a given station for which you can detect the same pattern of colors and shapes repeating itself?
I can see myself going crazy over this one, but if anyone was able to document this, it would be you. Do you ever detect the pattern of shapes and shades of one station, repeating at another station with only variation existing in the four or five major color families used?
With respect to the Canarsie Line, the answer is not really: According to Mr. Vickers' quote, the tile was broken into 'irregular' shapes
(rectangles mostly, but there are many, many triangles throughout).
There are similarities in the frieze panels, especially where the
triangular sections are placed, but they are not truly identical.
I have pictures of two panels at Montrose where they start off
almost in the same pattern, but a few squares in something differs
whether it's how the diagonal is cut for the triangular section
or the placement of a few small pieces. The color pattern is
drastically different too (one starts with white, the other rose).
Also, the shades don't map from station to station, or even within
the same station- an example is at Bushwick-Aberdeen: one frieze
section contains a wide variety of colors (yellows, tans, blues,
greens, mauves, purples) while up the platform there's another section that's almost entirely yellow, with only a few purples and mauves.
Also, there's a quirk in three of the stations: Montrose, Wilson and
Bushwick-Aberdeen where they have one square divided into three
triangles. This doesn't occur in any of the other thirteen stations.
Color families: Bedford Avenue has only three colors (putty, tan
and parchment brown) representing only the brown family while
Wilson has an entire rainbow. Jefferson Street and De Kalb Avenues might look almost the same at a glance, but look closer- the blue at Jefferson Street is deeper and there are two shades of brown.
Montrose Avenue has but six colors in the frieze (sky and cerulean blue, American Beauty rose, yellow and maize, and white) but the
way they are juxtaposed gives this frieze its great beauty.
In short, I see no discernable pattern in the way these tiles are
placed and set. My guess is that the craftsmen were presented with
a general sketch of the work and a pile of cut tiles to assemble.
No doubt though, Mr. Vickers pre-ordained the color schemes for each
station, so there is absolutely no "mixing and matching" (i.e.
you won't see a Graham Avenue section at Lorimer Street).
Over time, I plan to accumulate a total of twenty or more photos
of each frieze. I'm well on my way in a few locations.
This study is far from over.
Wayne
-->In short, I see no discernable pattern in the way these tiles are
placed and set. My guess is that the craftsmen were presented with
a general sketch of the work and a pile of cut tiles to assemble.
No doubt though, Mr. Vickers pre-ordained the color schemes for each <--
Hope we get a chance to meet soon. I guess I always assumed that there was a repeating pattern involved. Must be the engineer in me. I know I'm not an artist.
I certainly don't want to downplay Mr.Vickers' contribution, but it's a shame that the indivdual craftmen remain unknown.
Ahhhh...the Canarsie Line...let me get my pencil box out..
Here's an example of the randomness: the TYPICAL frieze PANEL (the
average panel is between 42.5" and 46") contains anywhere between 38
and 46 individual pieces of tile but there's one at Bushwick-Aberdeen
(citybound, above the first tablet to the right of the exit)
that contains 64! The little tiles are mostly yellow and creme.
There's another further up - the almost-all-yellow one - it contains 55 pieces. One at Wilson contains 56.
No rhyme or reason to it whatsoever - like Lee Stookey's book says:
it is a "Crazy-quilt" pattern.
Here is another thing I'd like to find out - How in heaven did they
manage to make those ROUNDED corner pieces? I thought ceramic tile
was a pretty rigid material. Perhaps they moulded them like so.
Examples found in Canarsie Line mosaic page: Jefferson St., Wilson Ave. etc. also De Kalb Ave. In fact, most of the stations have at least one example of it.
Wayne
What's with the extra cars on the Flushing line? Why do they need 11
cars and not an even number like the other lines? The Flushing line is busy but is it one of the busiest lines in the system?
Yep, it's busy. Ever ride it during Rush Hour, or immediately following a Mets game? But don't forget, a 10-car IRT train is 510' long, where a BMT/IND 10-car (or R44/46/68) train is 600' feet long. An 11-car Flushing train is still shorter than the 10-car BMT-IND.
-Hank
In the mid-1950s, eleven-car trains were operated for a time on the E and F expresses. Michael Quill, the president of the Transport Workers Union, claimed in the press that the TA didn't tell the passengers that the doors on that eleventh car wouldn't open. For whatever reasons, the practice doesn't seem to have lasted very long.
BTW, does anyone know if the 'Broolyn Eagle' newspaper is available on-line (or on microfilm, microfiche, or elsewise)?
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
The Flushing line is not the only line to run an odd number of cars. The West side IRT runs some nine car trains.
9-car trains of R-62s are used on the 3 line due to limitations at Lenox Terminal Yard.
Of all things, late last week I saw the rail train. I wish I had counted the cars, but the train was threading its way north on the 7th Ave IRT at Chambers St., having come out of the 2,3 tunnel. How it made that turn.....
At the head end was a diesel, a single car, and a diesel/electric, connected with M/U cables via the car between them, running on their engines. The smoke and fumes in the station were HORRIBLE, and the engines sounded like they were sruggling with the train.
-Hank
Is this a welded rail train, or just an ordinary 39' (or whatever) rail train?
Can you give us an idea of how long it is?
Welded rail, and I would have to say it was about 10 cars long, or longer. The TA welds their own rail along the Sea Beach line...
-Hank
What do you mean "along the Sea Beach line?"
Do they weld them together from 39' sections, or do they recieve longer lengths?
And where does the rail come into the system? Via the NYCHRR?
Does the TA weld the pieces together once they are laid in the tunnels to make even longer rails?
Lastly (whew) do all routes have welded rail, or is some of it still short sections? If the IRT has welded rail, I would guess its all welded in place. Doubt you could get a welded rail train very far around the South Ferry loop, for instance.
Thanks, if anybody knows!
I would assume they TA recieves rail via the Cross-Harbor, I can (and will) check this out. As for the length, I would also assume that it is standard. By 'along the Sea Beach Line', I mean that the rail sections are welded into longer lengths in a set of railcars on what was the southbound express track. I doubt that any welded sections are very long due to the signal equipment.
-Hank
What you smelled there was 9 cars of my overtime. I centered the reverser and put it into notch 8 to give that odor that only a cheap 50 ton T.A. locomotive can give!!!!!If you noticed the ends of the rail cars were cut off allowing the rails to keep relitively straight while the cars, formerly R-21s and R-22s can take those sharp curves
Whew was that a long tittle! I live near the Bedford Park Station on the 4 line. I was looking for the abandoned station of the polo grounds shuttle can anyone give me directions on how to get to these station and which spot I can take the best photos thanks a lot.
According to Brennen's guide, the Polo Grounds stations no longer exist and are not shown. The Brennen site is accessable from the NYCSubway home page.
At 162d St. and River Ave. in the Bronx, along the #4 line, the stubs of the tracks that connected the #4 to the Polo Grounds Shuittle (originally the 9th Ave. el) are clearly visible. Girders that once carried two tracks go down between the three #4 line tracks and turn west along 162d Street.
A unique el station called Anderson/Jerome Aves. existed at 162d Street and Jerome, just north of Yankee Stadium. The north end straddled Jerome Ave.; while the south end was below Anderson Ave. in a tunnel due a steep and sudden hilll that separates the High Bridge neighborhood from the remainder of the West Bronx. There is nothing left of this station, but I assume that the old tunnel is still there, sealed up. Does anyone know if it is still visible?
As historical information, from 1918 until 1940 6th and 9th Ave. el trains used this route to travel into the Bronx and connect with the current #4 line to Woodlawn. From 1940 until 1958 the Polo Grounds shuttle ran from 155th St/Manhattan to 167th Street/River Ave/Bronx, stopping at Sedgwick Ave. (at today's Major Deegan Expway) and Anderson/Jerome.
In fact, a section of the Anderson/Jerome Aves. el station does still exist. On the west side of Jerome at 162nd Street there is an auto/tire repair garage. While I am not sure if the facade of the building dates back to the days of the el, there is a staircase against the back wall, visible from the street, which once served to get passengers to and from the station's platforms. Although I do not know where the fare control line was located, I guess it is possible the structure was the stationhouse itself.
Trying to recall the area from 40 years back --
As I remember, the fare control for the Jerome Ave. entrance to the Anderson-Jerome station was on the east side of Jerome Ave., at street level under the station, which was just north of 162nd St.
The fare control for the Anderson Ave. entrance was also at street level but above the station, on the east side of Anderson Ave.
There was also a "candy store" under the el on the east side of Jerome Ave., used to stop there to get something to drink after a game at Yankee Stadium on the way to my grandmother's apartment at 169th and Shakespeare Ave. (we lived in Brooklyn).
I was there a few months ago to take some pictures of the part of the Sedgewick Ave platform sticking out of the weeds. The north corner of 162nd and Jerome is now a parking lot. If any trace of the station is there it is not immediately visible. An interesting feature about the auto shop is that there appears to be a lot of iron corroding on the roof, judging from the drip stains. Wonder what could be up there...? Besides, that roof is so completely overgrown it's difficult to see anything up there unless you live in the buildings adjacent to the portal. Forget about trying to see anything from the 4, it's too far away to see through the weeds. As for Sedgewick Ave you have to go west along 161st St and under the roadway from the Macombs Dam bridge. 161st St temporarily ends, but there are a set of stairs directly ahead. Climb the stairs and continue along 161st, past a small playground, then along a small walkway crossing the Major Deegan. If you look north you will see the Sedgewick Ave platform and the foundations for a couple of buildings. Best to go when the foliage is less leafy.
Does anybody know if this is still visible?
The NL had their expansion in 1962 with the New York Mets and Houston Colt 45's who became the Houston Astros and moved into the Astrodome.
The NY Mets moved from the Polo Grounds to Shea in time for the 1964 season.
Sadly, the Polo Grounds, like its sister stadium Ebbets Field became a public housing project.
David
Steel's coming down on Snediker, "Light rail" AIN'T trolleys, the 142's and 143's are in, the railfan winder's dead, redbirds are about gone, there's trains that AREN'T running local on the upper west side, and the cops are going to haul us *ALL* off to jail to prove that John Ashcroft ain't GAY. Hmmm...
Looks like it's time to either open up 76th Street or fall in love with photovoltaic dirigibles, I'd say we're done. :)
I say open up 76th Street. Because it's easier to pronounce.
The Fulton Subway has been extended past 76th Street. Its new terminal is 169th Street Storage Yard. J/K
Seriously, though, I heard over the PA system, "Attention passengers, this train will be returning to the 169th Street storage yard..." twice. Very strange...
DTrain, you are being sneaky again. August 30, 1998 is not the same as Aug 30, 2003.
Re-hashed old post from archives. People do so all the time, brah.
Peace,
ANDEE
HAHA, small world, my dad used to live in a building on the S/W corner of 169th an Shakespeare, same building, perhaps?
Peace,
ANDEE
So how about the 3 Train? How does that fit in with the old Polo Grounds (this former NY Giants fan wonders) or does it?
http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?img_3137.jpg
--Mark
I have photos of train lines on the Brooklyn Bridge. The Fulton Avenue El ran on the Bridge and they were steel cars. If they wanted to would they be able to run the A and C lines on the bridge and have cars like in the past??
I think you have pictures of the single 3 section "Bluebird" car that was left on the Fulton El because it's couplers would not mate with the other 5 cars. This train was a far cry form the IND steel cars in weight and total length.
That 80ft, 3 section train weihed about 76000 lbs
Todays 60ft single R42 car goes at about 74500 lbs
and the 75ft R46 goes at 87000 to 91000 lbs depending on which one of the married pairs your on.
I loved all the various multis but they also had "cracked truck" and controller problems.
I'm wondering if you have photos of the 5 section 170ft, 171000lb "Green Hornet". During its 8 year life it only managed to get 56000 miles of use. I understand that it was scrapped for the war effort because it was sitting in the shops awaiting couplers that would mate with Canarsie's Multis.
Marty Latham's info is right on the money. Remember that when the IND tunnel from Broadway/Nassau to High Street opened, it made the Brooklyn Bridge BMT el tracks superfluous, as was the IND plan. Of course, the A and C lines follow the old Fulton El route almost station by station. The last el trains crossed the Brooklyn Bridge in 1944. I was not born then so I only know what I've seen in pictures.
The Brooklyn Bridge, BTW, can only carry cars and light trucks. Even normal transit buses cannot use it - so re-introducing subway trains would be out of the question.
Say Andy: Thanks for the "No Bus" info on the Old BB. Is it weight restrictions or lane width problems. My Dad swore up and down that I rode trains over the Bridge. For some reason I can only remember the trolleys and of course the great walkway.
The el trains stopped running over Brooklyn Bridge in 1944. The trolleys were then switched to the elevated tracks, but the last trolley ran over the Bridge in 1950 as part of the Board of Transportation's massive conversion of all Brooklyn trolley routes to bus. Today's bus restriction is due to weight, not lane width. I can recall but one time that NYC Transit operated buses over the BB - the day after the November 1965 blackout, when subway service was disrupted.
The Brooklyn Bridg has a 4-ton weight limit. Even FDNY units are restricted to how they can use the bridge. If there is an aemergency on the bridge, an accident, or a car fire, the companies must park about 500' away from each other. They also have special response units ofr a major emergency. It may have been severely over-enginnered when it was built, but now it can barely take the traffic on it. So more trains are out of the question.
-Hank
Why not demolsh the bridge deck an start anew, or just take the whole thing down?
Damage inc endorses demolishing anything. go for it dude!!!
Historic preservation? If you can't change the exterior of one building when there are 100 others like it, do you think a one-of-a-kind, first-of-its-kind bridge can be destroyed and replaced without at least a major outcry?
Brooklyn without the Brooklyn Bridge? Unthinkable!! It certainly is one-of-a-kind.
Perhaps they could move Hell Gate Bridge a few miles south and put it in place of the Manhattan Bridge, although the steel arch may be a tad too short for that location. That bridge is a prime example of overbuilding; at the same time, it was very precisely designed and engineered. It's so strong it could support 67 locomotives placed end-to-end; yet it has never been subjected to that much mass at once. Put it this way: Hell Gate Bridge could handle subway trains and not even work up a sweat.
> Why not demolsh the bridge deck an start anew, or just take the
> whole thing down?
Can you say MANHATTAN BRIDGE?
With all its weight restrictions, the Brooklyn Bridge is in far better shape than the Manhattan Bridge which desperately needs more help than it is getting. In addition, the Brooklyn Bridge is an historic landmark which can't be altered unless permission is granted from upteen agencies. (Which in this case, is probably a good thing, since there's no other bridge quite like it). Finally, it isn't as simple as just tearing it down and rebuilding it - where would all the subway connections come from?
--Mark
It is both a NYC Landmark, and on the Federal Register of Historic Places. You have to pull teeth just to paint the thing. The only modifications that can be made to it are general maintainence.
-Hank
On a SIR train to St.George I noticed something when we arrived. The motorman was cranking a large hand crank attached to the floor. Damn! it was loud! After about 10 times, he stopped. I see the same crank on the subway fleet and also on NJ transit trains but never saw it used.
What does it do? While were on the subject what are those yellow pieces of wood used for? There in ever cab. Once I saw a motorman hit a trip arm with it.
The 'crank' is the handbrake, and SIR requires its use at St. George and Tottenville. All subway cars, rr cars, locomotives, etc. are so equipped, although the activating mechanism will differ from design to design.
The yellow board, which has a wedge on the end of it, is called 'The Slipper', and its original purpose was to isolate a car electrically by being inserted between the shoe and the third rail. It also has many other uses. On SIR, it is used as both a door prop and a weapon. NYCT will use it as a door prop, and to reset an activated tripper. I've never, EVER seen it used for its intended purpose.
-Hank
Yup SIRT requires the Conductor to set a handbrake if the train is not going right back out. Many a time I hear the operator call over the PA to release a handbrake that had not been set in the last (now first) car.
New use for the yellow wood today, a R40 Slant the operator was using to keep his window CLOSED, the window kept sliding open and he was losing what A/C he was getting from the car. But the wood wedged from lower right corner across to the other side of the window.
I've also seen train operators use the Yellow Wood to punch the route selector button out the window... I guess mainly those who are vertically challenged!
I have seen the yellow wood piece used on the D-Types to keep the front storm door closed.
--Mark
How big are these Yellow Wood pieces? I remember seeing a 2x6 being used on a BMT standard to keep its storm door closed.
Got my NYCTA fix today, and got to see a motorman use the "Yellow Wood". Seems he overshot the selector board by a tad; no hesitation, he used the "Yellow Board" to set the switch correctly. BTW, it's about the size of a two-by-four, tapered at one end (the "business" end).
And we call switch irons the All-Purpose Tool. Rerail cars, subdue violent drunks, push dead autos off the tracks, and, occaisionally throw switches.
And , oh yes, (I forgot to mention one other use) "bucking up" mis-aligned MU and Van Dorn couplers.
Van Dorn couplers? I thought the Hi-Vs and maybe Lo-Vs had them originally, and that they were all replaced. Are they still being used?
Speaking of which, if you were to put Van Dorn couplers on Seashore's 3352 and Shoreline's 3662, they would really start to look as they did when they were new.
According to pictures I've seen, Van Dorn couplers were used on the Composites and the HI & LO-V's until the installation of automatic couplers sometime around 1914 or so.
I was referring to Baltimore, where switch irons were (and still are at BSM) used for the previously mentioned uses.
While in school car training, to be a Conductor, our Motor Instructors (Train Service Superviser) used 2 shoe slippers to electrically isolate a subway car. We were then required to use third rail jumper cables to bring power to the train from a ajecent third rail. When we were sucessful, the train car would come to life. I was very happy to see that day come and go.
I wouldn't worry too much about it because youll probably never perform that function. It is usually performed by the TSS or yard personel resonding to the stalled cars. On revenue collectors, electric work trains and refuse pickups there are no conductors. If your a train operator operating those trains, by rule YOU must be the one in the cab.
It seems to me that this is a very dangerous way to bring power to a train. I'm the type of person who would wear a face shield to jump start a car. I hope your right, because if they ever ask me to do that on the road, their going to find someone else real fast. Mr. TSS before I start I will need my heavy duty rubber gloves, my helmet, my trusty face sheild..... I think you get the picture.
EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE SO INTO THE SUBWAY SYSTEM YET SO FEW HAVE RESPONDED TO MY QUESTION OF WHICH IS THE MOST CHARMING SUBWAY STATION! COME ON LET ME IN ON THE SECRET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My Favorite Station is the 59 Street Station whan it was re-designed with the new tiles and paint it was a nice stion to look at. It is impossible to not stop and look. Go to the Express Platform where the 5 and 4 trains stop and you will see a nice station.
My favorite station is the last stop on my train on my last trip!!!!
I have no great preference for any station now in use. The
original City Hall station,however, stands out like no
other.
I had suggested Montrose Ave. because of the mosaic tiles. However, my favorite station for lots of "action" is Stillwell Ave. 8 tracks, trains coming & goin' both ways, + you can see them go to & from Stillwell Yard. Get there at the times when the Q trains are being "put in" to Brighton Beach, or being "laid up" to Stillwell or CI yard. In other words, if you stay there awhile you will see many movements.
One of my favorite Stations is 9th Avenue on the West end. Lots of work trains, N Train consisting of R32's R40's and R68's, The B Train consisting of R68A's and, The Rush Hour M Trains consisting of R40M's, R42's.
MY favorite Renovated Station is however is Canal Street on the N R lines. I like the job they did on it, I find it very artistic. I also Like the level that remains presently unused, That is the level that leads to the manhattan bridge, very interesting place.
On the R-68, R-44, R-46 fleet there are red, blue and orange lights above the door. The red mean the the doors are open, the blue I assume indicate the conductor's position.
What does the orange mean?
On PATH they have "Christmas Trees" bunkhead lights, again red means the doors are open. Anyone know what the others(I think green, blue and white??) mean?
The orange light, on some trains, indicates a car with a malfunctioning motor. It also, on other trains, flashes to indicate the car where the emergency brakes were activated. If the new trains are equipped with a passenger alert system, there will probably be an indicator of that, too. Blue usually indicates the conductors cab in that car is occuipied, and the red is for the door indication.
Oh, Originally, the R44 and R46 had a red lamp at every door panel. Those came out on the rebuild.
-Hank
The Blue lights have nothing to do with the conductor's position. It means when illuminated that the storm door in that position is unlocked.
Two minor corrections in your posting. First the word is BULKHEAD. Second, the lights are not on the bulkhead - they are mounted on the side of the car (The bulkheads are the car ends). To answer your question:
The red lights are called Guard Lights and indicate that the Signal light relay in that car has not picked up (usually because one or more doors are not fully closed).
The Blue Lights are called Blue Lights. They indicate that the end door, crew door or plug door at the position where it is illuminated, is open or not locked. They are only found on 75' cars.
The Yellow (orange) lights are called Propulsion Fault Indicators, commonly referred to as Dead Motor Lights. They do not indicate every dead motor. What they do indicate is a propulsion fault which has caused one of the overload relays to trip-out.
As for PATH, sorry that I can't help. Perhaps Subway-Buff might help out.
Some background info: Every subway car control group has
an overload relay which trips out if the traction motor
circuit attempts to draw too much current. Effectively,
a circuit breaker. Once tripped, the overload relay can
be reset from the motorman's position by pressing the
reset button, which energizes a trainline, which energizes
the reset relays on the cars that are tripped out. Now,
most equipment (all equipment yet, Steve?) also has an
overload reset lock-out counter. Everytime a car is reset
from an overload trip condition, that counter goes down
by one. If the counter reaches zero, that car can no longer
be reset by any means other than going under the car and
resetting the counter by hand. Everytime the train is dumped,
as long as a car is not already locked out, the counter gets
re-initialized to, um, 3 I think.
So, Q to Steve: Does the flashing yellow propulsion fault light
indicate an ordinary overload (which can be reset), or does it
indicate this unresettable condition?
A flashing amber light on the sides of cars equipped means that the cover located over the emergency brake cord is opened AND cord inside is pulled opening a circuit on the CEV
The yellow light question gets a bit complicated because it works differently on GE and Westinghouse propulsion equipment. On GE, the Yellow light indicates that the propulsion has been reset five (5) times and can no longer be reset from the cab via the 8-wire. On Westinghouse, the yellow light indicates every trip of either the Line Switch or Brake Overload relay. Each trip is counted via a digital counter on the Logic Board (individually). The propulsion can be reset each time the yellow light comes on until either the propulsion or braking overload counters counts five events. The auto-reset has never been widely implemented for obvious safety concerns. In addition, on the GE controller, the atto-reset required additional circuitry including a 26 volt power supply which was only incorporated on the R-46s. The flashingg yellow light was only incorporated on A division cars to indicate that the Emergency Cord Cover has been lifted.
Why are these stations designed with 3 platforms: 1 island for expresses in both directions and 2 platforms for locals separate from the express island? Does anyone know what the logic behind this was? It limits your choice to local or express before you even access the platforms. It also prevents switching between local and express if both trains enter the station at the same time.
Francis wrote:
Why are these stations designed with 3 platforms: 1 island for expresses in both directions and 2 platforms for locals separate from the express island? Does anyone know what the logic behind this was? It limits your choice to local or express before you even access the platforms. It also prevents switching between local and express if both trains enter the station at the same time.
Francis... you answered your own question =) They were designed explicitly to do just that since it was thought that the station would be much too busy and was designed to dissuade just the sort of behavior you mentioned above.
Both stations serve Penn Station, of course. As you correctly state, this design prevents switching betwen local and express trains travelling the same direction.
This apparently was a deliberate design so that subway passengers could not transfer between local and express. It was thought that the majority of boardings and alightings would be railroad passengers, so three platforms instead of the normal two are provided. To superimpose local/express transfers at 34th St would make the platforms even more crowded.
Another reason for this design is that a normal New York style 4 track 2 platform express station requires a mezzanine above the platforms so that passengers can reach either platform from the street. At 34th St/Penn there was no room for a mezzanine because the subway tunnel had to be directly below street level. Reason? The railroad station's tracks, platforms, and concourses are directly below the subway. At these two locations, the railroad station level functions as the crossway between the three subway platforms.
Express/local transfers can be accommodated one staiton north, at 42d St/Times Square, so no subway passenger inconvenience is created.
You will also note that the Atlantic Ave. IRT station is the same exact design for the same reasons - it is adjacent to a major commuter rail station. The railroad station is not below the IRT, but the Brighton BMT tunnel is, requiring the IRT tunnel to be directly below the street level.
>Another reason for this design is that a normal New York style 4 >track 2 platform express station requires a mezzanine above the >platforms so that passengers can reach either platform from the >street. At 34th St/Penn there was no room for a mezzanine because >the subway tunnel had to be directly below street level. Reason? The >railroad station's tracks, platforms, and concourses are directly >below the subway. At these two locations, the railroad station level >functions as the crossway between the three subway platforms.
The RR mezzanine could supply 2 platforms as easily as it could one, a'la 96st on the west side. (actually, there are _4_ platforms there...)
But you're right, the intent of the design is to limit the transfers at the station, due to the heavy bording levels in all 3 stations. But the design really has nothing to do with the tunnel below it. Numerous stations are right below street level, and have no mezzanine at all.
-Hank
Well there is a mezzanine underneath both stations from the corridors of the LIRR level. Although they aren't the size of say, 14th St, they do provide a mezzanine for a majority of the passengers who are boarding from below (NJT/LIRR) rather than above (street level) in this case.
Limiting transfers from local to express does make sense. But I'm assuming that there were some significant constraints on station size because the local platforms are not large enough to handle local traffic. Frequently at 8th Ave. the platforms are so crowded in the morning that lines to board trains back out through the turnstiles. Since the express platform rarely seems to be that crowded it's unfortunate that the platform size couldn't be distributed better - i.e. 2 larger platforms rather than 3 smaller ones. I'm sure platform size limitations are much worse elsewhere through, like 72nd/Broadway.
I agree that the local platforms are very narrow. I have worked the IND station and many times have to wait to exit the station due to LIRR customers entering the platform. To widen the platforms would be very expensive-prohibitive and then the Uptown is literally on the other side of the wall of Penn Station's Lower level-just 8-10 steps down to Penn! AT night, it is even more "fun" many times I have had to ask people to go to the local platform when the express tops running and even then people come back to the booth-after numerous announcements to ask why no express! AH- the joy of transit work.
Why not chain off the stairs to the express platform during the hours that the express trains aren't running? I know they used to do this at 86th St/Lexington Ave., but apparently don't anymore. Do you get information as to just when the last express of the evening has left the station?
The problem is the customers. I have worked at 23 and Spring Street when the downtown side had no service. I roped off the stairs to downtown from the uptown side and they break the rope or just go under. The customers do what they want and to blazes with us. When I see customers on the other side, I crank up my booth mike (or use the PA system) and advise of no downtown service. Even then I get complaints- why didnt you tell me!! I tell them of the tape and signs and they say that they did not see the tape and signs.(AT lunch I'd check and the tape and signs were still there!)
Penn IND is more complicated--to get from Downtown Local to Uptown Local you must use the express platform and for now downtown runs express 24/7 and uptown runas local overnight. Every time I pass through 23 or spring at night I see tons of customers waiting for trains that will never arrive--What creatures of habits New Yorkers have become.
You've got the creature part right. But not habit, stupidity. Witnessed today at Times Square:
Situation: Uptown 2 on express track is announcing OOS due to a train that has gone BIE between 50st and 66st on the uptown express.
No one moves. Numerous announcements on both the trains PA and the station PA announcing that 'This Uptown 2 Train is out of service. No Passengers. No Passengers. All Passengers must leave the uptown number 2 express on the uptown express track {note: talk about redundant!!} For Bronx service, take the next number 2 arriving on the local track, making all stops to the Bronx...' and then followed by the canned announcement about 3 trains and downtown express service. In 15 minutes, no one left the train. a 1,9,3,2,2,1,9 and 2 train all entered the station on the local track.
-Hank
Someone within the last week asked that people use the full wording for acronyms and abbreviations, and I'd like to reiterate that request here. Even though posters may be in the habit of using particular forms either at work or in fan groups, it can be extremely confusing when the full or expanded forms are not used initially.
While most people can reasonably be assumed to understand 'NYC' and 'TA,' when you go beyond that (such as OOS, BIE, and PA in Hank Eisenstein's message about an event at Times Square, or even 'MABSTOA' and railroad initials), I think it would show good manners, if nothing else, for new readers or older ones who may not recognize a form. If people are going to persist in using short forms without explaining them, perhaps an FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) section might be developed that people could go to figure out what's being said.
(In talking about Times Square, for example, 'PA' might trigger the thought of the bus terminal for some people and the whole message could turn into gibberish. In my own academic world, we get as confused when we're reviewing notes from a meeting where we were talking about employee assistance programs, curriculum change, and hiring, the note-taker's abbreviation of 'AA' can refer to Alcoholics Anonymous, Academic Affairs, or Affirmative Action, depending on what part of the meeting it was. 'Tain't good to be confused like that!)
Hopefully,
Ed Alfonsin
SUNY at Potsdam
[While most people can reasonably be assumed to understand 'NYC' and 'TA,' when you go beyond that (such as OOS, BIE, and PA in Hank Eisenstein's message about an event at Times Square, or even 'MABSTOA' and railroad initials), I think it would show good manners, if nothing else, for new readers or older ones who may not recognize a form.]
OOS = out of service
BIE = brakes in emergency
PA = either public address or Port Authority
MABSTOA = Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transportation Operating Authority
{Numerous announcements on both the trains PA and the station PA announcing that}
(In talking about Times Square, for example, 'PA' might trigger the thought of the bus terminal for some people and the whole message could turn into gibberish. )
I think that in the context I used 'PA' in, it would be very difficult to confuse my meaning (Public Address system) with 'Port Authority.' But I understand about the wonderful acronyms that see use in here. I'd be willing to write a quickie 'Acronym Abuse' page, if Dave would be interested in it.
-Hank
How about blinking the lights? Or -- to guarantee that everyone gets off the train -- turn off the air conditioning? (I know, cruel and unusual punishment.)
That's when the conductor needs to announce, "Everybody off this train! Which part of that don't you understand?"
But then someone complains, and the conductor has serveral unpaid vacation days.
-Hank
I was being a tad facetious. You'd figure that after people had noticed several 2 and 3 trains on the local track, while their train hasn't moved, they'd put two and two together and say, "Gee, there must be a problem on the express track up ahead. Let's take the local."
I must admit, though, that every once in a while the loudspeakers in one of the cars won't work properly and you can barely hear the conductor. But not in all 10 cars. People hear what they want to hear.
I agree that the local platforms are very narrow. I have worked the IND station and many times have to wait to exit the station due to LIRR customers entering the platform. To widen the platforms would be very expensive-prohibitive and then the Uptown is literally on the other side of the wall of Penn Station's Lower level-just 8-10 steps down to Penn! AT night, it is even more "fun" many times I have had to ask people to go to the local platform when the express stops running and even then people come back to the booth-after numerous announcements to ask why no express! AH- the joy of transit work.
People hear what they want to hear.
As for the local platforms being crowded, it makes me wonder where most of those people are headed. More specifically, if they're ultimately getting off at a local stop, that's a no-brainer. Of course, there aren't that many on the IND south of 59th St in Manhattan. If their ultimate destination is an express stop, well, you know where I'm going with this.
I'm a TA Bus Operator at GJL Depot. I'm 34 years old and when I ride the subway I still ride the front car like I did when I was 13 years old. I gave up a good paying job from Sanitation to become a Bus Operator so I can take the Promotion test to be a Motorman. If any one know what books I can study, what's on the test and when the next test is? Please tell me it will be a blessing to me. It will help me in my life long dream. I wanted to drive a R-10 but there gone so please help me drive a R-36 before before they go to the Scrape yard of Jersey City. ( P.S I dislike Full cab)
You want to be a Train Operator not a Motorman. You will endure a microwave course of approx 60 days an be thrown out onto the road. The T.A. then does not give a s--t about you because you are just a number here in R.T.O. and they will demote you for the little mistake you may make. They will give you trains that can't do 40 nor get back to zero in time, with a/c worse than any bus you may have seen. You will be subject to Corine Mack Scott from the OTHER SIDE of the playing field, and TWU will laugh at you and tell you to take the 30 days. My suggestion is to start reading the rule book carefully, read the Chief-Leader paper, file for the test and look for the training classes offered by the union. Obtain an attorney and GOOD LUCK because I can't wait to give you my handles so I can get out of this place.
[You want to be a Train Operator not a Motorman. You will endure a microwave course of approx 60 days an be thrown out onto the road.
The T.A. then does not give a s--t about you because you are just a number here in R.T.O. and they will demote you for the little mistake you may make. They will give you trains that can't do 40 nor get back to zero in time, with a/c worse than any bus you may have seen. You will be subject to Corine Mack Scott from the OTHER SIDE of the playing field, and TWU will laugh at you and tell you to take the 30 days. My suggestion is to start reading the rule book carefully, read the Chief-Leader paper, file for the test and look for the training classes offered by the union. Obtain an attorney and GOOD LUCK because I can't wait to give you my handles so I can get out of this place.]
Hey Damage..
Why so cynical? Did something happen that is making you upset?
JB
Something may not have happened to him personally but what he mentions is infact Transit Authority's agenda of intimadation of any employee in any title while giving management a pat on the back and a bigger bonus for themselves. Demote, fire, suspend without pay but however hire more outside consultants with lucrative contracts and increase management. MTA is still way too top heavy and the trend still continues.
That is EXACTLY what I'm talking about! While im not trying to discourage any one from becoming what they dream or dreaming what they want to do, my first point is I love what I do but I hate the people I do it for. I've watched this place develop into an irresponsibly managed outfit with almost as many managers as subway cars who probably have a background in the Post Office (no insult to their profession), or maybe a PHD or Bachelors but no experience in Labor Relations or railroad management.The There is no one resonsible to the City of New York (mayor)and V. Conway is just one person who CAN be responsible to the governor and or MTA board (another joke). Our one union represents all titles as car, track and train cleaners, road car inspectors, all train crew titles, bus and train mechanics, track and signal worker titles all bus workers. The majority of bus rules the union so anybody else just tags along without a fair contract or representation. This results in unfair retaliation by TA management against TA workers resulting in some of the bad attitutes you may see down here (my apologies). In short good luck on the exams but remember that the difference between the 1970s TA and TA of today is the difference between a Low-V and R-110.
Sincerely Damage INC.
In looking at job postings (both paper and on the website), I've noticed how there are many more openings for management, and how management positions are open to anyone with the experience, but lower level non-exam jobs are only open to TA employees.
At the present time the only open competetive titles ie; station cleaner, station agent(former token clerk),conductor and bus operator and Transit property protection agent are open to the public. Station supervisor, tower operator, train operator train service supervisor and some other titles are promotion only. There are some titles available requiring technical experience but I believe all titles require an exam to be considered for appointment.
There no longer is a test for cleaner.
Thats because you need a good resume to become one of the many chiefs they need to govern the few indians that actually make the system run
My favorite story is about my first night on the job. After 40 days of training I was sent out on the road as an RCI (Road Car Inspector). My first call was a Brake Pipe rupture on a piece of work equipment, at night, in the snow out at Howard Beach. that I had never seen before. Fortunately, my training and instincts were enough to get me through it. My career has now spanned 2 decades now. I've come through the ranks from hourly to supervisor to management.For the most part, it's been a rewarding career. However, it's not for everyone. I find that job dissatisfaction, disciplinary problems, and attendance problems go hand in hand. Unfortunately, the employee with job dissatisfaction, chronic disciplinary problems, or attendance problems lowers the morale of his entire unit. I usually tell my disgruntled employees that if I hated my job as much as they hated theirs, I'd quit. There are too many people who never achieve self-actualization. They blame their jobs or education when the actual problem is within themselves. They are not doing what they want to be doing. Instead they say the job is not structured right when, in fact, they are in the wrong job.
Its very true that being around fellow employees who constantly complain and scheme to do little work can be very frustrating and just plain embarassing when a customer asks why didn't that bus stop for me or other complaints, etc. There are times I dont even stay in the crew quarters because it gets so tiring to here operators complaining about their leaders and followers, how to not pick up customers and other con games they are ultimately playing on themselves. While at times I can even get very tired and frustrated dealing with a public who hates you for the uniform you wear and what it represents I always try to do my 100% every day I drive my bus. For every 100 nasty people you get 10 will come up to me and tell me they enjoyed the ride in my bus or appreciate my anouncements and believe me thats what keeps me going and makes my day great no matter what else happens. Having a positive attitude definitely makes it better for you here at New York city transit.
Just think when you become a Train Operator, Motormen don't exist ever since they began microwaving them from schoolcar YOU TOO can have 1600 people who ride your train hate you and complain about the rotten sevice.
I talk the Job
Hey guys, there is nothing like the sound of a subway train. or the engine of a bus. I really dig it but I really have a good job drawing on a computer all day. I always wanted to be in transit, but I'll probably drive a school bus on my last days on earth, not a beloved city transit bus, or a whopping subway train. I work with a guy who used to drive for SEPTA (bus) and he still talks like he would like to go back to it when I start talking bus stuff to him. I can really
see the attraction!
Huh? could someone explain what "microwaving them from schoolcar" means?
On the contrary, I love WHAT I do, I just hate the people I do it for. I come to realize I may not be loved by anybody on the train but when I get to the terminal near on time without ABD, I can be liked a little. The passengers are my bread and butter, they are my pay check. I do what I can within my qualifications to keep them moving. My problem with transit is being bound to "work by the contract". The TA Labor RElations department is not only out to hang the "regulars" who have chronic disciplinary problems, but in their marital relationship with the TWU have arranged the 70% paycheck to work off suspensions in leiu of pay, therefore giving management the right to target the honest hard working employees for ANY violations, many of which have nothing to do with safety. METRO NORTH, LONG ISLAND, and other railroads realize that to keep passengers happy, their employees must be kept loyal, not just money, but to NOT treat them like some post office supervisors have. A decent union representation to defend us would be good to start but when TA management has a monetary incentive to write people up, we all lose.
I just found this website while looking for train information and
it looks pretty good.
I run Amtrak Metroliners and am interested in chatting with anyone
who wants to talk trains!
Thanks`
The 30% fime was negotiated so the person who gets suspended for major infraction does not have to penalize his entire family for his recklessness or stupidity. Instead of no pay for 15 or 30 days he and his family can still eat & pay bills. If you don't like the idea of a 30% penalty, take the time in the street or better yet, stay out of trouble. You obviously don't know anything about penalties on other rail properties. I'm sure that the LIRR Engineers who post here will correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is a first speed infraction can result in a 90 day suspension. A first stop light infraction can mean 6 months in the street and heaven help you if you run a red signal in AMTRAK territory. First offense is a lifetime ban from AMTRAK - no Penn Station.
As for the Labor relations being in league with the TWU, it's paranoid people like you who weaken your union. Yes, when we get to tri-parte arbitration the union may give up your case to save another employee with a more sympathetic case. That's the way tri-parte is handled all over the nation. Get over it.
Finally, on a personal note: From the attitude you convey, you likely deserve your familiarity with the disciplinary process. Don't bother to quit. I'm sure labor relations will "help you out".
The TA's practice of fines and suspensions is actually rather forgiving compared to what one sees in private industries. Workers in the private sectors who make major errors seldom have to worry about unpaid time in the street or paying fines ... instead, they'll just be "re-engineered."
Moreover, in the private sector you don't have to do anything wrong to get fired. Management just has to believe (rightly or wrongly) that someone else can do the job better or cheaper, even if you are doing well enough for a fair wage.
Here in the bureaucracy, you only get in trouble for making mistakes, especially those which become publicized. You can do almost nothing of value and still maintain your position. In fact, if you are a good test taker you can get promoted. What do you think that incentive system leads to?
unfortunately at the HALL OF SHAME here at Damage Inc. it leads to people changing braking specifications without due thought to the lives of innocent passengers. It leads to 51 day training programs for new train operators with no practice time in the yards therefore giving you no experienced personel to drive YOU to work. We have had MANY collisions and accidents since the program started in 1989
14 Street (1)
Graham Av (2)
Williamsburg Bridge (1)
239 St (1)
135 St (1)
Frankin Av (1)
I give up! There is too much to type. Whether or not you think T.A. workers should be treated like yesterdays trash is up to you. If passengers suffer because of it is something you should.
It certainly does seem that there have been more collisions in the past 10 years then there had been before. That, and the trains are going slower. Not a good combination.
The difference today and ten to twenty years ago is the fact that today there are very few transit professionals in the organization. Employment standards have been relaxed and supervision is no longer effective. Today, transit is "just a job", and a lucrative one at that if the stories I’ve read in the paper about the CTA.
On the CTA, I’ve wittness some Operators running the trains that are not always familiar with the routes they are using. Some are controlling their trains entering stations by using the track brake (almost an emergency application). They don't platform the trains at the appropriate car markers, and some make no or incorrect station announcements. These habits aren't always their fault. You see, they are trained by employee's already on the job running trains. Bad habits, and bad attitudes are passed down to the new hires.
And what about supervision? Supervisors no longer discipline except for the MOST FLAGRENT violations of rules because they don't want to deal with the reprisals and bull___t!
So, the quality of service declines, passengers get tired of being knocked about on the ‘L’ and they find alternate means of transportation.
What is the solution? I do not know! In a world today where simple rules are ignored, because to do so the accuser is being "petty", or there could be the call of discrimination, I’m at a loss. However, we all know the potential outcome of rules not being followed. We don’t have to go through the list of recent rail tragedies here.
While I don't know about Chicago, I doubt that TA personnel are less professional than they were 20 years ago. Indeed, by all reports drinking on the job was common in the pre-David Gunn TA. Don't get much of that anymore. My perception is that the quality of TA workers went downhill after the 1965 strike, when many of the experienced workers cashed in on exceedingly generous early retiremnet and retired en mass, but has improved since 1980.
This is what happened on CTA in recent years. The buy-out program, those with 25 years of service and over 50 years old were eligible, did just what it was designed to do, get rid of the older, more experienced operators/motormen.
The train handling in the past five years has gone downhill.
That just doesn't sound right "... (motorman) with no practice time ... drive YOU to work."
Here at one of the "privates", the operator first has to obtain his/her CDL license then there's classroom stuff with books/videos/etc., then the instructor puts the class in a bus and they take turns driving the streets. Granted we don't have dual controls in the bus, but no paying folks are on board.
Doesn't the prospective motorman have to pass some sort of driving test ? I must assume it's a subway train of some sort, probally back & forth in a yard, incl some signals/backing up/etc.
Disclaimer: I don't work for the TA & am speaking for myself not my employeer, the MTA, or DOT.
Mr t__:^)
Look, Damage Inc., let's get your facts straight.
14th Street - Drunk train Operator - currently behind bars
Graham Ave - Not familiar witht eh incidents
Williamsburg Bridge - T/O known to have a record for excessive speed & reported to have been sleeping
239th St. - T/O blacked out enterring the yard
135th St. - Signal Maintainer threw Switch under the train
Franklin Ave - Wet rails & excessive speed
Concourse Yard 15 track - T/O went through a red jack
Concourse yard 3 track - T/O operated a single car without checking the BCO
Jamaica yard Lead - T/O keyed by an automatic and hit another train on the lead
Steinway Street - T/O ran a red automatic while leaving the station.
The equipment may not be perfect, the signals may be old but let's face it pal, the people in your title have been less than professional in the performance of their duties. Instead of your constant crying, take pride in yourself and your job and do it right.
After reading all the posts, I have come to what is probably the correct observation: The people who bitch and moan the most are the employees that need to be watched closely and re-educated if necessary.
I also find it interesting that the people who cry the most (and seem to think that their's is the ONLY way) won't post their e-mail addresses. Could it be that they are really right only in their own minds? Folks like that don't like being challenged.
its not personal.everybody has a opinion.so why do you need someone's email address.maybe you want to write nasty things to people.be a man say what you got to say here.so everyone can see it.bottom line is,some people need to be written up.but there are those who are good workers and they get harassed by management anyway.99% of TA workers come to work and go out of their way to serve the customers.some even give their lives doing it.
Don't assume that everyone knows how to post their e-mail address. I sure don't, other than writing it out.
It's easy. On the box for Post a New Response there is a box for your e-mail address. Once you put it in the first time, the program remembers it and puts it there for you.
With the quality of your posts, perhaps some of us (who respect people) might want to respond personally.
[Look, Damage Inc., let's get your facts straight.
14th Street - Drunk train Operator - currently behind bars]
He still is? I'm surprised, what with NY State's less-than-Draconian parole practices ...
Steve I think the way the union handles management in the post office is better.let the wives and kids of the managers find a new husband and daddy.I bet you managers would think twice before writing somebody up for not having a tie on.
Yes, I understand your frustrations. I've been moving trains over-the-road for 17 years. After that amount of time, you get immune to the b.s. The public accuses us of not caring, but I refuse to let them or TA management get to me. I WILL I NOT GET AN ULCER OVER THE JOB. It supports my family, and we always make sacrifices for our family, including doing tasks we don't like. Remember, it's a job, and work sucks, but we have to pay the bills & everybody has to work for the benefit of society itself. Sure, I vent anger at times, but that's just to blow off steam. The job IS frustrating, one wrong and you go down to pee in the cup, and get restricted to a hot steamy underground platform controller job for months at a time. You are also subject to random drug-alcohol testing without cause of suspicion well into your tour of duty to make sure we are not on drugs. Don't tell me it's federal regs. I know that. But don't call me after lunch downtown for this garbage after I worked a half-tour. Are you implying I was drinking or taking drugs on the job while I was working? What about doing this at the end of the tour? I was OK to work all day, but now are you accusing me of the dame as above? We all know the motto "You're only as good as your last move." We are not like the bureaucrats who use a pencil eraser when they make mistakes. The most frustrating part is we are NEVER told by passengers or management we are doing a good job, but you always hear it when you do wrong or the ralroad is screwed up.. Our batting average is damn good, but they all want us to bat 1.000. I am concerned that a lot of new train operators are trained at great expense, with so many for a wide variety of reasons return to their former titles before their probation is up. Most of these people are not ready to work the road, but are pushed out. The smallest mechanical problem becomes a big deal because they just don't know the equipment. It's not their fault. So many control center dispatchers have no business being down there. They have a hard time recruiting people and because of this they don't get the best people. The TA would dispute this only to protect the company line. Many are snooty, talk down at you on the radio,don't listen & don't write things down what you are telling them, make you repeat the same thing numerous times. I know we have a bad radio system, but why can I hear other motormen talk and they can't get it right after 5 times? The dispatchers don't communicate with each other either, you would tell one guy something & someone else asks the same thing. Also, many times more than one person is talking to you at the same time, and they get an attitude if you don't understand the message. They sure would never make it as air traffic controllers.. See, I'm venting, but what the hell, it's a job! That's enough for now, this message is too long!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's OK to vent!
By the way, when I hear a conductor give especially good and informative PA annoucements, I'll let him/her know (often with a quip, "you should be in radio!"
I was entertained by an especially good one on the [N] yesterday... not only did he call out the stops and connections, but points of interest for tourists.
TO: Bill and all other Sub-Talk readers who work the system...
As a passenger I don't often get the chance to tell you this, so let me just say THANK YOU. The vast majority of your riders get where they want to go safely, quickly, and reasonably comfortably.
Sure we give you grief at the least inconvenience, but we have frustrating jobs too and, well, it wouldn't be New York if everyone wasn't complaining about everything. Take it as a sign that what you do is important.
Bill
You gave up Sanitation to work for TA? you truly lost alot and to become a train op someday TWU has become a joke of a union. It's also mentioned by alot of employees to be sleeping with the enemy TA management. You can be sure that Willie james and company are taking pay offs representation is something that is sorely lacking
miniscule write ups warrant plenty of time in the street or better yet dismissal. I'd like to see some top management get that kind of treatment for any wrong doing. Dom Seda was swept under the rug as former president of Local 100 and still has a cushy job with benefits...
Get the BOOK for the test, I saw it once at Banes and Nobel, the downtown HUGE Store across from the sales annex in the teens. It was with all the civil service test books, I thumbed through it, tough questions.
Too Bad NYCT Doesn't hire based on personality rather than numbers. I can think of a few Transit Buffs that would make pretty good employees. I am 20 years old and have a good amount of knowledge about car equipment, as well as RTO, not to mention the rules and regulations. It is a shame that people like me are stuck in dead end jobs that have nothing to do with transit
I consider myself a transit buff especially concerning streetcars and buses. I also am lucky enough to be a bus operator in Mabstoa. However reality has hit me that working in NYCT is not all fun and games and in fact can be very depressing at times. You have union apathy, management that just considers you a number, and a public that hates you for who you work for. Considering that I am proud to be working for the biggest and best transit agency in the world that has a very rich history. If I were to find a job that paid more though I would probably quit in a second.
Do I remember correctly that MABSTOA bus operators are not eligible for promotion to the NYCTA train operator position? If this is the case, why? Is operating the M13 that much different from operating the B51?
Thats the question of the century right now. There are rumors that a MABSTOA operator just was promoted to Train Operator but I dont think its true. I am going to keep my ears open for the next exam and check it out then.
The only way for a MABSTOA employee to become a motorman would be for him to take the exam for T.A. bus driver. When the T.A. calls him for hire, he would have to resign from MABSTOA, serve his year in title then pass a promotion for train operator. Because Mabstoa is not CIVIL SERVICE, the only promotion he could take would be dispatcher for mabstoa, unless mabstoa merges with TA bus which has been rumored but is not likely anytime soon
Seems like it would be more cost effective to have all the NYC buses manages the same way. Are the pay scales different?
Seems like it would be more cost effective to have all the NYC buses managed the same way. Are the pay scales different?
The only difference is that TA bus operators get 12 sick days a year while OA operators get 5. This is probably the major reason why unification hasn't happened. To give 7 more sick days to 3000 operators will run in the millions.
Excuse me, did I hear 12 sick days a year. Is this in addition to vacation time/pay?
We have been seeing quite a bit of complaining about top heavy management in recent posts, however it seems to me that the rank and file are also reaping the benefits of taxpayer funded transit at the TA.
Let us be "reasonable" here! Five days sick per year is reasonable!
This reminds me of the seven weeks vacation that the CTA employee's earn after 25 years service, which is viewed as "excessive" by those who pay the fares and those who pay taxes.
While it may seem excessive, dispatchers until two years ago had unlimited sick time. And heaven forbid you use them before your days off or too many in succession and your butt will be in the office for excessive sick time, so dont worry, we are going to work sick and miserable as you wish.
Where I am now we earn 12 days a year and can accumulate up to 960 hours. After that if you do not use them in the year 1/2 of the 12 days go into a catastrophic bank. This bank can also be used to pay for health ins. after you retire.
Where I used to work we earned 12 days per year for the first 5 years them 18 per year. Same max cap of 960 and 50% of $ value of 960 at the time you retired went for health ins. when you retired but you had to have age + years of service >80 to collect it.
Then there is attendance incentive. If you go 4 months without using a sick day, late out or unexcussed absence you get $100.00
When you are driving or a mechanic it is not easy to return to work after broken bones, heart attack etc. sick leave is usually for serious illness.
So, you enjoy the benefits of a steady job with good pay and benefits, and I’m happy for you. However, I have as much right to state my opinion here as you do. Twelve days sick leave would be less tolerated in the private business sector. Private business must pay its own way. The business of provided transit does not. It did years ago, however, we’ve seen what happened to that.
Your union and you, view sick leave as an entitlement. I will be the first one to admit there are times when you are better off at home getting better that on the job feeling poorly. However, having 12 days "given" to you for sick, why don't they just add twelve days to your vacation and you can take a vacation day when you are sick. It just seems to me that if you tell someone they have twelve days, most workers will make sure they get their twelve days, before they "lose" something. These are the same people who cry about losing public money subsidy.
And I'm not addressing major illness or accident. Leaves involving more than five days should be covered by insurance.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY HERE IS, I've read lots here recently about how the public "hates" the TA workers. Well, put yourself in the rider's place for one minute. Maybe when you're paying your hard earned $$$ in fares, not to mention tax $$$ that go to the transit agencies, and the transit workers who are paid to serve you, and who are getting paid a good wage and benefits to do so, are treating you indifferently. Just how would you feel?
In Chicago, where I live, there are many transit employee’s who are good at what they do. They try their best to give the service the riders want and deserve. It sounds like you fall into this group. However, there are always the few whose actions "pull down the rest of the group". It is an unfortunate fact of life, but your union does its best to defend these people, even if they don’t have a leg to stand on.
I expect a firestorm of replies from this posting, and I welcome it. Public debate is one of the givens in this country.
Most city agency the standard is 12 a year earned monthly (you don't get a lump sum up front).
Now vacation time is different, at 12 years of city service I get 25 vacation days and 20 holdiays this year. If a holdiay falls on a Saturday I lose it so I did not get Friday off July 4th this year.
At 14 years of service I'll max out on vacation days at 27 a year, earned by the month. We can only keep a max of double what we earn a year in the bank. Anything in excess turns into sick time.
12 sick days a year is indeed reasonable. It doesn't mean you must take them or you don't you get paid for them. For example, after almost 19 yrs. on the job total service I have over 200 days in the bank. This is like an insurance policy, I will not get them if I don't use them, but under a complicated formula, you can get paid for 1/2 of your sick leave balance upon retirement. We do not work in a climate controlled office building like the bureaucrats. A bus driver, for example, constantly gets bombarded with freezing cold air whenever he opens the door. Colds & flu are easy to get. The conductor with his head out the window observing the platform has the cold air whipping in his face: colds & flu. The motorman who has to walk to his train in the freezing cold & wind in the yard in the winter, while in the summer who one moment is in air conditioning & another in weather 30 degrees hotter when he gets off the train....All of us come in close contact with the public who may have infectious ailments themselves...you should understand we need that sick time. We are always exposed to germs and possibilities of sickness.
You forgot something we pay taxes also......all the boon doogling that mta does costs plenty not to mention the plenty of folks who do not sell fare media open or close doors move a train or bus. there are plenty of folk riding the gravy train who know jack about what a passenger must endure or what a rank and file employee does for a days pay. how about the recently acquired president Mike Reuter he got his moving expeneses covered and a few other prizes totaling a half million dollars or more.
I've often wodered why TA and MABSTOA are still separate operations. I'm not saying that they should merge, but they seem to be so different for what seems to be the same job but in another location. I can remember well when buses being transferred stayed in their divisions - That is: MABSTOA buses were only transferred to other MABSTOA depots and the same at TA. Now, buses are transferred between MABSTOA and TA, which is probably why the TA removed MABSTOA decals from buses and replaced them with NYCTA decals. Their must be some pros and cons to working for TA vs MABSTOA and vice-versa - I wonder what they are.
Some of the pros with working for TA is that you are civil service and not a state employee as with OA. This however is also a negative when it comes to disicplinary action against operators. Civil service goes by the book when it comes to violations while at OA things are a bit more relaxed and are not so strictly enforced. TA gets more sick days than OA, and the best part is that at TA you can move around the system while at OA your stuck where you are at.
A funny thing about all of this is that you can go to any MABSTOA depot and you wont see anything but New York City Transit on the depot.
Upper managers now are being switched around between TA and OA on a reuglar basis. Another difference is the seniority system in OA. I can pick every year to any OA depot and never lose my seniority. While at TA if you move around to another division you go to the bottom of the list for that division and you stay in that division till retirement. Since I've been on the job I've been in Mother Hale, Amsterdam and currently in Manhattanville. Next general I'm planning to go back to Amsterdam.
an even funnier thing is that you go to local 100 headquarter and see mostly Mabstoa people at the top excluding our "NEW DIRECTION" members
Thats very true, it has been very hard for New Directions to gain support in the buses. Willie James and team are pretty much all from Buses thus the big following. Just check out the ND web page and you see that subways has the most ND division winners.
Maybe after the big 20/50 sham Nd may have a chance next election.
I've often wodered why TA and MABSTOA are still separate operations. I'm not saying that they should merge, but they seem to be so different for what seems to be the same job but in another location. You'd also think that 126th St depot would be a MABSTOA depot. I can remember well when buses being transferred stayed in their divisions - That is: MABSTOA buses were only transferred to other MABSTOA depots and the same at TA. Now, buses are transferred between MABSTOA and TA, which is probably why the TA removed MABSTOA decals from buses and replaced them with NYCTA decals. Their must be some pros and cons to working for TA vs MABSTOA and vice-versa - I wonder what they are.
I,as a motorman certainly don't want to merge with MABSTOA muchless have them become motorman(the same goes for Brooklyn division T.A drivers as well).The reason is that we see things differently in the way our union is run.For example, we have OPTO. The top union leadership was nowhere to be found mobilizing the Rapid Transit Operations dept against it.Meanwhile,when the Mayor proposed competion with the private vans,the union went all out to organize the drivers.They showed up at City Hall to protest the proposal.The top leadership testified against the proposal,and it was temporarily defeated.Also,when the opto 1 year experiment ended(18months with permission from the union)it passed.It passed because the union let them get away with all the documented failures of the experiment(employee injuries,malfunctioning equipment,passenger injuries).I guess there were more important busdriver issues at hand.There is definitely a problem when busdrivers vote for leadership that agrees with management on a 50 cent/hr compensation for driving an articulated bus
Real good!!! If you single out Brooklyn division drivers not being allowed to become motormen, what about the Staten Island, Queens & TA Manhattan (126 St.) drivers? Are they allowed? Technically, the promotion to "Train Operator" is open to all current TA employees, & before that when I took the "Motormans" test in 1980, it was only open to TA Bus Drivers (irregardless of division) and Conductors only. BTW: this MABSTOA & NYCT bus thing is a perfect example of the divide & conquor approach. They are so closely related, share buses: MABSTOA & TA buses are shifted from one agency to the other, they use the same base maintance shops, routes which may be a TA route becomes a MABSTOA route & vice versa, yet the drivers from both agencies have different contracts. Why would the TA want unification? Ans.: it would cost them more $ for the total pay & benefit package for the hourly workers, and would make MABSTOA bureaucrats extinct due to duplication of bureaucratic tasks unneeded. We can't mess up the ratio of Chiefs to Indians!
During rush hours, when the local and express tracks on the #7 are both being used, does the TA have any tricks for getting as many trains as possible in the reverse direction? It would seem like this would be the constraint on the number of trains, since 1 local line has less capacity than 1 local + 1 express. Do they couple trains together to get them back out? Rely on shorter dwell times with less passengers? Start trains at some intermediate point before Main St?
Some return trips operate only to 111 st, or Shea Stadium. From there, they go straight to the yard. During rush hour, they seem to run the trains about one station apart, that is, you can see the next train in the previous station as you board at your station. And so on, like a conveyor.
-Hank
90 second headways on the Manhattan bound local tracks.
--Mark
When you stop to think about it, it's easy.
The combined local and express between QBP and TS is 90 second headway (remember there are only two tracks between those stations). So the service in both directions is the same. It's just that in the heavy direction the it's 180 sec headway on each service (on average - assuming the local and express is split 50%-50%).
The trick in TS is using drop-back Train operators. That is the arriving TO gets off the train and walks back to the Queens end of the train. Meanwhile the TO from the train before is already at the Queens end and he/she takes the train back to Queens.
What do you think of this recent addition to the CTA Web Site?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Entrances for Six CTA 'L' Stations Coming in Fall, 1998
For users of Transit Cards, Monthly Passes, Transfer Cards, and Visitor Passes
Pulaski Entrance to Irving Park Station, Blue Line
Lunt Entrance to Morse Station, Red Line
East Entrance to Oak Park Station, Blue Line
Damen Entrance to Medical Center Station, Blue Line
Paulina Entrance to Medical Center Station, Blue Line
Justine Entrance to Ashland Station, Green Line (at Lake)
Lake/Wells Entrance to Clark/Lake Station, Blue Line (free transfer to
others) at all hours
The CTA is making the above six 'L' stations more convenient for customers to enter. Early this fall, new entrances will be provided in locations where previously it was possible only to exit the stations. Four Blue Line stations and one each on the Red and Green Lines will have reversible high barrier gates installed for this purpose.
New technology makes the changes possible. By building automated fare
equipment into the high barrier gates, they can serve both as exits and as entrances for customers using fare cards. The convenience of new station entrances gives CTA an opportunity to attract customers from nearby neighborhoods or businesses who might otherwise be discouraged by having to walk up to two extra blocks to reach the primary entrances.
The new station entrances are scheduled to open this fall. One will be
at the Pulaski Road side of the Irving Park station on the Blue Line,
where riders will be able to transfer directly to Blue Line trains from #53 Pulaski buses. Another will be at Lunt Avenue at the north end of the Red Line station at Morse. A third will be at East Avenue, which is at the east end of the Blue Line station at Oak Park Avenue in Oak Park.
Two new entrances will be established at the Medical Center station on
the Blue Line to accommodate growing activity both east and west ofthe
existing station entrance at Ogden, and provide better connections with #9 Ashland and #50 Damen buses. The exit at Paulina will be converted to entrance capability, while the one-time entrance at Damen will be reopened after being closed for twenty-five years.
One of the other two stations being changed is at Ashland/Lake on the
Green Line, where it will be possible to reach both platforms from the
current stairway exits to the east near Justine. The Lake/Wells
entrance/exit for the Clark/Lake Blue Line subway station will also
receive new high barrier gates, allowing it to serve as an entrance at
all hours, rather than only during the afternoon rush period.
Providing increased accessibility to our services is just one way that
the CTA is accomplishing its mission to deliver quality, affordable
transit services that link people, jobs, and communities. Most of the
new entrances also provide closer connections for riders transferring
from nearby bus lines, which could help boost ridership.
I think it's definitely a step in the right direction.
The convenience factor of being able to get on as well as off at the nearest entrance to a station is undeniable. At the stations listed above, if you were closer to the exit-only end of the station, you had to go to the other end of the station (usually a block away, and sometimes more depending on the orientation of the subway line to the street system) to get on in the morning and could use your exit only to get off in the evening. A real pain!
As the CTA release says, this move is made possible by the new Transit Card system and the automated card vending machines and turnstiles -- no extra personnel required to have an extra entrance. The only problem I can see is that there are still people who need help with the vending machines (not so much with the turnstiles) and the "new" entrances being unmanned may force these people to use the manned entrance anyway.
It does not sound like they will even have vending machines at these entrances. (They need to be looked after, too - or someone might attempt to get at whats inside!) The entrances are only usable if you already have a pass. Which is also another way to encourage pass use...
> while the one-time entrance at Damen will be reopened after being
> closed for twenty-five years.
25 YEARS? Why? (Safety? Costs?) What kind of shape is this exit in?
--Mark
The area that this station is located is undergoing recent re-development. Like many area's of Chicago, such as West Loop, South Loop and Cabrini-Green area to name a few, this area is seeing new construction and rebuilding. This equals more riders and revenue. Why not open old closed exit/entrances?
In the day's of agents "personing" the entrances it just didn't make economic sense to have them covered. Now, with new technology and equipment, opening these former "exits" can save up to a block or two walk for patrons. And without payroll expense. Why not encourage ridership by making the ‘L’ more convenient?
At the risk of sounding cynical, they would encourage ridership even more by not cutting back service where it's really needed.
Then again, they could bring back conductors on the Red and Blue lines over their entire length, not just in the subway portions.
NYCT is installing ne MetroCard Iron Maidens,officially called "High Entrance/Exit Tunstiles" (HEETs). These will replace high exit turnstiles at stations with a booth only on one side or some entrances. The old iron maidens will remain until tokens are eliminated (and I do not knwo when that will happen). The HEET will allow exit without the MetroCard but to enter you must use the MetroCard. If someone tries to exit after you are trying to swipe it will well you to wait. I tried one at Cortlandt Street IRT Downtown and it worked great. They are also common on the uptown side of the #1 train in the Bronx.
NYCT is installing ne MetroCard Iron Maidens,officially called "High Entrance/Exit Tunstiles" (HEETs). These will replace high exit turnstiles at stations with a booth only on one side or some entrances. The old iron maidens will remain until tokens are eliminated (and I do not know when that will happen). The HEET will allow exit without the MetroCard but to enter you must use the MetroCard. If someone tries to exit after you are trying to swipe it will well you to wait. I tried one at Cortlandt Street IRT Downtown and it worked great. They are also common on the uptown side of the #1 train in the Bronx.
Grrrr...those metrocard high-entrance/exit things SUCK,
to use a technical term. During the entrance operation,
as soon one relaxes forward pressure on the mechanism,
it locks up and ceases to operate in the entering direction.
Now, you are stuck in the middle of this thing, and the only
thing you can do is walk backwards to escape, and lose your fare.
I've seen many, many people get stuck in them, myself included,
and I won't use them for entering (HHH) or exit.
Anytime a turnstile fails to allow entry there is a phone numbeer to call posted near the problem wheel. You should then follow the instructions posted on the sign where to go to enter the system (for free). Usually this will be across the street or the other end of the station where the main booth is located.
On behalf of New York City Transit, I am sorry you are having problems with the turnstiles Hope your next experience with our system will be better.
Anytime a turnstile fails to allow entry there is a phone numbeer to call posted near the problem wheel. You should then follow the instructions posted on the sign where to go to enter the system (for free). Usually this will be across the street or the other end of the station where the main booth is located.
On behalf of New York City Transit, I am sorry you are having problems with the turnstiles. Hope your next experience with our system will be better.
"On behalf of New York City Transit, I am sorry you are having problems with the turnstiles. Hope your next experience with our system will be better. " -- ROTFL!
As a matter of fact, this metrocard maiden is at fare control
zone N333B, which is the part-time entrance to Forest Hills
station. There is a full-time fair control area at N333A,
which can be reached from N333B just by walking around the
corner of the mezz. So, that's what I did. I explained what
happened to the RR clerk, who said "sorry, can't do anything
for you here, but a lot of people have been having the same
problem. Here is a form to fill out and mail back to
[Livingston St] when your card is run out"
So, I did that. On the little form I explained exactly what
happened. I got back a form letter saying "your metrocard
was not damaged and all of the value was properly expended"
or something like that. Hmmmm, I wonder if they even read
my explanation?
So, on behalf of the NYCT, do you know the # of someone
in revenue collection who deals with this? {Dave R., if
you are listening, I can hear your voice saying "heh heh heh
I know someone who'll take care of ya, baby!"}
I am still sorry you had problems. There is a number on the front of every booth which is the supervisor's number. Call the supervisor.
I had the same problem, I was entering at Jay street (the south end) where there are only the metromaidens and someone pulled on the gate as I was entering. BAM, the gate entered the exit mode and I was locked out for 18 minutes. I went up and over to the regular entrance and the clerk would not let me in.
I tried to insist that she check my card to show that I just swiped it but the clerk said that I let someone else in with it since there was no way to verify my story.
If this is the way the TA treats it's CUSTOMERS, I think I'll go into that metro card scaming thing... at least I could get into the system.
Relax. You should call the supervisor. The number is on the front of every booth. Next to the phone nmumber is the booth number. Station CoOmmand has issued a bulletin advising station agents "to show courtesy" to those having problems eith metrocards--espeically "please swipe here again" and "just used". This is reinforced with PA messages to station agents (heard only inside the booth).
again, I still regret you had difficulty using the system and still hope that your next ride will be a more pleasant experience.
Once again- Thank you for riding MTA New York City Transit. Have a nice day!
Area university buys space on the back of the MetroCard ... Yes would you believe it, NY University asks you to either
- Call 1-800-FIND NYU or
- Dial www.scps.nyu.edu
Somebody there also has a since of humor because they boldy state:
"Get on the fast TRACK", it's cute, I like it, and would love to live in the Village for a while !!!!
P.S. Repeat of my offer to swap your out-of-town dip/swipe cards for mine.
Mr t__:^)
Do any of you on the BBS know the exact history of the terminology "beakie" which refers to a undercover supervisor who checks on an employees compliance of rules and regulations of thier jobs?
I have heard that at one time in the early history of NYCT a man by the name of Beakerman had a group of men who use to ride buses and trains to check for any problems but because they were not transit employees it wouldn't stand as far as disciplinary action against the employee?
Just got the 411 on that on. IT come from when the system was very Green. (Irish) Beakie is Slang for Beacon. Like a light beacon in the water. the old time Irish sailor (most of them became cops or bus drivers)called a rat a Beacon like how a light house give itself away at night. When they mean rat there not talking about that thing with two bean eyes that runs in the night. There talking about the rat that walks on two legs and sits two sit behind you. Ask a Irish man right off boat to say beacon and it sounds like Beakie.
Are you a BEAKIE?
top to the day me lad. :-)
Funny. You might all know this, but the official City of New York directory is called "The Green Book" back from when the all the officials in it were Irish also. The cover is green, but that's not where the name came from.
No Im not laddy! Im a bus operator who just became the victim of one however in March. Plainclothes with a big shiny gold badge. Rode my bus to the end of the line and informed me that I held the bus with the interlock four times and will receive a violation. Nothing came of the violation thank God just a slap of the wrist! Other than that he did tell me that I did a pretty good job.
In Baltimore we call them "Spotters". Not well liked at all
The derivation from Irish for "beacon" sounds good, and may be true, but the recent _Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang_ (Vol 1, A - G, 1994) traces "beak" to mean either a judge or a policeman in English sources back to the mid 18th century.
When I was a waiter in a Manhattan restaurant chain back in the mid-'60s we called them "spotters." Does anyone recall the overpriced Cobbs Corners and allied eateries?
Today I took the 63d Street Shuttle from Times Square to Lexington/63d, where I got off.
Does anyone know if there are two additional tracks at this station on each level, hidden behind the walls?
And with regard to those other posts regarding confusing and ambiguous station names - this one is a good example. A "Lexington Ave." Station exists three blocks south on the N and R lines. Would probably be better to call the newer station Lexington/63d, to avoid confusion with Lexington and 59th/60th Sts where the N, R, 4, 5, and 6 trains intersect.
Confusion? What confusion? How about Lexington and 53st?
There are 2 more tracks behind the wazlls at Lexington on the 63st line. They are intended to go to the fabled Second Ave line. For now, they're lay-up tracks.
-Hank
Now I'm confused --- since when does the 63rd Street Shuttle run from Times Square?
The 63rd Street Shuttle runs on the Broadway BMT (Never/Rarely) line, and runs on the express track. From 6am to 9pm weekdays, it begins at 34th Street, and stops at 42nd (Times Square) and 57th before continuing on to the 63rd Street line. Other hours, the "southern terminal" (as the roll signs say!) is 57th Street. You can read all about it on the NYCT Web site.
By the way, since when is "February 22, 1998 through Fall 1999" a 15 month period? Sound like they have a Y1999 problem!
Just like July 1998 to "Winter 1999" is "18 months" on the Franklin Shutle project. It's close, but still misleading.
How will new yorkers feel about riding driverless rail transit ?.
Around the world ATO driverless systems have been running for years.
Yet in the United States it is felt driverless will not be accepted.
A example is the LA transit subway system were the unions stop the system from going full driverless automatic and pay motormen to open doors.
<< How will new yorkers feel about riding driverless rail transit ?.
Around the world ATO driverless systems have been running for years.
Yet in the United States it is felt driverless will not be accepted.>>
Not so! People-movers at O'Hare, Dallas and Tampa airports have all been used successfully for some time now. Also, isn't the Miami, FL system (not the airport but around town) a driverless system?
Miami and Detroit both have downtown peoplemover systems, and both are unmanned. The Miami system (Metromover, I think it's called) is bigger and has passenger connections to a rapid transit line, while the Detroit system (plain old Peoplemover) stands alone and just ties together the downtown tourist sites (hotels, expo center, indoor shopping center).
The Newark Airport Monorail is also driverless. I've never ridden it in the first car so I can't really speak of it. I have however ridden in the "Driver's Seat" on the driverless Docklands Light Rail in London. Kinda spooky at first but you get used to it.
-Dave
I've been in the first car at Newark, and you're right, Dave, kinda spooky as the train starts up with nobody "driving". However, the automated announcements that tell you the obvious ("the train has started") seem a bit much. The 2-3 minute headways are convenient.
Atlanta Hartsfield and Seattle SeaTac have simular driverless systems underground, linking the concourses.
I think there's a critical difference, however, between airport people mover systems (and city "loops") and the JFK project. The airport/downtown loop routes have very short distances between stops, and are in "populated" areas.
The Jamaica to JFK link will be be on an elevated structure, high stop the Van Wyck Expressway, and travel for some 15 minutes without a stop. I think it will be seen as much less secure in passengers' minds without an employee or officer on board.
Todd, I think that they will have "PATH-style" passenger alarm systems on the trains. But, even with that it will take the cops some time to get there. Maybe they will have cameras on broad too.
The entire JFK light rail project seems like a gigantic waste of money. Didn't ANYONE learn ANYTHING from the dismal failure of the Train to the Plane? People going to and from an airport want convenience...they don't want to have to haul themselves, and any baggage they may be carrying, to on and from a train.
The billion-+ whatever of dollars this project will be wasting could instead be spent to make BADLY-needed improvements over the entire system...instead, what we will get is an unneeded white elephant.
[The entire JFK light rail project seems like a gigantic waste of money. Didn't ANYONE learn ANYTHING from the dismal failure of the Train to the Plane? People going to and from an airport want convenience...they don't want to have to haul themselves, and any baggage they may be carrying, to on and from a train.]
While it's certainly not the best design imaginable, the JFK light rail project has advantages over the Train to the Plane. That ill-fated project was actually the Train to the Bus to the Plane. Eliminating the bus transfer should make the new light rail a lot more acceptable. In addition, it should offer a much quicker ride into Manhattan with the LIRR transfer at Jamaica, as opposed to a long subway ride through Brooklyn.
Representatives of the city want a one-seat ride to Manhattan, via direct connection to the restarted Rockaway Branch or the Fulton St Line. The train to Jamaica up the Van Wyck, in this view, is a waste.
But politicians from Long Island, who are more influential on transportation matters that city politicians (who seem to care only about Medicaid and non-profit social service funding), care very much about the Jamaica link. Even if they may never take it, they want the option of a convenient switch to the LIRR. They think it will help they attract businesses away from Manhattan.
[Representatives of the city want a one-seat ride to Manhattan, via direct connection to the restarted Rockaway Branch or the Fulton St Line. The train to Jamaica up the Van Wyck, in this view, is a waste.]
A single seat ride to Manhattan probably would be preferable. But at least the present idea, for all its flaws, is reasonably do-able. Using the Rockaway branch would run into all the NIMBY issues recently discussed here. Besides, the right of way has been obstructed in a couple of places. Experience has shown that once a r-o-w is blocked, it's usually gone together.
[But politicians from Long Island, who are more influential on transportation matters that city politicians (who seem to care only about Medicaid and non-profit social service funding), care very much about the Jamaica link. Even if they may never take it, they want the option of a convenient switch to the LIRR. They think it will help they attract businesses away from Manhattan.]
I'm not so sure about that. As far as I can tell, Nassau County politicians seem most concerned about "Nassau Hub" transportation projects, while out in Suffolk the only discussion regarding mass transit seems to be griping about the LIRR.
I saw Peter and Larry's responses to my message posted yesterday. While much of what they had to say was true, they seem to be missing the point. Whether the light rail proposal goes through the Rockaways, transfers to the LIRR, or whatever, people are not going to use it in large enough numbers to make it worthwhile. Meanwhile, as we all know, and have discussed right here on Subtalk, there are innumberable needs throughout the subway system, which in my opinion are more important then building another white elephant that people just will not use. When they can have a cab take them and their luggage directly to the airport, they are not going to want to bother with taking a cab to a train (to possibly another train!)
When will people and politicians realize that it is better to spend the money on things that will actually, and are actually, used and do some good?????????
Where do you get the idea that an airport rail service would be a "white elephant that people just will not use"??? Have you ever ridden the train from the airport in a city that has it's light rail or rapid transit run to the airport? It's not the traffic of a downtown station, but it's usually one of the busiest outlying stations of the system. Chicago, Washington, Boston, and St. Louis are some places I've taken the airport train on business trips, and in every case it was convenient and there were plenty of other passengers.
"When they can have a cab take them and their luggage directly to the airport, they are not going to want to bother with taking a cab to a train (to possibly another train!)"
It's true that people on pleasure trips usually have too much luggage to take the airport train, and the highest executives take limos or taxis to and from the airport. But:
1) Plenty of business travelers, with light baggage and not having a bottomless expense account (me!), are encouraged to take the train. At rush-hour, when the train can be faster than a cab, some business travelers actually prefer the train.
2) Beyond the air passengers, there are the thousands of people who work at the airport, many of whom are in less-paying positions and who can take an airport job only if they don't **have** to have a car to get there.
3) I don't know what the airport-hotel situation is like in NYC, but here in Chicago, a **lot** of pleasure travelers -- families -- save money by staying at a hotel near O'Hare and taking the train into the city to see the sights.
I live near the Blue Line in Chicago, and that's how I get to work. I've **seen** the business travelers at rush-hours, the airport workers at odd hours, and the families coming in from the airport hotels on Saturdays and Sundays (Lord, the children on the train!). The airport crowd can easily fill one or two cars of an eight-car train most of the time.
The City Planning position is that a one seat ride will be more heavily used, due to the train to the plane experience. Its other position is that the N to LaGuardia is more important than the JFK plan. Since so many LaGuardia riders are alone, traveling on business with just a briefcase and or one suit bag, mass transit is very convenient, and since LaGuardia is so much closer than JFK the transit ride would be short.
I saw the Memorandum of Understanding between Pataki and Giuliani on airport access in a pile of documents to be filed yesterday. Pataki has promised a study and $100 million toward the project LGA, although needless to say this promise has not passed through a budget process with competing priorities (tax cuts, social services). Of course, Pataki seems happy to spend any amount of money as long as he can borrow it.
"Its other position is that the N to LaGuardia is more important...Pataki has promised a study and $100 million toward the project LGA"
In an article in this month's Railway Age, it was said that MTA NYCTransit has let a contractto study an extension of the N Astoria line to LaGuardia Airport. The study is to focus on 4 (four) possible alignments and is supposed to produce a Final Environmental Impact Statement by November 1999.
One more thing - the JFK light rail project is being funded by a federal tax on airplane tickets. It isn't competing with the subway for funding.
And not only that, the tax cannot be used for anything that would benefit anyone but a airline traveler. The airlines are ridiculously jealous about this, and hate to see it used even for mass transit to airports - apparently afraid that this might benefit others in addition to airport travelers. No WAY the TA is getting that money to use for the Manhattan bridge.
Yet another project which is NOT keeping the Manhattan bridge from being fixed.
[And not only that, the tax cannot be used for anything that would benefit anyone but a airline traveler. The airlines are ridiculously jealous about this, and hate to see it used even for mass transit to airports - apparently afraid that this might benefit others in addition to airport travelers.]
My guess is that a lot of airport employees will be using the light rail once it's in operation. Wonder if the airlines will object to that?
The airlines do not want airline passengers to fund a link which connects into the overall transit system through a passenger facility charge. Then why are they willing to fund roads which link into the general road system. I think there should be a barrier between on-airport roads funded by the PFC, and off-airport roads, with two sets of cars. If you can't ride a train direct from the airport to somewhere else, why can you drive direct?
Barry, et. al.,
I for ONE could/would use the JFK line ... a relative/friend can easily drop me at the LIRR, then in to Jamaica, then to the airport. I might NOT get across the platform change at Jamaica, that would be a pain, but otherwise the car trip to JFK/LGA is getting worse & worse so SOMETHING is needed !!!
From Manhattan, many folks can get to the subway & if they're lucky enough to be on the 1/9/2/3 or can get to them without too much up & dwn the stairs you might get a lot of customers.
Also, Businessmen usually don't have a lot of luggage, so there's another potential source of business.
AND why can't they add some stops on the Van Wyke ???? If volume from JFK is the problem ... find a way to add traffic ! What would you charge them ... 1.50. Make'm pay getting on & off or show a ticket for the agent to open the gate.
Mr t__:^)
Car service from my home to JFK is $20 with tip.
Coming home car service will not meet you at the airport, you have to call them to get them so a yellow taxi to my home is $30 with tip.
It would take me over 2 hours to get to JFK via public transprotation, I would like a direct rail link, downtown brooklyn LIRR or TA is only 20 minutes on the D (faster on the Q) and I would do it for the cheaper fair ($5 or so).
[AND why can't they add some stops on the Van Wyke ???? If volume from JFK is the problem ... find a way to add traffic ! What would you charge them ... 1.50. Make'm pay getting on & off or show a ticket for the agent to open the gate.]
No can do. The JFK project is being funded by a tax on airline tickets, and federal law prohibits use of the proceeds for any non-airport transit use.
I CAN NOT believe that New Yorkers can not see the point in DIRECT LOW COST transportation to the airport.
Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington, Cleveland, Boston (almost) have it. In Chicago BOTH airports have direct access to downtown. Naturally both the Blue and Orange Lines also carry regular commuters from the neighborhoods they travel through, however, there is a good portion of customers who go through to the airport. Evidenced by the amount of luggage aboard rush hour trains.
The right-of-way is there, ex LIRR from Ozone Park to the Jamaica - Penn Station Mainline abaondoned in the 1950's. What is the problem? Connections to the LIRR or the subway using the 63rd Street Subway should be no problem. Building a right-of-way from the present route to JFK would be expensive, however, it would also be an asset. For years NYC has debated, delayed and now is going to pay a high price for any new line to JFK.
If New Yorkers want to keep shelling out $20 & $30 car and cab fares, fine! Here in the Windy City, more livable in my opinion, we will pay our $1.50 and arrive in time.
(If New Yorkers want to keep on spending $30 for cab fare, fine). Taxi medalion owners are very well organized in NYC, and give lots of money to the NYC Council and the State Legislature. This has a role in the debate. How many people are paying money to the City Council in exchange for getting a one-seat ride to the airport?
Larry, I always enjoy when you put things into perspective. The taxi lobby is big in Chicago also, but the constuction unions won out on the building of both airport lines.
Robert Moses was good at mobilizing the construction unions. Unfortunately, our construction unions seem more interested in inflating the cost of a limited amount of work (ie. the Wicks Law) than in increasing the amount of work overall. The idea of lowering the price to stimulate demand seems to go over everyone's head here. Can anyone explain to me why the $100 million the state has already committed isn't enough to extend the N the 2 miles to LGA and build a station? That's a lot of money.
This is a subject that will generate intense debate. There is no 100% perfect way to provide airport access in New York, not because of the airport locations. The challenge is the diverse locations where airport travellers begin or end their trips. That is why the JFK dedicated airport link makes sense. It provides:
-access to 3 subway lines: A at Howard Beach; E and J at Jamaica
-access to all LIRR branches except Port Washington; access to LIRR trunks to Brooklyn and Penn Sta (and in the future to Grand Central also).
-access to a dozen bus routes right at Jamaica Station - 6 NYC Transit; 6 Green Bus.
-a new, state of the art transfer station at Jamaica linking all modes at one convenient location.
One line cannot provide interconnections to all possible destinations - but this line comes about as close as possible.
The problems with reactivating the old Rockaway Beach line include:
-rebuilding a right of way that is so overgrown it resembles a forest;
-no additional LIRR capacity in its East River tunnels for any new peak period service to/from JFK;
-limited transfer possibilites. By missing Jamaica, the ability to connect to Long Island and the NYC suibways is lost. Building a spur into Jamaica from this route also interferes with current LIRR operations.
The N extenstion to LaGuardia, however, does make sense - not only because LaGuardia patrons tend to be more "briefcase/overnight bag" types, but also because the Astoria elevated is a short line without the overcrowding found on the Queens Blvd. E/F/R line. Since the N can handle the large 75 foot cars, customers won't be squeezed as frequently happens on IRT type equipment.
You made a good point, about how the light rail line will offer excellent transfer possibilities at Jamaica. That's usually missed by advocates of the "single seat" plan. Not everyone flying into Kennedy Airport will be heading to Manhattan.
One claim made in favor of the single seat ride is that it will be more attractive to riders with a large amount of luggage. I'm not convinced of that - seems to me that people traveling heavily laden won't be using rail in the first place, single seat or otherwise.
Thank you, Peter, for the kind words. You also made a good point in your earlier post about the legalities behind the dedicated funding of the JFK rail access project. Many people do not realize that this project is funded by the ticket surcharge.
Another point that many critics overlook is that within JFK there will be a multitude of stops to enable service to all major airline terminals. The airport is so huge that simply extending a subway or commuter rail line to a single "airport station" won't suffice. Only a dedicated line can deliver airline passengers (and employees) to the various destinations within the airport complex.
First, the money for the JFK LRS comes from a passenger facility tax placed on airline tickets and cannot be used to fund non-airport specific improvements.
Second, to be honest, the "Train to the Plane" did not "fail." It was conceived as a response to the failing condition of the subway system and a way to market the subway to the airport-bound customers (whose demand for transit is more elastic than the everyday commuter). It was a premium service with two advantages- some stations were bypassed and the cars were kept cleaner. Ridership fell only when the TA began to return the system as a whole to more acceptable standards. The remaining advantage for the Train to the Plane- the slightly shorter travel time- was hardly worth the price differential. Rather than a failure, the demise of the Train to the Plane represents a triumph for the subway in general and the A train specifically.
As for the present plan, it is far superior to any one-seat ride scheme which, by Federal law, would be soley for airport passengers (even the status of airport employees is questionable). The choice is really between a self-standing system running closed door from Midtown to JFK with infrequent headways or a system that is integrated into the existing system and gives passengers over a thousand opportunites a day to grab a Long Island train at Penn and take a short, "people mover" type ride when in close proximity to the airport. Subway riders would have even more opportunities to access the system.
A system that offered a one-seat would be a true boondoggle and the daily ridership could never justify its expense.
One point said here a couple of times is: The money came from pass tickets & can only be spent on a transit sys that ONLY benifits pass from the airport & can't be intergrated into a subway sys.
What about AFTER it gets built ?
- Could you ADD subway type stops ?
- Make connections with subway lines ?
- Add a switch off the line, e.g. Eastern Queens ?
Mr t__:^)
I would think so, though I have wondered that myself. If this is true, it sure seems they oughta use conventional subway technology...but I do not think the Port Authority has any interest in building a system that could someday be taken over by the TA. They want to have it under their control...
Denver's new multi-billion dollar airport also has a driverless people mover that shuttles people from the Terminal, where the airport is entered/exited, to the concourses. In a brilliant twist, they designed the people mover WITHOUT A BACKUP. YOU CANNOT WALK to two out of the three concourses. There is no way to walk. This was designed this way because a) it would supposedly cost $10 million to install a walkway out to the outer concourses and b) the people mover will never break down.
Reason a) tells you a lot about the gold-plating that is everywhere at DIA. Reason b) should be ending some careers, since it is obviously ridiculous. However, the folks that designed the airport were convinced that these things Never Break Down. Well, it did this past spring. Result...six hours of chaos.
Just in case anyone was thinking that NYCTA had patented stupidity...
[Denver's new multi-billion dollar airport also has a driverless people mover that shuttles people from the Terminal, where the airport is entered/exited, to the concourses. In a brilliant twist, they designed the people mover WITHOUT A BACKUP. YOU CANNOT WALK to two out of the three concourses. There is no way to walk.]
Isn't that also true of the Atlanta airport?
It's true of the new International Terminal 5 at O'Hare. The three main terminals are next to each other and are connected by walkways. (Oddly enough, there is no Terminal 4.) However, the new terminal is a good distance away and can be reached only by the Airport Transit System. However, the ATS hasn't failed yet, so no complaints. (And, in a pinch, they could use shuttle buses.)
On the other hand, what would be the point of a peoplemover system in the first place if the places connected by it were all close enough to walk?
You're absolutely right, and I agree with you completely. I've supported DIA from the beginning, and still feel it's a great airport, but at the same I think it was a grave mistake and just plain STUPID to not include some sort of backup walkway between concourses in the event the trains broke down. Talk about lack of common sense. Taking an attitude of "the trains will never break down" borders on arrogance and naivete. There is talk of putting in such a walkway now, but the question remains: where will they put it? It can't go between the trackways because there are crossovers between the trackways in between each concourse. It can't go adjacent to the train tunnels because the baggage tunnels are there. The only recourse is to dig beneath the people mover. Get this: one other brilliant reason given for not including a backup walkway was "people wouldn't want to walk so far". There is some truth to that statement: Concourse C is a mile away from the main terminal. Well then, how about moving walkways? DUH! Concourse B has them! So does the underground passage at O'Hare to United's island concourse.
Oh well, they said the Titanic was unsinkable...
A few months ago, there was a thread here on SubTalk about 'battery runs,' wherein a train receives orders to skip normally scheduled stops so that a backlog (bunching) of trains can be alieviated.
At lunchtime today, I had to go over to MIT from my office in downtown Boston. So I went over to the Red Line at Park Street; running down the stairs I saw a train waiting with its doors open. I hopped on. The doors closed. "NEXT STOP, HAHVAHD!" Oops. The train skipped Charles/MGH, Kendall/MIT, and Central. It was a rare, fun express ride; the Red Line can reach 55 mph between Kendall and Central. However I wasn't the only one caught off-guard. At Hahvahd, a bunch of people joined me in heading down to the inbound platform. It seems to me that there should be continuous PA (public address, not Port Authority :-) announcements just before and while the doors are closing, not after!